Design of timber-concrete

composite structures

Editors:
Alfredo Dias, Jörg Schänzlin and Philipp Dietsch
Design of timber-concrete
composite structures
A state-of-the-art report by
COST Action FP1402 / WG 4

With contributions by:

Alfredo Dias, Massimo Fragiacomo, Kiril Gramatikov,
Benjamin Kreis, Frank Kupferle, Sandra Monteiro,
Jaroslav Sandanus, Jörg Schänzlin,
Kay-Uwe Schober, Wendel Sebastian, Kristian Sogel

Editors:
Alfredo Dias, Jörg Schänzlin, Philipp Dietsch
This publication is based upon work from COST Action FP1402, supported by
COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding agency for

research and innovation networks. Our Actions help connect research initiatives
across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their
peers. This boosts their research, career and innovation.
www.cost.eu

No permission to reproduce or utilise the contents of this book by any means is

necessary, other than in the case of images, diagrams or other material from other
copyright holders. In such cases, permission of the copyright holders is required.
This book may be cited as: Dias, A., Schänzlin, J., Dietsch, P. (eds.), Design of
timber-concrete composite structures: A state-of-the-art report by COST Action
FP1402 / WG 4, Shaker Verlag Aachen, 2018.

Neither the COST Office nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the
use which might be made of the information contained in this publication. The
COST Office is not responsible for the external websites referred to in this publica-
tion.

Copyright Shaker 2018

Printed in Germany
ISBN 978-3-8440-6145-1
ISSN 0945-067X

Shaker Verlag GmbH · P.O. BOX 101818 · D-52018 Aachen

Phone: 0049/2407/9596-0 · Telefax: 0049/2407/9596-9
Internet: www.shaker.de · e-mail: [email protected]
Foreword

Timber-concrete composite structures are one alternative to common slab systems,

since the advantages of pure timber slabs are combined with the advantages of pure
concrete slabs. In order to benefit from these advantages, the systems have to be
designed, considering the special properties and influences on the load carrying be-
haviour and the deformation behaviour of this type of composite systems in the
short term as well as in the long term. Despite these special requests for the design-
er, timber-concrete composite structures are already used. Therefore a lot of re-
search work and development have been done within whole Europe on this field.

The aim of this document is to report the state of the art in terms of research and
practice of Timber-Concrete Composite (TCC) systems, in order to summarize the
existing knowledge in the single countries and to develop a common understanding
of the design of TCC.

This report was made within the framework of WG4-Hybrid Structures within
COST Action FP1402. It intends to reflect the information and studies available
around the world, but especially in Europe through the active contribution and par-
ticipation of experts from various countries involved in this Action.

This state-of-the-art report reflects parts of the work and the discussions within in
WG4 and will cover the relevant issues, such as
 Input values
 Connection
 Evaluation of forces in the short and long term
 Design examples
 Methods for the evaluation of forces
However time is passing by, new developments will take place and new questions
will be asked and solved, so this report can only present the current state of the art.

Alfredo Dias, Jörg Schänzlin, Chairs of Working Group 4, COST FP 1402

Philipp Dietsch, Chair, COST FP 1402
Table of contents

1.  Introduction ........................................................................................................17 

2.  Input values ........................................................................................................21 
2.1  General .........................................................................................................21 
2.2  Dimensions ...................................................................................................21 
2.3  Material properties .......................................................................................21 
2.4  Loads ............................................................................................................21 
2.4.1  External loads ................................................................................. 21 
2.4.2  Internal loads .................................................................................. 28 
3.  Connection ..........................................................................................................33 
3.1  Connection types ..........................................................................................33 
3.1.1  Introduction .................................................................................... 33 
3.1.2  Dowel type fasteners ...................................................................... 34 
3.1.3  Notches ........................................................................................... 35 
3.1.4  Other connection types ................................................................... 36 
3.1.4.1  General ............................................................................................. 36 
3.1.4.2  Friction based connections ............................................................... 37 
3.1.4.3  Adhesive-bonded timber-concrete composites ................................ 40 
3.1.4.4  Concrete-type adhesives .................................................................. 41 
3.1.4.5  Reversible system............................................................................. 43 
3.2  Mechanical properties ..................................................................................43 
3.2.1  Introduction .................................................................................... 43 
3.2.2  Stiffness .......................................................................................... 44 
3.2.3  Strength ........................................................................................... 44 
3.2.4  Ductility .......................................................................................... 44 
3.3  Code Rules and Guidelines available...........................................................45 
3.3.1  Introduction .................................................................................... 45 
3.3.2  Eurocode 5 ...................................................................................... 45 
3.3.3  Australia and New Zealand design Guidelines .............................. 47 
3.3.4  USA – AASHO/AASTHO codes ................................................... 48 
3.3.5  Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code........................................ 49 
 3.3.6  Brazil - Manual for the design of timber bridges ........................... 50 
3.4  Assessment based on testing ........................................................................50 
3.4.1  Test specimen configuration........................................................... 50 
3.4.2  Load protocol and standards........................................................... 52 
3.4.3  Limitation of the experimental assessment tools ........................... 54 
3.5  Determination based on calculation .............................................................54 
3.5.1  General............................................................................................ 54 
3.5.2  Dowel-type fasteners ...................................................................... 55 
3.5.2.1  Load Carrying Capacity ................................................................... 55 
3.5.2.2  Stiffness ............................................................................................ 57 
3.5.3  Inclined screws ............................................................................... 59 
3.5.3.1  General ............................................................................................. 59 
3.5.3.2  Load carrying capacity ..................................................................... 59 
3.5.3.3  Stiffness ............................................................................................ 60 
3.5.4  Notched Connections...................................................................... 60 
3.5.4.1  General ............................................................................................. 60 
3.5.4.2  Load Carrying Capacity ................................................................... 62 
3.5.4.3  Stiffness ............................................................................................ 62 
3.5.5  Connections with Interlayer ........................................................... 62 
3.5.6  Load-Slip models............................................................................ 64 
3.5.7  Finite Element Method models (FEM models) .............................. 65 
3.6  Proprietary connection systems ...................................................................66 
3.6.1  General............................................................................................ 66 
3.6.2  SFS VB screws ............................................................................... 66 
3.6.3  Tecnaria connectors ........................................................................ 67 
3.6.4  ASSY plus VG screws.................................................................... 68 
3.6.5  HBV Shear connector ..................................................................... 69 
3.6.6  Parameters indicated in the Technical approvals ........................... 70 
4.  Evaluation of the forces ......................................................................................71 
4.1  Preface ..........................................................................................................71 
4.2  Influences on the determination of the internal forces.................................71 
 4.3  Determination of forces in the short term ....................................................72 
4.3.1  Consideration of the flexibility of the joint and the different cross
section properties ............................................................................................... 72 
4.3.2  Different inelastic strains ................................................................ 74 
4.3.2.1  Influence on the internal forces........................................................ 74 
4.3.2.2  Influence of the yielding of the connectors...................................... 77 
4.3.3  Modelling the deformability of the joint ........................................ 78 
4.3.3.1  General ............................................................................................. 78 
4.3.3.2  Maximum spacing ............................................................................ 84 
4.3.3.3  Extension of EN 1995 Annex B....................................................... 87 
4.3.4  Cracking of concrete and moment-rotation relation ...................... 94 
4.3.4.1  Effect on the stiffness ....................................................................... 94 
4.3.4.2  Is the normal design process of the concrete cross section applicable
in timber-concrete-composite systems? ......................................................... 97 
4.3.5  Stress-strain relation for the evaluation of internal forces ........... 101 
4.3.6  Effective width ............................................................................. 102 
4.3.7  Vibrations ..................................................................................... 105 
4.4  Long term behaviour / consideration of creep and shrinkage ....................106 
4.4.1  Creep and shrinkage ..................................................................... 106 
4.4.2  Development of the creep strain over time .................................. 107 
4.4.3  Composite creep coefficients ....................................................... 112 
4.4.4  Consideration of an effective shrinkage value ............................. 124 
4.5  Design process ...........................................................................................126 
5.  Design examples ...............................................................................................129 
5.1  General .......................................................................................................129 
5.2  TCC beam verification according to the [EN 1995-1-1]/Annex B............129 
5.2.1  Basic information ......................................................................... 129 
5.2.1.1  Cross section dimensions and material properties ......................... 129 
5.2.1.1.1  Concrete slab – concrete grade C25/30 ....................................129 
5.2.1.1.2  Permanent formwork (interlayer) – OSB plates .......................129 
5.2.1.1.3  Timber joist – KVH grade C24.................................................130 
 5.2.1.2  Connection properties .................................................................... 130 
5.2.2  Loads ............................................................................................ 131 
5.2.3  Static scheme and internal forces analysis ................................... 131 
5.2.4  Verification of the TCC beam at ultimate limit states (ULS) at the
beginning of the lifetime ................................................................................. 131 
5.2.4.1  Material properties ......................................................................... 131 
5.2.4.1.1  Part 1 – concrete slab ................................................................131 
5.2.4.1.2  Part 2 – timber joist ...................................................................131 
5.2.4.2  Slip modulus and γ-factor .............................................................. 132 
5.2.4.3  Effective bending stiffness ............................................................. 132 
5.2.4.4  Cross section analysis .................................................................... 132 
5.2.4.4.1  Normal stresses in the concrete section ....................................132 
5.2.4.4.2  Normal stresses in the timber section .......................................133 
5.2.4.4.3  Shear stresses in the timber section ..........................................133 
5.2.4.4.4  Verification of the fasteners ......................................................133 
5.2.4.5  Cross section analysis considering only the effective compressed
height of the concrete ................................................................................... 134 
5.2.4.5.1  Effective bending stiffness........................................................134 
5.2.4.5.2  Stresses in the concrete section .................................................135 
5.2.4.5.3  Stresses in the timber section ....................................................135 
5.2.4.5.4  Shear stresses in the timber section ..........................................136 
5.2.4.5.5  Verification of the fasteners ......................................................136 
5.2.5  Verification of the TCC beam at ultimate limit states (ULS) at the
end of the lifetime ............................................................................................ 136 
5.2.5.1  Material properties ......................................................................... 136 
5.2.5.1.1  Part 1 – concrete slab ................................................................136 
5.2.5.1.2  Part 2 – timber joist ...................................................................137 
5.2.5.2  Slip modulus and γ-factor .............................................................. 137 
5.2.5.3  Effective bending stiffness ............................................................. 137 
5.2.5.4  Cross section analysis .................................................................... 138 
5.2.5.4.1  Stresses in the concrete section .................................................138 
 5.2.5.4.2  Stresses in the timber section ....................................................138 
5.2.5.4.3  Shear stresses in the timber section ..........................................139 
5.2.5.4.4  Verification of the fasteners ......................................................139 
5.2.6  Verification of the TCC beam at serviceability limit states (SLS) at
the beginning of the lifetime ........................................................................... 139 
5.2.6.1  Material properties ......................................................................... 139 
5.2.6.1.1  Part 1 – concrete slab ................................................................139 
5.2.6.1.2  Part 2 – timber joist ...................................................................140 
5.2.6.2  Slip modulus and γ-factor .............................................................. 140 
5.2.6.3  Effective bending stiffness ............................................................. 140 
5.2.6.4  Deflection at the beginning of the lifetime .................................... 140 
5.2.7  Verification of the TCC beam at serviceability limit states (SLS) at
the end of the lifetime ...................................................................................... 140 
5.2.7.1  Material properties ......................................................................... 140 
5.2.7.1.1  Part 1 – concrete slab ................................................................140 
5.2.7.1.2  Part 2 – timber joist ...................................................................141 
5.2.7.2  Slip modulus and γ-factor .............................................................. 141 
5.2.7.3  Effective bending stiffness ............................................................. 141 
5.2.7.4  Deflection at the end of the lifetime .............................................. 141 
5.3  Design example according to the provisions proposed in this report ........142 
5.3.1  Input values................................................................................... 142 
5.3.1.1  System ............................................................................................ 142 
5.3.1.2  Concrete ......................................................................................... 143 
5.3.1.2.1  Geometrical input values ..........................................................143 
5.3.1.2.2  Cross section parameters...........................................................143 
5.3.1.2.3  Material properties ....................................................................143 
5.3.1.3  Non-load-bearing interlayer ........................................................... 144 
5.3.1.4  Timber ............................................................................................ 144 
5.3.1.4.1  Geometrical input values ..........................................................144 
5.3.1.4.2  Cross section parameters...........................................................144 
 5.3.1.4.3  Material properties ....................................................................144 
5.3.1.5  Connection properties .................................................................... 145 
5.3.2  Loads ............................................................................................ 145 
5.3.2.1  Design values of the loads ............................................................. 146 
5.3.3  ULS-design at t = 0 years ............................................................. 147 
5.3.3.1  Bending stiffness ............................................................................ 147 
5.3.3.2  Consideration of inelastic strains ................................................... 148 
5.3.3.3  Forces ............................................................................................. 148 
5.3.3.3.1  External forces ..........................................................................148 
5.3.3.3.2  Internal forces of the single components ..................................149 
5.3.3.4  Stresses in the concrete section and verification ........................... 150 
5.3.3.4.1  Stresses ......................................................................................150 
5.3.3.4.2  Verification of the stresses in the concrete ...............................151 
5.3.3.5  Stresses in the timber cross section and verification ..................... 151 
5.3.3.5.1  Normal stresses .........................................................................151 
5.3.3.5.1.1  Stresses in the timber cross section and verification ..........152 
5.3.3.5.1.2  Verification of the normal stresses .....................................152 
5.3.3.5.1.3  Check, whether time period of 3-7 years has to be checked
(see Sec. 4.4.2) ........................................................................................152 
5.3.3.5.2  Shear stresses ............................................................................152 
5.3.3.5.2.1  Determination of the shear stresses ....................................152 
5.3.3.5.2.2  Verification of the shear .....................................................153 
5.3.3.6  Connection ..................................................................................... 153 
5.3.3.6.1  Forces in the connection ...........................................................153 
5.3.3.6.2  Verification of the connection ..................................................154 
5.3.4  SLS-design at t = 0 years .............................................................. 154 
5.3.4.1  Loads .............................................................................................. 154 
5.3.4.2  Effective bending stiffness ............................................................. 155 
5.3.4.3  Effective bending stiffness with respect to the inelastic strains .... 155 
5.3.4.4  Deformation ................................................................................... 156 
5.3.5  ULS-design at t = 50 years ........................................................... 156 
5.3.5.1  Bending stiffness ............................................................................ 156 
5.3.5.2  Consideration of inelastic strains ................................................... 158 
5.3.5.3  Forces ............................................................................................. 159 
5.3.5.3.1  External forces ..........................................................................159 
5.3.5.3.2  Internal forces of the single components ..................................159 
5.3.5.4  Stresses in the concrete section and verification ........................... 160 
5.3.5.4.1  Stresses ......................................................................................160 
5.3.5.4.2  Verification of the stresses in the concrete ...............................160 
5.3.5.5  Stresses in the timber cross section and verification ..................... 161 
5.3.5.5.1  Normal stresses .........................................................................161 
5.3.5.5.1.1  Stresses in the timber cross section and verification ..........161 
5.3.5.5.1.2  Verification of the normal stresses .....................................161 
5.3.5.5.1.3  Check, whether time period of 3-7 years has to be checked
(see Sec. 4.4.2) ........................................................................................161 
5.3.5.5.2  Shear stresses ............................................................................162 
5.3.5.5.2.1  Determination of the shear stresses ....................................162 
5.3.5.5.2.2  Verification of the shear .....................................................162 
5.3.5.6  Connection ..................................................................................... 163 
5.3.5.6.1  Forces in the connection ...........................................................163 
5.3.5.6.2  Verification of the connection ..................................................163 
5.3.6  SLS-design at t = 50 years ............................................................ 164 
5.3.6.1  Loads .............................................................................................. 164 
5.3.6.2  effective bending stiffness ............................................................. 164 
5.3.6.3  Effective bending stiffness with respect to the inelastic strains .... 164 
5.3.6.4  Deformation ................................................................................... 165 
5.3.7  ULS-design at t = 3-7 years .......................................................... 166 
5.3.7.1  Bending stiffness ............................................................................ 166 
5.3.7.2  Consideration of inelastic strains ................................................... 167 
5.3.7.3  Forces ............................................................................................. 168 
 5.3.7.3.1  External forces ..........................................................................168 
5.3.7.3.2  Internal forces of the single components ..................................169 
5.3.7.4  Stresses in the concrete section and verification ........................... 169 
5.3.7.4.1  Stresses ......................................................................................169 
5.3.7.4.2  Verification of the stresses in the concrete ...............................170 
5.3.7.5  Stresses in the timber cross section and verification ..................... 170 
5.3.7.5.1  Normal stresses .........................................................................170 
5.3.7.5.1.1  Stresses in the timber cross section and verification ..........170 
5.3.7.5.1.2  Verification of the normal stresses .....................................171 
5.3.7.5.2  Shear stresses ............................................................................171 
5.3.7.5.2.1  Determination of the shear stresses ....................................171 
5.3.7.5.2.2  Verification of the shear .....................................................171 
5.3.7.6  Connection ..................................................................................... 172 
5.3.7.6.1  Forces in the connection ...........................................................172 
5.3.7.6.2  Verification of the connection ..................................................172 
5.3.8  SLS-design at t = 3-7 years .......................................................... 173 
6.  Summary, conclusions and outlook .................................................................175 
6.1  Summary and conclusion ...........................................................................175 
6.2  Outlook .......................................................................................................176 
7.  References ........................................................................................................177 
7.1  References ..................................................................................................177 
7.2  Additional references .................................................................................191 
A  Technical approvals ..........................................................................................199 
B  Evaluation of the internal forces ......................................................................205 
B.1  General .......................................................................................................205 
B.2  Methods for the determination of the internal forces considering the
deformability of the connectors ...........................................................................207 
B.2.1  General..................................................................................................207 
B.2.2  Differential equation .............................................................................207 
B.2.3  -method of EC 5 Annex B ..................................................................216 
B.2.4  Strut & Tie model .................................................................................220 
B.2.5  Shear analogy method ..........................................................................221 
B.2.6  FE-modelling ........................................................................................227 
B.2.7  Summary ...............................................................................................228 
16
1. Introduction
In timber-concrete-composite structures, a timber element is connected to the con-
crete cross section by means of special connecting elements. In most cases the con-
crete cross section is installed in the compression zone, whereas the timber is in-
stalled in the tension zone.
Connecting timber with concrete provides the advantages of pure timber and pure
concrete slabs. These advantages compared to a pure timber slab are:
 Increased stiffness
 Increased load carrying capacity
 Improved sound insulation
 Reduced sensitivity concerning vibrations
 Simplified possibility to realize the horizontal bracing of the structure
Compared to a pure concrete slab the advantages are the following:
 Reduced dead load
 Increase of re-growing materials and therefore less CO2 emissions
 Increase of prefabricated elements leading to a faster erection of the structure
and therefore to a lower influence of the surrounding conditions during the
erection phase
 Reduced volume of concrete, which leads to a faster building process and
less volume to be transported on site
 Reduced effort for the props/formwork since the load carrying capacity and
the stiffness of the timber cross section is higher than the related properties
of the prefabricated concrete elements
These advantages can only be used if the slab has a sufficient load carrying capaci-
ty and a sufficient stiffness in order to fulfil the requirements. In concrete design,
the tensile strength of concrete is often neglected and the reinforcement is installed
to transfer the tensile stresses caused by bending. In the ultimate limit state the con-
crete is cracked to about 2/3 of its height under bending. In timber-concrete compo-
site structures, this cracked area is replaced by the timber cross section (see Figure
1).

17
Figure 1: Load transfer of a reinforced concrete slab (left) and a timber-concrete
composite slab (right)

Although timber has a lower strength and a lower stiffness than the steel reinforce-
ment, it counterbalances these disadvantages by the increased area of the timber
cross section compared to the reinforcement. Additionally the bending stiffness and
the moment capacity of the timber cross section can be activated, since the section
modulus and the bending stiffness of the timber cross section are higher than those
of the bars of the reinforcement.
In order to benefit from these advantages of timber-concrete-composite slabs, a lot
of research work has been done in the last 100 years (see among others [Holsche-
macher et al., 2013], [Yeoh et al., 2011], [Rautenstrauch, 2004] and [Postulka,
1998]). In the beginning the replacement of reinforcement in concrete slabs was the
main objective for the development of timber concrete composite slabs. In Germa-
ny, Paul Müller received the first patent on "Decke aus hochkant stehenden
Holzbohlen oder Holzbrettern und Betondeckschicht" (slab made of upright timber
boards and concrete topping) in 1922. In 1939 Otto Schaub patented a system
"Verbunddecke aus Holzrippen und Betonplatte" (composite slab of wooden rips
and concrete slab), which connected timber with concrete by z-shaped or H-shaped
steel elements (see Figure 2).

18
Figure 2: Patented connector between timber and concrete by Otto Schaub in 1939
(see [Holschemacher et al., 2013])
Apart from these patented systems other systems were developed as e.g. the Sperle-
Decke, which consist of ribs, between which bricks are installed. The ribs are real-
ized as timber-concrete composite systems (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Timber as reinforcement in the slab system “Sperle” (see

[Holschemacher et al., 2013])

19
Besides these developments a lot of research in the field of timber-concrete-
composite was done in the USA, focusing on short and medium span bridges (see
[Holschemacher et al., 2013]).
Besides saving on reinforcement, the strengthening of existing timber slabs was an
incentive for the further development of timber-concrete composite structures. In
Germany after the re-unification a lot of research work has been done in order to
upgrade existing timber slabs to the current requirements, without any severe modi-
fication of the often heritage buildings (see [Holschemacher et al., 2013]). These
developments also influenced the design and the realization of new buildings so the
interest in using timber-concrete-composite and the advantages mentioned above
grew.
At the moment different countries have different approaches for the design of tim-
ber concrete composite systems. In some countries the application is only possible
with technical approvals, in other countries the designer decides whether a system
can be used or not. Therefore different experiences are attained in each country, and
different research works are performed.
With this document developed within COST FP 1402 WG 4 these different devel-
opments are collected and summarized, focusing on
 Input values
 Connection
 Evaluation of forces in the short and long term
 Design examples
 Methods for the evaluation of forces

20
2. Input values
2.1 General
In order to design timber-concrete-composite systems the appropriate input values
have to been chosen. The input values can be divided into following groups
 Dimensions
 Material properties
 Loads
2.2 Dimensions
In the evaluation of forces, the cross sectional dimensions and bending stiffness
influence the internal forces. However no significant differences between the “nor-
mal” design of pure timber or pure concrete structures compared to timber-
concrete-composite systems exist. Therefore the common practice using the nomi-
nal cross section dimensions are used for the design.
2.3 Material properties
In order to evaluate the internal forces, the material properties namely modulus of
elasticity, (in some methods) the shear modulus and the stiffness of the connection
influence the stress distribution. Since the “real” stresses and the “real” deformation
should be evaluated, it is recommended to use the mean values of the material
properties and not the modified modulus of elasticity e.g. by the partial material
safety factor as it can be deducted from [EN 1995-1-1] Cl. 2.2.2, since the internal
forces in the timber-concrete-composite cross section depend on the stiffness of the
components. It has to be mentioned, that there are no studies available, discussing
the influence of the variability of the Modulus of Elasticity on the internal forces,
since e.g. overestimating the MoE of concrete leads to an underestimation of the
internal forces in the timber cross section.
2.4 Loads
2.4.1 External loads
The loads due to dead loads and due to live loads have to be considered in the de-
sign. The values are given in [EN 1991-1-1] and can be applied for the design of
the structure. It is recommended to split between the (quasi) permanent and the
short term loads in order to apply these loads in the short term as well as in the long
term analysis, if the duration of the load is long enough to lead to creep defor-
mations.
Although the external loads such as dead loads and / or live loads are the same as in
pure timber or pure concrete structures, the process of erection may influence the
loads as well as the load distribution.
 Load distribution in the cross section: The loads are applied according to the
erection process. Following situations have to be studied within the model-
21
ling of the erection process, which are superimposed in the evaluation of
forces:
o Step 1: Installation of the timber cross section and the formwork

o Step 2: Casting of concrete

o Step 3: Drying of concrete

Remark: The uplift force represents the reduction of the dead load due
to hardening of the concrete and the loss of water. The superposition
of the loads in step 2 and step 3 leads to the dead load of the hardened
concrete.

o Step 4: Removing the props

There might be some additional load cases during the erection process e.g.
single point loads or locally increased loads of concrete due to the casting
process. These load cases have to be considered in the design of the timber
cross section. However the additional loads due to pouring of the concrete
locally only have an effect during the erection process, since the concrete is
levelled before hardening.
22
 In order to model the erection process at least four situations have to be su-
perimposed considering the stiffness of the concrete in every situation (see
Table 1).

Table 1: Load bearing cross section in every design situation

Situation Load bearing cross section
Step 1: Installation Only timber cross section
Step 2: Casting Only timber cross section
Step 3: Drying of concrete Composite cross section
Step 4: Removing of the props Composite cross section

As a result the internal forces have to be determined with respect to the erection
process. This can be done by applying the changes of the loads from step to step
and by superimposing the single states.
For the example shown in the steps 1 to 4 the internal forces develop in principle
according to the following steps:
 Step 1 – installation: The bending moment in the timber cross section is
caused by the dead load of the timber element. The props act as support of
the beam. The normal force is equal to 0, since in this example no external
normal force exists.

 Step 1 + Step 2 – casting of concrete: The concrete is poured on the timber

elements. Since the concrete does not have any stiffness at this stage, the

23
 dead load is transferred by the timber only. Since the wet concrete is poured
on the structure, an increased dead load (normally concrete = 26kN/m³) con-
sidering the additional water in the concrete is applied on the system.
The bending moment at the end of this stage is the sum of the bending mo-
ments in step 1 and 2. The normal force in the timber as well as in the con-
crete and the bending moment in the concrete are equal to 0, since the con-
crete does not have any significant stiffness in order to attract the forces.

 Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 – drying of concrete: As the concrete hardens, its

density is reduced to the “normal” density of 25kN/m³. The reduced load is
applied on the composite structure, since the concrete is hardened and has
developed a certain load carrying capacity as well as a certain strength.
This load stage also results in a (relatively small) bending moment in the
concrete cross section, as well as in a (relatively small) normal force in tim-
ber and concrete.

24
 Bending moment in timber

Normal force in timber and concrete, resp.

25
 Bending moment in concrete

 Step 1 + Step 2 + Step 3 + Step 4 – unpropping of the concrete: The system

can be unpropped, when the concrete has reached a sufficient strength and
stiffness. In order to model this, the support reaction on the props from step 1
to 3 are summed up and applied on the composite structure. The internal
forces in the cross sections are the sum of the internal forces in step 1 to 4.

Bending moment in timber

26
 Normal force in timber and concrete, resp.

Bending moment in concrete

Finally the forces from the erection process have to be superimposed with the
forces caused by the loads appearing during the life-time of the buildings as
additional dead loads, live loads and internal loads. Since these loads are ap-
plied on the system after unpropping and after hardening of the concrete, the
loads are acting on the composite cross section.
 Increase of the dead load of the concrete caused by deflection: When the
concrete is casted (see step 2), the dead load of the structure is transferred by
the timber cross section. This additional load leads to an increase of the de-
flection. Since concrete is quite liquid at this stage and the floor is levelled
on the top the concrete thickness may increase due to the increasing deflec-
27
 tion. This increasing thickness leads to a higher dead load of the concrete
slab, which should be considered in the design.
2.4.2 Internal loads
Since the concrete cross section is connected to the timber cross section, every rela-
tive change in the cross sectional dimensions especially in span direction leads to
eigenstresses. Since timber is more or less brittle in tension, these eigenstresses can
influence the load carrying capacity of the whole structure. These eigenstresses are
caused by
 Temperature variation
 Moisture variation of the timber cross section
 Shrinkage of concrete
For the design the temperature variation is given in [EN 1991-1-5] whereas the
moisture variation is defined in the Service classes according to [EN 1995-1-1].
However the Service classes only represent the range of equilibrium moisture con-
tents, so the moisture variation e.g. within one year cannot be derived from these
values. In [Tononi and Usardi, 2010] (see [Fragiacomo and Schänzlin, 2013]) the
moisture content is evaluated for different climates. These climates are defined in
the Köppen-Geiger-climatic map in Europe (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Köppen-Geiger climatic map of Europe

28
Based on these climates different dimensions of timber-concrete-composite cross
sections have been evaluated (see [Tononi and Usardi, 2010] and [Fragiacomo and
Schänzlin, 2013]), leading to the moisture variations in the timber cross section in
outdoor climate (e.g. bridges) given in Table 2.

Table 2: Values of the yearly variation of timber moisture content averaged over the
timber cross-section, mc = mcmax-mcmin, in percentage (%) (see among others
[Dias et al., 2018])
Minimum of the
width, or twice
Climatic region the depth of the
timber cross‐
section (mm)
Initials Climate Cities (examples) 38 125 300
Madrid, Salamanca, Alba‐
BSK Cold semi‐arid 13,0 7,5 2,5
cete
Warm Medi‐ Lisbon, Cagliari, Palermo,
CSA 8,0 4,0 1,0
terranean Athens
Temperate Potenza, Marsilia, Coruna,
CSB 9,0 6,0 2,5
Mediterranean Porto
Zagreb, Milano, Bologna,
CFA Warm oceanic 11,5 7,0 2,5
Foggia
Temperate
CFB Stuttgart, Paris, London 15,0 9,0 3,0
oceanic
Warm conti‐
DFA Kosice, Odessa, Zaporozhe 9,0 6,0 2,0
nental
Temperate
continental – Moscow, Minsk, Vilnius,
DFB.1 12,0 6,0 2,0
Northern re‐ Kiev
gion
Temperate
continental – Warsaw, Berlin, Munich,
DFB.2 15,5 9,0 3,5
Southern re‐ Prague
gion
Temperate
Helsinki, Stockholm,
continental –
DFB.3 Goteborg, Saint Peters‐ 13,5 7,5 2,5
Maritime re‐
burg, Riga
gion
DFC.1 Cool continen‐ 17,5 11,5 4,0
Rovaniemi, Inari, Lulea,
tal – Northern
29
 Minimum of the
width, or twice
Climatic region the depth of the
timber cross‐
section (mm)
Initials Climate Cities (examples) 38 125 300
region Tromsø
Cool continen‐
Tampere, Kuopio, Öster‐
DFC.2 tal – Southern 17,5 12,0 4,0
sund, Ringsaker
region
Tundra conti‐ Chambery, Zurich, Sofia,
ET 17,5 5,0 2,5
nental Gloppen
For timber cross‐sections in TCC structures of different widths, linear interpola‐
tion may be used.

For indoor climate or the climate in sheltered surrounding conditions a rough ap-
proximation of the expected moisture content depending on the use of the building
is given in [DIN 1052:1988] (see Table 3).

Table 3: Values of the equilibrium moisture content and the expected variation
according to [DIN 1052:1988] (extract)
expected equilibrium
moisture content
indoor heated 9+3
indoor unheated 12 + 3
outdoor, protected 15 + 3

For the loads caused by temperature as well as by moisture variation the partial
safety factors are assumed to 1.35. The partial safety factor for the stresses caused
by temperature is given by the standard [EN 1990], whereas the partial safety factor
for the moisture induced stresses bases on engineering judgement.
Concerning shrinkage of the concrete, [EN 1992-1-1] gives a method to determine
the shrinkage value. However the values provided in this standard are mean values
(see [DIN EN 1992-1-1, NA]), since the original target is to evaluate the crack
width and the losses in the pre-stressing of concrete. Both limits ensure the durabil-
ity of the reinforcement.
In timber concrete-composite structures shrinkage of concrete affects stresses.
Shrinkage of concrete leads to a reduction of the normal force in the components
30
and an increase of the bending moment in the timber as well as in the concrete
cross section. Since the utilization of the cross section is determined by the sum of
the utilization of the single parts
, , ,
1.0 (1)
, , ,

and the strength in bending , is higher than the tensile strength , , , the final
utilization of the cross section does not necessarily increase if the bending mo-
ment increases due to shrinkage of concrete. In this case, the normal force in the
timber cross section decreases, when the bending moment increases, since the ex-
ternal bending moment is constant over time

⋅ ⋅ (2)
8
In a first attempt this influence is studied by comparing different systems. Within
this comparison, the ratio between the height of the concrete cross section and the
height of the timber cross section is chosen. By means of a numerical solving pro-
cess the width of the concrete cross section is evaluated, targeting the increase of
the utilization. The results of this evaluation are shown in Figure 5 (see also
[Schänzlin, 2017]). As can be seen, the utilization of the strength in massive tim-
ber-concrete-composite slabs is hardly influenced by the shrinkage of the concrete,
whereas in T-shaped timber-concrete-composite elements shrinkage influences the
stress utilization.

Figure 5: Influence of shrinkage on the total utilization of the cross section (see
[Schänzlin, 2017])

31
In [EN 1992-1-1] shrinkage values are given; however the values provided are the
mean values. [DIN EN 1992-1-1, NA] states that the shrinkage values given in [EN
1992-1-1] are the mean value and the coefficient of variation of about 30% has to
be considered in the evaluation. [JCSS, 2001] states that shrinkage of concrete can
be modelled by means of the log-normal-distribution.
In [Kerler, 2016] a first attempt is given to determine the partial safety factor of
concrete. Within this study the reliability index  of a timber concrete composite
system without shrinkage is determined. In the next step the cross section dimen-
sion is modified in order to achieve the same reliability index when considering
shrinkage in the evaluation.
The partial safety factor is determined, assuming that in case of shrinkage of con-
crete the same utilization is achieved as in the case without shrinkage. As a result,
different partial safety-factors are evaluated, leading to the conclusion, that due to
the variability of the parameters a partial safety factor of 1.5 for shrinkage of con-
crete could be recommended (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: First evaluation of the partial safety factor of shrinkage of concrete

The advantage of a partial safety factor of 1.5 for shrinkage is, that the designer is
used to this value; however there are situations where higher partial safety factors
are required. Unfortunately no extensive studies discussing this issue are available.

32
3. Connection
3.1 Connection types
3.1.1 Introduction
The connection system is a critical component in the conception, design and per-
formance of TCC systems. Due to the indeterminate nature of these systems it
affects the stress distribution and the deformations, consequently the whole de-
sign. In principle, from the mechanical performance point of view, the ideal
connection should be: i) strong enough to transmit the shear forces developed at
the interface, ii) stiff enough to transmit the load with a limited slip at the inter-
face, iii) ductile enough to allow full load distribution and avoid failure on the
fasteners. Additionally, other variables need to be taken into account such as the
connection cost, feasibility in practice or complexity.
The connection systems available only fulfil part of the mechanical performance
parameters listed for an ideal connection. This is particularly the case regarding
the stiffness, since the connection slip will not be negligible for most of the TCC
systems. This flexibility affects not only the connection design but also the
whole system analysis once the interface slip needs to be taken into account and
simple models such as the transformed section method are not valid. Conse-
quently, the choice of a particular type of connection will significantly influence
the overall behaviour of the composite system, being a critical component that
must be carefully conceived and designed.
Due to this aspect, many research works have been performed from the early
ages of use of the TCC systems, addressing many aspects related to connections
(see [Richart and Williams, 1943] and [Baldock and McCullough, 1941]).
The TCC systems can be seen as a natural development of the timber systems. It
was originally focused on high load bearing structures and motivated by the
lower cost, higher short and long term performance and scarcity of steel during
the two world wars (see [McCullough, 1934]). Consequently many connection
systems are based on timber-timber connections (see [Richart and Williams,
1943]). Most of these connection systems use steel fasteners such as screws,
nails or dowels, (see [McCullough, 1943], [RILEM-CT-111-CST, 1992] and
[Richart and Williams, 1943]).
From the early times up to now many of the studies focused on development and
characterization of specific connection systems. By use of those studies, a data-
base was created. This work was done at the Civil Engineering Department of
the University of Coimbra and served primarily as the base of a statistic study
carried out by [Monteiro et al., 2010], being now updated in order to include al-
so recent studies. In total it includes around 60 references. The complete refer-
ence list is given in the Annex.

33
As a way to help the analysis it was decided to organize the connection typolo-
gies in four groups: dowel type fasteners, notches, notches combined with steel
fasteners and other systems (e.g. nailplates, direct gluing, glued steel meshes).
Figure 7 presents the distribution of the research work reported in the literature
review sorted by the type of connection. The analysis was based on research
works on which specific research was made on the assessment of the mechanical
properties of the connection, and to provide data suitable for analysis, namely in
quantitative terms. It is clear from the graph that the large majority of the studies
are focused on dowel type fasteners (45%). Notches and notches combined with
steel fasteners represent together approximately 33% of the studies. These two
types of fastener represent together more than ¾ of the relevant scientific re-
search that could be found in bibliography. The other connection systems in-
clude a wide range of connectors, such as steel planes, nailplates, systems based
on gluing, or systems based on friction and overall represent about 22% of the
studies.

Figure 7: Distribution of the research works by the connection system studied

These numbers clearly show that the main focus of the research and most proba-
bly the scientific knowledge available are related to dowel type fasteners and
notches either alone or combined with steel fasteners. This distribution is not
necessarily reflected in a similar use in practice; however, it gives a good indica-
tion of the practical use.
3.1.2 Dowel type fasteners
Dowel type fasteners are one of the most used connection systems in timber
structures and became naturally also a very popular solution for TCC connec-
tions. Dowel type fasteners such as screws, nails, bolts, staples and dowels are
characterized by a load transmission predominantly in bending and shear. It is
important to mention that inclined fasteners (e.g. screws, glued-in rods) were
also considered in this group.

34
Figure 8 presents the distribution per fastener type in the group of dowel type
fasteners organized within the following subgroups: dowels, screws, nails, in-
clined screws, other metallic connectors.
 

Figure 8: Distribution of the type of fasteners studied within the group of dowel
type fasteners
The results presented in Figure 8 show a dominant use of the traditional timber
fasteners: screws, nails and dowels. The screw is the most used fastener type out
of the three, which is due to its high axial load bearing capacity. In TCC systems
the axial load bearing capacity might be relevant to improve the shear load trans-
fer, as well as to avoid the possibility of separation between timber and concrete,
which motivates the use of screws in this application.
3.1.3 Notches
Notched connections can be obtained either through drillings the timber mem-
ber, cut-outs in the timber members or through glued blocks on the structural
timber member. Usually the first two approaches are followed due to their high-
er simplicity and lower cost. This type of connection is very effective with an
excellent balance between simplicity and mechanical performance, particularly
with respect to stiffness. This type of connections has, however, some disad-
vantages such as the brittle failure or the low axial load carrying capacity. In or-
der to overcome these issues, notched connections are often combined with steel
fasteners to add both ductility and axial load carrying capacity to the whole con-
nection system. Depending on the configuration - particularly dimension in pro-
portion of the notch dimension – the additional steel fastener can be just a com-
plement to the notch mechanical capacities (e.g. axial load carrying capacity), or
this fastener can be another component adding shear capacity and axial load car-
rying capacity and ductility (see [Van der Linden, 1999]).
In Figure 9 the distribution of the typologies of notch configurations found in the
literature is presented, organized within the following groups: notches, notches
combined with steel fasteners.
35
  

Figure 9: Distribution of the notched typologies

The literature review presented in Figure 9 clearly shows that in the large major-
ity of connections the timber notches are used in combination with steel fasten-
ers. In most of the situations the steel fastener is used as a way to add axial load
bearing capacity to the connection and in this way increases the reliability of the
connection performance.
3.1.4 Other connection types
3.1.4.1 General
Many other connection types have been developed, such as direct gluing, nail-
plates, special proprietary systems or systems based on friction. Many of these
systems are still under development and have not been validated for practical
use. This is the case for the glued connections that have a large potential. How-
ever the major drawback is its long term performance that - up to now - did not
fulfil of requirements for practical application.
In Figure 10 the distribution of the typologies of other connections found in the
literature is shown organized within the following groups: direct gluing, proprie-
tary systems, steel plates and nailplates and other connections.

Figure 10: Distribution of the other connection systems

36
Figure 10 shows a large variability that can be found in these connection sys-
tems. 40% cannot be assigned to any particular group. The glued systems do al-
ready represent a significant proportion of the research studies available, result-
ing from the large interest in the recent years. On the other hand, the proprietary
systems show a small share in the number of studies, which is not representative
of their use in practice. This is probably a consequence of the patent require-
ments that do not promote or motivate the publication of the related research re-
sults. Due to its innovative character further details are given for a number of
such systems.

3.1.4.2 Friction based connections

20 years ago, the Swiss engineering office “Pirmin Jung Ingenieure AG” started
developing a timber-concrete composite system relying on a friction based con-
nection. It is commonly referred to as “Plus-Minus”-system. It consists of dow-
elled board stack elements (German: "Brettstapelelemente") with alternating
heights of the boards (see Figure 11). The concrete is reinforced with regard to
shrinkage. The system has been used in numerous projects in the past 20 years.
Although it is not protected by patent, the system is more or less only offered by
Pirmin Jung’s own engineering office.

Figure 11: Plus-Minus-system (see [Tschopp Holzbau AG, 2011] and [Jung,
2000])
The company “Tschopp Holzbau AG” provides some design tables for the sys-
tem (see [Tschopp Holzbau AG, 2011]) in which they suggest to calculate
stresses and deformations using the n-method (full composite action). According
to this document, a typical slab for a domestic building with a span of 6.5m
would consist of a 140mm timber / 120mm concrete section.
Some research on connecting timber and concrete by friction has been done by
Lehmann at the University in Weimar (see [Lehmann, 2004]). Push-out tests and
bending tests have been performed on three different connection systems (see
Figure 12). Type R consists of roughly sawn board stack elements and type V
corresponds to the above mentioned “Plus-Minus”-system. Type P contains ad-
ditional small notches in the side flanks of the interface. Figure 13 shows the
dimensions of the specimens tested in bending.

37
 isometry  isometry  isometry 

plan view  plan view  plan view 

cross‐section  cross‐section  cross‐section 

Figure 12: Test configurations (see [Lehmann, 2004], page 37), translated

Figure 13: Specimen dimensions, bending tests (see [Lehmann, 2004], page 119)

Figure 14 shows the results of the bending tests on beams using these three con-
nection systems as well as the theoretical load-bearing behaviour calculated with
full composite action and no composite action. It was found that type R doesn’t
work well. Types V and P on the other hand showed a reasonable degree of
composite action.

38
 full composite 
action 
type P 

type V 
type R 
force 

no composite action 

deflection 

Figure 14: Results of bending tests (see [Lehmann, 2004], page 148, translated)
The difference between type R and types V/P may be explained as follows: Ap-
parently, the friction in the connection is not mainly activated from vertical con-
tact pressure at the horizontal interface between timber and concrete. If this were
the case, type R would have shown at least an equal degree of composite action
as types V/P. It can therefore be concluded that the main part of friction can be
activated at the vertical side flanks of the interface.
This theory also explains why these results somehow differ from the results of
Lehmann’s push-out tests (see [Lehmann, 2004]), where type R (fs,mean =
1.12 N/mm2) showed higher shear resistance than type V (fs,mean = 0.75 N/mm2)
and similar to type P (fs,mean = 1.25 N/mm2). In the used test-setup, a considera-
ble degree of vertical pressure occurred, leading to high friction in the type R
specimens.
The bending tests carried out on behalf of Pirmin Jung 1997 (see [Hösslin and
Ladner, 1996c]) agree quite well with the results of Lehmann (see [Lehmann,
2004]). The specimen dimensions were similar (120 mm timber / 80 mm con-
crete), however the width was doubled (1000 mm). The “Plus-Minus” specimen
failed at a bending moment of 178 kNm, which is comparable to Lehmann’s re-
sults. The push-out tests (see [Hösslin and Ladner, 1996a], [Hösslin and Ladner,
1996], [Hösslin and Ladner, 1996b], [Hösslin and Ladner, 1996c]). [Hösslin and
Ladner, 1998] were performed in a vertical setup, leading to negligible contact
pressure at the interface. The observed shear resistance was therefore signifi-
cantly lower, on average around 0.3 N/mm2. Tests were performed at different
moisture contents of the board stack elements. The best solution turned out to be
the use of dry elements and moisturizing them before adding the concrete. Push-
39
out tests were performed both on specimens 28 days and 1 year after construc-
tion. The latter specimens showed a 30 – 40 % lower shear resistance with re-
spect to the specimens that were tested after 28 days (see [Hösslin and Ladner,
1998]). For this connection, investigations with regard to the fire safety have
been carried out by Frangi (see [Frangi, 2001]). A fire resistance of 2 hours was
observed experimentally.
The “Plus-Minus”-system has been successfully used in numerous projects in
Switzerland in the past 20 years. However, the available fundamental research
on this topic is not sufficient enough to serve as a basis for a future code. On the
other hand, since many projects have shown that the Plus-Minus-system works,
the consideration of friction should not explicitly be forbidden.

3.1.4.3 Adhesive-bonded timber-concrete composites

Adhesive connections for timber-concrete composite structures have become an
interesting field of research as they can provide various advantages over me-
chanical fasteners. The use of an adhesive leads to a quasi-rigid connection
which increases the stiffness and strength of the composite member and allows
for an easier calculation using the theory of full composite action (n-method).
Furthermore, shear forces are distributed uniformly over the entire surface and
thus, local force concentrations are avoided. However there are still many unan-
swered questions e.g. regarding the long-term behaviour of such structures. Fur-
ther disadvantages are the difficult quality control and the difficulty of the on-
site application as well as the brittle failure of glued connections. Due to these
reasons, glued connections are not yet used in practice and further research is
carried out.
Research on two different types of adhesive connections has been conducted.
Bonding between the two materials can either be achieved using prefabricated
concrete slabs or cast in-situ concrete. The two concepts are also referred to as
“dry” or “wet on wet” process.
These two concepts of cast-in place and precast systems were studied at Univer-
sity of Coimbra, Portugal. The research included experimental tests on shear
specimens and beam specimens, in both dry and wet on wet (see [Negrao et al.,
2010b] and [Negrao et al., 2010a]).
Glued connections using prefabricated concrete have been studied at the Univer-
sity of Kassel. Within these studies the short-term behaviour was investigated in
push-out and bending tests (see [Schäfers and Seim, 2011]). Furthermore, small-
scale long-term experiments had been also carried out (see [Seim et al., 2016]).
In Switzerland, cast-in situ concrete is widely used, as prefabricated concrete is
often less economical due to high transportation costs or limited space. Thus, the
Swiss research institutes have concentrated their research on the “wet on wet”
process using cast in-situ concrete. Experimental investigations at EMPA in
Dübendorf (see [Brunner et al., 2007]) have allowed for an optimisation of the
40
production process. Nevertheless the danger of adhesive displacement during the
pouring of concrete is still present. The performed bending tests showed promis-
ing results with respect to stiffness and strength.
This research continues within a new project at the Chair of Wood Materials
Science at ETH Zurich, using beech LVL. The wood surface is chemically mod-
ified in order to improve the compatibility with the adhesive (similar to a bond-
ing primer) and to prevent the beech boards from soaking up water from the
fresh concrete (see [Kostica et al., 2018]). Push-out tests have been performed
using three different glue types. Failure was either brittle at high loads (> 4
N/mm2) or fairly ductile at a lower load level (1 N/mm2), depending on the type
of glue used. Both adhesive types might be interesting for future use in TCC
structures.
Several research projects have demonstrated the potential of adhesive connec-
tions in timber-concrete composite structures. To apply glued connections in
practice, however, more research is necessary especially with respect to the
long-term behaviour and also the quality control during production.

3.1.4.4 Concrete-type adhesives

The connecting technology uses concrete-type adhesives and larger drill-holes or
slots to overcome the uncertainness of the bond line quality in glued-in rods and
the structural performance of miss-glued connections. The jointing system is
suitable for pre-fabricated truss structures as well in structural rehabilitation of
traditional flooring systems and slabs. Due to preparation on site, the CTA
adapts exactly the joint surface, whatever it looks like.
Concrete-type adhesives are polymer-bound concretes, formed of double com-
ponent type liquid epoxy resins and a mineral aggregate. The resins are free of
dissolvent, stable crystallizing low-molecular epoxies based on BPA. The min-
eral additive is composed of well-graded gravel with a grain size of max. 6 mm.
A comparison with the usually used concrete on building site shows Table 4.
The high compressive strength of CTA results from the bonding behaviour of
the polymer binder material and especially the mineral fillers, which leads to a
high packing density. Higher temperatures cause higher early compressive
strength under standard climate conditions. If on-site temperatures during con-
struction work are lower than 15°C, the post curing capability result in a strength
increase until 90% of the seven-day values (see [Schober and Rautenstrauch,
2006]).

41
Table 4: Comparison of used CTA with reinforced concrete following [EN 206-
1].
Material property CTA1 RC C25/30 Ratio
Density 2.0 g/cm³ 2.4 g/cm³ 0.83
Tensile MOE 19,600 MPa 30,000 MPa 0.64
Bending strength 30 MPa 5.5 MPa 5.45
Compressive
110 MPa 30 MPa 3.37
strength
1
curing under standard climate conditions
7d / 20°C / 65% RH
120
fcm [MPa]

90

60

30

0
fctm [MPa]

-30
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10
 [‰]

Due to the larger amount of gravel in this type of composite material, it is possi-
ble to assimilate a large amount of polymer concrete, e.g. for much bigger drill
holes compared to conventional drill hole diameters when dealing with glued-in
rods (see Figure 15), without getting in trouble with exothermic chemical reac-
tions like in higher-content resin and curing agent adhesives compositions or
stringent quality control and assembling effort on site.
Eurocode 5 adjustment

Figure 15: Comparison of drill hole diameters (see [Schober et al., 2012])

42
3.1.4.5 Reversible system
A special reversible system has been developed within an European Project (see
[Gramatikov, 2008]). Evaluation of the structural behaviour was estimated based
on performed push-out tests on parts of timber beam strengthened by a steel de-
vice with and without the concrete slab.
The experimental investigations studied an innovative connection system for
composite timber-steel-concrete floors as shown on Figure 16. This connection
system is purposely conceived with the twofold aim to realize local strengthen-
ing of ancient beams and to allow the stiffening of the existent floors by means
of introducing a collaborating concrete slab. The device comprises two separate
parts assembled by bolts, two connectors welded to the main part, steel stiffeners
and, when necessary, rubber strips.

 
Figure 16: Composite timber-steel-concrete slab system
To compare all test results, the envelope of each force – mid span deflection was
sketched, from which several variables were derived, such as: stiffness in linear
and non-linear range, equivalent yield load, equivalent yield displacement, com-
parison of ultimate load and ultimate displacement, allowing comparison among
the tests. Accumulated dissipated energy at failure was obtained, too (see [Cala-
do et al., 2009]).
Further experimental activities related to the long term behaviour of timber-
steel-concrete system under constant bending load have been foreseen at the
Civil Engineering faculty in Skopje, MK.
3.2 Mechanical properties
3.2.1 Introduction
In TCC systems an effective composite solution is only possible when an effi-
cient connection is used to connect timber and concrete. Therefore, the strength
and stiffness of the connection should be considered the most relevant mechani-
cal properties of timber-concrete connections. Furthermore, the load-carrying
capacity and ultimate deformation capacity of TCC systems can be significantly
influenced by the ductility of the connection between the two materials, since
adequate ductility can prevent failure in the connections, as well as, allow load
redistribution between them. Consequently, ductility must be accounted as an
important property as well.

43
Generally, to estimate the mechanical properties of a timber-concrete connec-
tion, experimental laboratory tests are carried out; seldom numerical models are
used to predict the connection behaviour and its mechanical properties.
3.2.2 Stiffness
The stiffness of TCC systems governs the deformations at the interface. The lev-
el of composite action achieved in the system depends directly on the defor-
mation at the interface. Usually the stiffness of the connection is assumed as the
connection slip modulus as defined in [EN 26891].
In TCC systems as indeterminate system, the stiffness of the connection influ-
ences the bending stiffness and therefore the deformation, internal forces and
stress distribution in the whole structure. For this reason the stiffness of TCC
systems has an important influence in the verification of both, Serviceability
Limit States and Ultimate Limit States.
As referred by [Ceccotti, 1995], the stiffness of a connection system can be as-
sumed as a sort of classification index. The variability of the stiffness in timber-
concrete connections can be seen as the main design parameter of each connec-
tion type.
3.2.3 Strength
The strength of a TCC connection is the maximum shear load that can be trans-
mitted at the interface between timber and concrete. It is usually assumed as the
maximum load the connection can carry up to a maximum slip of 15 mm as de-
fined in [EN 26891]
In any case it is important to note that the load appearing in the connection is
dependent on its deformation and the connection load level is closely related to
the connection stiffness.
3.2.4 Ductility
Timber-concrete connections with steel connectors usually do behave in a duc-
tile manner whilst notched connections usually behave in a brittle manner. The
behaviour of connections can vary between connections that are very stiff with
low ductility, to those that are very flexible and ductile (see [Ceccotti, 2002]),
depending on the type of connectors used and configuration of the connection.
The use of more ductile connections can increase the load-carrying capacity of
the composite system as well as its ultimate deformation capacity (see [Dias and
Jorge, 2011]). Despite of that fact, [Ceccotti, 2002] indicates that the ductile be-
haviour of a TCC system is not necessarily achieved just because connections
exhibit a ductile behaviour. If the stiffness of the connection is greater than pre-
dicted, timber may reach its rupture strength while connections are still respond-
ing elastically. Consequently, the system will be much less ductile than antici-
pated. [Van der Linden, 1999] gives an example based on numerical simulations

44
of how ductile types of connectors can be of great importance in timber-concrete
composites.
3.3 Code Rules and Guidelines available
3.3.1 Introduction
In spite of the high interest raised for this structural system, its design was never
complemented by an adequate regulatory framework. Indeed, some disperse
rules/guidelines have been developed, but mostly to answer particular issues
such as for example the design of bridges (see [Dias, 2016]). Nevertheless, in-
formation related to the connections is often given in the available documents.
Five national/regional documents were identified:
 Europe – Eurocode 5 (see [EN 1995-1-1] and [EN 1995-2]);
 Oceania – Australia and New Zealand design Guidelines (see [Gerber et
al., 2012]);
 USA – AASHO/AASTHO codes (see [AASHO, 1949] and [AASHTO,
1983])
 Canada – Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (see [CSA, 2006]);
 Brazil – Manual for the design of timber bridges (see [Junior et al.,
2006]).

3.3.2 Eurocode 5
In Eurocode 5 Part 1-1 “General – Common rules and rules for buildings” (see
[EN 1995-1-1]) and Part 2 “Bridges” (see [EN 1995-2]), give some disperse
clauses for the design of TCC systems. Additionally, other common clauses for
timber structures are also often used for the TCC systems.
In terms of connections the following clauses are given, specifically and explic-
itly for TCC systems:
 Part 1-1 – Clause – 7.1 (3) Connection slip for concrete-to-timber connec-
tions
 Clause – 2.4.1 – Table 2.1 – Recommended partial factors for material
properties;
 Clause – 5.2 – Influence of the connection slip in composite action deck
plate systems;
 Clause – 5.3 (2) – Design of steel fasteners and grooved connections;
 Clause – 8.2 – Timber-concrete connections in Composite Systems.
Clause 7.1 indicates that the slip modulus of the timber-concrete connections can
be obtained based on the models given for the timber connections multiplied by
a factor 2. This approach implicitly assumes that the deformation on concrete
side is negligible and the connections stiffness can be assumed to be double of

45
that from timber connections. The code provides calculation models for the con-
nection types listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Eurocode 5 models for determination of the slip modulus of timber

connections

Due to the indeterminate nature of timber-concrete-composite systems the slip

modulus is required for both Ultimate Limit States and Serviceability Limit
States Analysis. In the case of the Serviceability Limit State the mean value of
the slip modulus determined directly from the models (e.g. see Table 5) or tests
shall be used. On the other hand, for Ultimate Limit States a lower value must be
used due to the lower stiffness at that stage. In accordance with the clause
2.2.2(2) from Part 1-1 of Eurocode 5 its value may be determined as indicated in
Equation 1.
2 (3)
 
3

In [EN 1995-2] Table 2.1 recommended partial factors are given for timber-
concrete connections. A value of 1.25 is given for normal verification whilst a
value of 1.0 is given for Fatigue verifications. The value for normal verification
is slightly lower than the one for timber connections 1.3.
In Clause 5.2 is explicitly stated that for the composite action of deck plate sys-
tems, the influence of connection slip shall be taken into account. Some further
indications are given in the connection part in clause 8.2.
Clause 5.3 (2) states that the steel fasteners and the grooved connections should
be designed to transmit all forces due to composite action. Furthermore the fric-

46
tion and adhesion between wood and concrete should not be taken into account,
unless a special investigation is carried out.
In Chapter 8 dealing with connections a number of indications are given for
TCC that are transcribed below:
 8.2.1(1) – The rope effect should not be used;
 8.2.1(2) – In cases where there is an intermediate non-structural layer be-
tween the timber and the concrete (e.g. for formwork), the strength and
stiffness parameters should be determined by a special analysis or by
tests;
 8.2.2 (1) – For grooved connections, the shear force should be taken by di-
rect contact pressure between the wood and the concrete cast in the
groove;
 8.2.2 (2) It should be verified that the resistance of the concrete part and
the timber part of the connection is sufficient;
 8.2.2 (3) The concrete and timber parts shall be held together so that they
cannot separate;
 8.2.2 (4) The connection should be designed for a tensile force between
the timber and the concrete equivalent to 10% of the shear load transmit-
ted in the connection.
These indications are scarce and spread on the two Eurocode 5 parts mentioned
(1-1 and 2). In most cases the application of TCC-connections according to
[EN 1995-2] requires the use of other clauses originally meant for timber struc-
tures.
3.3.3 Australia and New Zealand design Guidelines
[Gerber et al., 2012] presented a design guide to support the design of timber-
concrete composite systems in Australia and New Zealand. This design guide is
developed based on Eurocode 5 but adapted to comply with the Australian and
New Zealand rules for timber structures. Some limitations apply to this proce-
dure, due to the recognised uncertainty about some aspects of long term deflec-
tion of TCC floors. Among these limitations, spans are limited to less than 8 m
and two connection configurations prescribed in the document may be used (see
[Crews and Gerber, 2010] and Figure 17).
The behaviour of the connections is assumed to be linear elastic for both Ulti-
mate and Serviceability Limit States. The two connection configurations consist
of notches combined with screws and are shown in Figure 17.

47
 Connection types with For beam thickness For beam thickness
geometry and dimensions 50mm or less more than 50mm
in mm

Coach screw Ø 12 Coach screw Ø 16

mm and lp: 80 mm mm and lp: 100
or at least the mm or at least the
length of the thread length of the thread

Figure 17: Sketch of the connection configurations indicated in Australian and

New Zealand design guidelines (see [Gerber et al., 2012])
For these connection configurations the guidelines provide the manufacturing
provisions and the values of the mechanical properties required in the design
aiming at a user-friendly design procedure. These values were based on empiri-
cal test data (see [Crews and Gerber, 2010]).
3.3.4 USA – AASHO/AASTHO codes
TCC bridges are covered in various AASHO and AASTHO codes, namely in the
versions from 1949 (see [AASHO, 1949]) and from 1983 (see [AASHTO,
1983]).
In the 1949 version the determination of the internal forces is performed assum-
ing perfect interaction between timber and concrete. Additionally, some guide-
lines are also given for shear devices, noting that they shall allow a good con-
crete compaction and prevent a vertical separation between the two materials.
In the 1983 version it is stated that in composite Wood-Concrete decks the shear
connection must resist the entire horizontal shear and be made to prevent the
separation between the two materials. Different connection arrangements such as
nails or grooves are explicitly allowed.

48
3.3.5 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (see [CSA, 2006]) gives specific
indications for the design of TCC bridges, namely regarding the connections.
The aim of the code guidelines is restricted to TCC with deck floors. In a similar
way to design guidelines in the Australia and New Zealand, two connection con-
figurations are allowed. Both are based on notches obtained through different
depths of the laminations and combined with steel fasteners (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Sketch of the connection configurations indicated in Canadian

Highway Bridge Design Code (see [CSA, 2006])
In accordance with the code, the first connection configuration has been used
successfully since 1955, while the second one is based on more recent research
and development from the 1980’s.
49
The code indicates the transformed sections method as the analysis method
which implicitly leads to a rigid connection between timber and concrete.
3.3.6 Brazil - Manual for the design of timber bridges
In Brazil (see [Magalhães, 1997]), timber-concrete systems have been studied
since at least 1974. More recent studies (see among others [Nicolas, 2001] and
[Soriano, 2001]) indicate that due to the lack of Brazilian timber-concrete regu-
lations, the guidelines and the timber-concrete connections used in Brazil partic-
ularly, are the same as in European countries, especially the Eurocode 5. In spite
of that a bridge design code published in 2006 (see [Junior et al., 2006]) give
specific indications for the analysis and design of TCC systems for bridge appli-
cations.
The design approach is meant for TCC bridges with timber deck systems, made
with round wood members. The analytical approach is based on the shell theory.
In this manual connection mechanical properties are also given for two configu-
rations with X glued-in bars, varying the rebar’s diameter. The values of the me-
chanical properties are based on data obtained from experimental tests (see
[Calil, 2006]).
3.4 Assessment based on testing
3.4.1 Test specimen configuration
One of the most common ways to evaluate the stiffness and load-carrying capac-
ity of a connection is by performing experimental tests. That assessment is usu-
ally made on single connections and shall be performed in conditions as close as
possible to the actual service situation.
Once there are no guidelines for the testing configuration nor for the test set up
different approaches are followed by the various authors.
Based on the statistical analysis performed in the Civil Engineering Department
of the University of Coimbra (mentioned before in section 3), three test set-ups
were identified to be representative from what is used in practice: pure shear
tests, double-shear tests and asymmetric shear tests. Figure 19 shows the share
of each type of shear testing method that has been referenced in experimental
testing. The results show that the double-shear test is significantly more used
than the others. Two variations of this set-up were identified: in 65% of the dou-
ble-shear tests, the central element is a timber element, while in the other 35%,
the central element is a concrete element.

50
 

Figure 19: Summary of the shear tests used in the literature

Figure 19 also shows that the second most frequent type of set-up is the asym-
metric-shear test which considers only one member of each material (timber and
concrete). In the literature, different approaches were found related to the load
application and location of the support reaction. Figure 20 summarizes those dif-
ferences.

Figure 20: Summary of the ways in which asymmetric-shear tests were

performed in the literature
Finally, pure shear tests were used only in 2 of the studies considered here. This
set-up has the simplest configuration and is composed only of a timber and a
concrete member, with the application of the load to one of those elements with
the same direction of the support reaction, so that the joining system is only sub-
jected to shear force.
By comparing numerical and experimental results from different studies with
different set-ups on shear tests, Monteiro, Dias and Negrão, (see [Monteiro et
al., 2013]) concluded that the results are not significantly affected by the chosen

51
test set-up (for engineering purposes). However, the authors pose the question
whether or not the results of tests performed on small test specimens are accu-
rate when considering large scale composites such as beams. The imperfections
and the points where the results are measured in the specimens are also aspects
of concern, since they can have a large effect on a connection’s mechanical be-
haviour, leading to significantly variations.
A similar conclusion was presented by [Capretti et al., 1998], who compared
results obtained with different test set ups. They concluded that the differences
are small and therefore negligible for most of the Engineering purposes.
3.4.2 Load protocol and standards
[EN 26891] sets out the rules and principles for the determination of the strength
and deformation properties of timber-timber connections made with mechanical
fasteners. This standard was originally meant for timber structures. However,
since there is no specific standard for TCC connections, it is often also used for
TCC. It has been used worldwide as evidenced in some studies from other Con-
tinents, such as [Crews and Gerber, 2010] and [Auclair et al., 2016].
In this standard all the parameters of the load procedure are defined based on an
initial estimate of the maximum load (Fest), which shall be determined on the
basis of experience, calculations or from preliminary tests. It must be maintained
for all the tests, being changed only if the mean value of the maximum load ob-
served in the tests deviates more than 20% from the estimated failure load Fest.
The load shall be applied up to 40% Fest at a constant rate of 20% Fest per minute
± 25% and maintained for 30 seconds. It must then be reduced to 10% Fest at the
same rate and maintained for another 30 seconds. Thereafter the load shall be
increased over again (at the same rate as before) until 70% Fest. From that point
on, the test ends when the maximum load is reached or when the slip reaches 15
mm. It must be carried out with a constant rate of slip, so adjusted that the ulti-
mate load or the 15 mm slip is reached in 3 to 5 additional minutes. The entire
testing time should have about 10 to 15 minutes.
The described loading procedure is shown in Figure 21.

52
  

Figure 21: Loading procedure according to [EN 26891]

The slip measurements () must be recorded along the testing process, particu-
larly at the points 01, 04, 14, 11, 21, 24, 26 and 28 (see Figure 22). These points
are the strictly needed slip values to allow the determination of the connection
properties following the standard methodologies.

Figure 22: Load-deformation curve and needed measurements

According to this standard the connection slip modulus shall be determined as
function from the slip at the points 01 and 04 together with the estimate of the
maximum load using Equation 2.
0.4 (4)
 
4
3
 
53
3.4.3 Limitation of the experimental assessment tools
The procedure given in [EN 26891] has some important limitations that can in-
fluence the determination of the mechanical properties. Most of these issues re-
sult from the combination of two factors: i) non-linear load slip behaviour of the
connection, ii) determination of the mechanical properties, based on an estima-
tive of the maximum load that can differ from the actual one by up to 20%.
These issues were analysed by [Dias, 2005], which showed that the calculation
method proposed in [EN 26891] to determine the connection slip modulus may
lead to results not completely representative of the actual behaviour of the con-
nections. This was found to be particularly true for connections with pronounced
non-linear behaviour in the initial phase, as for example the connections made
with dowel type fasteners. For these connections, the determination of the slip
modulus is very sensitive to the points (load, slip) used. Differences higher than
100% could be found in the values of the slip modulus just by using different
values of the estimated maximum load within the range allowed in [EN 26891].
Additionally, the analysis of the maximum slip obtained in a set of simulations
of TCC systems showed that, in most of the cases, the maximum slip reached in
TCC systems is lower than 8mm. This value is significantly lower than the max-
imum deformation that can be reached by most of the connections types. Be-
sides, this value is also much lower than the 15mm indicated in [EN 26891] to
calculate the ultimate load carrying capacity of the connections. For that reason,
the load carrying capacity of the connections determined according to the stand-
ard may not be reached in composite structures.
The testing procedure defined in [EN 26891] also do not account for the cycle
performance of the connections. Indeed, the slip modulus is determined in the
first cycle of load which might vary significantly from the following cycles. For
steel-concrete connections [EN 1994-1-1] requires the performance of a mini-
mum number of cycles for both the connection tests and slab tests.
3.5 Determination based on calculation
3.5.1 General
Due to the variability of connection configurations used in practice, in most of
the situations the mechanical properties need to be assessed through testing. For
the same reason the results are, in most cases, hardly comparable, turning it dif-
ficult to perform wide analysis that might lead to the development of models.
From the analysis performed it was possible to find models or consolidated
knowledge that allows the determination of the connections mechanical proper-
ties, for three types: dowel type fasteners, notches and inclined screws.

54
3.5.2 Dowel-type fasteners
3.5.2.1 Load Carrying Capacity
Most of the model proposals for the dowel type fasteners in timber concrete
composite structures (see Figure 23) available in the bibliography were based on
models available for timber-timber connections (see [Gelfi et al., 2002] and [Di-
as et al., 2007]).

a.) before casting b.) example of a failure mode

Figure 23: Dowel type fasteners

[Dias et al., 2007] tried three approaches for the determination of the load carry-
ing capacity of timber-concrete dowel type fasteners (see Figure 24), always
based on the European Yield model indicated in [EN 1995-1-1]:
 Timber-Timber connection – Ductile behaviour with yielding assumed for
concrete
 Steel-Timber connection – Rigid behaviour assumed for concrete
 Timber-Timber connection with gap – Brittle behaviour assumed for con-
crete
The results obtained with these three models were compared with experimental
results. This analysis led to results that agree reasonably well with the values
measured in the tests.
The model results, however, tend to underestimate the load carrying capacity of
the connections, especially when high strength concretes are used.

55
 40

Model results ‐ Timber‐Timber
30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40
Experimental results
 
a.) Timber-timber
35
Model results ‐ Steel‐Timber

30

25

20

15

10

5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Experimental results
 
b.) Steel-timber
35
Model results‐ Timberto timber  

30

25
with gap

20

15

10

5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Experimental results
 
c.) Timber-timber with a gap
Figure 24: Experimental and model result for the load carrying capacity of
dowel type fasteners (see [Dias, 2005])
The consideration of the concrete strength in the determination of the connec-
tions strength increased the correlation between model and experimental results.
In spite of that, the model, which gives values closer to the experimental results,
is the model for steel-timber connections (see [Dias et al., 2007]). The compari-
sons between the model and experimental results are given in Figure 24.

56
3.5.2.2 Stiffness
Two main approaches have been used to estimate the stiffness of timber-
concrete connections: i) Analytical models based on the beam on elastic founda-
tion, ii) empirical models based on results from tests. Among other the following
proposals can be found in bibliography:
 Eurocode 5 (see [Ehlbeck and Larsen, 1993]) – Based on experimental re-
sults for Timber-Timber multiplied by two as stated in Eurocode 5;
 Gelfi (see [Gelfi et al., 2002]) – Analytical based on the beam on elastic
foundation;
 Ceccotti (see [Ceccotti, 1995]) – Empirical model for connections made
with glued-in rods, inserted perpendicular to the grain.
[Dias et al., 2010] also compared the results obtained with the first two models
with the one available from tests. In the case of the model of the beam on elastic
foundation two approaches were considered: i) rigid behaviour of concrete and
ii) elastic behaviour of concrete. The model and experimental results are given
in Figure 25.
From the analysis it was concluded that in most situations the models used to
determinate the slip modulus of the connections tend to overestimate the values
obtained in the tests. The best correlations between experimental and model re-
sults were obtained for the model indicated in Eurocode 5, which bases the esti-
mation on the timber density. The mean value between numerical and experi-
mental results for this model was 1.13, leading to a slightly non conservative
estimate.
The results obtained also showed that the neglect of the deformations in concrete
lead to some error in the determination of the slip modulus. In spite of that, no
correlation was found between the stiffness of the connections and the MOE
from the different concrete types used.

57
 140

120

Rigid behaviour of Concrete
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Experimental results
 
a.) Rigid behaviour of the concrete
45
40
Elastic behaviour of Concrete

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Experimental results
 
b.) Elastic behaviour of the concrete
45
Plastic behaviour of concrete

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Experimental results
 
c.) Plastic behaviour of the concrete
Figure 25: Experimental and model result for the stiffness of dowel type
fasteners (see [Dias, 2005])
[Ceccotti, 2002] presents a model for glued-in rods inserted perpendicular to the
timber grain. In spite of being a dowel type fastener connection, the models pre-
sented before are not adequate to predict stiffness of the glued-in rods due to its
particular characteristics. [Ceccotti, 2002] suggests the use of the following ex-
pression to estimate K (for serviceability purposes):
0,125 ,   (5)
For systems with a gap between timber and concrete layers, [Ceccotti, 2002]
suggests the use of 0,75Kser, 0,66Kser and 0,5Kser for gap/d ratios of 2, 3 and 4,
respectively.

58
3.5.3 Inclined screws
3.5.3.1 General
The inclined screws have been tested in TCC connection systems for a long time
(see [Richart and Williams, 1943]). Usually this type of connection is used in
one of two configuration types: i) crossed screws (in both directions) and paral-
lel screw (inclined only in one direction).

3.5.3.2 Load carrying capacity

In the bibliography there are no models available for the determination of load
carrying capacity of timber-concrete connections made with inclined screws. On
the other hand, for timber connections models are available (see [Bejtka and
Blaß, 2002] and [Kevarinmaki, 2002]). [Jorge, 2005] adapted these models to
timber-concrete connections. The adapted equations are given below.
 

Figure 26: Loads on Inclined screws (see [Jorge, 2005])

Cross Screws
, , cos ∝  (6)
,∝
,   (7)
,∝
,   (8)
,

Parallel Screws
, cos ∝ sin ∝   (9)
,∝
,   (10)

59
This model assumes that the withdrawal capacity is equal to the screw compres-
sion capacity (see [Jorge, 2005]).
Results obtained with these models were compared with data available from
tests. As a result, the prediction of the models is relatively in line with the exper-
imental results. Furthermore, larger differences observed were on the conserva-
tive side (see [Jorge, 2005]).

3.5.3.3 Stiffness
There is no general model available in the bibliography to determine the stiff-
ness properties of inclined screws. However in some ETAs the equations are
given for the determination of the stiffness of this specific screw.
3.5.4 Notched Connections
3.5.4.1 General
The analysis presented for notched connections is based on work performed
within a FP 1402 STSM undertaken by Katrin Kudla from University of
Stuttgart in University of Coimbra (see [Kudla, 2015]). This work is based on a
detailed analysis of the studies available in the bibliography regarding timber-
concrete notched connections. Since the work is also available in an independent
publication from FP1402, only a brief resume, containing the main assumptions
and recommendations will be given here.
The notched connections have been successfully used for almost 100 years, be-
ing a simple and effective way to connect timber and concrete (see [Baldock and
McCullough, 1941]). Its popularity is also motivated by the easy production
with very simple tools to any desired configuration. On the other hand, this sim-
plicity and flexibility complicate the standardization and the development of
common rules and guidelines.
From the analysis of the research results available, Kudla proposes approaches
for both, the load carrying capacity and stiffness determination. In both cases, a
number of application restrictions, related to the notch configuration, are de-
fined. These restrictions apply to: concrete, timber, notch depth, notch length,
timber length in front of the notch and axial fastener diameter.

60
  

Figure 27: Geometrical parameters for a typical connection (see [Kudla, 2015])

Concrete:
• Minimum concrete strength class C 20/25 according to [EN 1992-1-
1]
• Maximum grain size 16 mm
Timber:
• Glulam according to [EN 14080] (minimum GL 24h)
• Sawn softwood timber according to [EN 338] (minimum C 24)
Notch depth tv:
• tv ≥ 20mm for building applications
• tv ≥ 50mm for bridge applications
Notch length lN:
• lN ≥ 150mm
Timber length in front of the notch:
• lv ≥ 8 t v
Axial fastener diameter d:
• d ≥ 8mm
Additionally, a linear relationship between force and displacement is indicated
for the design of these systems.

61
3.5.4.2 Load Carrying Capacity
It is recommended that the load carrying capacity of the connections is deter-
mined based on the failure modes that can be found in practice, namely:
• Longitudinal shear in timber
• Compression parallel to grain in timber
• Shear in concrete
• Compression in concrete
Further details on these failure modes it is suggested the use of the models avail-
able in the Bibliography (see [Michelfelder, 2006], [Schönborn, 2006] and
[Yeoh, 2010]).

3.5.4.3 Stiffness
For notch depths between 2.0 and 3.0 cm a design value for the slip modulus of
Kser = 1000 kN/mm per meter beam width is suggested. For notch depths deeper
than 3.0 cm a design value Kser = 1500 kN/mm per meter beam width is consid-
ered appropriate.
Additionally, it is mentioned that for a notched connection it is not suitable to
distinguish between a slip modulus for serviceability and ultimate limit state.
Load-displacement-curves from push-out tests and beam tests show a constant
stiffness nearly until the load carrying capacity is reached. For this reason the
assumption of Kser = Ku is suggested in the design of TCC systems with this
connection type.
3.5.5 Connections with Interlayer
In many TCC systems an interlayer between timber and concrete is installed.
The installation of this interlayer is almost always the case in the rehabilitation
of timber floors but also when a lost formwork is used to cast the concrete mem-
ber. This interlayer influences the mechanical performance of the connection in
any composite system. Qualitatively this influence is relatively consensual and
has been reported in several studies (see [Van der Linden, 1999], [Dias et al.,
2004], [Jorge, 2005], [Dias et al., 2007] and [Dias et al., 2010]). On the other
hand, the quantification of the influence varies significantly between the various
studies available in the bibliography.
[EN 1995-2] – Bridges in section 8.2.1 recognises the specificities on TCC sys-
tems with interlayer. It indicates for the cases with interlayer that the strength
and stiffness parameters should be determined by a special analysis or by tests.
The results reported in a number of recent studies on both, the load carrying ca-
pacity and stiffness of the connections, show a decrease of the mechanical prop-
erties load carrying capacity and stiffness in connections with interlayer com-

62
pared to connections without interlayer. The references of these studies and the
ratios between experimental and model results reported are indicated in Table 6.
Table 6: Test data on the influence of the interlayer in the load carrying capacity
and stiffness of timber-concrete connections
Connection Type Reference L.C.C. STIFF
Nails [Dias, 1999] 13% 27%
Inclined screws [Van der Linden, 1999] 30% 50%
Notches combined with [Van der Linden, 1999] 30% 22%
dowels
Dowels [Dias, 2005] 8% 35%
Notches [Dias, 2005] 16% 34%
Inclined Screws [Jorge, 2005] - 30%
LCC – Connection Load Carrying Capacity decrease; STIFF – Connection Stiff-
ness decrease

The results presented in Table 6 demonstrate the high influence of the interlayer
on the mechanical performance of the connections, especially regarding the
stiffness. Indeed, the decrease in the stiffness shows values ranging between
22% and 50% but around 30% in many situations. On the other hand, for the
load carrying capacity the values are lower ranging from 8% up to 30%.
Some modelling approaches have also been tried to estimate the mechanical
properties of the timber-concrete connection with interlayer. For the estimation
of the load carrying capacity the European Yield Model was adapted, while for
the stiffness the beam on elastic foundation model was used (see [Gelfi et al.,
2002] and [Dias, 2005]). In these studies the values obtained with the numerical
models were compared with experimental data. These analyses showed that the
model predictions follow the experimental results; however, models tend to un-
derestimate both the load carrying capacity and stiffness of the connections. This
underestimation was significantly higher for connections with interlayer than the
one obtained for the connection configurations without interlayer.
The analysis of the slip between the timber and the interlayer indicates that the
movement of the interlayer is relatively independent on the movement between
timber and concrete. Once all the models give low results, the prediction of the
models assuming the interlayer fixed to the main timber member is closer to the
experimental results.

63
3.5.6 Load-Slip models
Usually a linear elastic approach is used in the analysis and design of TCC sys-
tems. In these situations, two connection properties are required for the analysis:
connection stiffness and the connection load carrying capacity (see [Dias et al.,
2015]). Due to the non-linear behaviour of the connections these two properties
may lead to significant errors in the analysis (see [Dias, 2012]). The improve-
ment of the analysis is possible by the use of more sophisticated models such as
for example the FEM non-linear models, which - on the other hand - require fur-
ther connection mechanical properties, preferably the connection load-slip be-
haviour. Unfortunately, the load-slip curves are usually not available for these
types of connections. An approach to derive complete load-slip curves based
solely on a limited number of mechanical properties was proposed by [Dias,
2005]. Later the analysis was extended to new types of connections and new
mathematical models (see [Dias et al., 2015]). The types of connections consid-
ered in these studies were:
 Dowel-type fasteners;
 Axially loaded fasteners;
 Notches;
 Notches combined with steel fasteners;
 Nail plates;
Mathematical models were fitted to the experimental data. For the following
model, parameters were delivered:
 Foschi; [Foschi, 1974]
 Goldberg-Richard-Abbott-Richard (GRAR); [Dias et al., 2015]
 Yee-Melchers; [Dias et al., 2015]
 Wu-Chen; [Dias et al., 2015]
 Ollgaard-Slutter-Fisher (OSF). [Ollgaard et al., 1971]

64
  

Figure 28: Comparison example between the load-slip curves from experimental
data and theoretical models (see [Dias et al., 2015])
In Figure 28 some examples of the fittings are given for those models where the
numerical and experimental correlation was lower.
Complementary in this analysis it was concluded that most of the models were
able to describe the load-slip behaviour of the connections, with a relatively low
number of parameters. These parameters are delivered in the study for the con-
nection types and mathematical models considered (see [Dias et al., 2015]).
In this study also information on the variability of the properties are given that
may be used to perform reliability analysis. For further details please refer to
[Dias et al., 2015].
3.5.7 Finite Element Method models (FEM models)
The analytical models, as shown above, are generally formulations or equations
developed to predict the entire or part of the load-slip curve of the connection
based on few parameters. However, these models contemplate approximations
and assumptions, leading to a restrictive use in some cases and, eventually, a low
accuracy when misused.
Alternatively, FEM models are a natural solution to face part of the problems
encountered with the analytical methods, since they make it possible to account
for effects of influencing parameters such as non-uniform connectors or non-
65
linear material response. By using FEM models, it is possible to simulate and
therefore to predict the behaviour of timber-concrete connections in a complete
way, only based on its characteristics and mechanical properties. They also al-
low the user to promptly understand the influence that the variation of each pa-
rameter can have on the model.
Concerning dowel-type fasteners, many authors have developed different FEM
models in order to predict the behaviour of timber-timber and steel-timber con-
nections. More recently, FEM models to predict the behaviour of timber-
concrete connections (with dowel-type fasteners) have been developed as well
(see among others [Grosse and Rautenstrauch, 2004] and [Dias, 2005]).
In most studies where FEM models are developed, a comparison between these
models and experimental tests is made in an attempt to validate the models and
to assess their accuracy. This procedure is the only way to assure that the models
are able to successfully describe the behaviour of a specific TCC connection.
This need for experimental verification is a major drawback for the use of FEM
as a tool for the determination of TCC connection properties. They shall be seen
more as a complement to other assessment tools such as for example experi-
mental testing.
3.6 Proprietary connection systems
3.6.1 General
In this section a number of proprietary timber-concrete connection systems are
described. Such systems are not included in the code and the mechanical proper-
ties are provided by the producers. In spite of the relative small number of such
connections they are widely used in practice.
3.6.2 SFS VB screws
The European Technical Approval 13/0699, published by the Deutsches Institut
für Bautechnik in 2013, Germany, presents and assesses the SFS VB screws for
structural timber-concrete composite members in service classes 1 and 2.
SFS VB screws are made of carbon steel and have an outer thread diameter of
7.5 mm, a length range between 150 mm and 215 mm and the shape presented in
Figure 29.

Figure 29: Example of a SFS VB Screw

66
ETA-13/0699 – Annex 1 presents some examples on how these screws may be
used and eventually reinforced, along with some installation specifications con-
cerning both the screws and the structural members.
Regarding the mechanical resistance and stability, ETA-13/0699 indicates that
the composite members that include SFS VB screws shall be designed in ac-
cordance with the Eurocodes. In terms of safety in case of fire, the classification
given to SFS VB screws is ‘non-combustible’, which fulfils the requirements of
class A1, according to [EN 13501-1]. Concerning durability aspects, the SFS VB
screws must have a protective zinc coating with a mean coat thickness of 5μm or
a brown patina with a mean coat thickness of 1μm. Additionally, for identifica-
tion purposes, SFS VB screws must be identified by bearing the mark of the
manufacturer and the CE marking.
3.6.3 Tecnaria connectors
The Technical Assessment 3/12-720, with the Italian holder TECNARIA SpA,
published by the Secretariat for Technical Assessments, France, on November
2012, is the outcome document of the assessment of the TECNARIA connect-
ors.
TECNARIA connectors were developed to connect wood beams and concrete
slabs, creating composite systems. The timber and the concrete members are
connected by dowel type metal connectors with a fixing plate, placed and fixed
at regular or variable intervals along the timber-concrete interface. There are two
types of fixing plates called “BASE” and “MAXI” and are fixed with coach
screws of a diameter of 8 and 10 mm, respectively. Softwood, hardwood or
glued laminated timber may be used as timber member. The TECNARIA con-
nectors can be used in timber-concrete composite members in service classes 1
and 2 (as defined in EN 1995-1-1).

67
Figure 30: Example of a TECNARIA connector
 

The section 2.3 of the TA 3/12-720 sets out the Special Technical Specifications
that will assure the stability of the TECNARIA composite timber-concrete sys-
tems throughout the establishment of design, manufacture, implementation and
use principals, all in accordance with the Eurocodes.
As design and calculation conditions, the calculation method presented in TA
3/12-720 – Annex 1 must be followed, where different applications and types of
connectors are considered and a design guide is provided, contemplating all
phases needed for a correct design of the composite system with TECNARIA
connectors. All the design process must be done using the values given in TA
3/12-720 – Annex 2, when applicable.
3.6.4 ASSY plus VG screws
The European Technical Approval 13/0029 (see [ETA 13/0029]) presents and
assesses the ASSY plus VG screws for structural timber-concrete composite
members in service classes 1 and 2 (as defined in [EN 1995-1-1]).
The diameter of the ASSY plus VG screws is either 8 mm or 10 mm and the
length ranges between 150 mm and 180 mm. The shape and tolerances are given
in ETA-13/0029 – Annex 3.

68
  

Figure 31: Example of an ASSY plus VG screw (see [ETA 13/0029])

 

Regarding the mechanical resistance and stability, [ETA 13/0029] indicates that
the composite members that include ASSY plus VG screws shall be designed in
accordance with the Eurocodes and that the screws must be made of case hard-
ened steel. In terms of safety in case of fire, the classification given to ASSY
plus VG screws is ‘non-combustible’, which fulfils the requirements of class A1,
according to [EN 13501-1]. Concerning durability aspects, the ASSY plus VG
screws must have a protective zinc coating with a mean coat thickness of 5μm.
Additionally, for identification purposes, the screws must be identified by bear-
ing the mark of the manufacturer and the CE marking.
3.6.5 HBV Shear connector
The General Building Authority Approval number Z-9.1-557, from the German
Institute for Building Technology (DIBt), Berlin, 2004, presents and assesses the
HBV Shear connection for timber-concrete composite systems.
The HBV Shear connector was introduced by Leander Bathon in 2000, at the
World Conference of Timber Engineering, in Canada, and was further tested and
developed until its patent registration in 2004.
This connector consists of a 2.0 mm thick expanded metal mesh with a height of
90 mm, 105 mm or 120 mm that is half glued-in in the timber member, being the
other half embedded into concrete. The delivery length is 1 m and respectively
after special specifications.
The mechanical properties of the HBV Shear connector and its applications are
given in [TiComTec, 2014].
 

69
Figure 32: Example of the use of a HBV shear connector (see [TiComTec,
2014])

3.6.6 Parameters indicated in the Technical approvals

The requirements and indications given in the various European Technical ap-
provals are quite relevant in the context of this report. That type of information
was summarised from the 12 approvals listed below.
Technical Ap- Connecting
Validity Reference
provals system
Z-9.1-445 Timco II 16/03/2017 [Z-9.1-445]
Z-9.1-445 Timco III 16/03/2017 [Z-9.1-445]
Z.9.1-603 TCC 01/08/2015 [Z-9.1-603]
Z.9.1-648 Würth Assy Plus 05/11/2017 [Z-9.1-648]
Z-9.1-803 SWG 08/07/2015 [Z-9.1-803]
ETA 12-0196 SWG 16/07/2016 [ETA 12-0196]
Z-9.1-845 Schmid Stardrvie 10/04/2019 [Z-9.1-845]
Z-9.1-845 Schmid Rapid 10/04/2019 [Z-9.1-845]
Z-9.1-851 BiFri 24/03/2020 [Z-9.1-851]
Z-9.1.857 SFIX 28/10/2020 [Z-9.1-857]
ETA 13/0699 SFS 18/06/2018 [ETA 13/0029]
Z-9.1-342 SFS intec 31/05/2015 [Z-9.1-342]

These technical approvals include information in a wide range of fields, which

are detailed in the Tables given in Annex A. The information given is organized
into the following groups: Design standards, Type of Loading, Range of Ap-
plicability, Timber, Concrete, Service Class, Determination of Forces, Parame-
ters, Fire Design and Execution.
70
4. Evaluation of the forces
4.1 Preface
One essential part of the structural design is the determination of forces. With
these forces the stresses are evaluated and the utilization of the system can be
determined.
The way to determine the internal forces is one decision in the design process.
The decision concerning the method chosen has to be made by the structural en-
gineer. It is often influenced by the preferences and the practical experience of
the designer. In order to allow for this freedom for the decision of the method
within the standards, only boundary conditions and requirements can be given
therein. In the following some of these boundary conditions and requirements
are summarized.
4.2 Influences on the determination of the internal forces
In order to minimize the differences between the evaluated and the “real” stress-
es in a structure, several parameters have to be considered in the design of com-
posite systems (see among others [Aicher, 1987], [Baldock and McCullough,
1941], [Blaß et al., 1996], [Blaß et al., 1995]). The main influences on the inter-
nal forces in a composite system are
 Bending and normal stiffness of the composite elements, e.g. considera-
tion of different Modulus of Elasticities and different cross sectional di-
mensions
 Behaviour of the joint between the components of the composite cross
section
 Inelastic strains due to temperature variation and/or shrinkage and swell-
ing of the components of the composite cross sections
 Long term behaviour of the components
 Non-linear behaviour e.g. caused by cracks or yielding of the material

All these influences have to be considered in the determination of forces. How-

ever these boundaries can be organised into following subtopics:
 Determination of the internal forces in the short-term for composite sys-
tems taking into account the different material properties, the different
cross sectional dimensions and the flexibility of the joint
 Determination of the internal forces in the long-term
 Consideration of the material behaviour

71
4.3 Determination of forces in the short term
4.3.1 Consideration of the flexibility of the joint and the different cross section
properties
In a composite system, external forces are distributed between the components
of the composite cross section. In a composite cross section with 2 cross sec-
tions, the equilibrium of forces is defined by the following equation:
⋅ (11)
where External bending moment
Bending moment in cross section 1
Bending moment in cross section 2
Normal force in both cross section
Distance between the centroids of both cross sections
(=inner lever arm)
In principle, the system is statically undetermined, since neither the normal force
nor the bending moment can be determined directly. In order to determine the
forces in each component, the strains and curvature in the cross section are used,
leading to following equations
 Curvature in the single cross section: Assuming uplift between the single
cross sections does not appear, the course of the deformation of the com-
posite elements is equal. Since the curvature is the second derivation of
the deformation, the curvature of the single cross section is identical:
(12)
Since the bending moment in a cross section depends on the stiffness and
the curvature, the bending moment depends on

⋅ ⋅ (13)

 Strain in the centroid: In principle, the strain in the centroid can be deter-
mined by
⋅ (14)
However the normal force in the cross sections results in a slip in the joint
due to the flexibility of the connection, which results in a reduced strain in
the centroid. This reduced strain can be determined according to EC5 An-
nex B by

(15)

Therefore the normal force in the cross section is determined by

72
 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ,
(16)
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
This leads to the fact that a reduced stiffness of the connectors leads to a reduced
normal force in the cross section. Due to the equilibrium of forces a reduction of
the normal force affects an increase of the bending moment, resulting in a re-
duced bending stiffness (see Figure 33 and Figure 34)

Figure 33: Qualitative influence of the stiffness of the connection between the
composite elements on the strains

Therefore the deformability has to be considered in the design (see among others
[Brunner and Schnüriger, 2006], [Bursi et al., 2003], [Döhrer and Rautenstrauch,
2006]).

73
Figure 34: Qualitative Influence of the connection stiffness on the bending
stiffness

4.3.2 Different inelastic strains

4.3.2.1 Influence on the internal forces
The forces in composite structures are distributed to the single cross sections
according to their stiffness, since composite systems are statically undetermined.
One difference between statically determined and undetermined systems is that
constrains lead to internal forces in the statically undetermined systems whereas
in the statically determined systems constrains lead “only” to deformations
without any additional stresses. However composite systems are statically unde-
termined, since the external forces in a two layered composite are transferred by
6 forces:
 Bending moment in the cross section 1 and 2
 Normal forces in the cross section 1 and 2
 Shear forces in the cross section 1 and 2

So stresses will exist if one of the composite elements shrinks or swells in rela-
tion to the other composite element. In timber-concrete-composite systems, tim-
ber and concrete behave different, when subjected to changing surrounding con-
ditions and concerning the structural parameters during lifetime.
The hardening of concrete leads to an implementation of water in the matrix.
The final result of this process is the reduced volume of the concrete. This
shrinkage leads to a shortening of the concrete slab. Something similar happens
to timber, if the moisture content of timber is reduced, whereas the timber ele-
ment is enlarged if the moisture content is increased.
74
Besides that, inelastic strains can also be caused by temperature, if the tempera-
ture of the composite cross section changes compared to the temperature during
the hardening process (see [Fragiacomo and Schänzlin, 2010], [Dias et al., 2018]
and Figure 35).

Figure 35: Effects of inelastic strains

The effects of these inelastic strains can be modelled by the superposition of two
systems (see Figure 35): First the concrete shrinks and reduces its length. How-
ever this deformation cannot freely occur, since the composite action avoids this
slip. Therefore in this explanation model a force is applied only on the concrete
slab, which lengthens the shrunk concrete to its initial length. Due to the equilib-
rium of forces, this force is applied to the composite action, leading to a force
acting eccentrically related to the centroid of the composite cross section. There-
fore a bending moment in the system occurs.
The resulting stresses are eigenstresses, since no external force is acting (see
Figure 35). Therefore the equilibrium of forces is given by
⋅ 0 (17)

leading to a composite bending moment ⋅ acting in the opposite direction

than the bending moment in the single cross sections and .
Therefore different inelastic strains in the concrete lead to stresses in the compo-
site system. Since timber has a more or less brittle behaviour in tension, these
eigenstresses have to be considered in the design. Besides that, especially
shrinkage of concrete increases the deflections (see Table 7), so the serviceabil-
ity limit state is also influenced by these inelastic strains.

75
Table 7: Effect of the inelastic strains in timber concrete composite systems
Effect on
Internal forces Connectors deformation
Shortening of the Reduction of the Reduction of Increased de-
concrete related normal forces the loads on formation
to the timber Increase of the the connectors
cross section bending moment
caused by e.g.
shrinkage of Increase of the
concrete, swell- maximum
ing of timber and stresses
decreased tem-
perature
Shortening of the Increased normal Increase of the Decreased de-
timber related to force loads on the formation
the concrete slab Decreased bend- connectors
on top caused by ing moment
e.g. shrinkage of
timber and in- Decreased max-
creased tempera- imum stresses
ture

These eigenstresses cannot be reduced by the yielding of the connection between

timber and concrete. Therefore it has to be considered in the ULS as well as in
SLS.
Due to the reduction of the normal force caused by shrinkage of concrete, the
bending moment especially in the timber cross section increases resulting in a
lower load carrying capacity of the composite system.

Figure 36: Stresses in the elements if concrete shrinks

76
If shrinkage of concrete is considered in the design, deformation of about 80%
of the deformation due to dead load can be obtained. So shrinkage/swelling and
temperature variation have to be considered in the design.
 span L=7.5m
 width bt = bc=1000mm
 -value = 0.75
 finishing load gA=1.5kN/m²
 creep deformation according to the
standards
 mean value of shrinkage according to
EN 1992
 partial safety factor of shrinkage
F,shrinkage=1,0

Figure 37: Ratio between the effective loads caused by shrinkage and dead load

4.3.2.2 Influence of the yielding of the connectors

In the design of concrete structures, shrinkage is neglected due to the plastic de-
sign process. In concrete systems the reinforcement is yielding and the concrete
shows a plastic behaviour in compression. Due to the plastic behaviour the in-
compatibility of the deformation between the concrete and the steel cross section
caused by concrete shrinkage can be neglected. Besides that, the reinforcement
is a narrow cross section, so the bending stiffness can be neglected. In the end,
the design of reinforced concrete structures is based on the equilibrium of the
normal forces in the steel and concrete and their resulting bending moment
 Normal force in the reinforcement
⋅ (18)
 Normal force in the concrete
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 0.8 ⋅ (19)
 Equilibrium of forces
(20)
which can be transferred to the determination of the inner lever arm
(21)
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 0.8
 Bending capacity
⋅ 0.4 ⋅ (22)
As it can be seen, neither the bending stiffness of the concrete nor the bending
stiffness of the steel reinforcement is considered in the design.
77
In contrast to the design in reinforced concrete structures, the bending stiffness
of the element transferring tension (=timber) cannot be neglected due to its di-
mension. Therefore the inelastic strain increases the stresses in this cross section,
since the timber is not able to yield.
The external load increases the normal forces in the composite system, whereas
shrinkage of concrete reduces it. The load on the connectors is also reduced by
shrinkage. Therefore a yielding of the connectors does not affect the internal
forces due to shrinkage, since the resulting forces due to shrinkage and external
loads are generally lower than the ones due to external loads only. In the end the
inelastic strains cannot be reduced by the consideration of a yielding of the con-
nectors in the ULS.
4.3.3 Modelling the deformability of the joint
4.3.3.1 General
For the determination of the internal forces with respect to the flexibility of the
connectors, several methods are available (see [Kenel, 2000]):
 solution of the differential equation (see among others [Dabaon et al.,
1993] and [Eyberg, 1981])
 -method of EC 5 Annex B (see [EN 1995-1-1], [Möhler, 1956] and [Eh-
lbeck et al., 1967])
 Strut-and-tie model (see [Grosse et al., 2003] and [Michelfelder, 2006])
 Shear analogy method (see [Kreuzinger, 1999a], [Scholz, 2003] and
[Scholz, 2004])
 FE-modelling

A description of each single method for the determination of the internal forces
is given in the Annex B. However the methods differ concerning their range of
application and the required efforts for the evaluation of the internal forces, so
their application depends on the required accuracy and the consideration of cer-
tain effects.

78
Table 8: Comparison of the different design methods

Differen- -method
Strut and- shear
tial equa- -method FE incl. the
tie analogy
tion extension

Ease-of-use
medium,
time con-
sumption
time con-
increases low medium medium high low
sumption
the more
boundaries
exist
yes, how-
ever due to
the beams
represent-
ing the no, stresses
clearly
connectors at disconti-
defined
Yes yes disconti- yes nuity could yes
value for
nuities influence
the proof
arise, the result
which
could in-
fluence the
results

easy to no, all yes, since no, the

yes, only yes, only
adapt to nodes and only two complete
input val- input val-
compara- elements beams model has yes
ues have to ues have to
ble sys- have to be have to be to be mod-
be changed be changed
tems modified modified ified

high, since
medium, medium,
mesh and
influence since spac- since spac-
low, since low, since material low, since
of the ing of the ing of the
only only model only
modelling connectors connectors
beams are beams are could beams are
on the re- could af- could af-
modelled modelled highly modelled
sults fect the fect the
affect the
results results
results

79
 Differen- -method
Strut and- shear
tial equa- -method FE incl. the
tie analogy
tion extension

by hand
with sup-
port of
evaluation software
by hand software software software by hand
method for solving
problems
analyti-
cally
effort medium low medium medium high low

clear influ-
ence of the
Yes yes no no no yes
single pa-
rameters

yes
part of a [EN 1995-
No yes no 1-1] Ger- no no
standard
man An-
nex
Range of application

different
cross sec-
Yes yes yes yes yes yes
tion di-
mensions

different
Yes yes yes yes yes yes
MoEs

flexibility
Yes yes yes yes yes yes
of the joint

yes, how-
ever the
effort in-
multi span
creases no yes yes yes no
systems
with the
number of
boundaries

80
 Differen- -method
Strut and- shear
tial equa- -method FE incl. the
tie analogy
tion extension

yes, how-
ever the
structural
effort in-
undeter-
creases no yes yes yes no
mined sys-
with the
tems
number of
boundaries

variation yes, how-

of changes ever the
along the effort in-
span, e.g. creases
no yes yes yes no
variation with the
of the number of
cross sec- variable
tion parameters

no limit, no limit,
however however
the effort the effort
for the for the
number of input in- input in-
2 3 no limit 3
layers creases creases
with in- with in-
creasing creasing
number of number of
layers layers

Considera-
tion of
non-load
bearing Yes yes yes yes yes yes
layers be-
tween the
elements

non-linear within the

material single sec- no yes yes yes no
behaviour tion

81
 Differen- -method
Strut and- shear
tial equa- -method FE incl. the
tie analogy
tion extension

Systems
other than
No no yes yes yes no
straight
beams

Connectors

yes, how-
yes, if the
ever often
system is rough ap- rough ap-
some con-
split in proxima- yes, if the proxima-
different nectors are
several tion by the system is tion by the
spacing of summed
subsys- evaluation split in yes evaluation
the con- up to one
tems; of an aver- several of an aver-
nectors element,
however age dis- subsystems age dis-
represent-
the effort tance tance
ing the
increases
connectors

yes, how-
ever the yes, if the
effort in- connector
single con-
creases no yes is smeared yes no
nectors
with the over a cer-
number of tain length
connectors

Loads

non-uni-
formly
Yes no yes yes yes no
distributed
loads

Considera-
tion of
inelastic
strains as Yes no yes yes yes yes
tempera-
ture or
swelling

82
As it can be seen in Table 8, the methods have their own range of application:
 FE-modelling: Due to the effort and the accuracy of the results the appli-
cation of this method will be mainly in the field of development and re-
search. However it is not expected, that this method will be part of the dai-
ly design.
 Differential equation: Due to the high demands concerning the analytical
solution, this method will hardly be used in the daily design. Its range of
application will be the development of simplified design methods and the
discussion of different parameters. So it is expected, that this method will
be used in the transition from research to practical design.
 Shear-analogy-method: Due to the possibility of modelling several layers
with limited efforts, this method will be used in the design if multi layered
composite structures with more than 2 layers are evaluated. For example,
a multi layered structure is a composite between cross-laminated timber
and concrete, where the cross laminated timber has several layers. How-
ever it is not expected, that this method is used for the design of “ordi-
nary” timber concrete composite structures, since it would require the
transfer of the real two-layered system (timber & concrete) into the two
systems A and B with modified parameters. Both systems are coupled,
targeting at the same deflection. After the evaluation of the internal forces
of systems A and B, these forces have to be retransferred.
In order to couple both systems, structural analysis software is often used.
But when structural analysis software is used for modelling a two layered
composite, it is easier to model it directly as strut-and-tie model, since
then the real forces in the cross sections are determined. In this case the
often already implemented proofs of such software can be used directly
(except for the evaluation of the reinforcement; see Sec. 4.3.4).
 Strut-and-ties: Since the evaluation of forces by means of strut-and-tie-
models is quite familiar for the engineer, it is expected that the design will
be often performed with this method. In this method the centroids of the
single composite elements are modelled by beams. The connections be-
tween the composite elements are also modelled as beams, whereas their
properties are adjusted to the stiffness of the connectors.
One advantage of this method is that it is not limited to single span system
with uniformly distributed loads.
 -method: Within this method the effectiveness of the load transfer by
normal force is evaluated by means of the so called -value. This -value
is considered in the evaluation of the moment of inertia. So from the prac-
tical point of view, this method provides an effective bending stiffness,
which can be used within a “normal” design. Therefore it is expected, that
this method will be used in the design for simple systems as single span
girders with uniformly distributed loads. Besides, the evaluation of forces
can be performed by hand, so no structural analysis software is necessary.
83
 If the system matches the requirements for the application of this method
it could be easily used for the evaluation of forces within a spreadsheet
program, allowing the optimization of the structure.

As a result of this comparison of the different methods for the evaluation of the
forces, it is expected, that the -method and the modelling of composite systems
by strut-and-tie models are mainly used in the design process.

However, how to determine the internal forces should not be part of a standard,
since the engineer should be able to choose the appropriate method. Neverthe-
less the standard should enable the application of the most common methods.
Therefore the standard should give rules and recommendations for the applica-
tion of these methods. As can be seen in Table 8 rules and recommendations
concerning the following influences should be given:
 Maximum spacing of the connectors in order to enable the designer to de-
sign whether the -method can be used or whether the results will be more
accurate, when using the strut-and-ties model
 Since the -method is already part of [EN 1995-1-1] Annex B, it should be
extended in order to cover the inelastic strains due to temperature or dif-
ferent shrinkage/swelling of the composite elements.

4.3.3.2 Maximum spacing

In some design methods the connectors are smeared along the beam axis. In this
case forces are continuously transferred between the composite elements. There-
fore the course of the normal force is affine to the course of the external bending
moment. However, the connection itself transfers the forces locally. If discrete
connectors are considered, the normal force is constant in between the single
connectors, since friction is neglected.
For small spacing, the differences between the constant load transfer through the
assumed continuous connection and the discrete load transfer in the connectors
is negligible. However if the spacing increases, the difference can become of
importance, since the load transfer via normal force can be reduced.
Additionally the location of the connector related to the beam can influence the
forces, so smearing the connectors could lead to unacceptable differences be-
tween the model and the real forces. In order to limit differences between the
“real” internal forces and the modelled internal forces, the distance of the con-
nectors has to be determined from which on smearing of the connectors is not
acceptable any more.

84
In order to identify this limit, [Niederer, 2008] compared the internal forces
evaluated by means of the -method and the strut&tie model for different sys-
tems. Within this study the cross sections as well as the properties of the con-
nectors have been varied. As it can be seen in Figure 38 and Figure 39 the bend-
ing moment according to the -method (assuming smeared connectors) is under-
estimated with increasing spacing of the connectors compared to the modelling
with a strut & tie model (which is assumed to deliver the correct results).

Figure 38: Influence of the spacing of the connectors on the bending moment, as
ratio between the evaluation according to the -method and the modelling as
strut&tie model (see [Niederer, 2008])

Figure 39: Influence of the -value on the differences of the bending moment in
the timber cross section between the evaluation according to the -method and
the strut&tie model (see [Niederer, 2008])

85
Similar results are evaluated by [Michelfelder, 2006], where the stiffness of typ-
ical timber-concrete composite slabs with notched connections obtained by FE-
analysis and the -method are compared to each other (see Figure 40).

System: timber-concrete-composite
slab made of board stacks and con-
crete top

Connection: notched connection

Figure 40: Comparison of the stiffness of the composite slabs evaluated by the -
method and FE (see [Michelfelder, 2006])

As it can be seen, the stiffness of the composite slabs with notched connections
evaluated by the -method is higher than the ones evaluated by FE. Therefore
the -method cannot be used in composite beams with notched connections
without any modifications or limits.

As a result [Niederer, 2008] came to conclusion, that – when smearing the con-
nectors - the internal forces vary less than 5% if the distance of the connector is
less than 5% of the span. Therefore [Niederer, 2008] recommends a maximum
distance as limit of 5% of the span for smearing the connectors. So if the dis-
tance of the connectors is less than 5% the -method can be used; if the distance
is larger than 5% the system has to be modelled as strut-and-tie-model or com-
parable. Similar results are obtained by [Grosse et al., 2003]. In [Grosse et al.,
2003] the maximum limit of the distance of the connectors is given to 3% of the
span. This limit leads to the fact, that notched connections cannot be evaluated
by the -method.

86
In order to determine the internal forces with the -method despite the large dis-
tances between the notches, [Michelfelder, 2006] proposes to modify the effec-
tive spacing for typical composite slabs by

, 1.14 ⋅ 3.14 ⋅ ⋅ (23)

 
where , effective distance of the notches as input value for the -
method
minimum distance of the notch
maximum distance of the notches
span of the beam

4.3.3.3 Extension of EN 1995 Annex B

Inelastic strains cannot be considered in the normal design procedure according
to EN 1995 Annex B. Within [Schänzlin, 2003]  the deformation according to the
differential equation is compared to the deformation of a homogeneous beam
with an effective bending stiffness for a sinusoidal course of the distributed load
and of the inelastic strains (see Figure 41).  
Stress less strain sls

Load p(x)

Figure 41: Load and inelastic strains

87
 Solution of the differential Homogeneous cross section
equation

Figure 42: Models for the comparison

The comparison of these systems leads to an effective bending stiffness with re-
spect to the inelastic strains (see Figure 42). Additionally the inelastic strain
could be transformed to an external load, leading to the same deformation and
the same bending moment.

Figure 43: Fictitious load

This fictitious load can be determined by

, ⋅ Δε (24)
and

88
 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (25)
, ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Within this equation the parameter becomes 4,0, if the bending moment is
evaluated. The value becomes 4,8 for the evaluation of the deflection. If the ef-
fective bending stiffness is evaluated, the parameters of the fictitious load can be
identified. However in this case the -value becomes . For reasons of simpli-
fication it was decided to use solely .

Table 9: Comparison of the effects of shrinkage of concrete on the internal

forces and the deflection and the results of modelling this effect solely by a
fictitious load
Internal forces Inelastic strain, Fictitious
e.g. shrinkage of load
concrete
Deflection Increase Increase
Bending moments in the Increase Increase
cross sections
Normal force in the cross Decrease Increase
sections
Load on the connector Decrease Increase

If this fictitious load is applied on a system, all internal forces and the deflection
increase. However, as it can be seen in Table 9, only the bending moment and
the deflection increase due to shrinkage. The normal force as well as the load on
the connectors behave contrary between the real behaviour and the model.
In order to solve this contradiction between the modelling of the inelastic strains
by applying a fictitious load on the system and the real behaviour, the normal
force is determined by the equilibrium of forces in midspan. If the normal force
is determined by the equilibrium of forces, an overestimation of the bending
moment in the single cross section would lead to an underestimation of the nor-
mal force.
However using solely the -value = /2, the bending moment is overesti-
mated, since in the original derivation the -value is equal 4,0 for the bending
moment. In order to correct the overestimation of the bending moment, it is pro-
posed not to consider the bending moment under the full fictitious load but only

89
 , ,
under a reduced fictitious load following the ratio 0.81 ≅
, . ⋅
0.8.
In a statically determined system, this fictitious load does not lead to support
reactions, so at the supports additional, fictitious shear forces , have to be
applied (see Figure 43).

a. Midspan deflection b. Normal force

c. Stresses in the lower layer

Figure 44: Comparison of the extension of the -method (=”Schänzlin 2003”)

and the solution of the differential equation (=“Theoretical exact solution“) (see
[Schänzlin and Fragiacomo, 2007])
With this modification a sufficient accuracy with regard to deflection, bending
moment and normal force is given (see Figure 44), as long as the inelastic strain
is in the range of normal concrete shrinkage (see Table 10).

90
Table 10: Range of parameters for the comparison in Figure 44
Minimum Maximum
Climate Indoor (SC1) Sheltered, outdoor
(SC2)
 according to EN 1995 0.1 0.95
Annex B
Span length in m 5 10
Timber beam (b/h in cm) 18/10 44/10
Timber slab (b/h in cm) 6/100 16/100
Concrete flange (beam) 6/65 14/100
(b/h in cm)
Concrete flange (slab) (b/h 11/100 28/100
in cm)
Difference in inelastic 0 60 ⋅ 10-5
strains

Outside the parameter set given in Table 10, there might be larger differences. In
[Dias et al., 2018a] boundaries for the application of this extension of the -
method are given.
However, some larger discrepancies can be recognized for the maximum shear
forces in the connection. The reason for such differences is the non-linear trend
of the slip between concrete and timber due to vertical load and concrete shrink-
age. Since the slip resulting from the vertical load is different and in opposite
direction from that caused by concrete shrinkage, the superposition results in a
trend where the peak value is not at the support but at a location between the
support and mid-span (see Figure 45).

91
Figure 45: Trend of the slip along the beam axis (see [Schänzlin and
Fragiacomo, 2007])

Therefore differences appear between the theoretical exact solution and the de-
termination with the fictitious load. These differences depend whether the cross
section 1 shortens related to the cross section 2. In this case the fictitious load
overestimates the maximum forces, since the constant inelastic strains leads to
larger shortening than a sinusoidal course. Assuming this,
 the slip caused by external loads acts in the opposite direction as the slip
caused by shortening of the cross section related to cross section and that
 the slip caused by the external load is larger than the slip caused by the
shortening
the fictitious load will lead to larger forces in the connection than the exact solu-
tion.
If these assumptions are not fulfilled, the fictitious load will underestimate the
forces. In this case the forces have to be determined according to [Fragiacomo,
2000], based on the exact solution of the differential equation of the slip between
the components. Therefore two equations for the evaluation of the shear forces
in the connection have been given.
Summarizing the effect of the inelastic strains, it may be considered in the de-
sign by taking into account an additional, fictitious vertical load representing the
effects of shrinkage.
This fictitious vertical load and the resulting internal forces can be determined
by following equations:
 Fictitious load
, ⋅ (26)
where fictitious vertical load, which represents the effects of
inelastic strains on the structure

92
 , coefficient
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅

difference in the inelastic strain between cross section

2 and the cross section 1

/2
 Effective bending stiffness
, , ⋅ (27)
where , effective bending stiffness with respect to the inelas-
tic strains
effective bending stiffness according to EC5 Annex
B, Eq. (B.1)
, coefficient, which considers the interaction between
vertical load qd and inelastic strains in terms of slip in
the joint

⋅ ⋅
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
coefficient calculated according to EC5 Annex B, Eq.
(B.5)
 
 Bending moment in the cross section: The bending moment within the
single cross section can be evaluated by
⋅ (28)
⋅ 0.8 ⋅
,

where , effective bending stiffness according to EC5

Annex B which accounts for the interaction
between vertical load and inelastic strains
(see Eq. (18))
bending moment of the component i
0.8 ⋅ resulting bending moment due to vertical
load and part (80%) of the fictitious load
equivalent to inelastic strains
 Normal forces: The normal forces are determined using the equilibrium
equation:

93
 ∑
(29)

where resulting bending moment due to vertical load on-

ly
distance between the centroids of the concrete slab
and timber beam
 Shear forces: The shear force in the connector can be determined accord-
ing to EN 1995 Annex B Eq. (B.10) (see [EN 1995-1-1]) if the shear force
is evaluated by following equation assuming that the cross section 1
(=cross section in compression) shortens related to cross section 2:

⋅ ⋅
, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅Δ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (30)

where resulting shear force due to vertical load only, cal-
culated using the formulas (Eq. B.10) suggested by
the Annex B of the EC5.
In the other case – when cross section 2 (=cross section in tension) short-
ens related to cross section 1, the shear force in the connector can be de-
termined by following equation:
, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Δ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ , (31)
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 2

4.3.4 Cracking of concrete and moment-rotation relation

4.3.4.1 Effect on the stiffness
The design of concrete structures is given in [EN 1992-1-1]. Within this stand-
ard, the stress strain relation for concrete is given, which is characterized by
 No consideration of the tension force except for the determination of the
capacity for the shear forces
 Stress-strain-relation for the evaluation of the internal forces according to
the following equation (see Figure 46)
⋅ (32)
⋅
1 2 ⋅
where coefficient
,
1,05 ⋅ ⋅

94
 average compressive strength

, strain at the average compressive strength in 0/00

 
,

 Stress-strain-relation for the design of the cross section until a concrete

strength class of C50/60 (see Figure 46):
o for | | 0.002
1000 ⋅ 250 ⋅ ⋅ (33)
o for 0.002 | | 0.0035
(34)
 

Figure 46: Stress strain relation of concrete

Besides this non-linear stress strain relation of the concrete, the steel itself is as-
sumed to yield in the ULS in order to achieve a ductile behaviour of the rein-
forced concrete slab.
Combining the non-linearity of the concrete with the non-linearity of the rein-
forcement, non-linear moment-curvature-relation can be obtained (see Figure
47).

95
Figure 47: Example of a non-linear M--relation of a reinforced concrete beam

Since the bending stiffness is the ratio between the bending moment and the
curvature, this value shows also a non-linear behaviour (see Figure 48)

Figure 48: Example of the bending stiffness of a beam

The bending stiffness drops significantly at that point, when the concrete cross
section starts cracking. The second decrease is caused by the yielding of the re-
inforcement. The cracking of concrete can be avoided, if a compression force is
applied to the system. So the bending stiffness also depends on the normal force
in the element of the composite beam.
As shown in the previous paragraphs cracking leads to a significant drop of the
bending stiffness in the concrete. Since this bending stiffness influences the dis-
tribution of the internal forces, cracking of concrete has to be considered in the
evaluation of the forces and the deflection.

96
4.3.4.2 Is the normal design process of the concrete cross section applicable in
timber-concrete-composite systems?
In the design process of timber-concrete-composite systems, the internal forces
in the cross sections are determined. These forces are often used as input values
for the “normal” design process. In pure elastic materials this process leads to
correct utilizations, whereas a non-linear material behaviour – as in reinforced
concrete slabs – could influence the load carrying capacity. Since the tensile
strength of concrete may not be considered in the design, reinforcement is in-
stalled in the concrete cross section. In the normal design, it is assumed that the
reinforcement yields in order to avoid a brittle failure of the concrete. Besides
that, yielding of the reinforcement enables the maximum forces in the rein-
forcement and therefore leads to an economic solution.

The yielding of the reinforcement begins at a strain of about 20/00. Below that
strain, the reinforcement is in an elastic stage. Above this strain, the reinforce-
ment yields and can provide the maximum forces. If the common design proce-
dure of reinforced concrete is used, following boundaries have to be fulfilled
 Strain in the reinforcement
0.002 0.02 (35)
 Strain in the concrete
0.0035 (36)
From these boundary conditions one may derive the minimum curvature of the
concrete cross section, from which the common design of concrete slabs includ-
ing the reinforcement can be used

(37)
,

where , minimum curvature in order to apply the

common design of concrete cross sections
  strain in the reinforcement
  strain in the concrete
  height of the concrete
  coverage of the reinforcement

In timber concrete composite systems the compatibility of the deformations has

to be ensured. Since both composite elements are deforming in the same way,
the curvature of the concrete cross section as well as of the timber cross section
have to be the same (see Figure 49).
97
Figure 49: Strain in the composite system, when the reinforcement starts
yielding (=strain distribution used for the design of concrete elements)

However the strains in the composite cross sections are influenced strongly by
the parameters. In the following, only extreme conditions should be discussed.
 No composite action: If there is no connection between both parts of the
composite, the curvature of both cross section is the same, as long as they
have the same course of deformation:
(38)
→

If the normal design process of reinforced concrete is used, the reinforce-

ment should have a value larger than 20/00 and absolute compressive strain
of concrete should be lower than 3.50/00. The curvature of the concrete
cross section is therefore

(39)
,

However in the timber cross section, this curvature also exists, leading to
following bending moment
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (40)
12
The stresses in the cross section are

98
 ⋅
⋅ ⋅
12 ⋅ ⋅ (41)
2
⋅ ⋅
6 6
Using this equation, the maximum timber cross section dimension can be
determined by
2⋅
(42)
⋅
In the ULS this equation turns to
2⋅ ⋅ , /
(43)
⋅
If a timber cross section of C24 in Service Class 2 for a medium duration
of load is assumed, the maximum cross sectional dimensions of the timber
cross section can be determined, where a “normal” design of the concrete
slab – assuming the yielding of the reinforcement—can be determined to
the values given in Figure 50.

Figure 50: Maximum height of the timber cross section in order to allow a
“normal” design of concrete slabs including the necessary reinforcement
As it can be seen in Figure 50, the maximum height of the timber cross
section is relatively small for the case =0, if the yielding of the rein-
forcement in the concrete cross section is considered.

 Rigid composite: In a rigid composite the strains of the concrete and the
timber at the joint are the same. Therefore the strain at the lower layer of
the timber can be determined by
⋅ | | (44)
The maximum strain in the timber can be determined by
⋅ (45)

99
 Therefore the maximum height of the timber cross section can determined
to

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅| | (46)

⋅ ⋅| |
(47)
→
⋅
However if a timber cross section of C24 is assumed, the maximum char-
acteristic strain of the timber cross section can be determined to

,
24
0.0017 (48)
11000
which is lower than the strain, at which the steel starts yielding. This
means that there is no configuration for the rigid composite, where the
yielding of the reinforcement can be considered in the design.

So in normal conditions the yielding of the reinforcement cannot be considered

in order to increase to load carrying capacity of the concrete cross section, since
the steel reinforcement does not reach the plastic strain, which is the basic of the
design of the reinforcement in concrete structures. Nevertheless, the elastic be-
haviour of the reinforcement could be considered in the design.
If the non-linear behaviour of the steel is to be considered, the compatibility of
the assumed resistance to the existing strains has to be ensured. This could be
done by applying the nonlinear M--relation of the concrete to the evaluation of
forces (e.g. see Figure 47).
As conclusion, the effects of the non-linear behaviour of concrete can be
summed up to following points:
 Cracking of concrete has to be considered in the determination of forces
as well as in the determination of the deformation.
 If the interaction between bending and normal force leads to tensile
stresses in the concrete cross section and these tensile stresses are covered
by the reinforcement, the non-linear M--relation of the reinforced con-
crete cross section has to be considered.
 The compatibility of the strains of timber, concrete and reinforcement has
to be checked, assuming the same curvature in both cross sections.

100
4.3.5 Stress-strain relation for the evaluation of internal forces
In [EN 1992-1-1] the stress-strain-relation for the determination of the internal
forces is given by
⋅
⋅ (49)
1 2 ⋅
where coefficient
,
1,05 ⋅ ⋅

average compressive strength

, strain at the average compressive strength in

0
/00
 
,

However for practical use, this non-linear stress-strain-relation can hardly be

applied, since it would lead to different MoEs along the beam axis. For simplifi-
cation it is recommended to use the linear stress strain relation up to the design
value of the ultimate strength of concrete.
In order to determine the MoE, the inclination of the stress-strain-relation is de-
termined by

(50)

and therefore
⋅
⋅ (51)
1 2 ⋅

If the MoE is determined in the range between 0 and , the value of

the MoE varies between
,
1.05 ⋅ , (52)

This assumes that the maximum stresses are evaluated in the design
, , (53)
However the stresses should be smaller than the design value of the compressive
strength, leading to

101
 , ,
, ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ (54)
1.5
As can be seen in Figure 51 the MoE in design situations varies between the fol-
lowing boundaries
~0.9 ⋅ , 1.05 ⋅ , (55)

Figure 51: MoE of concrete in dependence of the strain

Since the differences of the MoE in the range between 0 and the strain
caused by the maximum design stresses are small, the influence of the stresses
on the MoE can be neglected. Therefore a linear stress-strain-relation and a con-
stant MoE can be used. [EN 1992-1-1] 5.4 also proposes to use the average val-
ue of the MoE for the determination of the internal forces.
4.3.6 Effective width
The external bending moment is divided into the bending moments and the nor-
mal forces in the cross section.
⋅ (56)
where external bending force
bending force in cross section 1
bending moment in cross section 2
normal force in both cross sections
distance between the centroids of both cross sections
(=inner lever arm)

Due to the linear load transfer parallel to the span, the concrete cross section is
distributing its load by shear and bending (see Figure 52).

102
 Distribution of the Distribution of the
normal force moment

shell plate
girder

shear bending
Figure 52: Load distribution by shear and bending (see [Rieg, 2006])

Due to the shear deformation, the stresses in the concrete decrease with increas-
ing distance from the beam. This can be described by following distributions
(see [Kuhlmann and Rieg, 2004] and [Kuhlmann et al., 2001]):
 Load distribution and deformation by shear in the shell
Φ x, y 2⋅ Φ ,
⋅ (57)
Φ , 0

where Φ x, y Airy's function of the stress

X  coordinate parallel to the span
Y  coordinate perpendicular to the span

 Load distribution and deformation caused by bending in the plate

x, y 2⋅ ,
⋅ (58)
, 0

where w x, y vertical deformation of the plate

x  coordinate parallel to the span
y  coordinate perpendicular to the span

If these two different load transfers are combined, the maximum stresses in the
plate can be determined and the effective width can be re-evaluated (see
[Kuhlmann and Schänzlin, 2008], [Kuhlmann et al., 2006] and Figure 53).

103
Figure 53: Evaluation of the effective width in timber-concrete-composite
systems (see [Kuhlmann et al., 2006])
So the lower limit of the effective width is given by the effective width caused
by shear deformation, whereas bending increases the effective width. However
one has to keep in mind that the reinforcement cannot yield (see Sec. 4.3.4.2), so
the reinforcement is not as effective as in "normal" reinforced concrete slabs.
Therefore it is assumed, that the concrete is only reinforced for the minimum
requirements, resulting in a low bending capacity. For this reason the effective
width based on the shear deformation should be used in the structural analysis.
The effective width due to the shear deformation is comparable to the values
given in the standards (see Figure 54). Comparing the effective width caused by
the shear deformation with various standards, [EN 1994-1-1] shows the lowest
differences between the evaluated values and the effective width caused by the
shear deformation.

104
Figure 54: Comparison between the effective width due to shear and the
regulations given in the standards (see [Kuhlmann et al., 2006])

Concluding it is recommended to determine the effective width of the concrete

slab according to [EN 1994-1-1], 5.4.1.2.
4.3.7 Vibrations
In order to ensure the serviceability, the criteria concerning vibrations shall be
fulfilled. To determine the effect on serviceability, the natural frequencies as
well as the effect on human beings (mainly deflection, velocity and acceleration)
have to be determined.
For the determination of the natural frequency, the bending stiffness, the mass
and geometrical values need to be known, which can be determined within the
structural design.
In order to discuss the effect on human beings, damping is an important input
value among others. These values have been determined by [Hamm, 2004],
[Hamm and Richter, 2009] and [Winter et al., 2010] to a modal damping ratio of
ζ= 0,025 (i.e. 2,5%) for timber-concrete composite slabs alone and ζ= 0,035 for
slabs with a floating screed.

105
4.4 Long term behaviour / consideration of creep and shrinkage
4.4.1 Creep and shrinkage
The composite system must fulfil the requirements over the whole lifetime of the
building. Therefore it is not sufficient to consider only the short term behaviour
directly after installation. Over time, some effects may occur, which influences
the internal forces as well as the deformation. The most important effects are
(see among others [Kenel and Meierhofer, 1998], [Schmidt et al., 2003],
[Schmidt et al., 2004] and [Jorge et al., 2010])
 Creep of the material: If a system is loaded, it deforms. If the system is
loaded over a certain time, the deformation increases over time. This addi-
tional deformation is called creep deformation.
 Shrinkage and/or swelling of the material: If materials are hardening by
means of a chemical reaction or interact with the surrounding by absorb-
ing or emitting moisture, often the volume of the material changes. In the
first case, the reaction product embeds the elements in a new order, so the
volume is reduced and the cross section shrinks. In the second case water
is embedded in the structure, so the volume increases. If moisture is emit-
ted, the volume decreases and the cross section shrinks. Since this strain is
independent on stresses, it is often called inelastic strains. The effect of
shrinkage and swelling on the stresses and the deformation is comparable
to the effect of changing temperature in a composite system of compo-
nents with different thermal expansion coefficients.

The effects of the creep deformations in a composite system are

 Deformation: Due to the creep deformation of at least one of the compo-
nents (here timber, concrete and connection), the deformation increases.
Timber-concrete composite systems are often applied for spans larger than
5m. In this range of application often the limitation of the deformation is
the decisive verification.
 Internal stresses and forces: The creep strain can be interpreted as a reduc-
tion of the stiffness. Since the stiffness is one essential influence of the
distribution of the loads in statically undetermined systems, creep strains
could change the distribution of loads within a composite system. This re-
distribution increases the larger the difference between the creep coeffi-
cients of the single components is. If one component is creeping stronger
than the other, the stronger creeping component will reduce its load. Due
to the equilibrium of forces the less creeping component will receive
higher loads.
Additionally the normal force will be also affected by the creep strain. Fi-
nally the bending moment of the less creeping component will be in-

106
 creased whereas the normal force will decrease. In the end, the stresses in
the less creeping component will increase.

The effects of shrinkage are (see Figure 35):

 Deformation: If the upper component shortens and this shortening is
blocked by the connectors, an internal bending moment arises, which lead
to an increase of the deflection.
In timber concrete composite structures this increase of the deflection due
to shrinkage of the concrete could reach values comparable to the defor-
mation caused by the dead load. Therefore this part of the deflection can-
not be neglected.
 Internal forces: if the upper component (which is compressed) shrinks, the
normal force in the components will decrease, whereas the bending mo-
ment increases. Since a larger part is transferred by bending, the system
becomes softer and the stresses in the lower layer increase. This increase
and the eigenstresses should be covered by the design process, since tim-
ber is rather brittle. So the eigenstresses could not be reduced by yielding
as it is in steel-concrete or pure concrete structures.
For these reasons it is not only sufficient to consider the initial but also the long
term behaviour of the materials.
4.4.2 Development of the creep strain over time
In the design all critical points in time have to be considered. Normally "only"
the points in time 0 and ∞ are considered. In order to consider the creep
strain, an effective Modulus of Elasticity is used

(59)
1 ⋅
This effective MoE is an input value for the determination of the internal forces.
According to [EN 1995-1-1] Annex B the effective bending stiffness can be de-
termined by
⋅ ⋅
(60)
⋅ ⋅

where ratio of the Moduli of Elasticity of both

components at a certain point in time .

With this effective bending stiffness, the internal forces of the timber cross sec-
tion can be determined by the following equations

107
  Bending moment
⋅ ⋅
⋅
(61)
⋅ ⋅

 Normal force
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅
(62)
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

As it can be seen, the ratio of the Moduli of Elasticity

influences the internal forces.

If the effective Moduli of Elasticity are inserted into the ratio

1 ⋅ ,
⋅
1 ⋅ ,

(63)
1 ⋅ ∞, ⋅
⋅
1 ⋅ , ∞ ⋅
the temporal development of this ratio can be determined. The ratio can be di-
vided into constant parameters and the two time functions and
, which describes the temporal development of the creep strains. If
these time functions are identical
(64)
it can be shown that the maximum stresses will be evaluated at time 0 or
∞.

However the time functions and are not identical (see

Figure 55), since in the first 3 to 7 years concrete creeps faster than the timber
cross section.

108
Figure 55: Temporal development of the creep strain

In the time period between 3 and 7 years, the velocity of the creep deformation
is comparable in the timber and concrete cross section. After that period, con-
crete hardly creeps whereas the timber develops about 40% of its creep strain.
If the time functions given in Figure 55 applied in the determination of the ratio
of stiffness , it can be shown that this ratio reaches a max-
imum value in the time period between 3 to 7 years (see Figure 56).

Figure 56: Temporal development of the ratio

Since the bending moment and the normal force depend on this ratio the internal
stresses can reach a maximum value between the points in time 0 and
∞. Therefore points in time 0 and ∞ are not necessarily the most criti-
cal points in time. At some point in time between those two points in time 0
109
and ∞ the stresses could reach maximum values. This occurs especially in
those cases, where the development of the creep deformation of the composite
elements is not affine to each other.
However this additional point in time leads to an extra effort in the design of
timber-concrete-composite structures. In order to solve the question, whether the
point in time of 3 to 7 years could lead to a significant increase of the stresses
and therefore has to be considered, a case study has been performed.
The range of parameters is given in Table 14.

Table 11: Effect of the inelastic strains in timber concrete composite systems
Parameter Minimum Maximum Step
value value
Material creep coefficient of concrete 1 4 1
Material creep coefficient of timber 0.2 2 0.2
Span [m] 4 10 2
Live load [kN/m] 1.5 5 1.5
Stiffness of the connection [kN/m] 10 1000000 50000
Distance of the connectors [m] 0.5
Dead load [kN/m] Internal determination
Density of concrete [kN/m³] 25
Density of timber [kN/m³] 5
Load due to finishing works [kN/m] 1.5
Timber C24
Ratio hconcrete/htimber 2:1, 1:1,1:2
Width of the concrete [cm] 80
Width of the timber [cm] 8,12,24,80

Within this case study, the initial system with a given ratio of the cross sections
is given as input values. In a first step, the cross sections are modified until the
stresses in the timber reach the design value of the strength in the design accord-
ing to [EN 1995-1-1]. The ratio of the cross section heights of timber and con-
crete is maintained for this modification process. For this modified composite
cross section, the stresses at time t = 3-7 years and time t = 50 years are deter-
mined with respect to the effect of the composite action on the effective creep.
Shrinkage is considered according to Sec. 4.4.4. The stresses at t = 0 years are
110
determined without any consideration of the creep strain and shrinkage, since
these two effects do not take place at this point in time.
For the output, the maximum of the stresses at t = 0 years and t =50 years are
related to the stresses at t = 3-7 years as for those cases, where the stresses at
t = 3-7 years exceed 103% of the design strength of C24 according to [EN 338]
assuming a kmod-value of 0.8.

Figure 57: Ratio of the stresses at t = 0 years and t = 50 years resp., related to
, , ,
the stresses at t = 3-7 years for those cases, where
, , ,
, , ,
1.03 and 1.0
, , ,

However there is no existing building with this failure known within this period
of time. One reason might be that the serviceability limit state often governs the
design for timber-concrete-composite structures, so the stresses do not reach the
critical stages within the period between 3 to 7 years. Therefore it is not ex-
pected, that the additional point in time will generally lead to higher cross sec-
tion dimensions. However, the limits of deformation can be adapted to the re-
quirements of the owner, so there might be cases, where the deformation is ne-
glected e.g. in agricultural buildings or comparable. In these situations this addi-
tional point in time could govern the cross section dimensions.

111
4.4.3 Composite creep coefficients
The time dependent strain is given by
(65)
So the changes within are described by
(66)

The changes in the creep strain can be expressed according to [Dischinger,

1939]

⋅ (67)

leading to

⋅ (68)

Assuming a constant MoE over time, this differential equation can be modified
by
1
→ ⋅ (69)

leading to 
1
⋅ ⋅ (70)

This equation can be solved for different boundary conditions. However there
are two extremal situations:
 Statically determined system: In this system, inelastic strains do not lead
to any stresses. Therefore the stress is constant over time leading to

0 (71)

and

⋅ (72)

The solution is given by

⋅ (73)

Since at t = 0 years no creep strain has occurred the constant C can be de-
termined to

112
 (74)

leading to

⋅ 1 (75)

Introducing an effective MoE in order to determine the total strain by

⋅ 1 (76)

this effective MoE can be determined to

(77)

1
 Clamped system: In a clamped system the strain is constant over time.
Therefore the basic differential equation turns into
1
0 ⋅ ⋅ (78)

and simplified

0 (79)

For the boundary conditions

o 0 0
o 0
the solution of this differential equation is
⋅ exp (80)
In this system the strain is constant over time, so the basic equation is val-
id
(81)
The creep strain is expressed as
⋆
⋅ (82)
which leads to the effective MoE of

⋆
(83)
1
However the total strain is expressed by

113
 exp
⋅ ⋅ 1 ⋆ (84)

Inserting the time dependent stress and solving this equation leads to the
effective creep coefficient in a system subjected to relaxation:
⋆ (85)
exp 1
So in a system with relaxation it has to be distinguished between the material
creep coefficient and a system creep coefficient ⋆ , which is used in
order to reduce the MoE for the determination of forces. As shown in the previ-
ous derivation, the effective creep coefficient depends on the system especially
whether the stresses are constant over time (=statically determined system) or
the strains are constant over time (=relaxation) and can vary quite strongly (see
Figure 58).

Figure 58: Boundaries of the effective creep coefficient for the modification of
the MoE

The cross sections in a composite system cannot be clearly assigned to a pure

creep situation or a pure relaxation situation, since this depends on the stiffness
ratio of the composite elements. If the concrete slab is much stiffer than the tim-
ber element, the timber hardly takes a share in the load transfer. Therefore the
time behaviour of concrete can be regarded as a pure creep behaviour. On the
other hand if the stiffness of the timber is dominating the stiffness of the compo-
site structure, the concrete is subjected more or less to a relaxation phenomenon,
since in this case creeping of concrete would not significantly affect the defor-
mation in the composite system. Therefore the concrete slab could be regarded
as clamped resulting in a relaxation situation.

114
For the evaluation of the time dependent deformation, several models have been
developed (see [Fragiacomo, 2000], [Bou Saïd, 2003], [Schänzlin, 2003],
[Khorsandnia et al., 2014] or [Khorsandnia et al., 2015]). These numerical mod-
els describe the temporal development of the deformation and the internal forc-
es.

a.) timber b.) concrete

Figure 59: Comparison between numerically determined effective composite

creep coefficients and the pure material creep coefficients (see [Schänzlin,
2003])

In [Schänzlin, 2003] effective creep coefficients have been determined based on

the developed model for the determination of the long term behaviour (see Fig-
ure 59).
As it can be seen in Figure 59, the effective creep coefficient in the timber cross
section differs only slightly from the material creep coefficient, whereas the ef-
fective creep coefficients of the concrete show larger differences to the material
creep coefficient.
In order to describe this different behaviour between the material creep coeffi-
cients and the effective composite creep coefficients, different approaches have
been developed (see among others [Kupfer, 1958], [Ruesch and Jungwirth,
1976] and [Kupfer and Kirmair, 1987]). [Kupfer and Kirmair, 1987] developed
effective creep coefficients in (concrete-concrete) composite systems.
[Kreuzinger, 1994] (see [Blaß et al., 1995]) extended this theory for the consid-
eration of the flexibility of the connectors.

115
According to this theory the effective creep coefficient (=”composite creep coef-
ficients”) of the cross section i in a composite system made of two different ma-
terials can be determined by
1 , 1
, , ⋅ (86)
, exp ⋅
where , effective creep coefficient of the cross section i for
the modification of the MoE in the structural analy-
sis
,   material creep coefficient of the cross section i
,   material creep coefficient of the cross section j
 
  composite creep coefficient
The composite creep coefficient is defined as
⋅ , ⋅ ,

where   composite creep coefficient

,   material creep coefficient of the cross section i
,   material creep coefficient of the cross section j
 
  flexibility of the component i
  flexibility of the component j
The flexibility can be determined for a single span girder by
1
⋅ ⋅
⋅ 2 2
where flexibility of cross section k
  stiffness of the cross section k
  composite factor according to [EN 1995-1-1] An-
nex B
  length of the beam
  bending stiffness
  distance from the centroid of the single cross sec-
tion k to centroid of the bending stiffness

116
The distance can be determined by

where   distance from the centroid of the single cross sec-

tion k to centroid of the bending stiffness
  distance between the centroids of the cross sections
  bending stiffness
  index
  , ;
If these equations are applied to the cases shown in Figure 59, the differences
between the analytically determined values and the numerically evaluated values
are acceptable (see Figure 60). So the effective creep coefficient can be deter-
mined analytically without any time-consuming numerical simulations.

a.) timber b.) concrete

Figure 60: Comparison of the numerically and analytically determined creep
coefficients

However these equations seem to be too complicated for the daily use. In [EN
1994-1-1] this influence is covered in the design by introducing a -value, in
order to modify the creep coefficient.

117
 1 ⋅

If this concept is transferred to the analytical solution by [Kupfer and Kirmair,

1987] and [Kreuzinger, 1994] the ψ-value can be determined by
, 1 , 1
ψ
, , exp Ψ ⋅ Ψ Ψ
For the determination of these -values, two different climates have been de-
fined
 Indoor climate with a creep coefficient of timber of 0.6, a relative humidi-
ty of 65% according EN 1992-1-1 and a creep coefficient of concrete of
3.5
 (Sheltered) Outdoor climate with a creep coefficient of timber of 0.8, a
relative humidity of 85% according EN 1992-1-1 and a creep coefficient
of concrete of 2.5

The -values have been evaluated for different situations (see Figure 61, Figure
62 and Table 12).

Table 12: Range of parameters for the evaluation of the -values

Creep coefficient of timber 0.6
MoE of timber 10000 N/mm²
MoE of concrete 30000 N/mm²
Height of the timber cross section 10 cm … 30 cm
Breadth of the timber cross section 12 cm … 20 cm and 100 cm
Height of the concrete cross section 6cm … 18 cm
Breadth of the concrete cross section 100 cm

118
Figure 61: -value of concrete for indoor climate at t = 3-7 years and
t = 50 years

119
Figure 62: -value of timber for indoor climate at t = 3-7 years and
t = 50 years

In [Schänzlin and Fragiacomo, 2007] the -values of the two defined climates
have been evaluated (see Figure 63).

120
a.) indoor climate

b.) outdoor climate

Figure 63: Evaluated -values

In order to simplify the evaluation, functions have been fitted to the results lead-
ing to the simplified equations given in Table 13.

121
Table 13: Evaluated -values
Concrete
 c ,indoor climate  2.59  0.75   13.32 for slab systems (bt = bc, 1/3
< Ac/At < 1), and for beam
 c ,outoor -climate  1.82  0.24   13.51 systems (bt << bc, 1 < Ac/At
< 3)
for t = 50 years
 c ,indoor -climate  2.47  1.05   11.70 for slab systems (bt = bc, 1/3
< Ac/At < 1), and for beam
 c ,outdoor -climate  1.72  0.45   11.73 systems (bt << bc, 1 < Ac/At
< 3)
for t = 3-7 years
Timber
 t (t  3  7 y)  0.5 For beam and slab systems
 t (t  50 y)  1.0

With these modification factors, the material creep coefficient can be transferred
into a composite creep coefficient for the modification of the Modulus of Elas-
ticity.

, , , and
⋅ ⋅ ⋅

In the common design according to the technical approvals the proposed creep
coefficients are the material creep coefficients. Since the introduction of the ef-
fective creep coefficients are a major change in the common design procedure, it
should be checked, whether these parameters have to be considered or not. For
this reason a case study has been performed. The range of parameters is given in
Table 14.

122
Table 14: Effect of the inelastic strains in timber concrete composite systems
Parameter Minimum Maximum Step
value value
Material creep coefficient of concrete 1 4 1
Material creep coefficient of timber 0.2 2 0.2
Span [m] 4 10 2
Live load [kN/m] 1.5 5 1.5
Stiffness of the connection [kN/m] 10 1000000 50000
Distance of the connectors [m] 0.5
Dead load [kN/m] Internal determination
Density of concrete [kN/m³] 25
Density of timber [kN/m³] 5
Load due to finishing [kN/m] 1.5
Timber C24
Ratio hconcrete/htimber 2:1, 1:1,1:2
Width of the concrete [cm] 80
Width of the timber [cm] 8,12,24,80

Within this case study, the initial system with a given ratio of the cross sections
is given as input values. In a first step, the cross sections are modified until the
stresses in the timber reach the design value of the strength of [EN 1995-1-1].
The ratio is maintained. For this modified cross section, the stresses at time t =
50 years are determined using the pure material creep coefficients as it is pro-
posed in the technical approvals. In addition to this, shrinkage is considered ac-
cording to Sec. 4.4.4.
In the next step, the maximum stresses in the timber are determined with respect
to the effective creep coefficients. As output the ratio of the stresses with neglect
of the effective composite creep coefficients and the stresses with respect to the
effective creep coefficients is evaluated (see Figure 64).

123
Figure 64: Ratio between the maximum stresses in the timber between the stress
according to the common design process using pure material creep coefficients
and the maximum stresses at t = 3-7 years and t = 50 years resp. with respect to
the composite creep coefficients

As it can be seen in Figure 64, the stresses in the studied range of application
with neglect of the composite creep coefficients can only be utilized up to 55%,
since the increase of the creep of concrete within a composite structure leads to
an increase of about 100%. This increase cannot be neglected. So it can be con-
cluded that the effective creep coefficient may be neglected for the ULS, if the
permanent stresses are increased by 100%. However the studied range of param-
eters might not cover all applications, so either an extension of the range of pa-
rameters is recommended or a more precise definition, when this simplification
can be used. Nevertheless the effective creep coefficient in a composite system
influences the stresses in a significant way and therefore should be considered in
the design.
4.4.4 Consideration of an effective shrinkage value
Shrinkage leads to stressless strains. However if the slip between the component
is blocked by connections, the stressless strains lead to eigenstresses. The value
of the eigenstresses depends on the stiffness of the cross section and can be re-
duced, if the cross section creeps. However the effective creep coefficient differs
depending on whether the action is a permanent load or a constraint (see
[Schänzlin, 2003] and [EN 1994-1-1]).
In [EN 1994-1-1] the different creep values are determined explicitly. This
means that in the design the internal forces due to the different loads such as
shrinkage and external loads have to be determined on different systems with
124
different effective stiffness of the composite compounds. For the design these
internal forces are superposed in order to determine the design values.
However [Schänzlin, 2003] was not able to determine similar creep coefficients
only for the load case shrinkage, since the derived equation became too compli-
cated.

Figure 65: Effective creep coefficient for the load case shrinkage

Since the interaction of creep and shrinkage would lead to another set of creep
coefficients and these equations can hardly be solved analytically, effective
shrinkage values were developed in [Schänzlin, 2003], taking into account the
reduction of the effects of shrinkage on the internal forces and deflections. As a
result of this study, only 50% of the end shrinkage value for the period between
3 and 7 years (see Figure 66) and 80% of the shrinkage values for t = 50 years
(see Figure 67) have to be taken into account.

Figure 66: Effective shrinkage values of concrete for the period of time between
3 and 7 years (taken from [Schänzlin, 2003])

125
Figure 67: Effective shrinkage values of concrete for t = 50 years (taken from
[Schänzlin, 2003])
4.5 Design process
As mentioned in the sections before, the design of timber-concrete composite
slabs differs from the design of steel-concrete-composite structures or timber-
timber composite beams. This is mainly caused by the flexibility of the connect-
ors and the different rheological behaviour of the components.
The design process for the SLS and for the ULS is summarized in Figure 68 and
in Figure 69, respectively. The main difference to the "normal" design is that the
loads are separated into permanent and short term acting loads independently of
their class of duration of load. The combination of these actions is done on the
level of internal forces and/or stresses.
The reason for this separation is that only permanent loads affect creep defor-
mation. Therefore the long term effects have only be considered in conjunction
with these permanent loads.

126
Figure 68: Design process of timber-concrete-composite structures for the SLS

127
Figure 69: Design process of timber-concrete-composite structures for the ULS

128
5. Design examples
5.1 General
In the following section two examples of the design are shown. The first one
shows the design according to the current standard [EN 1995-1-1] in conjunction
with a technical approval if the connection (see [ETA-13/0029]), whereas the
second example shows the design of a similar beam according to the provisions
given in the previous chapters of this report. In both design example, it is as-
sumed, that vibrations can be neglected.
5.2 TCC beam verification according to the [EN 1995-1-1]/Annex B
by Surovec, L., Slivanský, M. and Sógel, K

5.2.1 Basic information

5.2.1.1 Cross section dimensions and material properties

5.2.1.1.1 Concrete slab – concrete grade C25/30

Width (breadth): b1 = bc = 740mm
Thickness (height): h1 = tc = 70mm
Cross section area: A1 = b1 h1 = 5,18e-02m2
Second moment of area: I1 = (b1 h13)/12 = 2,115e-05m4
Secant modulus of elasticity: Ecm = 31000MPa ([EN 1992-1-1] Tab 3.1)
Characteristic compressive cylinder
strength at 28 days: fck = 25MPa ([EN 1992-1-1] Tab. 3.1)
Characteristic axial tensile strength: fctk,0,05 = 1,8MPa ([EN 1992-1-1] Tab. 3.1)
Partial factor for concrete: γc = 1,5 ([EN 1992-1-1] Tab 2.1N)
Deformation factor (considering creep): φ = 2,5 ([ETA 13/0029] Tab. 2.1)
Density: γcon = 25kN/m3 ([EN 1991-1-1] Tab. A.1)

5.2.1.1.2 Permanent formwork (interlayer) – OSB plates

Width (breadth): bi = 740mm
Thickness (height): ti = 18mm
Density: γi = 7kN/m3 ([EN 1991-1-1] Tab. A.3)
129
5.2.1.1.3 Timber joist – KVH grade C24
Width (breadth): b2 = bt = 100mm
Thickness (height): h2 = ht = 220mm
Cross section area: A2 = b2 h2 = 2,2e-02m2
Second moment of area: I2 = (b2 h23)/12 = 8,873e-05m4
Mean value of modulus
of elasticity: E0,mean = 11000MPa ([EN 338] Tab. 1)
Characteristic bending strength: fm,k = 24MPa ([EN 338] Tab. 1)
Characteristic tensile strength: ft,0,k = 14MPa ([EN 338] Tab. 1)
Characteristic shear strength: fv,k =4MPa ([EN 338] Tab. 1)
Partial factor for timber: γM = 1,3 ([EN 1995-1-1] Tab. 2.3)
Service class: 1 (residential building interior)
Load-duration class: medium term action (floor load)
([EN 1995-1-1] Tab. 2.2)
Modification factor: kmod = 0,8 ([EN 1995-1-1] Tab. 3.1)
Deformation factor: kdef = 0,6 ([EN 1995-1-1] Tab. 3.2)
3
Characteristic density: ρk = 350kg/m ([EN 338] Tab. 1)
3
Density: γt = 4,2kN/m ([EN 1991-1-1] Tab. A.3)

5.2.1.2 Connection properties

Type of fasteners: Würth ASSY plus VG screws, 8x220mm
Screw orientation: α = 45°
ASSY plus VG screw diameter: d = 8mm
ASSY plus VG screw length: ls = 220mm
Penetration depth of the ASSY plus VG screw
in the timber member: lef = 120mm
Slip modulus of one screw: Kser,1 = 100lef = 12000N/mm
([ETA 13/0029] Tab. 2.2)
Tensile capacity: ftens,k = 17kN ([ETA 13/0029] Tab. 2.4)
2
Withdrawal parameter: fax,k = 11N/mm ([ETA 13/0029] Tab. 2.4)
Spacing of the fasteners: s = 100mm
Number of the screws in a row: n=2

130
5.2.2 Loads
Partial factor for permanent actions: γG = 1,35 ([EN 1990] Tab. A1.2(B))
Partial factor for variable actions: γQ = 1,5 ([EN 1990] Tab. A1.2(B))
Factor for quasi-permanent value
of a variable action: ψ2 = 0,3 ([EN 1990] Tab. A1.1)
Load width: b = bc = 740mm
Characteristic value of a self-weight: g0,k = bc tc γcon + bi ti γi + bt ht γt = 1,48kN/m
Characteristic value of a dead load: g1,k = 1kN/m2 b = 0,74kN/m
Characteristic value of a variable load: qk = (2,0 + 0,8)kN/m2 b = 2,07kN/m
([EN 1991-1-1] Tab. 6.2)
(Note: including partitions with a self-weight >1kN/m ≤ 2,0kN/m wall length)

5.2.3 Static scheme and internal forces analysis

Span of the beam: L = 5,1m
Boundary conditions: Single-span beam with simple supports
Design value of the load: fd = (g0,k + g1,k)γG + qk γQ = 6,1kN/m
Design bending moment: MEd = (1/8)fd L2 = 19,83kNm
Design shear force: VEd = fd L/2 = 15,55kN

5.2.4 Verification of the TCC beam at ultimate limit states (ULS) at the
beginning of the lifetime
5.2.4.1 Material properties

5.2.4.1.1 Part 1 – concrete slab

Modulus of elasticity: E1 = Ecm = 31,0e06kPa

5.2.4.1.2 Part 2 – timber joist

Modulus of elasticity: E2 = E0,mean = 11,0e06kPa

131
5.2.4.2 Slip modulus and γ-factor
Slip modulus for the SLS: Kser = n Kser,1 = 24000kN/m
Slip modulus for the ULS: Ku = (2/3)Kser = 16000kN/m ([EN 1995-1-1] Eq. 2.1)
Slip modulus: K = Ku = 16000kN/m
1
 π 2 E1 A1 s
γ-factor: γ1 =  1 +  = 0,20
 K L2 
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.5)
γ2 = 1 ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.4)

5.2.4.3 Effective bending stiffness

Distance between the centroid of the timber joist
 1 E1 A1 0 ,5( h1  2.t i  h2 )
and the centre of gravity: a2 = = 0,0945m
 1 E1 A1   2 E2 A2
Distance between the centroid of the concrete slab
and the centre of gravity: a1 = 0 ,5( h1  2t d  h2 )  a2 = 0,0685m
Effective bending stiffness: (EI)ef = E1 I1 + γ1 E1 A1 a12 +
+ E2 I2 + γ2 E2 A2 a22 = 5359,9kNm2
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.1)

5.2.4.4 Cross section analysis

5.2.4.4.1 Normal stresses in the concrete section

 1 E1 a1 M Ed
Stresses in the concrete section: 1 = = 1,63MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.7)
0 ,5 E1 h1 M Ed
 m,1 = = 4,01MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.8)
Stress at the top of the concrete section: σc,t = -σ1 – σm,1 = -5,65MPa
Design compressive strength
of the concrete: fcd = fck / γc = 16,6MPa ([EN 1992-1-1], Eq. 3.15)
Verification of the compressive stress
at the top of the concrete section: σc,t / fcd = 0,34 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
Stress at the bottom of the concrete
section: σc,b = -σ1 + σm,1 = 2,38MPa
Design tensile strength of the concrete: fctd = fctk0,05 / γc = 1,2MPa ([EN 1992-1-1], Eq. 3.15)
Verification of the tensile stress
at the bottom of the concrete section: σc,b / fctd = 1,98 > 1,0 => NOT SATISFIED

132
5.2.4.4.2 Normal stresses in the timber section
 2 E 2 a 2 M Ed
Stresses in the timber section: 2 = = 3,85MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.7)
0 ,5 E 2 h2 M Ed
 m,2 = = 4,48MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.8)
Stress at the top of the timber section: σt,t = σ2 – σm,2 = -0,63MPa
Stress at the bottom of the timber
section: σt,b = σ2 + σm,2 = 8,32MPa
Design bending strength of the timber: fm,d = kmod fm,k / γM = 14,76MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Design tensile strength of the timber: ft,0,d = kmod ft,0,k / γM = 8,61MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Verification of the timber section: σ2 / ft,0,d + σm,2 / fm,d =
= 0,75 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 6.17)

5.2.4.4.3 Shear stresses in the timber section

Height h: h = 0,5h2 + a2 = 0,2045m
0 ,5 E 2 h 2
Maximal shear stress:  2 ,max  V Ed = 0,667MPa
( EI )ef
Design shear strength of the timber: fv,d = kmod fv,k / γM = 2,46MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Verification of the timber section: τ2,max / fv,d =
= 0,27 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 6.13)

5.2.4.4.4 Verification of the fasteners

 1 E1 A1 a1 s
Load on the fasteners in a row: F1  VEd = 6,64kN
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1],Eq. B.10)
0 ,8
 k 
f ax ,k dlef
Characteristic withdrawal capacity: Fax , ,Rk    =
1,2 cos   sin   350 
2 2

133
 = 9,6kN ([ETA 013/0029] Tab. 2.3)
Characteristic load bearing capacity
per screw: FRk,1 = cos α Fax,α,Rk = 6,78kN
FRk,1 = cos α ftens,k = 12,02kN
FRk = min(FRk,1, FRk,2) = 6,78kN
([ETA 013/0029] Tab. 2.3)
0,9
Effective number of screws: nef = n = 1,86 ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 8.41)
Design load bearing capacity of the screws
in a row: FRd = nef kmod FRk / γM = 7,78kN
Verification of the fasteners: F1 / FRd = 0,85 < 1,0 => SATISFIED

5.2.4.5 Cross section analysis considering only the effective compressed height
of the concrete
Note: In order to satisfy the condition for the tensile stress at the bottom of the
concrete section, we are able to consider only the effective compressed height of
the concrete. This calculation was developed by Lukáš Surovec & Miloš Sliv-
anský in 2015 and it is based on these conditions:
 γ-factor is calculated for the full concrete section
 tensile strength of the concrete is neglected.

5.2.4.5.1 Effective bending stiffness

Quadratic equation: a12(4γ12E1b1) + a1[2E2A2(1+γ1)] – E2A2(2h1+2ti+h2) = 0
Coefficients of quadratic equation: A = 4γ12E1 b1 = 3968905,4kN/m
B = 2E2 A2(1+γ1) = 584659,3kN
C = – E2 A2(2h1+2ti+h2) = -95832,0kNm
Distance between the centroid of the concrete slab
 B  B 2  4 AC
and the centre of gravity: a1,ef = = 0,0983m
2A
Effective compressed height
of the concrete: x = 2γ1 a1,ef = 0,0409m
Distance between the centroid of the timber joist
and the centre of gravity: a2 = h1  0 ,5 x  t d  0 ,5h2  a1,ef = 0,0793m
Effective cross section properties
of the concrete slab: A1,ef = b1 x = 3,03e-02m2
I1,ef = (b1 x3)/12 = 4,216e-06m4
Effective bending stiffness: (EI)ef = E1 I1,ef + γ1 E1 A1,ef a1,ef2 +
+ E2 I2 + γ2 E2 A2 a22 = 4511,9kNm2

134
5.2.4.5.2 Stresses in the concrete section
 1 E1 a1,ef M Ed
Stresses in the concrete effective section:  1 = = 2,79MPa
( EI )ef
0 ,5 E1 xM Ed
 m,1 = = 2,79MPa
( EI )ef
Stress at the top of the concrete section: σc,t = -σ1 – σm,1 = -5,58MPa
Design compressive strength
of the concrete: fcd = fck / γc = 16,6MPa ([EN 1992-1-1] Eq. 3.15)
Verification of the compressive stress
at the top of the concrete section: σc,t / fcd = 0,33 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
Stress at the bottom of the concrete
effective section: σc,b = -σ1 + σm,1 = 0,0MPa
Design tensile strength of the concrete: fctd = fctk0,05 / γc = 1,2MPa ([EN 1992-1-1] Eq. 3.15)
Verification of the tensile stress
at the bottom of the concrete section: σc,b / fctd = 0,0 < 1,0 => SATISFIED

5.2.4.5.3 Stresses in the timber section

 2 E 2 a 2 M Ed
Stresses in the timber section: 2 = = 3,83MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1] Eq. B.7)
0 ,5 E 2 h2 M Ed
 m,2 = = 5,32MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1] Eq. B.8)
Stress at the top of the timber section: σt,t = σ2 – σm,2 = -1,49MPa
Stress at the bottom of the timber
section: σt,b = σ2 + σm,2 = 9,15MPa
Design bending strength of the timber: fm,d = kmod fm,k / γM = 14,76MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Design tensile strength of the timber: ft,0,d = kmod ft,0,k / γM = 8,61MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Verification of the timber section: σ2 / ft,0,d + σm,2 / fm,d =
= 0,81 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
([EN 1995-1-1] Eq. 6.17)

135
5.2.4.5.4 Shear stresses in the timber section
Height h: h = 0,5h2 + a2 = 0,1893m
0 ,5 E 2 h 2
Maximum shear stress:  2 ,max  V Ed = 0,679MPa
( EI )ef
Design shear strength of the timber: fv,d = kmod fv,k / γM = 2,46MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Verification of the timber section: τ2,max / fv,d =
= 0,28 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
([EN 1995-1-1] Eq. 6.13)

5.2.4.5.5 Verification of the fasteners

 1 E 1 A1 ,ef a 1 ,ef s
Load on the fasteners in a row: F1  V Ed = 6,62kN
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.10)
0 ,8
 k 
f ax ,k dlef
Characteristic withdrawal capacity: Fax , ,Rk    =
1,2 cos   sin   350 
2 2

= 9,6kN
([ETA 13/0029], Tab. 2.3)
Characteristic load bearing capacity
per screw: FRk,1 = cos α Fax,α,Rk = 6,78kN
FRk,1 = cos α ftens,k = 12,02kN
FRk = min(FRk,1, FRk,2) = 6,78kN
([ETA 13/0029], Tab. 2.3)
0,9
Effective number of screws: nef = n = 1,86 ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 8.41)
Design load bearing capacity of the screws
in a row: FRd = nef kmod FRk / γM = 7,78kN
Verification of the fasteners: F1 / FRd = 0,85 < 1,0 => SATISFIED

5.2.5 Verification of the TCC beam at ultimate limit states (ULS) at the end of
the lifetime
5.2.5.1 Material properties

5.2.5.1.1 Part 1 – concrete slab

Modulus of elasticity: E1,g = Ecm / (1+φ)= 8,86e06kPa
E1,q = Ecm / (1+ψ2 φ)= 17,71e06kPa
E 1 ,g ( g 0 ,k  g 1 ,k ) G  E 1 ,q q k  Q
E1 
( g 0 ,k  g 1 ,k ) G  q k  Q
= 13,54e03MPa

136
5.2.5.1.2 Part 2 – timber joist
Modulus of elasticity: E2,g = E0,mean / (1+kdef)= 6,88e06kPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.7)
E2,q = E0,mean / (1+ψ2 kdef) =
= 9,32e06kPa ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.10)
E 2 ,g ( g 0 ,k  g 1 ,k ) G  E 2 ,q q k  Q
E2  = 8,17e03MPa
( g 0 ,k  g 1 ,k ) G  q k  Q

5.2.5.2 Slip modulus and γ-factor

Slip modulus for the SLS: Kser,g = n Kser,1 / (1 + kdef) =
= 15000kN/m ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.9)
Kser,q = n Kser,1 / (1 + ψ2 kdef) =
= 20339kN/m ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.12)
K ser ,g ( g 0 ,k  g 1 ,k ) G  K ser ,q q k  Q
K ser 
( g 0 ,k  g 1 ,k ) G  q k  Q
Kser = 17821kN/m
Slip modulus for the ULS: Ku = (2/3)Kser = 11881kN/m
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.1)
Slip modulus: K = Ku = 11881kN/m
1
 π 2 E1 A1 s
γ-factor: γ1 =  1 +  = 0,309
 K L2 
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.5)
γ2 = 1 ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.4)

5.2.5.3 Effective bending stiffness

Distance between the centroid of the timber joist
 1 E1 A1 0 ,5( h1  2.t i  h2 )
and the centre of gravity: a2 = = 0,0891m
 1 E1 A1   2 E2 A2
Distance between the centroid of the concrete slab
and the centre of gravity: a1 = 0 ,5( h1  2t d  h2 )  a2 = 0,0739m
Effective bending stiffness: (EI)ef = E1 I1 + γ1 E1 A1 a12 +
+ E2 I2 + γ2 E2 A2 a22 = 3620,5kNm2
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.1)

137
5.2.5.4 Cross section analysis

5.2.5.4.1 Stresses in the concrete section

 1 E1 a1 M Ed
Stresses in the concrete section: 1 = = 1,69MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.7)
0 ,5 E1 h1 M Ed
 m,1 = = 2,60MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.8)
Stress at the top of the concrete section: σc,t = -σ1 – σm,1 = -4,29MPa
Design compressive strength
of the concrete: fcd = fck / γc = 16,6MPa ([EN 1992-1-1], Eq. 3.15)
Verification of the compressive stress
at the top of the concrete section: σc,t / fcd = 0,257 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
Stress at the bottom of the concrete
section: σc,b = -σ1 + σm,1 = 0,90MPa
Design tensile strength of the concrete: fctd = fctk0,05 / γc = 1,2MPa ([EN 1992-1-1], Eq. 3.15)
Verification of the tensile stress
at the bottom of the concrete section: σc,b / fctd = 0,75 > 1,0 => NOT SATISFIED

5.2.5.4.2 Stresses in the timber section

 2 E 2 a 2 M Ed
Stresses in the timber section: 2 = = 3,99MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.7)
0 ,5 E 2 h2 M Ed
 m,2 = = 4,92MPa
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.8)
Stress at the top of the timber section: σt,t = σ2 – σm,2 = -0,94MPa
Stress at the bottom of the timber
section: σt,b = σ2 + σm,2 = 8,91MPa
Design bending strength of the timber: fm,d = kmod fm,k / γM = 14,76MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Design tensile strength of the timber: ft,0,d = kmod ft,0,k / γM = 8,61MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Verification of the timber section: σ2 / ft,0,d + σm,2 / fm,d =
= 0,80 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 6.17)

138
5.2.5.4.3 Shear stresses in the timber section
Height h: h = 0,5h2 + a2 = 0,1991m
0 ,5 E 2 h 2
Maximal shear stress:  2 ,max  V Ed = 0,695MPa
( EI )ef
Design shear strength of the timber: fv,d = kmod fv,k / γM = 2,46MPa
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 2.14)
Verification of the timber section: τ2,max / fv,d =
= 0,28 < 1,0 => SATISFIED
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 6.13)

5.2.5.4.4 Verification of the fasteners

 1 E1 A1 a1 s
Load on the fasteners in a row: F1  VEd = 6,88kN
( EI )ef
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.10)
0 ,8
f ax ,k dlef  k 
Characteristic withdrawal capacity: Fax , ,Rk    =
1,2 cos 2   sin 2   350 
= 9,6kN ([ETA 13/0029], Tab. 2.3)
Characteristic load bearing capacity
per screw: FRk,1 = cos α Fax,α,Rk = 6,78kN
FRk,1 = cos α ftens,k = 12,02kN
FRk = min(FRk,1, FRk,2) = 6,78kN
([ETA 13/0029], Tab. 2.3)
0,9
Effective number of screws: nef = n = 1,86 ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. 8.41)
Design load bearing capacity of the screws
in a row: FRd = nef kmod FRk / γM = 7,78kN
Verification of the fasteners: F1 / FRd = 0,88 < 1,0 => SATISFIED

5.2.6 Verification of the TCC beam at serviceability limit states (SLS) at the
beginning of the lifetime
5.2.6.1 Material properties

5.2.6.1.1 Part 1 – concrete slab

Modulus of elasticity: E1 = Ecm = 31,0e06kPa

139
5.2.6.1.2 Part 2 – timber joist
Modulus of elasticity: E2 = E0,mean = 11,0e06kPa

5.2.6.2 Slip modulus and γ-factor

Slip modulus for the SLS: Kser = n Kser,1 = 24000kN/m
Slip modulus: K = Kser = 24000kN/m
1
 π 2 E1 A1 s
γ-factor: γ1 =  1 +  = 0,283
 K L2 
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.5)
γ2 = 1 ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.4)

5.2.6.3 Effective bending stiffness

Distance between the centroid of the timber joist
 1 E1 A1 0 ,5( h1  2.t i  h2 )
and the centre of gravity: a2 = = 0,1063m
 1 E1 A1   2 E2 A2
Distance between the centroid of the concrete slab
and the centre of gravity: a1 = 0 ,5( h1  2t d  h2 )  a2 = 0,0567m
Effective bending stiffness: (EI)ef = E1 I1 + γ1 E1 A1 a12 +
+ E2 I2 + γ2 E2 A2 a22 = 5825,1kNm2
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.1)

5.2.6.4 Deflection at the beginning of the lifetime

Characteristic value of the load: fk = g0,k + g1,k + qk = 4,3kN/m
5 f k L4
Deflection of the beam: w = 6,5mm
384 ( EI )ef
Limit deflection: wlim = L/250 = 20,4mm
Verification of the deflection: w/wlim = 0,32 < 1,0 => SATISFIED

5.2.7 Verification of the TCC beam at serviceability limit states (SLS) at the
end of the lifetime
Note: In order to satisfy paragraph 2.2.3 of EN 1995-1-1 it is necessary to calcu-
late final deflection by the quasi-permanent load considering creep and instant
deflection by the rest of the variable load with no creep.

5.2.7.1 Material properties

5.2.7.1.1 Part 1 – concrete slab

Modulus of elasticity: E1,inst = Ecm = 31,0e06kPa
E1,fin = Ecm / (1 + φ) = 8,86e06kPa

140
5.2.7.1.2 Part 2 – timber joist
Modulus of elasticity: E2,inst = E0,mean = 11,0e06kPa
E2,fin = E0,mean / (1 + kdef) = 6,88e06kPa

5.2.7.2 Slip modulus and γ-factor

Slip modulus for the SLS: Kser,inst = n Kser,1 = 24000kN/m
Kser,fin = n Kser,1 / (1 + kdef) = 15000kN/m
Slip modulus: Kinst = Kser,inst = 24000kN/m
Kfin = Kser = 15000kN/m
1
 π 2 E1,inst A1 s
γ-factor: γ1,inst = 1 +  = 0,283
 K inst L2 
 
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.5)
1
 π 2 E1,fin A1 s
γ1,fin = 1 +  = 0,463
 K fin L2 
 
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.5)
γ2 = 1 ([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.4)

5.2.7.3 Effective bending stiffness

Distance between the centroid of the timber joist
 1,inst E1,inst A1 0,5( h1  2.t i  h2 )
and the centre of gravity: a 2,inst = = 0,1063m
 1,inst E1,inst A1   2 E 2 A2
 1, fin E1, fin A1 0,5( h1  2.t i  h2 )
a 2, fin = = 0,0952m
 1, fin E1, fin A1   2 E 2 , fin A2
Distance between the centroid of the concrete slab
and the centre of gravity: a1,inst = 0,5(h1  2t d  h2 )  a2,inst = 0,0567m
a1,fin = 0,5(h1  2t d  h2 )  a2, fin = 0,0678m
Effective bending stiffness: (EI)ef,inst = E1,inst I1 + γ1,inst E1,inst A1 a1,inst2 + E2,inst I2
+ γ2 E2,inst A2 a2,inst2 = 5825,1kNm2
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.1)
(EI)ef,fin = E1,fin I1 + γ1,fin E1,fin A1 a1,fin2 + E2,fin I2
+ γ2 E2,fin A2 a2,fin2 = 3145,9kNm2
([EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.1)

5.2.7.4 Deflection at the end of the lifetime

Quasi-permanent value of the load: fqp = g0,k + g1,k + ψ2 qk = 2,84kN/m
The rest of the variable load: fq = (1 - ψ2) qk = 1,45kN/m
Deflection of the beam by quasi-permanent load

141
 5 f qp L4
considering creep: wqp  = 8,0mm
384 ( EI ) ef , fin
Deflection of the beam by the rest
5 f q L4
of the variable load: wq  = 2,2mm
384 ( EI ) ef ,inst
Final deflection of the beam: wfin = wqp + wq = 10,2mm
Limit deflection: wlim = L/200 = 25,5mm
Verification of the deflection: w/wlim = 0,40 < 1,0 => SATISFIED

5.3 Design example according to the provisions proposed in this report

5.3.1 Input values
5.3.1.1 System

(see example in Sec. 5.2)

single span girder

span 5.1
For the surrounding conditions it assumed that the temperature variation of the
air is less than 20°K, the initial moisture content of the timber is in the range of
the equilibrium moisture content and the moisture change between annual max-
imum und annual minimum moisture content is lower than 6%. In this case the
surrounding conditions can be classified as quasi-constant environmental condi-
tions (see [Dias et al., 2018]). The moisture variations in the timber as well as
temperature variations can be neglected in this quasi-constant environmental
condition.

142
5.3.1.2 Concrete

5.3.1.2.1 Geometrical input values

height 70
height of the crack 25
The depth of the crack was determined by a numerical solution process. The cri-
terion was that the tensile stresses in the concrete become 0.
width 740
effective height 45

5.3.1.2.2 Cross section parameters

area ∙ 33300
section modulus
∙ 249750
6
moment of inertia
∙ 5619375
12

5.3.1.2.3 Material properties

strength class C25/30
[EN 1992-1-1]
Modulus of Elasticity 31000 Tab. 3.1
characteristic compres-
[EN 1992-1-1]
sive cylinder strength at , 25 Tab. 3.1
28 days
[EN 1992-1-1]
tensile strength , , , , 1.8 Tab. 3.1
parameter for the long [EN 1992-1-1]
term effects in compres- 0.85 German Annex
sion NDP for 3.1.6(1)
[EN 1992-1-1]
parameter for the long
0.85 German Annex
term effects in tension
NDP for 3.1.6(2)
[EN 1992-1-1]
partial safety factor 1.5
Tab. 2.1N
[ETA 13/0029]
creep coefficient 2.5
Tab.2.1

143
 [EN 1991-1-1]
density 25 Tab. A.1
[EN 1992-1-1]
shrinkage , 0.00056
Annex B

5.3.1.3 Non-load-bearing interlayer

width 740
thickness 18
[EN 1991-1-1]
density 7 Tab. A.3

5.3.1.4 Timber

5.3.1.4.1 Geometrical input values

strength class C24
width 100
height 220

5.3.1.4.2 Cross section parameters

area ∙ 22000

section modulus ∙ 806667

6
moment of inertia ∙ 88733333
12

5.3.1.4.3 Material properties

Modulus of Elasticity 11000 [EN 338] Tab 1

bending strength , 24 [EN 338] Tab 1

tensile strength , , 14 [EN 338] Tab 1

shear strength , 4 [EN 338] Tab 1

[EN 1995-1-1]
partial safety factor 1.3
Tab.2.3

144
 [EN 1995-1-1]
modification factor 0.8
Tab. 3.1
[EN 1995-1-1]
deformation factor 0.6
Tab. 3.1

characteristic density 350 [EN 338] Tab 1

mean value of the densi- [EN 1991-1-1]

ty 4.2 Tab. A.3
[EN 1995-1-1]
crack factor 0.67
6.1.7
shrinkage , 0

5.3.1.5 Connection properties

Würth Assy Plus VG screws 8x220mm
angle 45 °
diameter 8
length of the screw 220
embedment length of
, 120
the screw in the timber
100 ∙ ,
[ETA 13/0029]
stiffness
12000 Tab. 2.2

[ETA 13/0029]
tensile capacity , 17
Tab. 2.4
partial safety factor , 1.25
[ETA 13/0029]
withdrawal parameter , 11 Tab. 2.4
distance within one row 100
number of rows 2

5.3.2 Loads

finishing load 1

[EN 1991-1-1]
live load 2 6.3.1.2

145
 [EN 1991-1-1]
separating walls 0.8 6.3.1.2
partial safety factor of [EN 1990]
1.35
the permanent load Tab. A1.2(b)
partial safety factor of [EN 1990]
1.5
the live load Tab. A1.2(b)
share of the permanent
[EN 1990]
live load at the total live 0.3
Tab. A1.1
load
width 740
, ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
Dead load of the struc-
ture 1.48

Dead load due to finish-

ing , ∙ 0.74

live load ∙ 2.07

permanent part of the

live load , ∙ 0.622

short term live load , 1 ∙ 1.45

5.3.2.1 Design values of the loads

Dead load ∙ , , 3

Live load (permanent) , ∙ , 0.932

Live load (short term) , ∙ , 2.18

146
5.3.3 ULS-design at t = 0 years
5.3.3.1 Bending stiffness
Modulus of Elasticity of [EN 1995-1-1]
cross section 1 31000 Eq. 2.7
Modulus of Elasticity of [EN 1995-1-1]
cross section 2 11000 Eq. 2.7
[EN 1995-1-1]
stiffness of the connec- Eq. 2.7 &
tion in the SLS 24000 [EN1995-1-1]
2.3.2.2(4)
stiffness of the connec- 2 [EN 1995-1-1]
tion in the ULS ∙ 16000 Eq. 2.1
3
1
composite coefficient of [EN 1995-1-1]
1 ∙ ∙ ∙
cross section 1 ∙ Eq. B5
0.29
composite coefficient of [EN 1995-1-1]
1
cross section 1 Eq. B4
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section ∙ ∙ ∙ 2 2
2 to the centroid of the ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
composite cross section 97.05
[EN 1995-1-1] Eq. B.6
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section
1 to the centroid of the 78.45
2 2
composite cross section
effective bending stiff- ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
ness ∙ ∙ 5272063530061
[EN 1995-1-1] Eq. B1

147
5.3.3.2 Consideration of inelastic strains
effective shrinkage at
0 see Sec. 4.4.4
this point in time
∙ , ,
resulting inelastic strain
0
cantilever between the
centroids of the cross 176
sections 1 and 2 2 2

∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
coefficient , ∙ 3786
∙ ∙
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
characteristic fictitious
, ∙ 0 see Sec. 4.3.3.2
load
partial safety factor of
, 1.5 see Sec. 2.4.2
shrinkage
design value of the ficti- , , ∙
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
tious load 0
permanent uniformly
distributed load , 3.93

,
modification coefficient , 1
∙ ∙
of the bending stiffness ∙
∙ ∙ ∙
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
effective bending stiff-
, ∙ ,
ness with respect to the see Sec. 4.3.3.2
inelastic strains 5272063530061

5.3.3.3 Forces

5.3.3.3.1 External forces

see Sec. 4.3.3.2
coefficient 0.8 and [Schänzlin,
2003]
permanent bending
moment due to external , , , , ∙
8
load 12.778

148
permanent bending
moment due to inelastic , , , ∙ , ∙ 0
strains 8

resulting bending mo- , , , , , , , ,

ment 12.778
Short term bending
moment without inelas- , , , , ∙ 7.07
tic strains 8
Bending moment due to
short term inelastic , , , 0
strain
short term bending mo- , , , , , , , ,
ment 7.07

permanent shear force , , , ∙ 10.02

2
∙ ∙
shear force caused by ∙ ∙
∙ ∙
inelastic strain ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
0
see Sec. 4.3.3.2, [Schänzlin, 2003] and [Schänzlin and Fragiacomo, 2007]
resulting permanent
, , , , 10.02
shear force

short term shear force , , , ∙ 5.55

2

5.3.3.3.2 Internal forces of the single components

permanent bending ∙ ∙
, , , ,
moment in the concrete ,
cross section 0.42
permanent bending ∙ ∙
, , , ,
moment in the timber ,
cross section 2.37
, , ,
,
permanent normal force
, , , ,
in timber and concrete
56.925

149
short term bending mo- ∙ ∙
, , , ,
ment in the concrete ,
cross section 0.234
short term bending mo- ∙ ∙
, , , ,
ment in the timber cross ,
section 1.31
, , ,
,
short term normal force
, , , ,
in timber and concrete
31.51

5.3.3.4 Stresses in the concrete section and verification

5.3.3.4.1 Stresses
permanent stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 1.709
the cross section
permanent stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 1.69
in the cross section
short term stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 0.946
the cross section
short term stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 0.936
in the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the normal force in , , , , , 2.656
the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the bending moment , , , , , 2.63
in the cross section

minimum stress , , , 5.282

maximum stress , , , 0.029

150
5.3.3.4.2 Verification of the stresses in the concrete
design strength in com- , [EN 1992-1-1],
∙ 14.167
pression Eq. 3.15
design strength in ten- , , , , [EN 1992-1-1],
∙ 1.02
sion Eq. 3.16
,
0.373

,
0.029

5.3.3.5 Stresses in the timber cross section and verification

5.3.3.5.1 Normal stresses

permanent stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 2.59
the cross section
permanent stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 2.93
in the cross section
short term stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 1.43
the cross section
short term stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 1.62
in the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the normal force in , , , , , 4.02
the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the bending moment , , , , , 4.56
in the cross section

151
5.3.3.5.1.1 Stresses in the timber cross section and verification

5.3.3.5.1.2 Verification of the normal stresses

design strength in ten- [EN 1995-1-1],
, , ∙ , , 8.62
sion Eq. 2.14

, ∙ ,
design strength in bend- [EN 1995-1-1],
ing Eq. 2.14
14.769
, ,
0.775 [EN 1995-1-1],
, , , Eq. 6.17

5.3.3.5.1.3 Check, whether time period of 3-7 years has to be checked (see Sec.
4.4.2)
, , , ,
0.49
, , ,
, , , ,
0.28
, , ,

Increase of the permanent stresses about 25% in order to cover the possible in-
crease of the stresses in the time period between 3 to 7 years caused by the dif-
ferent temporal development of the creep strain (see Sec. 4.4.2).
1.25 ∙ 0.62 see Sec. 4.4.2
0.9
The period of time between 3 to 7 years may be neglected, if system can be
proofed with an increased permanent stress at the points in time t = 0 years and
t = 50 years (see Sec. 4.4.2). This is valid for t = 0 years. It has to be checked at
time t = 50 years if this equation is still fulfilled. If yes, time period of t = 3-
7 years may be neglected.

5.3.3.5.2 Shear stresses

5.3.3.5.2.1 Determination of the shear stresses

distance from the lower
edge to the centroid of
the composite cross sec- 207
2
tion

152
 , ,
, 0.5 ∙ ∙ ∙
permanent shear stress ,

0.669

[EN 1995-1-1], B.9

, ,
short term shear stress , 0.5 ∙ ∙ ∙ 0.37
,

[EN 1995-1-1], B.9

resulting shear stress , , , 1.04

5.3.3.5.2.2 Verification of the shear

[EN 1995-1-1],
design strength in shear , ∙ , 2.46
Eq. 2.14
,
0.42 [EN 1995-1-1],
, Eq. 6.13

5.3.3.6 Connection

5.3.3.6.1 Forces in the connection

permanent force in the , , ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ , ,

,
connection
4465
[EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.10

short term force in the , , ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ , ,

,
connection
2471
[EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.10
resulting force in the
, , , , 6936
connection

153
5.3.3.6.2 Verification of the connection
, ,
characteristic load car- ,
rying capacity of the , ∙ ∙
1.2 ∙ cos sin
screw in tension .
∙ 9600
350
[ETA 13/0029] Tab.2.3
design value of the load
, ∙ , , 5908
carrying capacity
characteristic load car-
rying capacity due to , 17000
steel failure
design value of the load ,
, 13600
carrying capacity ,

design value of the load , ; , , [EN 1995-1-1]

carrying capacity 5908 Eq. 2.14
design value of the load
carrying capacity of one , , , ∙ ∙ 4177
screw || to the joint 180

numbers of rows 2
design value of the load
, ∙ , , 8355
carrying capacity

0.83
,

5.3.4 SLS-design at t = 0 years

5.3.4.1 Loads
characteristic dead load , , 2.22

characteristic value of
the fictitious load, rep-
resenting the inelastic , 0
strains (here: shrinkage
of concrete)

permanent live load , , 0.622

154
short term live load , , 1.45

5.3.4.2 Effective bending stiffness

effective stiffness of the
∙ 24000
connector 1 2∙ ,
1
composite coefficient of [EN 1995-1-1]
1 ∙ ∙ ∙
cross section 1 ∙ Eq. B5
0.38
composite coefficient of [EN 1995-1-1]
1
cross section 2 Eq. B4

distance from the cen- ∙ ∙

troid of the cross section [EN 1995-1-1],
2 to the centroid of the ∙ 2 2 Eq. B.6
composite cross section ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
109
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section
1 to the centroid of the 66.969
2 2
composite cross section

effective bending stiff- ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ [EN 1995-1-1]

ness ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Eq. B1
5759702176456

5.3.4.3 Effective bending stiffness with respect to the inelastic strains

effective shrinkage at
0 see Sec. 4.4.4
this point in time
∙ , ,
resulting inelastic strain
0
cantilever between the
centroids of the cross 176
sections 1 and 2 2 2

155
 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
, ∙
coefficient ∙ ∙ see Sec. 4.3.3.2
4960

characteristic fictitious
, ∙ 0 see Sec. 4.3.3.2
load
partial safety factor of
, 1
shrinkage
design value of the ficti-
, , ∙ 0 see Sec. 4.3.3.2
tious load
permanent uniformly
distributed load , 2.84

,
modification coefficient , 1
∙ ∙
of the bending stiffness ∙
∙ ∙ ∙
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
effective bending stiff-
, ∙ ,
ness with respect to the see Sec. 4.3.3.2
inelastic strains 5759702176456

5.3.4.4 Deformation
5
∙ , , ∙
384 ,
4.35
5
∙ , ∙ 2.22
384 ,

6.57

5.3.5 ULS-design at t = 50 years

5.3.5.1 Bending stiffness
see design at
, 0.29
t = 0 years
composite creep coefficient
see Sec. 4.4,
2.59
Tab. 11

156
 see Sec. 4.4,
0.75
Tab. 11
see Sec. 4.4,
3.32
Tab. 11
∙ , 2.58 see Sec. 4.4
1 see Sec. 4.4
composite coefficient of
, ∙ 6.44 see Sec. 4.4
cross section 1
composite coefficient of
, ∙ 0.6 see Sec. 4.4
cross section 2
effective Modulus of
Elasticity of cross sec- , 4164
1 ,
tion 1
effective Modulus of
Elasticity of cross sec- , 6875
1 ,
tion 2
stiffness of the connec-
∙ 10909
tion in the SLS 1 2∙ ,

stiffness of the connec- 2

tion in the ULS ∙ 7273
3
1
composite coefficient of 0.58
cross section 1 1 ∙ , ∙ ∙
∙
composite coefficient of
1
cross section 1
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section ∙ ∙ ∙ 2 2
,
2 to the centroid of the ∙ , ∙ ∙ , ∙
composite cross section 60.941
[EN 1995-1-1], Eq. B.6
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section
1 to the centroid of the 115
2 2
composite cross section

157
 , ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ,
effective bending stiff-
∙ ∙ , ∙
ness
2251071546254

5.3.5.2 Consideration of inelastic strains

effective shrinkage at
0.8 see Sec. 4.4.4
this point in time
⋅ , ,
resulting inelastic strain
0.000448
cantilever between the
centroids of the cross 176
sections 1 and 2 2 2

, ∙ ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙
, ∙
coefficient , ∙ , ∙
2795

see Sec. 4.3.3.2

characteristic fictitious
, ∙ 1.25 see Sec. 4.3.3.2
load
partial safety factor of
, 1.5 see Sec. 2.4.2
shrinkage
design value of the ficti- , , ∙
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
tious load 1.88
permanent uniformly
distributed load , 3.93

,
, ∙ ∙
modification coefficient , ,
∙
of the bending stiffness ∙ , ∙ , ∙
1.06
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
effective bending stiff-
, ∙ ,
ness with respect to the see Sec. 4.3.3.2
inelastic strains 2378640086862

158
5.3.5.3 Forces

5.3.5.3.1 External forces

see Sec.
4.3.3.2 and
coefficient 0.8
[Schänzlin,
2003]
permanent bending
moment without the fic- , , , , ∙
8
titious load 12.778
bending moment caused
by the fictitious load , , , ∙ , ∙ 4.89
8
permanent bending , , , , , , , ,
moment 17.664

permanent shear force , , , ∙ 10.02

2
∙ , ∙
shear force caused by , ∙ , ∙
∙
inelastic strain ∙ , ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ 996
see Sec. 4.3.3.2, [Schänzlin, 2003] and [Schänzlin and Fragiacomo, 2007]
resulting permanent
, , , , 9.03
shear force

5.3.5.3.2 Internal forces of the single components

permanent loads
permanent bending
, , , ∙ ∙ , ,
moment in the concrete ,
cross section 0.17
permanent bending
, , , ∙ ∙ , ,
moment in the timber ,
cross section 4.53
permanent normal force , , ,
in timber and concrete ,

, , , ,

46.007

159
5.3.5.4 Stresses in the concrete section and verification

5.3.5.4.1 Stresses
permanent stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 1.382
the cross section
permanent stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 0.696
in the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at
by the normal force in , , 0.946 t = 0 years
the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at
by the bending moment , , 0.936 t = 0 years
in the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the normal force in , , , , , 2.328
the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the bending moment , , , , , 1.63
in the cross section

minimum stress , , , 3.959

maximum stress , , , 0.696

5.3.5.4.2 Verification of the stresses in the concrete

design strength in com- ,
∙ 14.167
pression
design strength in ten- , , , , [EN 1992-1-1]
∙ 1.02
sion Eq. 3.16
,
0.279

,
0.683

160
5.3.5.5 Stresses in the timber cross section and verification

5.3.5.5.1 Normal stresses

5.3.5.5.1.1 Stresses in the timber cross section and verification

permanent stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 2.09
the cross section
permanent stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 5.62
in the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at
by the normal force in , , 1.43 t = 0 years
the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at
by the bending moment , , 1.62 t = 0 years
in the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the normal force in , , , , , 3.52
the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the bending moment , , , , , 7.24
in the cross section

5.3.5.5.1.2 Verification of the normal stresses

design strength in ten-
, , ∙ , , 8.62
sion
design strength in bend-
, ∙ , 14.769
ing
, ,
0.899
, , ,

5.3.5.5.1.3 Check, whether time period of 3-7 years has to be checked (see Sec.
4.4.2)
, , , ,
0.623
, , ,

see design at
0.276
t = 0 years

161
Increase of the permanent stresses about 25% in order to cover the possible in-
crease of the stresses in the time period between 3 to 7 years caused by the dif-
ferent temporal development of the creep strain (see Sec. 4.4.2).
1.25 ∙ 0.779 see Sec. 4.4.2
1.05
The period of time between 3 to 7 years may be neglected, if system can be
proofed with an increased permanent stress at the points in time t = 0 years and
t = 50 years (see Sec. 4.4.2). This is not valid for t = 50 years. Therefore the time
period between 3 and 7 years has to be checked.

5.3.5.5.2 Shear stresses

5.3.5.5.2.1 Determination of the shear stresses

distance from the lower
edge to the centroid of
the composite cross sec- 171
2
tion
, , ,
, 0.5 ∙ ∙ ∙
permanent shear stress ,

0.569

[EN 1995-1-1] B.9

short term shear stress , 0.37 [EN 1995-1-1] B.9

resulting shear stress , , , 0.939

5.3.5.5.2.2 Verification of the shear

design strength in shear
, ∙ , 2.46

,
0.38
,

162
5.3.5.6 Connection

5.3.5.6.1 Forces in the connection

permanent force in the , , , ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ , ,

,
connection
3498
short term force in the see design at
, , 2471
connection t = 0 years
resulting force in the
, , , , 5969
connection

5.3.5.6.2 Verification of the connection

, ,
characteristic load car- ,
rying capacity of the , ∙ ∙
1.2 ∙ cos sin
screw in tension .
∙ 9600
350
[ETA-13/0029], Tab.2.3
design value of the load
, ∙ , , 5908
carrying capacity
characteristic load car-
rying capacity due to , 17000
steel failure
design value of the load ,
, 13600
carrying capacity ,

design value of the load

, , ; , 5908
carrying capacity
design value of the load
carrying capacity of one , , , ∙ ∙ 4177
screw || to the joint 180

numbers of rows 2
design value of the load
, ∙ , , 8355
carrying capacity

0.714
,

163
5.3.6 SLS-design at t = 50 years
5.3.6.1 Loads
characteristic dead load , , 2.22

characteristic value of
the fictitious load, rep-
resenting the inelastic , 1.25
strains (here: shrinkage
of concrete)

permanent live load , , 0.622

short term live load , , 1.45

5.3.6.2 effective bending stiffness

effective stiffness of the
∙ 10909
connector 1 2∙ ,
1
composite coefficient of 0.675
cross section 1 1 ∙ , ∙ ∙
∙
composite coefficient of
1
cross section 2
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section ∙ ∙ ∙ 2 2
,
2 to the centroid of the ∙ , ∙ ∙ , ∙
composite cross section 67.066
[EN 1995-1-1] Eq. B.6
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section
1 to the centroid of the 108
2 2
composite cross section
, ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ,
effective bending stiff-
∙ ∙ , ∙
ness
2413680159485

5.3.6.3 Effective bending stiffness with respect to the inelastic strains

effective shrinkage at
0.8 see Sec. 4.4.4
this point in time
164
 ∙ , ,
resulting inelastic strain
0.000448
cantilever between the
centroids of the cross 176
sections 1 and 2 2 2

, ∙ ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙
, ∙
coefficient , ∙ , ∙
3250

see Sec. 4.3.3.2

characteristic fictitious see Sec.
load , ∙Δ 1.46 4.3.3.2
partial safety factor of
, 1
shrinkage
design value of the ficti- see Sec.
, , ∙ 1.46
tious load 4.3.3.2
permanent uniformly
distributed load , 2.84

,
, ∙ ∙
modification coefficient , ,
∙
of the bending stiffness ∙ , ∙ , ∙
0.941
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
effective bending stiff-
, ∙ , see Sec.
ness with respect to the
2271828097235 4.3.3.2
inelastic strains

5.3.6.4 Deformation
5
∙ , , ∙
384 ,
15.876
see design at
2.22
t = 0 years
18.094

165
5.3.7 ULS-design at t = 3-7 years
5.3.7.1 Bending stiffness
see design at
, 0.29
t = 0 years
composite creep coefficient
see Sec. 4.4,
2.47
Tab. 11
see Sec. 4.4,
1.05
Tab. 11
see Sec. 4.4,
1.7
Tab. 11
∙ , 2.34 see Sec. 4.4
0.5 see Sec. 4.4
composite coefficient of
, ∙ 5.85 see Sec. 4.4
cross section 1
composite coefficient of
, ∙ 0.3 see Sec. 4.4
cross section 2
effective Modulus of
Elasticity of cross sec- , 4522
1 ,
tion 1
effective Modulus of
Elasticity of cross sec- , 8462
1 ,
tion 2
stiffness of the connec-
∙ 15000
tion in the SLS 1 2∙ ,

stiffness of the connec- 2

tion in the ULS ∙ 10000
3
1
composite coefficient of 0.636
cross section 1 1 ∙ , ∙ ∙
∙
composite coefficient of
1
cross section 1

166
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section ∙ ∙ ∙ 2 2
,
2 to the centroid of the ∙ , ∙ ∙ , ∙
composite cross section 59.643
[EN 1995-1-1] Eq. B.6
distance from the cen-
troid of the cross section
1 to the centroid of the 116
2 2
composite cross section
, ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ,
effective bending stiff-
∙ ∙ , ∙
ness
2724764674593

5.3.7.2 Consideration of inelastic strains

effective shrinkage at
0.5 see Sec. 4.4.4
this point in time
∙ , ,
resulting inelastic strain
0.00028
cantilever between the
centroids of the cross 176
sections 1 and 2 2 2

, ∙ ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙
, ∙
coefficient , ∙ , ∙
3528

see Sec. 4.3.3.2

characteristic fictitious see Sec.
load , ∙ 0.988 4.3.3.2
partial safety factor of
, 1.5 see Sec. 2.4.2
shrinkage
design value of the ficti- , , ∙ see Sec.
tious load 1.48 4.3.3.2
permanent uniformly
distributed load , 3.94

167
 ,
, ∙ ∙
modification coefficient , ,
∙
of the bending stiffness ∙ , ∙ , ∙
1.06
see Sec. 4.3.3.2
effective bending stiff-
, ∙ , see Sec.
ness with respect to the
2885840431672 4.3.3.2
inelastic strains

5.3.7.3 Forces

5.3.7.3.1 External forces

see Sec.
4.3.3.2 and
coefficient 0.8
[Schänzlin,
2003]
permanent bending
moment without the fic- , , , , ∙
8
titious load 12.778
bending moment caused
by the fictitious load , , , ∙ , ∙ 3.85
8
permanent bending , , , , , , , ,
moment 16.632

permanent shear force , , , ∙ 10.051

2
∙ , ∙
shear force caused by , ∙ , ∙
∙
inelastic strain ∙ , ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ 938
see Sec. 4.3.3.2, [Schänzlin, 2003] and [Schänzlin and Fragiacomo, 2007]
resulting permanent
, , , , 9.11
shear force

168
5.3.7.3.2 Internal forces of the single components
permanent bending ∙ ∙
, , , , ,
moment in the concrete ,
cross section 0.146
permanent bending ∙ ∙
, , , , ,
moment in the timber ,
cross section 4.33
, , ,
,
permanent normal force
, , , ,
in timber and concrete
47.319

5.3.7.4 Stresses in the concrete section and verification

5.3.7.4.1 Stresses
permanent stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 1.421
the cross section
permanent stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 0.586
in the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at
by the normal force in , , 0.946 t = 0 years
the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at
by the bending moment , , 0.936 t = 0 years
in the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the normal force in , , , , , 2.367
the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the bending moment , , , , , 1.52
in the cross section

minimum stress , , , 3.89

maximum stress , , , 0.845

169
5.3.7.4.2 Verification of the stresses in the concrete
design strength in com- ,
pression ∙ 14.167

design strength in ten- , , , , [EN 1992-1-1]

sion ∙ 1.02 Eq. 3.16
,
0.275

,
0.828

5.3.7.5 Stresses in the timber cross section and verification

5.3.7.5.1 Normal stresses

5.3.7.5.1.1 Stresses in the timber cross section and verification

permanent stress caused
,
by the normal force in , , 2.15
the cross section
permanent stress caused
, ,
by the bending moment , , 5.36
in the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at t
by the normal force in , , 1.43 = 0 years
the cross section
short term stress caused
see design at
by the bending moment , , 1.62 t = 0 years
in the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the normal force in , , , , , 3.58
the cross section
resulting stress caused
by the bending moment , , , , , 6.99
in the cross section

170
5.3.7.5.1.2 Verification of the normal stresses
design strength in ten-
, , ∙ , , 8.62
sion
design strength in bend-
, ∙ , 14.769
ing
, ,
0.889
, , ,

5.3.7.5.2 Shear stresses

5.3.7.5.2.1 Determination of the shear stresses

distance from the lower
edge to the centroid of
the composite cross sec- 170
2
tion
, , ,
, 0.5 ∙ ∙ ∙
permanent shear stress ,

0.583

[EN 1995-1-1] B.9

short term shear stress , 0.37 [EN 1995-1-1] B.9

resulting shear stress , , , 0.953

5.3.7.5.2.2 Verification of the shear

design strength in shear , ∙ , 2.46

,
0.387
,

171
5.3.7.6 Connection

5.3.7.6.1 Forces in the connection

permanent force in the , , , ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ , ,

,
connection
3562
short term force in the see design at
, , 2471
connection t = 0 years
resulting force in the
, , , , 6034
connection

5.3.7.6.2 Verification of the connection

, ,
characteristic load car- ,
rying capacity of the , ∙ ∙
1.2 ∙ cos sin
screw in tension .
∙ 9600
350
design value of the load
, ∙ , , 5908
carrying capacity
characteristic load car-
rying capacity due to , 17000
steel failure
design value of the load ,
, 13600
carrying capacity ,

design value of the load

, , ; , 5908
carrying capacity
design value of the load
carrying capacity of one , , , ∙ ∙ 4177
screw || to the joint 180

numbers of rows 2
design value of the load
, ∙ , , 8355
carrying capacity

0.722
,

172
5.3.8 SLS-design at t = 3-7 years
Since the creep deformations of the concrete, of the timber as well as of the con-
nection have not yet reached their final values, the deformation at the time peri-
od of 3 to 7 years is lower than the deformation at the point in time of 50 years.
Therefore the serviceability limit state does not be checked for the time period
between 3 and 7 years.

173
174
6. Summary, conclusions and outlook
6.1 Summary and conclusion
Timber-concrete-composite systems combine the advantages of pure timber
decks with the advantages of pure concrete decks. In order to benefit from these
advantages, the composite structure has to be designed. This design process is
influenced by various parameters such as
 Influences due to changing environmental conditions such as temperature
and/or relative humidity
 Influence of the erection process
 Behaviour of the connections between timber and concrete
 Non-linearity of the concrete
 Long term behaviour of the components
In this report the current state of the art regarding these issues is summarized.
The first step in a design process is to determine the loads, to choose the material
and to estimate a first dimension of the cross section. For the design of timber
concrete composite structures this step is quite similar to the design of pure tim-
ber or pure concrete slabs. The major difference is that the effect of inelastic
strains caused by temperature variation, shrinkage of concrete and swell-
ing/shrinkage of timber has to be considered in the ULS as well as in the SLS.
Most of the values are already given in the [EN1990] series. However the partial
safety factor for the consideration of shrinkage is not given. A first attempt for
this value is shown in this report.
The next important step in the design is to choose an appropriate connection be-
tween timber and concrete. One major focus of the recent research and devel-
opment was the determination of the properties of these connections. Therefore
various connection devices exist. Some of them have a technical approval. The
range of application of these connections depends on the type of load transfer, so
it is up to the designer to choose the best connections. The summary of the most
often used connection devices and a summary of the systems with a technical
approval are given in the Sec. 0 of this report.
The connections between timber and concrete (except glued connections) are
flexible connections, so forces in the connections will lead to deformations.
These deformations in the joint between timber and concrete reduce the effec-
tiveness of the composite action. In order to consider these deformations various
methods for the evaluation of the internal forces have been proposed (see Sec. 0
and Annex B). Some of these methods have been derived in order to model tim-
ber-timber-composite beams. So these methods can be used if the properties of
concrete are considered in the evaluation of the forces. One influencing property

175
of concrete is that it cracks in tension. So during the evaluation of the force only
the effective concrete cross section dimensions can be considered. Another im-
portant parameter is the long term behaviour of both materials and the connec-
tions. Since a composite beam is a hyper static system, the long term behaviour
(as creep of the components timber, concrete and connection and inelastic
strains) leads to a stress-redistribution within the composite cross section. This
stress-redistribution itself influences the creep deformation. Besides, the creep
strain of timber does not develop affine to the creep strain of concrete, leading to
critical points in time. Therefore in Sec. 0 the determination of the internal forc-
es in the short as well as in the long term is introduced with respect to the most
important influences as creep, shrinkage and flexibility of the connections, con-
cluded with an example of the design for quasi permanent climate.
6.2 Outlook
Despite this state-of-the-art-report there are several open questions when design-
ing and realizing timber-concrete-composite structures. Some of these open
questions are:
 Reliability and partial safety factors: the internal forces are strongly influ-
enced by the stiffness of the components. At the moment it is assumed,
that the mean values are precise enough for the evaluation of the internal
forces. The question remains, whether there should be an upper and a
lower limit of the stiffness in order to determine the decisive internal forc-
es?
 Continuous beams: Most of the research has been focused on single span
systems. However the question is, whether these results can be transferred
to continuous systems?
 Cracking of concrete: Concrete in tension cracks. In certain circumstances
the connection device is anchored in the cracked area. Is there any influ-
ence of the cracks on the properties of the connection?
 Material: Most of the research has been done with "normal" materials.
However it is expected, that a new combination of materials or use of ma-
terials with a higher performance will lead to new open questions, which
cannot be covered be the current state-of-the-art.
 Dimensions: The research and development focusses on buildings. In
buildings the slab sizes are smaller compared to bridges. Is there any in-
fluence on the dimensions?
So the list of open questions could be continued, showing that there is
knowledge about the design and the realization of timber-concrete-composite
structures, but there are still open questions. So the times ahead will be very in-
novative and interesting on the field of timber-concrete-composite structures.

176
7. References
7.1 References
[AASHO, 1949] AASHO 1949. 5th Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. Washington, D.C.: The American Association
of Highway Officials.
[AASHTO, 1983] AASHTO 1983. Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges 1983. Washington, D.C.: The American Asso-
ciation of Highway Officials.
[Aicher, 1987] Aicher, S.: Bemessung biegebeanspruchter Sandwich-
balken mit dem modifizierten γ-Verfahren. In: Bautech-
nik (1987), No. 3, pp. 79–86, 1987
[Auclair et al., 2016] Auclair, S.; Sorelli, L.; Salenikovich, A.: Simplified
nonlinear model for timber-concrete composite beams.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 117: 30-
42, 2016.
[Baldock and Baldcock, R.H.; McCullough, C.B: Loading test on a
McCullough, 1941] new composite type short span highway bridge combin-
ing concrete and timber in flexure / Oregon State High-
way Department. 1941 (Technical Bulletin No.1. Salem
(USA)), 1941.
[Bejtka and Blaß, Bejtka, I.; Blaß, H. J.: Joints with inclined screws. CIB-
2002] W18/35-7-4, Kyoto, Japan, 2002.
[Blaß et al., 1995] Blaß, H.-J.; Ehlbeck, J.; Linden, M. v. d.; Schlager, M.:
Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von Holz-Beton-
Verbundkonstruktionen. 1995 ( T2710)
[Blaß et al., 1996] Blaß, H.-J.; Ehlbeck, J.; Linden, M. L. R.; Schlager, M.:
Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von Holz-Beton-
Verbundkonstruktionen. bauen mit holz (1996), 5, pp.
392 – 399
[Bou Saïd, 2003] Bou Saìd, E.: Contribution à la modelisation des effets
différes du bois et du béton sous conditions climatiques
variables. Application aux structures mixtes bois-béton,
PhD-thesis, Lyonm 2003

177
[Brunner and Brunner, M.; Schnüriger, M.: Adhesive connection for
Schnüriger, 2006] timber-concrete-composite. 9th World Conference on
Timber Engineering, WCTE 2006, Portland, USA pp.
171, 2006
[Brunner et al., 2007] Brunner, M.; Romer, M.; Schnüriger, M.: Timber-
concrete-composite with an adhesive connector (wet on
wet process). Materials and Structures, 40, 119-126,
2007.
[Bursi et al., 2003] Bursi, O.S.; Ballerini, M.; Piazza, M.; Zandonini, R.;
Fournely, E.; Kuhlmann, U.; Kürschner, K.;Schänzlin,
J.: Shear transfer in composite members: testing, model-
ling, standards and damage. COST C12, 2003 (Interna-
tional Seminar, Lisbon, 19-20 April 2002), p. 21–36
[Calado et al., 2009] Calado L.; Proenca J.; R., G. 2009. ProHiTech WP7 Da-
ta Sheets. Naples.
[Calil, 2006] Calil, J. C. 2006. Handbook for the Design and Con-
struction of Timber Bridges. 9th World Conference on
Timber Engineering, WCTE 2006, Portland, USA,
2006.
[Capretti et al., 1998] Capretti, S.; Ceccotti, A.; del Senno, M.; Lauriola, M.:
On the Experimental Determination of Strength and De-
formation Characteristics of Timber-Concrete Compo-
site Joints. 5th World Conference on Timber Engineer-
ing, WCTE 1998, Montreux, Switzerland, 1998.
[Ceccotti, 1995] Ceccotti, A.: STEP lecture E13: Timber-concrete com-
posite structures. Timber Engineering – STEP 2. The
Netherlands, 1995
[Ceccotti, 2002] Ceccotti, A.: Composite concrete-timber structures.
Progress in Structural Engineering Materials, 4, 264-
275, 2002.
[Crews and Gerber, Crews, K.; Gerber, C.: Development of design proce-
2010] dures for timber concrete composite floors in Australia
and New Zealand. CIB-W18/43-7-5, Nelson - New Zea-
land, 2010.
[CSA, 2006] CSA. Canadian Highway Bridge design Code. Ontario,
Canada: Canadian Standards Association 2006.
[Dabaon et al., 1993] Daboan, M.; Tschemmernegg, F.; Hassen, K.; Lateef,
T. A.: Zur Tragfähigkeit von Verbundträgern bei teil-
weiser Verdübelung. Stahlbau 62 (1993), pp. 3–9

178
[Dias and Jorge, Dias, A. M. P. G.; Jorge, L. F. C.: The effect of ductile
2011] connectors on the behaviour of timber-concrete compo-
site beams. Engineering Structures, 33, 3033-3042,
2011.
[Dias et al., 2004] Dias, A. M. P. G.; van de Kuilen, J. W. G.; Cruz, H. M.
P.; Lopes, S. M. R.; Influence of interlayer on the be-
haviour of timber-concrete composites. International
Symposium on advanced timber and timber-composite
elements for buildings - Design, construction, manufac-
turing and fire safety. Florence, Italy: COST E29, 2004.
[Dias et al., 2007] Dias, A. M. P. G.; Lopes, S. M. R.; van de Kuilen, J. W.
G.; Cruz, H. M. P.: Load-carrying capacity of timber-
concrete joints with Dowel-type fasteners. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 133, 720-727, 2007.
[Dias et al., 2010] Dias, A. M. P. G.; Cruz, H. M. P.; Lopes, S. M. R.; van
de Kuilen, J. W.: Stiffness of dowel-type fasteners in
timber-concrete joints. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 163, 257-266,
2010.
[Dias et al., 2015] Dias, A. M. P. G.; Martins, A. R. D.; Simones, L. M. C.;
Providencia, P. M.; Andrade, A. A. M.: Statistical anal-
ysis of timber-concrete connections - Mechanical prop-
erties. Computers & Structures, 155, 67-84, 2015.
[Dias et al., 2018] Dias, A. M. P. G.; Fragiacomo, M.; Harris, R.; Kuklic,
P.; Rajicic, V.; Schänzlin, J.: Technical Specification –
Final Draft - Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures -
Part 1-3: Structural design of timber concrete composite
structures – Final Draft / Project Team CEN/TC 250-
SC5.T2. 2018.
[Dias et al., 2018a] Dias, A. M. P. G.; Fragiacomo, M.; Harris, R.; Kuklic,
P.; Rajicic, V.; Schänzlin, J.: Technical Specification –
Background Document; Eurocode 5: Design of Timber
Structure; Structural design of timber-concrete compo-
site structures – common rules and rules for buildings /
Project Team CEN/TC 250-SC5.T2. 2018.
[Dias, 1999] Dias, A. M. P. G. 1999. Estruturas mistas madeira-
betão. Msc.
[Dias, 2005] Dias, A. M. P. G. 2005. Mechanical behaviour of tim-
ber-concrete joints. PhD, Delft University of Technolo-
gy.

179
[Dias, 2012] Dias, A. M. P. G. 2012. Analysis of the Nonlinear Be-
havior of Timber-Concrete Connections. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 138, 1128-1137.
[Dias, 2016] Dias, A. 2016. Timber-concrete composites – a new part
in Eurocode 5. 14th World Conference on Timber Engi-
neering, WCTE 2016, Vienna, Austria, 2016.
[DIN 1052:1988] DIN 1052: Structural use of timber; design and con-
struction, DIN-Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.,
1988
[DIN EN 1992-1-1, National German Annex to DIN EN 1992-1-1: Euro-
NA] code 2: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbeton-
und Spannbetontragwerken - Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Be-
messungsregeln und Regeln für den Hochbau; Deutsche
Fassung EN 1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2010. DIN-Deutsches
Institut für Normung e.V., 2010
[Dischinger, 1939] Dischinger, F.: Elastische und plastische Verformungen
der Eisenbetontragwerke und insbesondere der Bogen-
brücke. Der Bauingenieur 14 (1939), No. 5 and 6, pp.
53–63
[Döhrer and Raut- Döhrer, A.; Rautenstrauch, K.: Connectors for timber-
enstrauch, 2006] concrete-composite-bridges. CIB-W18/39-7-3, 2006
[Ehlbeck and Larsen, Ehlbeck, J.; Larsen, H. J. 1993. Eurocode 5 – Design of
1993] timber structures: Joints. Society, F. P. (ed.) Proceed-
ings, International workshop on wood connectors. Mad-
ison, USA.
[Ehlbeck et al., 1967] Ehlbeck, J.; Köster, P.; Schelling, W.: Praktische
Berechnung und Bemessung nachgiebig zusammeng-
esetzer Holzbauteile. bauen mit Holz (1967), pp. 289 –
294
[EN 13501-1] EN 13501-1: Fire classification of construction products
and building elements - Part 1: Classification using data
from reaction to fire tests; German and English version
prEN 13501-1:2017
[EN 14080] EN 14080 Timber structures - Strength graded structural
timber with rectangular cross section - Part 1: General
requirements; German version EN 14081-1:2016

180
[EN 1990] Eurocode: Basis of structural design; German version
EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 + A1:2005/AC:2010
[EN 1991-1-1] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-
1: General actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed
loads for buildings;
[EN 1991-1-5] EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-
5: General actions - Thermal actions;
[EN 1992-1-1] EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
– Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings; EN
1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2010
[EN 1994-1-1] EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4 - Design of composite steel
and concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings. Brussels: CEN 2004.
[EN 1995-1-1] EN 1995-1-1 Eurocode 5 - Design of timber structures -
Part 1-1: General - Common rules and rules for build-
ings. Brussels: CEN 2004.
[EN 1995-2] EN 1995-2 Eurocode 5 - Design of timber structures -
Part 2: Bridges. Brussels: CEN 2004.
[EN 206-1] EN 206-1: Concrete - Part 1: Specification, perfor-
mance, production and conformity; German version EN
206-1:2017
[EN 26891] EN 26891 - Timber structures - Joints made with me-
chanical fasteners - General principles for the determi-
nation of strength and deformation characteristics. ISO
EN 26891.
[EN 338] EN 338 Structural timber – Strength classes
[ETA 12-0196] ETA 12-0196: Timtec plus VG screw Self-tapping
screws for use in wood-concrete slab kits; SWG
Schraubenwerk Gaisbach GmbH, Am Bahnhof 50, DE-
74638 Waldenburg.
[ETA-13/0029] ETA-13/0029: Self-tapping screws for use in wood-
concrete slab, Adolf Würth GmbH & Co. KG.
[Eyberg, 1981] Eyberg, T.: Geschlossene Darstellung der Spannung-
sumlagerung in Verbundkonstruktionen. Beton- und
Stahlbeton H 12, pp. 301–304, 1981

181
[Foschi, 1974] Foschi, R. O.: Load-slip Characteristics of Nails. Wood
Science, 7, 69-76, 1974.
[Fragiacomo and Fragiacomo, M.; Schänzlin, J.: The Effect Of Moisture
Schänzlin, 2010] And Temperature Variations On Timber-Concrete
Composite Beams. 11th World Conference on Timber
Engineering 2010, WCTE 2010, Myasaki, Japan, pp.
113–120, 2010
[Fragiacomo and Fragiacomo, M.; Schänzlin, J.: Proposal to account for
Schänzlin, 2013] environmental effects in design of timber-concrete
composite beams, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol 39, No. 1 pp. 162-167, 2013
[Fragiacomo, 2000] Fragiacomo, M.: Comportamento a lungo termine di
travi composte legno-calcestruzzo, University of Tri-
este, PhD-thesis, 2000
[Frangi, 2001] Frangi, A.: Brandverhalten von Holz-Beton-
Verbunddecken. ETH Zürich, 2001
[Fries, 2001] Fries, J.: Tragverhalten von Flachdecken mit Hutpro-
filen, PhD-Thesis, Institut für Konstruktion und
Entwurf, University of Stuttgart, 2001, http://elib.uni-
stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2002/985/
[Gelfi et al., 2002] Gelfi, P., Giuriani, E.; Marini, A.: Stud shear connection
design for composite concrete slab and wood beams.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, No. 128, pp.
1544-1550, 2002
[Gerber et al., 2012] Gerber, C., Crews, K.; Shrestha, R.; Design Guide Aus-
tralia and New Zealand - Timber Concrete Composite
Floor Systems. Company, S. T. I. (ed.). Christchurch:
Structural Timber Innovation Company, 2012.
[Gramatikov, 2008] Gramatikov, K.: ProHiTech WP7 Final Report. Civil
Engineering faculty, Skopje, 2008.
[Grosse and Raut- Grosse, M.; Rautenstrauch, K.: Numerical modelling of
enstrauch, 2004] timber and connection elements used in timber-
concrete-composite constructions CIB-W18/37-7-15,
Edinburgh, 2004.

182
[Grosse et al., 2003] Grosse, M.; Hartnack, R.; Lehmann, S.; Rautenstrauch,
K.: Modellierung von diskontinuierlich verbundenen
Holz-Beton-Verbundkonstruktionen. Bautechnik 80
(2003), pp. 534 – 541 and 693 – 701, 2003
[Hamm and Richter, Hamm, P.; Richter, A.: Bemessungs- und Kon-
2009] struktionsregeln zum Schwingungsnachweis von
Holzdecken. Fachtagungen Holzbau 2009 Landesbeirat
Holz Baden-Württemberg e.V., Stuttgart, 2009, pp. 15 –
29. – Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 26. November 2009
[Hamm, 2004] Hamm, P.: Schwingungen von Wohnungsdecken und
Fußgängerbrücken. Holz ... im Zusammenspiel mit an-
deren Baustoffen – Fachtagungen Holzbau 2004, Infor-
mationsdienst Holz, pp. 152–160, 2004.
[Holschemacher et Holschemacher, K.; Selle, R.; Schmidt, J.; Kieslich, H.:
al., 2013] Holz-Beton-Verbund – Betonkalender 2013 pp. 241-
287, 2013
[Hösslin and Ladner, Hösslin, T. V.; Ladner, M.: Untersuchungsbericht 1235-
1996] 2: Prüfung des Haftverbundes zwischen Holz und Beton
unter dynamischer Belastung, 1996.
[Hösslin and Ladner, Hösslin, T. V.; Ladner M.: Untersuchungsbericht 1235-
1996a] 1: Prüfung des Haftverbundes zwischen Holz und Beton
unter statischer Belastung, 1996.
[Hösslin and Ladner, Hösslin, T. V.; Ladner M.: Untersuchungsbericht 1235-
1996b] 3: Prüfung des Haftverbundes zwischen Holz und Beton
unter statischer Belastung 1996.
[Hösslin and Ladner, Hösslin, T. V.; Ladner M.: Untersuchungsbericht 1235-
1996c] 4: Prüfung des Haftverbundes zwischen Holz und Beton
unter statischer Belastung, 1996.
[Hösslin and Ladner, Hösslin, T. V.; Ladner, M.: Untersuchungsbericht 1235-
1998] 5: Prüfung des Haftverbundes zwischen Holz und Beton
unter statischer Belastung 1998.
[JCSS, 2001] Probabilistic model code, Joint Committee on Structural
Safety, 2001

183
[Jorge et al., 2010] Jorge, L.; Schänzlin, J.; Lopes, S.; Cruz, H.; Kuhlmann,
U.: Time-dependent behaviour of timber lightweight
concrete composite floors. Engineering Structures,
ASCE 32 (2010), 12, S. 3966 – 3973, 2010
[Jorge, 2005] Jorge, L. F. d. C.: Estruturas mistas madeira-betão com
a utilização de betões de agregados leves/Timber-
concrete structures using lightweight aggregate con-
crete. (PhD), University of Coimbra, 2005.
[Jung, 2000] Jung, P.: Der gedübelte Brettstapel. 6. Internationales
Holzbau Forum. 2000.
[Junior et al., 2006] Junior, C. C., Dias, A. A., Goés, J. L. N., Cheung, A. B.,
Stamano, G. C., Pigozzo, J. C., Okimoto, F. S.,
Logsdon, N. B., Brazolini, S.; Lana, E. L.: Manual de
Projeto e Construção de Pontes de Madeira, São Carlos,
Brasil, SET-EESC – USP, 2006.
[Kenel and Meierho- Kenel, A.; Meierhofer, U.: Holz / Beton-Verbund unter
fer, 1998] langfristiger Beanspruchung. EMPA Dübendorf (CH),
Abteilung Holz, 1998 (Research report 115/39)
[Kenel, 2000] Kenel, A.: Zur Berechnung von Holz/Beton-
Verbundkonstruktionen. EMPA Dübendorf (CH), Ab-
teilung Holz, 2000 (Report 115/42)
[Kerler, 2016] Kerler, V.: Erste Auswertungen zum Teilsicherheits-
beiwert des Schwindens, Masterthesis HTWG Kon-
stanz, 2016
[Kevarinmaki, 2002] Kevarinmaki, A. Joints with inclined screws. CIB-
W18/35-7-3, Kyoto, Japan, 2002.
[Khorsandnia et al., Khorsandnia, N.; Schänzlin, J.; Valipour, H.; Crews, K.:
2014] Time-dependent behaviour of timber-concrete compo-
site members: Numerical verification, sensitivity and
influence of material properties. Construction and
Building Materials 66, pp. 192–208, 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2014.05.079. – DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.079

184
[Khorsandnia et al., Khorsandnia, N.; Schänzlin, J.; Valipour, H.; Crews, K.:
2015] Coupled finite element-finite difference formulation for
long-term analysis of timber-concrete composite struc-
tures. Engineering Structures 96, pp. 139 – 152, 2015
[Kostica et al., 2018] Kostica, S; Merka, V.; Berba, J.; Hassa, P.; Burgerta, I.;
Cabanea, E.: Timber-mortar composites: The effect of
sol-gel surface modification on the wood-adhesive inter-
face. Composite Structures, No. 201, pp. 828-832, 2018.
[Kreuzinger, 1994] Kreuzinger, H.: Verbundkonstruktionen Holz / Beton.
1994
[Kreuzinger, 1999a] Kreuzinger, H.: Holz-Beton-Verbundbauweise.
Fachtagungen Holzbau 1999-2000: Holzbau für das
neue Jahrhundert, Informationsdienst Holz, pp. 70 – 83,
1999
[Kreuzinger, 1999b] Kreuzinger, H.: Flächentragwerke: Platten, Scheiben
und Schalen; Berechnungsmethoden und Beispiele. In-
formationsdienst Holz: Brücken aus Holz; pp. 43-60;
1999
[Kudla, 2015] Kudla, K.: Short Term Scientific Mission: Notched
Connections for TCC Structures as Part of the Standard.
Cost Action FP1402, 2015
[Kuhlmann and Rieg, Kuhlmann, U.; Rieg, A.: Mittragende Betongurtbreite
2004] niedriger Verbundträger / Institut für Konstruktion und
Entwurf, University of Stuttgart.– AiF-research report
No. 13460 N/1, 2004.
[Kuhlmann and Kuhlmann, U.; Schänzlin, J.: A timber-concrete compo-
Schänzlin, 2008] site slab system for use in tall buildings. Structural En-
gineering International 18, No. 2, pp. 174–178, 2008
[Kuhlmann et al., Kuhlmann, U.; Fries, J.; Rieg, A.: Composite Girders
2001] with Reduced Height. Connections between Steel and
Concrete RILEM, Proceedings PRO 21, RILEM Publi-
cations S.A.R.L., S. 1371–1381, 2001.

185
[Kuhlmann et al., Kuhlamm, U.; Schänzlin, J.; Merkle, R.; Bux, H.:
2006] Brettstapel-Beton-Verbunddecken mit integrierten Slim-
Floor-Profilen / Institut für Konstruktion und Entwurf,
University of Stuttgart. – Research report funded by
Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt AZ 21168, 2006.
[Kupfer and Kirmair, Kupfer, H.; Kirmair, H.: Verformungsmoduln zur
1987] Berechnung statisch unbestimmter Systeme aus zwei
Komponenten mit unterschiedlichen Kriechzahlen.
Bauingenieur 62, pp. 371–377, 1987
[Kupfer, 1958] Kupfer, H.: Kräfteumlagerung durch Kriechen bei un-
terschiedlichen Kriechzahl der verwendeten Baustoffe.
Monographie der DYWIDAG, 1958
[Lehmann, 2004] Lehmann, S.: Untersuchungen zur Bewertung von Ver-
bundbauteilen aus Brettstapelelementen im Flächen-
verbund mit mineralischen Deckschichten. Bauhaus-
Universität Weimar, 2004.
[Magalhães, 1997] Magalhães, L.: Vigas compostas madeira/concreto.
MsC, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 1997.
[McCullough, 1934] McCullough, C. B.: Highway Viaducts in Oregon of
Prefabricated Timber. Wood Preserving News, XII,
1934.
[McCullough, 1943] McCullough, C. B.: Oregon Tests on Composite (Tim-
ber-Concrete) Beams. Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, No. 14, pp. 429-440, 1943.
[Michelfelder, 2006] Michelfelder, B.: Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von
Kerven bei Brettstapel-Beton-Verbunddecken, Universi-
ty of Suttgart, Institut für Konstruktion und Entwurf,
PhD-thesis, 2006. http://nbn-
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-28911
[Möhler, 1956] Möhler, K.: Über das Tragverhalten von Biegeträgern
und Druckstäben mit zusammengesetztem Querschnitt
und nachgiebigen Verbindungsmitteln, habilitation,
Karlsruhe 1956.

186
[Monteiro et al., Monteiro, S. R. S.; Dias, A. M. P. G.; Negrao, J. H. J.
2010] O.: Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of Notched
timber-concrete joints mechanical behaviour. 11th
World Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE
2010. Riva del Garda – Italy, 2010.
[Monteiro et al., Monteira, S. R. S.; Dias, A. M. P. G.; Negrao, J. H. J.
2013] O.: Assessment of Timber-Concrete Connections Made
with Glued Notches: Test Set-Up and Numerical Model-
ing. Experimental Techniques, No. 37, pp. 50-65, 2013.
[Negrao et al., 2010a] Negrao, J. H. J. D.; de Oliveira, C. A. L.; de Oliveira, F.
M. M.; Cachim, P. B.: Glued Composite Timber-
Concrete Beams. I: Interlayer Connection Specimen
Tests. Journal of Structural Engineering - ASCE, No.
136, pp. 1236-1245, 2010.
[Negrao et al., 2010b] Negrao, J. H. J. D.; de Oliveira, F. M. M.; de Oliveria,
C. A. L.; Cachim, P. B.: Glued Composite Timber-
Concrete Beams. II: Analysis and Tests of Beam Spec-
imens. Journal of Structural Engineering - ASCE, No.
136, pp. 1246-1254, 2010.
[Nicolas, 2001] Nicolas, E. A.: Estudo de Ligações em Estruturas Mistas
de Concreto-Madeira. Msc, Universidade Estadual de
Campinas, 2001.
[Niederer, 2008] Niederer, A: Grenzen der Anwendung des -Verfahrens,
HTWG Konstanz, Bachelor-thesis, 2008
[Ollgaard et al., 1971] Ollgaard, J. G., Slutter, R. G.; Fisher, J. W.: Shear
Strength of Stud Connectors in Lightweight and Nor-
mal-Weight Concrete. Engineering Journal - American
Institute of Steel Construction Inc, No. 8, pp. 55, 1971.
[Postulka, 1998] Postulka, J.: Holz-Beton-Verbunddecken 36 Jahre
Erfahrung. Bautechnik, No. 74, pp. 478- 480, 1997.
[Rautenstrauch, Rautenstrauch, K.: Entwicklung der Holz-Beton-
2004] Verbundbauweise. König, G., Holschemacher, K.,
Dehn, F. (eds): Innovationen im Bauwesen, Holz-Beton-
Verbund, S. 1-22. Bauwerk Verlag, Berlin, 2004.

187
[Richart and Wil- Richart, F. E.; Williams, C. B.: Tests of Composite
liams, 1943] Timber And Concrete Beams. University of Illinois Bul-
letin 40, p. 62, 1943.
[Rieg, 2006] Rieg, A.: Verformungsbezogene mittragende Breite nie-
driger Verbundträger, University of Suttgart, Institut für
Konstruktion und Entwurf, PhD-thesis, 2006. http://nbn-
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-29048
[RILEM-CT-111- RILEM-CT-111-CST. Behaviour of timber-concrete
CST, 1992] composite load-bearing structures. RILEM, ed. Proceed-
ings of ACMAR-Ravenna International Symposium,
1992 Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Flor-
ence, Italy, 1992.
[Ruesch and Ruesch, H.; Jungwirth, D.: Stahlbeton, Spannbeton -
Jungwirth, 1976] Berücksichtigung der Einflüsse von Kriechen und
Schwinden auf das Verhalten der Tragwerke. Werner-
Verlag, 1976
[Schäfers and Seim, Schäfers, M.; SEIM, W.: Investigation on bonding be-
2011] tween timber and ultra-high performance concrete
(UHPC), Construction and Building Materials, No. 25,
pp. 3078-3088, 2011.
[Schänzlin and Schänzlin, J.; Fragiacomo, M.: Extension of EC5 Annex
Fragiacomo, 2007] B formulas for the design of timber-concrete composite
structures. CIB-W18/40-10-1, 2007
[Schänzlin, 2003] Schänzlin, J.: Zum Langzeitverhalten von Brettstapel-
Beton-Verbunddecken, Institut für Konstruktion und
Entwurf, University of Stuttgart, PhD-thesis, 2003
[Schänzlin, 2017] Schänzlin, J.: Is it necessary to consider moisture varia-
tions in TCC? Report developed within the work of
CEN/TC250/SC5/PT5.2, unpublished, 2017.
[Schmidt et al., 2003] Schmidt, J.; Schneider, W.; Thiele, R.: Zum Kriechen
von Holz-Beton-Verbundkonstruktionen. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 98 (2003), No. 7, pp. 399–407, 2003

188
[Schmidt et al., 2004] Schmidt, J.; Kaliske, M.; Schneider, W.; Thiele, R.:
Bemessungsvorschlag für Holz-Beton-Verbundbalken
unter Beachtung abgestufter Verbindungsmittel.
Bautechnik 81 (2004), No. 3, pp. 172–179, 2004.
[Schober and Raut- Schober, K. U.; Rautenstrauch, K.: Upgrading and re-
enstrauch, 2006] pair of timber structures with polymer concrete facing
and strengthening. 9th World Conference on Timber
Engineering, WCTE 2006, Portland, USA, 2006.
[Schober et al., 2012] Schober, K.U.; Drass, M.: Advanced interface interac-
tion in timber engineering joints with dowel-type fas-
teners embedded in high-performance ceramic fillers.
12th World Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE
2012, Auckland, New Zealand, 2012.
[Scholz, 2003] Scholz, A.: Ein Beitrag zur Berechnung von Flächen-
tragwerken aus Holz, TU München, PhD-thesis., 2003
[Scholz, 2004] Scholz, A.: Eigenspannungszustände an Verbund-
querschnitten infolge von Dehnungsunterschieden An-
wendung eines neueren Rechenverfahrens auf einem
bewährten Lösungsansatz. Bautechnik 81 (2004), No. 3,
pp. 180–188, 2004
[Schönborn, 2006] Schönborn, F.: Holz-Beton-Fertigteilelemente. PhD,
Leopold-Franzens-Universität, 2006.
[Seim et al., 2016] Seim, W.; Eisenhut, L.; Kühlborn, S.: Adhesive-Bonded
Timber-Concrete Composites - Experimental Investiga-
tion of Thermal-Hygric Effects. 14th World Conference
on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2016, Vienna, Austria,
2016.
[Soriano, 2001] Soriano, J.: Estruturas Mistas em Concreto e em Madei-
ra: Análise de Vigas e Painéis e Aplicações na Con-
strução Civil. PhD, Universidade Estadual de Campinas,
2001.
[TiComTec, 2014] TiComTec: Load Bearing Constructions using Wood-
Concrete-Composite Technique with glued-in HBV ® -
Shear Connectors, 2014.
[Tononi and Usardi, Tononi, D.; Usardi, I.: Moisture transfer and moisture
2010] induced stresses in timber structures under environmen-
tal conditions in Europe. Cost E55 Report, 2010.
[Tschopp Holzbau Tschopp Holzbau AG: Bemessungstabellen. BRESTA,
AG, 2011] 2011.

189
[Van der Linden, van der Linden, M.: Timber Concrete Composite Floors.
1999] PhD, Delft University of Technology, 1999.
[Winter et al., 2010] Winter, S.; Hamm, P.; Richter, A.: Schwingungs- und
Dämpfungsverhalten von Holz- und Holz-Beton-
Verbunddecken. Final report / TU München, Lehrstuhl
für Holzbau und Baukonstruktion. Research report
funded by the BMWA and the AiF, 2010.
[Yeoh et al., 2011] Yeoh, D.; Fragiacomo, M.; de Franceschi, M.; Boon, K.
H.: State of the Art on Timber-Concrete Composite
Structures: Literature Review. Journal of Structural En-
gineering, pp. 1085-1095, 2011.
[Yeoh, 2010] Yeoh, D.: Behaviour and Design of Timber-Concrete
Composite. PhD, University of Canterbury, 2010.
[Z-9.1-342] Z.-9.1-342: SFS VB Schrauben als Verbindungsmittel
in Holz-Beton-Verbundkonstruktionen, SFS intec AG,
Rosenbergsaustraßse 10, 9435 Heerbrugg, Schweiz.
[Z-9.1-445] Z.-9.1-445: Timco II und III Schrauben als
Verbindungsmittel für das Timco Holz-Beton-
Verbundsystem, Sieglinde Amrath – Timco II Vertrieb
Deutschland, Kratellen 15, 78355 Hohenfels.
[Z-9.1-603] Z.-9.1-603: TCC Schrauben als Verbindungsmittel für
das TCC Holz-Beton-Verbundsystem, Com-Ing AG,
Alpsteinstrasse 15, 9050 Appenzell, Schweiz.
[Z-9.1-648] Z.-9.1-648: Würth ASSYplus VG Schrauben als
Verbindungsmittel für Holz-Beton-
Verbundkonstruktionen, Adolf Würth GmbH & Co.KG,
Reinhold-Würth-Straße 12-17, 74653 Künzelsau-
Gaisbach.
[Z-9.1-803] Z.-9.1-803: SWG Timtec VG Plus - Vollgewin-
deschrauben als Verbindungsmittel für Holz-Beton-
Verbundkonstruktionen, Schraubenwerk Gaisbach
GmbH, Am Bahnhof 50, 74638 Waldenburg.

190
[Z-9.1-845] Z.-9.1-845: Star-Drive und RAPID Schrauben als
Verbindungsmittel für das Schmid Schrauben Holz-
Beton-Verbundsystem, Schmid Schrauben Hainfeld
GmbH, Landstal 10, 3170 Hainfeld, Österreich.
[Z-9.1-851] Z.-9.1-851: BiFRi Verbund-Anker als Verbindungsmit-
tel für das FRIEDRICH Holz-Beton-Verbundsystem,
FRIEDRICH UG Verbundsysteme, Hofer Straßse 21,
95233 Helmbrechts.
[Z-9.1-857] Z.-9.1-857: SFix-3 Schubfix-Schraube als
Verbindungsmittel für das Elascon Holz-Beton-
Verbund-System (SFix-3 Elascon HBV-System), Elas-
con GmbH, Am Rosengarten 4F, 79183 Waldkirch.

7.2 Additional references

[Ballerini et al., 2002] Ballerini, M.; Crocetti, R.; Piazza, M.: An experimental
investigation on notched connections for timber-
concrete composite structures. 7th World Conference on
Timber Engineering, WCTE 2002, Shah Alam, Malay-
sia, 2002.
[Bathon and Graf, Bathon, L. H.; Graf, M.: A continuous wood-concrete-
2000] composite system. 6th World World Conference on
Timber Engineering, WCTE 2000, British Columbia –
Canada, 2000.
[Bathon and Clou- Bathon, L.; Clouston, P.: Experimental and numerical
ston, 2004] results on semi-prestressed wood-concrete composite
floor systems for long-span applications. 8th World
Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2004, Lathi,
Finland, 2004.
[Bathon et al., 2006] Bathon, L.; Bletz, O.; Bahmer, R.: Retrofit of Timber
Bridges - A System Approach Using Prefabricated
Wood-Concrete-Composite Element. 9th World Confer-
ence on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2006, Portland,
USA, 2006.

191
[Brunner et al. , Brunner, M.; Romer, M.; Schnüriger, M.: Timber-
2007] concrete-composite with an adhesive connector (wet on
wet process). Materials and Structures, No. 40(1), pp.
119-126, 2007.
[Carvalho and Car- Carvalho, E. P.; Carrasco, E. V. M.: Influence of test
rasco, 2010] specimen on experimental characterization of timber–
concrete composite connections. Construction and
Building Materials, No. 24(8), pp. 1313-1322, 2010.
[Ceccotti et al., 2006] Ceccotti, A.; Fragiacomo, M.; Giordano, S.: Behaviour
of a Timber-Concrete Composite Beam with Glued
Connection at Strength Limit State. 9th World Confer-
ence on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2006, Portland,
USA, 2006.
[Clouston et al., Clouston, P.; Bathon, L. A.; Schreyer, A.: Shear and
2005] bending performance of a novel wood-concrete compo-
site system. Journal of Structural Engineering - ASCE,
No. 131(9), pp. 1404-1412, 2005.
[Clouston et al., Clouston, P.; Civjan, S.; Bathon, L.: Experimental be-
2004] havior of a continuous metal connector for a wood-
concrete composite system. Forest Products Journal, No.
54(6), pp. 76-84, 2004.
[Cloronado et al., Coronado, M.; Triche, M.; Fridley, K.: Wood to Con-
2006] crete Connections. 9th World Conference on Timber
Engineering, WCTE 2006, Portland, USA, 2006.
[Deam et al., 2006] Deam, B. L.; Fragiacomo, M.; Buchanan, A. H.: Con-
nections for composite concrete slab and LVL flooring
systems. Materials and Structures, No. 41(3), pp. 495-
507, 2008.
[Dias, 1999] Dias, A. M. P. G.: Estruturas mistas madeira-betão.
(Msc), Coimbra, 1999.
[Dias, 2005] Dias, A. M. P. G.: Mechanical behaviour of timber-
concrete connections. (PhD), Delft University of Tech-
nology, Delft, 2005.

192
[Dias et al., 2004] Dias, A. M. P. G.; Cruz, H. M. P.; Lopes, S. M. R.; Van
de Kuilen, J. W. G.: Experimental shear-friction tests on
dowel type fasteners timber-concrete connections. 8th
Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2004, Lathi,
Finland, 2004.
[Döhrer and Raut- Döhrer, A.; Rautenstrauch, K.: The Construction of
enstrauch, 2006] Road Bridges as Timber-Concrete Composites. 9th
World Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE
2006, Portland, USA, 2006.
[Fast et al., 2003] Fast, R. S.; Gutkowski, R.; Criswell, M.; Radford, D.:
Durability Studies of Layered Wood-Concrete Connec-
tions and Beams. Retrieved from Colorado, USA, 2003.
[Faust and Selle, Faust, T.; Selle, R.: Properties of Composite Connec-
1999] tions of Timber - LWAC Composite Structures. Re-
trieved from University of Leipzig, Federal Republic of
Germany, 1999.
[Fernandez-Cabo et Fernandez-Cabo, J. L.; Arriaga, F.; Majano-Majano, A.;
al., 2012] Iniguez-Gonzalez, G.: Short-term performance of the
HSB (R) shear plate-type connector for timber-concrete
composite beams. Construction and Building Materials,
No. 30, pp. 455-462, 2012.
[Fragiacomo, 2012] Fragiacomo, M.: Experimental behaviour of a full-scale
timber-concrete composite floor with mechanical con-
nectors. Materials and Structures, No. 45(11), pp. 1717-
1735, 2012.
[Fragiacomo and Fragiacomo, M.; Yeoh, D.: Design of timber-concrete
Yeoh, 2010] composite beams with notched connections. Paper pre-
sented at the CIB-W18/43-7-4, Nelson, New Zealand,
2010.
[Fragiacomo et al., Fragiacomo, M.; Amadio, C.; Macorini, L.: Short- and
2007] long-term performance of the "Tecnaria" stud connector
for timber-concrete composite beams. Materials and
Structures, No. 40(10), 2007.
[Girhammar, 1984] Girhammar, U. A.: Composite Timber and Concrete
Components for Walls IABSE 1984, pp. 369-376, 1984.

193
[Gurkšnys et al., Gurkšnys, K.; Kvedaras, A.; Kavaliauskas, S.: Behav-
2005] iour Evaluation of "Sleeved" Connectors in Composite
Timber-Concrete Floors. Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management, No. 11(4), pp. 277-282, 2005.
[Hemmy and Droese, Hemmy, O.; Droese, S.: Verbunddecke aus Holzbalken
2000] und Elementdecken mit Stahlfaseraufbeton - Versuche
mit Verbundmitteln. Bautechnik, No. 77(4), pp. 221-
228, 2000.
[Holschemacher et Holschemacher, K.; Klotz, S.; Köhler, S.: Ver-
al., 2004] bunddecken aus Stahlfaserbeton und Holz. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau, No. 99(1), pp. 10-15, 2004.
[Inoue et al., 2002] Inoue, M.; Tanaka, K.; Yano, H.; Yoshioka, T.;
Hayakawa, A.; Komatsu, K.; Kawai, N.: Development
of Connecting System Between Reinforced Concrete
and Timber. 7th World Conference on Timber Engi-
neering, WCTE 2002, Shah Alam, Malasya, 2002.
[Jorge, 2005]
[Kanocz and Kuli- Kanocz, J.; Kuliková, D.: High performance timber-
ková, 2006] concrete composite slab systems with fiber reinforced
concrete 9th World Conference on Timber Engineering,
WCTE 2006, Portland, USA, 2006.
[Kanocz et al., 2013] Kanocz, J.; Bajzecerova, V.; Steller, S.: Timber-
Concrete Composite Elements with Various Composite
Connections Part 1: Screwed Connection. Wood Re-
search, No. 58(4), pp. 555-569, 2013.
[Kanocz et al., 2014] Kanocz, J.; Bajzecerova, V.; Steller, S.: Timber -
Concrete Composite Elements with Various Composite
Connections Part 2: Grooved Connection. Wood Re-
search, No. 59(4), pp. 627-638, 2014.
[Kavaliauskas et al., Kavaliauskas, S.; Kvedaras, A.; Valiunas, B.: Mechani-
2007] cal behaviour of timber to concrete connections with
inclined screws. Journal of Civil Engineering and Man-
agement, No. 13(3), pp. 193-199, 2007.

194
[Khorsandnia et al., Khorsandnia, N.: Valipour, H. R.; Crews, K.: Experi-
2012] mental and analytical investigation of short-term behav-
iour of LVL-concrete composite connections and
beams. Construction and Building Materials, No. 37, pp.
229-238, 2012.
[Kuhlmann and Aldi, Kuhlmann, U.; Aldi, P.: Fatigue of timber-concrete-
2008a] composite beams: characterisation of the connection
behaviour through push-out tests. 10th World Confer-
ence on Timber Engineering, WCTE 2008, Miyazaki,
Japan, 2008.
[Kuhlmann and Aldi, Kuhlmann, U.; Aldi, P.: Transferring shear forces in
2008b] timber board stack-concrete composite floors without
screws, research project DGfH/AiF 14497N (Nr. 2008-
8X), 2008.
[Kuhlmann and Kuhlmann, U.; Michelfelder, B.: Connecting concrete
Michelfelder, 2004] and timber - grooves as shear-connectors to realise
composite slabs. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 2004
[Lehmann et al., Lehmann, S.; Grosse, M.; Rautenstrauch, K.: New Con-
2001] nector Types of Laminated Timber-Concrete Composite
Elements. Paper presented at the PRO 22: International
RILEM Symposium on Connections in Timber Struc-
tures, 2001.
[Lehmann et al., Lehmann, S.; Schober, K. U.; Rautenstrauch, K.: Nail-
2003] laminated timber elements in natural surface-composite
with mineral bound layer. Paper presented at the CIB-
W18/36-7-3, Colorado, USA, 2003.
[Leitch et al., 2008] Leitch, K.; Hairstans, R.; Abbott, D.; Dodyk, R.;
McAndrew, S.: Experimental Study of Timber-to-
Concrete Dowel Type Connections Used in Timber
Platform Frame. 10th World Conference on Timber En-
gineering, WCTE 2008, Miyazaki, Japan, 2008.
[Lukaszewska et al., Lukaszewska, E.; Johnsson, H.; Stehn, L.: Connections
2006] for Prefabricated Timber-Concrete Composite Systems.
9th World Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE
2006, Portland, USA, 2006.

195
[Martins et al., 2016] Martins, C. E. J.; Dias, A. M. P. G.; Costa, R. J. T.; San-
tos, P. G. G.: Enviromentally friendly high performance
timber-concrete panel. Construction and Building Mate-
rials, No. 102, pp. 1060-1069, 2016.
[Mascia and Soriano, Mascia, N. T.; Soriano, J.: Benefits of Timber-Concrete
2004] Composite Action in Rural Bridges. Materials and
Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, No. 37(2), pp.
122-128, 2004.
[Meierhofer, 1993] Meierhofer, U.: A Timber/Concrete Composite System.
Structural Engineering International, No. 3(2), pp. 104-
107, 1993.
[Miotto and Dias, Miotto, J. L.; Dias, A. A.: Produção e avaliação de vigas
2010] de madeira laminada colada confeccionadas com lâmi-
nas de Eucalipto. Revista Tecnológica, pp. 35-45, 2010.
[Mohammad et al., Mohammad, M.; Karacabeyli, E.; Quenneville, J.: Lat-
2003] eral resistance of bolted wood-to-concrete connections
loaded parallel or perpendicular to grain. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, No. 30(1), pp. 226-239,
2003.
[Monteiro et al., Monteiro, S. R. S.; Dias, A. M. P. G.; Negrao, J. H. J.
2013] O.: Assessment of Timber-Concrete Connections Made
with Glued Notches: Test Set-Up and Numerical Model-
ing. Experimental Techniques, No. 37(2), pp. 50-65,
2013.
[Moshiri et al., 2012] Moshiri, F.; Garven, C.; Gerber, C.; Valipour, H. R.;
Shrestha, R.; Crews, K.: An investigation on TCC con-
nections using expanded polystyrene light-weight con-
crete. 12th World Conference on Timber Engineering,
WCTE 2012, Auckland, New Zeland, 2012.
[Mungwa et al., Mungwa, M. S.; Jullien, J.-F.; Foudjet, A.; Hentges, G.:
1999] Experimental study of a composite wood–concrete
beam with the INSA–Hilti new flexible shear connector.
Construction and Building Materials, No. 13(7), pp.
371-382, 1999.

196
[Oliveira, 2007] Oliveira, C.: Comportamento de Vigas Mistas Coladas
Madeira-Betão-Betonagem in situ. (Msc), University of
Coimbra, 2007.
[Said et al., 2002] Said, E. B.; Jullien, J. F.; Siemers, M.: Non-Linear
Analyses of Local Composite Timber-Concrete Behav-
iour. 7th World Conference on Timber Engineering,
WCTE 2002, Shah Alam, Malasya, 2002.
[Sebastian et al., Sebastian, W.; Mudie, J.; Cox, G.; Piazza, M.; Tomasi,
2016] R.; Giongo, I.: Insight into mechanics of externally in-
determinate hardwood–concrete composite beams. Con-
struction and Building Materials, No. 102 (Part 2), pp.
1029-1048, 2016.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.015
[Simon, 2008] Simon, A.: Analysis of the load-displacement-behaviour
of timber-concrete composite road bridges. (PhD), Bau-
haus-Universität Weimar, 2008.
[Taazount et al., Taazount, M.; Amziane, S.; Molard, D.: Tangential be-
2013] havior of nailed composite timber-concrete floor struc-
tures. Construction and Building Materials, No. 40, pp.
506-513, 2013.
[Timmermann and Timmermann, K.; Meierhofer, U.: Holz/Beton-
Meierhofer, 1993] Verbundkonstruktionen, 1993.
[Van der Linden, Van der Linden, M.: Timber Concrete Composite
1999] Floors. (PhD), Delft University of Technology, Delft,
1999..
[Yeoh et al., 2008] Yeoh, D.; Fragiacomo, M.; Aldi, P.; Mazzilli, M.;
Kuhlmann, U.: Performance of Notched Coach Screw
Connection for Timber-Concrete Composite Floor Sys-
tem. 10th World Conference on Timber Engineering,
WCTE 2008, Miyazaki, Japan, 2008.
[Yeoh et al., 2011] Yeoh, D.; Fragiacomo, M.; De Franceschi, M.; Buchan-
an, A. H.: Experimental Tests of Notched and Plate
Connectors for LVL-Concrete Composite Beams. Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering-ASCE, No. 137(2), pp.
261-269, 2011.
[Zajicek, 1989] Zajicek, P.: Holz-Beton-Verbundecken mit nachgie-
bigem Verbund. Österreichische Ingenieur und Archi-
tekten-Zeitschrift, No. 134(2), pp. 94–100, 1989.

197
198
 ETA 
A
CRITERION SUB‐CRITERION Z‐9.1‐445 Z.9.1‐603 Z.9.1‐648 Z‐9.1‐803 ETA 12‐0196 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐851 Z‐9.1.857 Z‐9.1‐342
13/0699
screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw
Würth  Schmid  Schmid 
Timco II Timco III TCC SWG SWG BiFri SFIX SFS SFS intec
Assy Plus  Stardrvie Rapid
DESIGN STANDARDS
DIN 1052 x x x x x
DIN 1045‐1 x x x x x
DIN 1045‐2 x x x x x x
DIN 1045‐3 x x x x x x
DIN EN 1995‐1‐1 x x x x x x x x x x x
DIN EN 1995‐1‐1\NA x x x x x x x x
DIN EN 1992‐1‐1 x x x x x x x x
DIN EN 1992‐1‐1/NA x x x x x x x
DIN 206‐1 x x x x x
DIN 13670 x x
Technical approvals

TYPE OF LOADING
only static x x x x x x x x x x x
RANGE OF APPLICABILITY
only single span systems x x x x x
of Applicability, Materials quality

only concrete in compression x x x x (x)
TIMBER
solid x x x x x x x x x x
min requirement: C24 x x x x x x x x x x

199
glulam x x x x x x x x x x
CLT x x x x x x x x
LVL x x x x x x x x x
CONCRETE
min. strength classe C20/25 x x x x x x x x x x
Table 15: Technical Approvals: Design Standards, Type of Loading, Range
 ETA 
CRITERION SUB‐CRITERION Z‐9.1‐445 Z.9.1‐603 Z.9.1‐648 Z‐9.1‐803 ETA 12‐0196 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐851 Z‐9.1.857 Z‐9.1‐342
13/0699
screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw
Würth  Schmid  Schmid 
Timco II Timco III TCC SWG SWG BiFri SFIX SFS SFS intec
Assy Plus  Stardrvie Rapid
SERVICE CLASS
serviceclass 1  x x x x x x x x x x
serviceclass 2 x x x x x x x x x
serviceclass 3

200
Table 16: Technical Approvals: Service Class
 ETA 12‐ ETA 
CRITERION SUB‐CRITERION Z‐9.1‐445 Z.9.1‐603 Z.9.1‐648 Z‐9.1‐803 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐851 Z‐9.1.857 Z‐9.1‐342
0196 13/0699
screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw
Würth  Schmid  Schmid 
Timco II Timco III TCC SWG SWG BiFri SFIX SFS SFS intec
Assy Plus  Stardrvie Rapid
DETERMINATION OF FORCES
elastic  design x x x x x x x x x x
continuous system x x
reduction of stiffness  x x
no need to consider cracks in concrete x
no consideration of tension in concrete x x x x x
consideration of connectors deform. x x x x x x x x x x x
friction may be considered when all 
x x no no no yes
parameters are fullfilled
single span system x x x
static loads x x x
one directional inclination x x x
compression in the joint due to 
x x x
inclination of the screws
no intermediate layer x x x
coefficient of friction 0,25 0,25 0,25
 friction explicitly excluded x x x yes
increase of the load capacity of XX%, when 25%
single span system x
static loads x
one directional inclination x
compression in the joint due to 

201
x
inclination of the screws
average stiffness values x x x x x x x x
Theory II. Order x x x x x x x
global material safety factor of 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4
need of consideration of creep x x x x x x x x x x x x
need of consideration of moisture variation x x x x x x x x x x x x
need of consideration of concrete shrinkage x x x x x x x x x x x x
Consideration of shrinkage as eff. Temperat. x x x x x x x x
Creep effects and moisture variation of timber 
x x x x x x x x x x x x
are covered by one value per material
One MoE for concrete for t=00 independent 
Table 17: Technical Approvals: Determination of Forces

x x
on the strength class
Explicitly given k_def values for SC1 x (x) (x) (x) (x) x r only and co
Explicitly given k_def values for SC2 x (x) (x) (x) (x) x r only and co
Shrinkage covered by the creep coefficient x x x
Need of consideration of the shear lag x x x x x
disregard of Conc. shrink. for prefab concrete x
 ETA 
CRITERION SUB‐CRITERION Z‐9.1‐445 Z.9.1‐603 Z.9.1‐648 Z‐9.1‐803 ETA 12‐0196 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐851 Z‐9.1.857 Z‐9.1‐342
13/0699
screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw
Würth  Schmid  Schmid 
Timco II Timco III TCC SWG SWG BiFri SFIX SFS SFS intec
Assy Plus  Stardrvie Rapid
PARAMETERS
2000  =100 l_ef 
value per  =8000‐
(d=8mm) &  (Pair of 
90°, no interlayer 1800 2200 each  1500 1500 2000 2000 2000 100ts (for 
2400  screw; 
diamater 45/90°)
(d=10mm) 45°/90°)
700 
value per 
(d=8mm) & 
90°, Interlayer 600 700 each  500 500 700 700 700
800 
diamater
(d=10mm)
=400*(rh =100lef  =25000‐
=240 l_ef 
=130*l_{e =130*l_{e o_k*d_1) =100*l_(e (ds=8mm) &  350*ts 
45°, no interlayer =100*lef =90*l_ef =90*l_ef =130*lef =90*l_Ef (Pair of 
f] f] ^0.2*l_(ef f) 45lef(d=10m for 
screw)
)^0.4 m) 45/135
=1400*(r =100lef 
=130*l_{e =130*l_{e ho_k*d_1 =100*l_(e (ds=8mm) & 
45°,interlayer =100*lef
f] f] )^0.2*l_(e f) 45lef(d=10m
f)^0.4 m)
Ku/Kser 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3
Ku, SC 2/Kser 2/3 2/3 1/5 2/3
material safety factors x x x x x x x
need to proof shear forces in both cross sect. x x x x x x x x

202
need of an additional proof of the shear forces 
x x x
in the timber cross section
need to proof load capacity of concrete perp 
x x x x x x x x x
to the TCC‐system
R_k, alpha=90 Equation x x x x x x x x x x x x
R_K,alphs =45 Equation x x x x x x x x x x x x
FIRE DESIGN
General remark with no link to standards x x x x
DIN 4102‐2 x x x x x
DIN EN 1995‐1‐2:2010 x x x x
DIN EN 1992‐1‐2 x x
max R iun min 60 60
Table 18: Technical Approvals: Parameters, Fire design

requierements
t_interlayer in mm 20 20
a_1 > 50mm >50mm
a_3 >70mm >70mm
kfi according to DIN EN 1995‐1‐2 x x
proof of concrete x x
proof of timber x x
 ETA 12‐ ETA 
CRITERION SUB‐CRITERION Z‐9.1‐445 Z.9.1‐603 Z.9.1‐648 Z‐9.1‐803 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐845 Z‐9.1‐851 Z‐9.1.857 Z‐9.1‐342
0196 13/0699
screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw screw
Würth  Schmid  Schmid 
Timco II Timco III TCC SWG SWG BiFri SFIX SFS SFS intec
Assy Plus  Stardrvie Rapid
EXECUTION
min strength class of timber C24 C24 C24 C24 C24 C24 C24 C24 C24 C24
CLT, installation in the narrow side
requirement 45° x x x x x x x x
min strength class of concrete C20/25 C20/25 C20/25 C20/25 C20/25 C20/25 C20/26 C20/25 C20/25
max diameter of aggregate 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm
min thickness of concrete 70mm 70mm 70mm 70mm 70mm 70mm 70mm 70mm 70mm 70mm
max thickness of concrete 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm 300mm
Thickness of concrete / thickness of timber <70% <70% <70% <70%
min thickness of concrete of 60mm when x x x
no reinforcement for the shear x x x x x x x x
no single loads x x x x x x x x
no linear loads x x x x x x x x
distance of the beams <10d_con. <10d_con. <10d_con. <10d_con. <10d_con. <10d_con. <10d_con. <10d_con.
B500A ‐ B500A ‐ B500A ‐ B500A ‐
Q188A Q188A Q188 Q188A Q188A Q188
min. reinforcement 150x6 /  150x6 /  150x6 /  150x6 / 
Installation of the reinforcment underneath 
x x x x x x x x x x
the head of the screws
min concrete cover required in the joint 
x x x x x x x x x x
between timber and concrete
additional reinforcement for thicknesses  >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm >100mm
additional reinforcement for prefab concrete 
x x x x x x x
elements in conneciton with in situ concrete
possibility to install water impermeable layer x x x x x x
requir. to install a water impermeable layer no no no YES YES no no no no no
possibility to install a intermediate layer x x x x x x x x x
max thickness of intermediate layer 30mm 50mm 50mm 50mm 50mm 50mm 50mm 50mm 50mm
no predrill. required and predrill. not allowed x x x x x x x x x x

203
inlcinations 45° strict x
inlcinations >40 x
Table 19: Technical Approvals: Execution

>45 x x x x x x x x
<50 x x x x x x x x x
or >85° x x x x x x x x
<95 x x x x x x x x x
minimum length of the screw in the concrete 50mm 50mm x
installation in an angle 0f 45° 65mm 65mm 60mm 65mm
installation in an angle of 90° 45mm 45mm 45mm
minimum coverage of the head of the screw 10mm 10mm 10mm 10mm
minimum length of the screw in the timber 60mm
installation in an angle of 45° 50mm
installation in an angle of 90° 50mm
only tension in the screw x x x x x x x x crossed arrangement
adjustment of the distance of the screws in 
x x x x x x x x x x
dependence on the course of the shear force
max distance <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist. <4min dist.
definition of minimum spacing x x x x x x x x x x x x
support of the TCC at the timber beam x x x x x x x x x x x x
dry timber (<20%) x x x x x x x x x x
propping until sufficient load capacity of 
x x x x x x x x x x
concrete
204
B Evaluation of the internal forces
B.1 General
In a composite system, the external forces are distributed between the single
composite cross section. In cross section with 2 cross sections, the equilibrium
of forces is defined by following equation:
⋅
where external bending moment
bending moment in cross section 1
bending moment in cross section 2
normal force in both cross section
distance between the centroids of both cross sections
(=inner lever arm)

In principle, the system is statically undetermined, since neither the normal force
nor the bending moment can be determined directly. In order to solve it, the
strains and curvature in the cross section are used, leading to following equa-
tions
 Curvature in the single cross section: Assuming the uplift between the
single cross sections does not appear, the course of the deformation of the
composite elements is equal. Since the curvature is the second derivation
of the deformation, the curvature of the single cross section is identical:

Since the bending moment in a cross section depends on the stiffness and
the curvature, the bending moment depends on
⋅ ⋅
 Strain in the centroid: In principle, the strain in the centroid can be deter-
mined by
⋅
However the normal force in the cross sections affects a slip in the joint,
which results in a reduced strain in the centroid. This reduced strain can
be determined according to EC5 Annex B by

Therefore the normal force in the cross section is determined by

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

205
This leads to the fact that a reduced stiffness of the connectors leads to a reduced
normal force in the cross section. Due to the equilibrium of forces a reduction of
the normal force leads to an increase of the bending moment, resulting in a re-
duced bending stiffness (see Figure 33 and Figure 34)

Figure 70: Qualitative influence of the stiffness of the connection between the
composite elements on the strains
 Reduced bending
 Increased stresses
 Increased deformation
Therefore the deformability has to be considered in the design.

206
Figure 71: Qualitative influence of the connection stiffness on the bending
stiffness
The normal force in this cross section has to be transferred by the connectors
between the composite elements.
B.2 Methods for the determination of the internal forces considering the
deformability of the connectors
B.2.1 General
For the determination of the internal forces with respect to the deformability of
the connectors, several methods are available
 solution to the differential equation
 -method of EC 5 Annex B
 Strut-and-tie model
 Shear analogy method
 FE-modelling
B.2.2 Differential equation1
In principle, there are several methods to set up the differential equation for the
distribution of forces in a composite system with flexible connectors. Within this
section the differential equation describing the slip between the composite ele-
ments is set up by the following basic equations (see Fig. 1), assuming constant
cross section dimensions and properties along the beam axis:

1
 This section is mainly taken from [Fries, 2001] and [Schänzlin and Fragiacomo, 2007]
207
Fig. 1: Forces at the infinitesimal composite element (see [Fries, 2001])
 Equilibrium of forces in horizontal direction in one of the composite ele-
ments:
⋅
where normal force at location x
  stiffness of the connectors
  distance of the connectors
  slip at the location x
  shear flow in the joint between timber and concrete

 Equilibrium of forces in vertical direction

⋅
where shear force in the timber cross section at location x
  shear force in the concrete cross section at location x
  external load

 Equilibrium of moments
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
where inner lever arm

This inner lever arm is normally determined by

208
 where inner lever arm
  height of the timber cross section
  height of the concrete cross section
  height of the interlayer between timber and concrete
cross section

 Curvature in the cross sections: One assumption is that there is no uplift

between the composite elements. Therefore the deformation of both com-
posite elements are equal

where deformation of the timber cross section at location x

  deformation of the concrete cross section at location x
The curvature of the cross section is

resulting in

where deformation of the timber cross section at location x

  deformation of the concrete cross section at location x
 Difference in the strains at the joint between timber and concrete
⋅
⋅ ⋅
where deformation of the timber cross section at location x
  deformation of the concrete cross section at location x

209
 Cross section 1

Cross section 2

Fig. 2: Strains at the joint between timber and concrete (see [Fries, 2001])
With these five equations, the slip between the composite elements can be de-
scribed by

∝ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

where slip between timber and concrete at the location x

,   parameters
  external distributed load
  location along the beam axis
The parameters are determined by
 :

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

⋅ ⋅


1
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
where stiffness between both composite elements
  distance of the connectors
/   smeared stiffness along the beam axis

210
   modulus of elasticity
  bending stiffness
  area of the cross section
  inner lever arm
Index    timber
Index    concrete

This differential equation can be determined by the common solution processes.

So the homogeneous part of the solution is described by
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
The inhomogeneous part of the solution is given by following equation assum-
ing a constant load
⋅ ⋅
With this solution, the curvature can be described by:
⋅ 1
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
and therefore by
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
1
⋅
⋅ ⋅
and
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 ⋅
1
⋅
⋅ ⋅

Based on this curvature the deformations can be determined by

 Curvature

211
 ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 ⋅
⋅ 2
1
⋅
⋅ ⋅
 Bending angle

⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 ⋅
⋅ 6
1
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅

 Deformation

⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 ⋅
⋅ 24
1
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ 2

The internal forces can be determined by the following equations

 Bending moment in the cross section
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 ⋅
⋅ 2
1
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
 Normal force
⋅
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
2
 Shear force
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 ⋅
1
⋅
⋅ ⋅
212
  Shear force in the joint

⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

For the application in the different systems, constants to have to be deter-

mined in order to cover the boundaries of the systems. One of these boundaries
is that the derivation of the slip at the end of a beam is equal to the strain caused
by inelastic strains
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

Examples of these boundary conditions are

 Single span girder with a uniform distributed load
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o
 Cantilever
o 0
o 0
o
o 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
 Single point load: If a single load is applied, the system has to be divided
in two subsystems on both sides of the single load
o Transition from system 1 to system 2
 , , , 0 , 0

 0
 , , 0
 0
213
  0
 0
Beside these boundary conditions the boundary conditions of the support
of the system have to be considered in order to get 12 equations for the
determination of the 12 unknown parameters (system 1: , to , ; sys-
tem 2 , to , )
 Two span girder: To determine the forces in a multi span girder system, it
is divided into single spans. In order to solve the equation the transition
between the single elements at the support has to be considered in the de-
termination of the constants of the system i , to , . Possible boundary
conditions at the transition point between the single subsystems are
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0 0
o 0
o 0
If the constants are determined, the support reactions can be determined
by the differences between the resulting shear forces in the single subsys-
tems.
For the single span girder with uniformly distributed load and constant proper-
ties along the beam axis, the internal forces and the deflections can be deter-
mined by the following equations, if the origin of the coordinate system is in
midspan of the beam (x=0 in midspan):
 Deformations
o Slip
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
2
and
1
⋅
2 ⋅
2
o Curvature
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

cosh ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

214
 and
1

⋅ ⋅
⋅

⋅
1 1
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
8 8
⋅ ⋅

o Bending angle
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
sinh ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

o Deflection
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
cosh ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

and
1 1 1
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
384 384 8
1
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
8

 Forces
o Shear forces in the joint
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ sinh ⋅

o Normal force in the timber cross section

⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
cosh ⋅
and
1 ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
8

215
 o Normal force in the concrete cross section

o Bending moment in the cross section

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
cosh ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
o Shear force in the timber cross section
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ sinh ⋅
2
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

o Shear force in the concrete cross section

⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ sinh ⋅
2
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅

If the uniform distributed load is not constant, the inhomogeneous part of the
solution has to be modified in order to cover the external non constant uniform
load.
B.2.3 -method of EC 5 Annex B2
As shown in the previous section, the effects of the deformability of the joint can
be described by a differential equation. The solution can be adapted to various
systems, however it can become quite complex. So the solution of the differen-
tial equation is rarely used in practice.
If the differential equation is simplified by the assumption of a sinusoidal dis-
tributed load and a sinusoidal distributed inelastic strain along be beam axis (see
Figure 72), the solution of this differential equation can be simplified.

2
 This section is mainly taken from [Schaenzlin and Fragiacomo, 2007], [EC5 2012] and [Schänzlin, 2003]
216
 Stressless strains

Load

Figure 72: Assumed load and distribution of the inelastic strains

1 1
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Δ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
⋅
⋅

By solving this differential equation, the internal forces and the deformations
can be determined. In order to simplify this solution, the deformation of the
composite beam is compared to the deformation of a beam with an effective
bending stiffness.

Isolating the effective bending stiffness from this equation, following

equation for the effective bending stiffness of the composite beam can be given
by:

, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

where effective bending stiffness

,   parameter taking into account the effects of the ine-

lastic strains
  modulus of elasticity of the cross section
  area of the cross section

217
   moment of inertia of the cross section
  parameter taking into account the effect of the de-
formability of the connectors
  effective lever arm
  = distance between the centroid of the composite
cross section to the centroid of the single cross sec-
tion
The -value can be determined by
1
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
1
⋅
and
1
This parameter can also be expressed by the ratio between the strain in the cen-
troid of the cross section 1 for deformable connectors and for rigid connectors
subjected to the same curvature
, ,

, ,

So this value can vary between 0 (=no composite) to 1,0 (=rigid connection).
Therefore, it is an indicator of the effectiveness of the chosen connection.
The inner lever arm of the single cross section can be determined by
⋅ ⋅
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 2
and

2 2
Since inelastic strains modifies the loading of the connectors, the effective bend-
ing stiffness has to be modified by the factor ,

, ⋅ ⋅
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
In order to consider the effects of inelastic strains, an external fictitious load can
be applied on the system by
, ⋅Δ

218
where
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
, ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅

2
and
Δ
The deformation and the internal forces are determined as follows:
 Deformation
;
For a single span girder, the deformation can be determined by
5
⋅ ⋅
384
 Bending moment
⋅
⋅ 0.8 ⋅
For a single span girder this equation turns into
⋅
⋅ 0.8 ⋅ ⋅
8

 Normal force: The normal force is influenced by the inelastic strains.

However these inelastic strains lead to eigenstresses. Therefore the ficti-
tious loads covering the inelastic strains as shrinkage would lead to an in-
crease of the normal force although shrinkage leads to a decrease of the
normal force (see Figure 35). Consequently the normal force can be de-
termined by the equilibrium of forces by
0.8 ⋅ 0.8 ⋅

2 2
The normal force in the concrete cross section can be determined by

 Effective shear force for the determination of the shear stresses in the
cross section and the shear stresses in the connection
o Shortening of the cross section 1 related to the cross section 2
⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅Δ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

219
 With this effective shear forces, the shear stresses in the cross sec-
tion can be determined by
0.5 ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅
⋅ 2
and at the connection by
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅

o Shortening of the cross section 2 related to the cross section 1, the

load of the connectors can be determined by
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Δ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 2
B.2.4 Strut & Tie model
The previous are methods with which the internal forces and the deformation
can be determined by hand. However in the common practical work a software
often supports the work. This tool automatically combines loads, determines the
internal forces, deflection and the utilization of the structure. Therefore the main
part of the work of the engineer is to model the system properly.
Timber concrete composite structures can be evaluated by modelling the single
cross sections and connecting them with elements representing the connectors
(see among others [Grosse et al., 2003]). The distance between the concrete el-
ements and the timber elements is the distance between the centroids of both
composite elements.
concrete concrete

connector coupling element

timber timber

Figure 73: Modelling the composite system as framework

In order to get the same deformation of both element sets, these are coupled by
means of hinged compression struts. It is recommended, not to exceed a distance
of these coupling elements along the beam axis of more than the distance of the
centroids of the timber and the concrete cross section.

220
The connection itself is modelled by two cantilevers, which are either connected
by a spring in the range of the joint between timber and concrete representing
the stiffness of the connector or connected by a hinge. In the second case, the
bending stiffness of the cantilevers is adjusted in order to get the same stiffness
as the connection (see [Grosse et al., 2003]).

⋅
3
where effective bending stiffness of the cantilever repre-
senting the stiffness of the connectors
  stiffness of the connector
  distance between the centroid of the cross section
to the joint

Figure 74: Subsystem for the determination of the properties of the cantilevers
representing the connectors
Inelastic strains can be modelled by applying an effective change of temperature
in the single cross section.
The internal forces and the deflection are determined within the framework
model. Therefore the generation of loads, the combination of loads and the de-
termination of the utilization of the single cross section implemented in the
software can be used automatically. Only the utilization of the connectors has to
be done in a separate way by comparing the shear forces in the cantilevers repre-
senting the connectors in the framework with the ultimate load carrying capacity
of the connectors.
B.2.5 Shear analogy method
If several layers are connected by deformable connectors, the -method is not
valid any more, since the maximum numbers of layers is 3. The modelling as
framework is possible, however the single layers need their own layer in the

221
model. So the modelling of the composite system with several layers can be-
come quite complex. Therefore [Kreuzinger, 1999b] (see among others [Scholz,
2003]) developed the “shear analogy method”.
The idea behind that method is, that the bending stiffness is composed of

where effective bending stiffness of the composite system

  bending stiffness of the single cross sections of the

composite system

⋅   composite stiffness due to eccentricity of the single

cross sections
As it can be seen the composite system consists of two parts:
 The bending stiffness of the single composite elements
 The composite stiffness due to eccentricity of the single cross sections
Since these parts are “just” added to the effective bending stiffness, they can be
interpreted as two beams acting together as one. Therefore the composite beam
is transferred to
 System A representing the bending stiffness and the load transfer by
bending of the single composite elements
 System B representing the composite action including the deformability
of the connection as effective shear stiffness

composite beam

composite action

pure bending

bending composite

Figure 75: Splitting the composite beam into the system A representing the
bending stiffness of the single cross section and the system B representing the
composite stiffness
222
Since the system A represents the pure bending of the single cross section, the
bending stiffness of this system can be determined by following equation, as-
suming that all elements of the composite have the same deformation.

strain

Figure 76: Bending moment in system B

In this case the curvature is identical in all composite elements.

System B represents the composite action. Therefore the bending stiffness of

this system is determined by
∑ ⋅

Figure 77: Bending moment caused by the eccentricity of the normal forces
The normal forces are transferred by the connectors between the different layers.
However these connectors are flexible resulting in a slip between the different
layers. The slip leads to a reduced strain in the centroid of the cross section. This
reduced strain in the centroid can also be interpreted as a shear deformation.
223
Figure 78: “Shear“ deformation caused by the slip between the layers
In order to consider the slip between the layers an effective shear stiffness of the
system has to be determined. Therefore the slip between the layers is summed
up over the whole cross section.

Figure 79: Determination of the effective shear stiffness

The total slip of the outer layers can be determined by
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Δ
2⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 2⋅ ⋅
Assuming an effective shear stiffness, the total slip can be determined by
⋅
Δ ⋅ ⋅ ∗
⋅ ∗

Therefore the effective shear stiffness of the system B can be determined by

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ∗ 2⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 2⋅ ⋅

224
and
1 1 1
∗
⋅
2⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 2⋅ ⋅
Both systems are coupled in order to get the same deformation in both systems.
Normally this coupling is done within a framework program, since the different
stiffness and the consideration of the shear deformation in system B could re-
quire certain effort.
If the system is loaded by a sinusoidal load the distribution of the external load
on system b can be determined by
⋅ ⋅
⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
and

With this load distribution, the internal forces of the system A and B can be de-
termined. These internal forces of the system A and B have to be retransferred to
the “real” stresses.
This transformation can be done with the following steps
 Normal stresses caused by bending moment in single elements
⋅ ⋅

Figure 80: Stresses in a layer

 Normal stresses caused by normal forces in single elements
⋅ ⋅

225
Figure 81: Normal stresses caused by composite action
 Shear stresses within a layer

, ⋅ ⋅
2 8
 Shear stresses between the layers
1
⋅ , ⋅

where
, 1 ∑ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅

Figure 82: Determination of stresses

226
In order to consider the inelastic strains, these are transferred into a bending
moment and a normal force by
 Normal force
, ⋅ ⋅Δ
where normal force due to inelastic strain
  modulus of the layer with the inelastic strain
  area of the layer with the inelastic strain
Δ   inelastic strain

 Bending moment
, ⋅
where bending moment in the System B
normal force due to inelastic strain
  inner cantilever
 
which are applied to system B, since this system represents the composite ac-
tion.
In order to determine the resulting normal forces in the layer, the normal forces
caused by inelastic strains have to be superposed with the normal forces in the
layers of the system B.
B.2.6 FE-modelling
In principle, the modelling of composite systems with means of Finite-Elements
is possible. The advantage of this procedure is that it enables a modelling with
very few simplifications. So shear deformations can be considered or the load
transfer in the range of the connector can be modelled in a more precise way
than the other methods. However, this more precise description of the stresses
and deformations need a larger effort in modelling and calculation of the com-
posite systems. So the range of application of FE-is more in the range of re-
search and development, than in the practical design process of buildings.

227
B.2.7 Summary
For the design of timber-concrete-composite systems several methods can be
applied. These methods differ in the range of application, the effort in the appli-
cation and therefore in the time needed. Comparing these different methods the
-method according to EC5 Annex B and the modelling as frame work system
seem to be the most practical methods for the design process.
The -method has the advantage, that it can be solved by hand, but has the limi-
tations, that it can only model single span systems with smeared connectors and
uniformly distributed loads. In difference to this method, the modelling as
framework allows to take into account different structural systems, point loads
or discrete distributed connectors. However it has the disadvantage, that a soft-
ware tool for solving the framework is necessary.

228