Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Effective width of steel–concrete composite beam at ultimate strength state

Jian-Guo Nie a , Chun-Yu Tian a , C.S. Cai b,∗
a Department of Civil Engineering, Laboratory of Structural Engineering and Vibration of China Education Ministry, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, United States

Received 24 September 2006; received in revised form 21 May 2007; accepted 30 July 2007
Available online 10 September 2007

Abstract

In a steel–concrete composite beam section, part of the concrete slab acts as the flange of the girder in resisting the longitudinal compression.
The well-known shear-lag effect causes a non-uniform stress distribution across the width of the slab and the concept of effective width is usually
introduced in the practical design to avoid a direct analytical evaluation of this phenomenon. In the existing studies most researchers have adopted
the same definition of effective width which might induce inaccurate bending resistance of composite beam to sagging moments. In this paper, a
new definition of effective width is presented for ultimate analysis of composite beam under sagging moments. Through an experimental study
and finite element modeling, the distribution of longitudinal strain and stress across the concrete slab are examined and are expressed with some
simplified formulae. Based on these simplified formulae and some assumptions commonly used, the effective width of the concrete slab and the
depth of the compressive stress block of composite beams with varying parameters under sagging moments are analytically derived at the ultimate
strength limit. It is found that the effective width at the ultimate strength is larger than that at the serviceability stage and simplified design formulae
are correspondingly suggested for the ultimate strength design.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Steel–concrete; Composite; Effective width; Ultimate strength state; Experiment; Finite element analysis

1. Introduction effective width directly affects the computed moments, shears,

A steel–concrete composite beam consists of a concrete slab
attached to a steel girder by means of shear connectors. The
shear connectors restrain the concrete slab immediately above
the girder so that there is a non-uniform longitudinal stress
distribution across the transverse cross-section of the slab. Due
to the shear strain in the plane of the slab, the longitudinal
strain of the portion of the slab remote from the steel girder lags
behind that of the portion near the girder. This so-called shear-
lag effect causes a non-uniform stress distribution across the
width of the slab. To avoid a direct analytical evaluation of this
phenomenon, the concept of effective slab width (simply called
effective width hereafter) is usually introduced in practical
design in order to utilize a line girder analysis and beam theory
for the calculations of deflection, stress and moment resistance.
In a line girder analysis, individual girders are analysed instead
of analysing the entire bridge deck. The determination of the
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cscai@lsu.edu (C.S. Cai).
torque, and deflections for the composite section and also
affects the proportions of the steel section and the number of
shear connectors that are required.
Since the 1920s there have been many investigators
who studied the shear-lag effect in T-beam structures and
steel–concrete composite structures based on continuum
mechanics analysis, numerical method and experimental study
to develop realistic definitions of effective width. Adekola [1,
2] and Ansourian and Aust [3] studied the effective width
of composite beams using isotropic plate governing equations
in an elastic stage by numerical methods. It was found
that the effective width depends strongly on the slab panel
proportions and loading types and can only be used for
deflection and stress computations at serviceability level.
Johnson [4] studied the effective width of continuous composite
floor system at a strength limit state. Heins and Fan [5],
Elkelish and Robison [6], Amadio and Fragiacomo [7], Amadio
and Fedrigo [8] studied theoretically and experimentally the
effective width of composite beams in elastic and/or inelastic
stages. Results of these studies show that the effective width

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.027
 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407 1397

that based on the actual stress distribution, especially in the

Notation strength limit state. As a result, an accurate value of resistance
to sagging moments of composite beam might not be obtained
As tension area of steel beam section;
by a simple plastic beam theory. Chiewanichakorn et al. [14]
A0s compression area of steel beam section;
recently proposed a different definition for the effective width
b width of concrete slab of composite beam;
considering the through-thickness variation of stress in the
be effective width of concrete slab of composite
concrete slab. However, their study focuses only on composite
beam;
beams in the elastic stage, i.e., serviceability limit state. Effect
Ec elastic modulus of concrete;
of shear lag at the strength limit state is different from that at
Es elastic modulus of steel;
serviceability level.
Et hardening modulus of steel;
In this paper, a new definition of effective width is presented
f design strength of steel;
for ultimate strength calculations of composite beams under
fc cylindrical compressive strength of concrete;
sagging moments using the commonly accepted rectangular-
f cu cubic compressive strength of concrete;
stress block assumption. This new definition ensures that the
ft tension strength of concrete;
bending capacity of the simplified composite beam (effective
fy yield strength of steel;
width plus block stress distribution) is the same as the
fu limit strength of steel; actual composite beam (actual slab width plus actual stress
hc height of concrete slab; distribution). Through an experimental study and finite element
hs height of steel beam section; analysis, the distribution of longitudinal strains and stresses
L span of composite beam; across the concrete slab are examined and expressed with some
Pu ultimate load of test simplified formulae. Based on the new definition and simplified
V shear force of the connectors between concrete formulae, the effective width of the concrete slab and the depth
and steel; of the compressive stress block of the composite beam with
Vu shear strength of shear studs; varying parameters under sagging moments are calculated.
zc depth between top surface of concrete and plastic
neutral axis; 2. New definition of effective width under sagging moment
z c0 depth between the plastic neutral axis and top
surface of concrete at y = 0 Now consider as shown in Fig. 1 a cross-section of
α parameter presenting the degree of shear-lag composite beams under a sagging moment with a steel section
effect; of Class 1 or 2 according to EC4 [10]. For composite beams
β ratio of effective width to real width; at the strength limit state, the resistance of section to sagging
εc compressive strain in concrete slab; moments, Mu , can be obtained by calculating the plastic
εct compressive strain on top surface of concrete moment and considering a few assumptions commonly used in
slab; the literature [15]:
ϕ curvature of concrete slab; (1) The tensile strength of concrete is neglected.
λ slip of the connectors between concrete and steel; (2) The concrete in compression resists a constant stress
ν Poisson’s ratio; of f c over a rectangular-stress block with a width of βb and
ξ height of rectangular-stress block to z c0 ratio; depth of ξ z c0 , where b is the physical width and be = βb is
σc stress in concrete slab; the effective width of the concrete slab; z c is the compressive
stress depth from the plastic neutral axis to the top surface
of the concrete slab in general and z c0 = z c (y = 0) is the
at the strength limit state is greater than that in the elastic z c value along the vertical y-axis particularly, as shown in
stage and can essentially be taken as the real slab width. Based Fig. 1(b). Therefore, ξ z c0 represents an equivalent depth of the
on the research results of these investigations, design codes compressive stress block.
have adopted, in general, simplified formulae or tables for (3) The effective area of the structural steel member is
the effective width evaluation in order to facilitate the design stressed to its design strength f in tension or compression as
process [9,10]. These design codes use the same effective width shown in Fig. 1(b).
for both serviceability and strength limit states, thereby usually The width and depth of the stress block are the key factors
underestimate the effective width at the strength limit state and affecting the value of Mu . In the traditional design method it
are too conservative for moment resistance computations. is generally assumed that z c is constant across the width of the
Most previous studies have adopted the same definition of concrete slab; i.e., ξ is 1. The effective width be is traditionally
effective width where the longitudinal stress is considered to obtained as
be constant over the effective width and the total longitudinal R h c R b/2
force within the effective width is equal to the total force of the 0 −b/2 σc dydz
actual stress distribution [11–13]. However, when the effective be = R h . (1)
0 σc | y=0 dz
c
width from this traditional definition is used for the analysis of
composite beam sections with a simple beam theory, the total Application of be from Eq. (1) will lead to a stress block
bending moment in the concrete slab is usually different from that has a total force equivalent to that based on the actual
1398 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407

Fig. 1. Assumption for ultimate strength analysis.

Fig. 2. Sketch of specimen and test set-up (units = mm).

stress distribution in the concrete slab, but there is no guarantee where As and A0s is tension and compression area of steel
that the resultant forces will be located at the same location. section, respectively.
Due to the shear-lag phenomenon the longitudinal stress in the In order to predict the actual strain and stress distributions
concrete slab decreases from y = 0 to y = b/2 and the depth across the section, finite element method was used to analyse
z c varies across the width of the concrete slab as shown in the composite beams with varying parameters under sagging
Fig. 1(a). Therefore, the stress block with a width of be from moments. The three variables β, ξ and z c0 were then solved
Eq. (1) may not have a total bending moment equivalent to that from Eqs. (2)–(4) after the distribution of σc in the concrete slab
based on the actual stress distribution in the concrete slab, i.e., was obtained and the bending resistance to sagging moment
the accurate value of Mu may not be obtained by the traditional of composite beams can then be obtained by a traditional
method when using the definition of effective width in Eq. (1). plastic beam approach. To confirm the numerical results, an
In order to ensure that the stress distribution in the concrete experimental study was also conducted and is described next.
slab as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b) is equivalent to ultimate
strength analysis in terms of both axial force and moment, we 3. Experimental study
will have to derive the effective width and the depth of the stress
block by both force and moment equivalencies as: A steel–concrete composite floor model as shown in Fig. 2
Z h c Z b/2 was tested to investigate the shear-lag phenomenon in the
βbξ z c0 f c = σc (y, z)dydz (2) concrete slab of the composite beam in both elastic and inelastic
0 −b/2 stages and the experimental results were used to verify the
R h c R b/2
accuracy of the finite element model described in next section.
ξ z c0 0 −b/2 (h c − z)σc (y, z)dydz
= R h c R b/2 . (3) The model consists of three identical longitudinal girders and
−b/2 σc (y, z)dydz
2
0 two transverse girders at the ends of the longitudinal girders.
Considering the force equilibrium in the entire beam section A cast-in-place concrete slab with a height of 60 mm was
we have connected to the girders by head studs. The experimental model
Z h c Z b/2 with three girders represents more closely the real composite
structures and can give more realistic results than traditional
As f − A0s f = σc (y, z)dydz, (4)
0 −b/2 single-beam specimens.
 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407
Fig. 3. Experimental stress–strain curve for steel materials.
Fig. 4. Stress–strain curve for steel materials used in FEM.
Table 1
Results of compression tests on concrete
Cube no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
f cu (MPa) 34.9 34.7 44.0 41.9 34.7 37.2
Coupons of steel beams and concrete blocks were tested in
order to determine the stress–strain curve, Young’s modulus,
and compressive and tensile strength. For the reinforcement,
three 6-mm-diameter bars were subjected to tensile tests and the
results were averaged and plotted in Fig. 3 as the stress–strain
curve. For the steel beams, the tensile tests were performed
on six specimens and the averaged stress–strain curve is also
displayed in Fig. 3. According to the experimental results a
simplified stress–strain curve shown in Fig. 4 for steel beams
and rebars is used in the finite element analyses. For the
concrete materials, the cubic compressive strength f cu was
determined through six 15×15×15 cm3 cubes which were cast
and tested at the same time as the deck. The measured concrete
strength was shown in Table 1. The cylindrical compressive
strength f c was evaluated assuming f c = 0.8 f cu .
Each of the three longitudinal girders was subjected to
sagging moments through four-point loads (P/4 at each point)
as shown in Fig. 2. The load was applied by three hydraulic
R
1399
Fig. 5. Test model and loading frame.
jacks in series with an increment of 2 kN. During the test both
global and local quantities, such as displacements, strains of
the concrete slab and steel beams, and slip at the concrete-steel
interface were monitored. Since the test specimen is designed
as a full composite section and the slip mainly affects the
serviceability behavior of beams and its effect on ultimate
strength is insignificant [16], no detailed slip information is
presented here for the sake of brevity. The mid-span vertical
displacement reached up to 160 mm at the ultimate load Pu =
256 kN, when the collapse happened due to the crushing
on the top surface of the concrete slab. Fig. 5 shows the
deformed shape of the specimen and loading frame used for
the experiment.
Fig. 6 displays the strain distribution along half of the slab
width (with the origin at the center of the deck as shown in
Fig. 2) on the top and bottom surfaces of the concrete slab.
Such curves are displayed under different loading levels for
the mid-span section of the specimen where Pu is the ultimate
load from tests. In general, the compressive strain on the top
surface of the portion of the slab remote from the steel beam
lags behind that of the portion near the beam (Fig. 6(a)), while
Average the tensile strain on the bottom surface of the portion of the
37.9 slab remote from the steel beam are greater than that of the
portion near the beam (Fig. 6(b)). This high tensile strain shown
in the figure indicates cracking of concrete as observed in the
experiments. For the convenience of comparison, results from
the finite element method discussed in the next section are
also plotted in the figure. Reasonable agreements between the
experimental and FEM results are clearly observed in the figure.
The load vs. mid-span vertical displacement curve of
the center longitudinal girder is plotted in Fig. 7. The
load–displacement relationship is nearly linear up to the load of
100 kN, beyond which a sudden reduction of stiffness occurred
due to the yielding of the steel beam. At the collapse load of
256 kN, the steel beam section at the mid-span yielded and
significantly plasticized.
4. Finite element analysis
In order to predict the distributions of the longitudinal
strains and stresses in the concrete slab of composite beams
at the ultimate strength state, a finite element analysis
through ANSYS
(2000) was carried out considering material
1400 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407
(a) Compressive strain on top surface of concrete slab.
Fig. 6. Strain distribution along slab width (b = 1200 mm, y = 0–1800 mm).
Fig. 7. Load vs. mid-span vertical displacement curve.
nonlinearity as shown in Fig. 8. The results from this model
were confirmed by a comparison with the experimental results.
4.1. Finite element model
The tested specimen in Fig. 2 was analysed by finite element
method. 4-node shell elements were used to mesh the steel
girders and 2-node link elements were used to mesh steel bars.
The kinematic hardening rule including Bauschinger effect and
von Mises yield criteria were used for the materials of steel bars
and beams. Multilinear stress–strain relationship of steel bars
and beams obtained from tests as shown in Fig. 4 were adopted
in the analysis. For all steel materials: Young’s modulus E s =
206,000 MPa, E t = 2000 Mpa, and Poisson ratio ν = 0.3;
Steel beams: f y = 295 MPa, and f u = 448 MPa; Steel bars:
f y = 380 MPa, and f u = 478 MPa.
The 8-node cubic (brick) elements for concrete material
available in ANSYS
R
were used for the concrete slab. The
failure surface is the modified William–Warnke criterion as
shown in Fig. 9 in the biaxial principal stress space and
the crushing and cracking of concrete are considered in this
element [17]. The material properties of the concrete slab used
in the analysis are: f c = 30.3 MPa, tension strength f t =
3.03 MPa, elastic modulus E c = 30,000 MPa, and Poisson’s
ratio ν = 0.17.
(b) Tensile strain on bottom surface of concrete slab.
Fig. 8. Finite element model.
In the ANSYS concrete model, a crack is a mechanism that
transforms the behavior from isotropic to orthotropic, where
the material stiffness normal to the crack surface becomes zero
while the full stiffness parallel to the crack is maintained. In this
smeared crack model, a smooth crack could close and all the
material stiffness in the direction normal to the crack may be
recovered. The uniaxial compressive stress–strain relationship
of concrete used in the analysis is:
 2
 ε ε

σ 2 − , ε ≤ ε0
 ε0 ε0
= (5)
σ0
1, ε0 < ε ≤ εcu ,
where σ0 = f c , and ε0 = 0.002.
The shear studs were modeled by nonlinear spring elements
(shown as Combin Element in Fig. 8). Typically, the actual
load–slip curve of stud connectors was obtained by a push-out
test. Previous studies have shown that the curve is generally
nonlinear even for low stress levels. It is thus reasonable to use
a nonlinear spring in modeling the mechanical behavior of the
connectors. The constitutive relationship of the spring is given
 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407
Fig. 9. Failure surface of concrete material in biaxial principal stress space.
by Aribert [18]:
V = Vu (1 − e−C1 λ )C2 ,
where V and λ are the shear force and the shear slip of the
connector, respectively; Vu is the shear strength of the shear
studs obtained by push-out tests. The parameters C1 and C2
define the shape of the curve, and the values used in this study
are C1 = 0.7 mm−1 , and C2 = 0.56 [18].
As discussed earlier, Fig. 6 displays the strain distribution
across half of the slab width on the top and the bottom
surfaces of the mid-span section of the concrete slab. Fig. 7
shows the load vs. mid-span vertical displacement curve of the
center longitudinal girder. The comparison of experimental and
numerical results confirmed the accuracy of the finite element
model.
4.2. Parametric analysis
In order to acquire the actual longitudinal strain and stress
distributions in the concrete slab at the ultimate strength state
for different parameters such as loading cases, beam size,
and material strength, a nonlinear finite element model was
developed and analysed. This model consists of three identical
longitudinal girders, two transverse girders at the ends of the
longitudinal girders, and a concrete slab attached to the steel
girders by shear connectors as shown in Fig. 10, subjected to
a single-point load P1 at the mid-span, a two-point load P2
applied at the 1/3rd points of the beam span, and a uniform
load q over the whole span length of the steel girders. For
materials, the stress–strain relationship in Fig. 4 is adopted with
various steel yield strength f y . Concrete compression strength
f c = 24 MPa, tension strength f t = 2.4 MPa, elastic modulus
E c = 30,000 MPa, and Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.17. The degree of
shear connection is 1, i.e., full composite action is considered.
The following three series of models have been analysed:
(1) Yield strength of steel beams f y = 235 MPa, L = 6 m,
b/L = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, or 0.5, and h c = 90 mm;
(2) Yield strength of steel beams f y = 235 MPa, L = 6 m,
b/L = 0.3, and h c = 60, 75, 90, 105, or 120 mm;
(3) L = 6 m, b = 1800 mm, h c = 90 mm, and yield strength
of steel beams f y = 235, 300, 350, or 400 MPa.
The ultimate state strains of the mid-span section of the
center girder in the model were processed. Fig. 11(a)–(d) show
the distributions of the compressive strains εct (y) on the top
surface of the concrete slab under different loading types, b/L
ratios, height of concrete slab, and yield strength of steel beams.
1401
(6)
Fig. 10. Model for parametric analysis.
In all situations the compressive strains decrease from y = 0
to y = b/2 due to the shear-lag effect. The ratios b/L and
loading types have significant influence on the degree of shear
lag while other parameter, such as beam size and material
strength have less influence on the shear-lag effect. The shear-
lag degree increases with the increase in b/L. The shear-lag
effect is more obvious under one-point load than the other
two loading types. The curved shape of the compressive strain
distribution is assumed to be parabolic and is described with a
quadratic equation as shown in the next section.
The longitudinal strain distributions across the thickness of
the concrete slab at the mid-span section when f y = 235 MPa,
L = 6 m, b/L = 0.3 and h c = 90 mm, under three
loading types, are shown in Fig. 12(a)–(c) from which it can
be concluded that the longitudinal strain remains linear along
the z-axis at the ultimate strength state. The curvature ϕ(y) and
the depth z c (y) between the top surface and the neutral axis of
the concrete slab, as shown in Fig. 13, can be obtained from
the strain results in Fig. 12(a)–(c). While Fig. 12(a) and (c)
show that ϕ(y) remains almost constant and z c (y) decreases
from y = 0 to y = b/2 along y-axis under uniform load and
two-point loads, Fig. 12(b) shows that ϕ(y) decreases and z c (y)
almost remains constant from y = 0 to y = b/2 along y-axis
under the one-point load.
5. Analytical strain distribution across concrete slab at
ultimate strength state
Numerical results discussed earlier have verified the
assumption that the longitudinal strain distribution remains
linear along the z-axis at the ultimate strength state. As it is
demonstrated below, if the compressive strain εct (y) on the
top surface and the depth z c (y) between the top surface and
the neutral axis of the concrete slab can be expressed using
simplified formulae, the compressive strain distribution in the
concrete slab can be obtained analytically, which will facilitate
an analytical solution of the effective width.
According to the FEM numerical results, εct (y) can be
expressed as
y2
 
y
εct (y) = εct (0) 1 − α + α 2 , (7)
b b
1402 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407

(a) f y = 235 MPa, b/L = 0.3, h c = 90 mm, under different loading (b) f y = 235 MPa, b/L = 0.1–0.5, h c = 90 mm, under loading q.
types.

(c) f y = 235 MPa, b/L = 0.3, h c = 60–120 mm, under loading q. (d) f y = 235–400 MPa, b/L = 0.3, h c = 90 mm, under loading q.

Fig. 11. Strain distributions on top surface of concrete across slab width (y-axis) for different parameters.

where α is a parameter representing the degree of shear-lag
effect.
From Eq. (7) it is derived that εct (b/2) = εct (0)(1 −
0.25α); therefore α = 4(1 − εct (b/2)/εct (0)). When the strain
distribution is uniform across the slab width, then α = 0. Based
on the FEM results of εct (0) and εct (b/2), the values of α under
different parameters were obtained. According to the numerical
results discussed earlier, the parameters h c and f y have a small
influence on α. For example, when b/L = 0.3, the value of α
increases by about 2% when h c increases from 60 to 120 mm,
and α increases by about 4% when f y increases from 235 to
400 MPa. Therefore, the influence of f y and h c on α can be
ignored. The values of α under different loading types and b/L
ratios, when f y = 300 MPa and h c = 90 mm, were calculated
and plotted in Fig. 14. By curve fitting the numerical results of
α with b/L as the sole parameter, the α’s were derived below
and are also plotted in Fig. 14 as
α = 2b/L − 0.075
(for uniform load and two-point load)
α = 7.5b/L − 0.5 (for one-point load).
with the finite element results under different loading types and
b/L ratios, for the case of f y = 300 MPa and h c = 90 mm.
The accuracy of the simplified formulae is confirmed by this
comparison.
As discussed earlier, the curvature φ(y) of the concrete slab
remains constant from y = 0 to y = b/2 under uniform load
and two-point load. By using equation φ(y) = εct (y)/z c (y)
(as shown in Fig. 13) and Eq. (7), z c (y) is derived as shown in
Eq. (9a) below. Meanwhile, since z c (y) remains constant from
y = 0 to y = b/2 under one-point load, Eq. (9b) is adopted for
this case as
y2
 
y
z c (y) = z c0 1 − α + α 2
b b
(for uniform load and two-point load) (9a)
z c (y) = z c0 (for one-point load). (9b)
From Eqs. (7)–(9) and the assumption that the longitudinal
strain at the mid-span of the concrete slab remains co-linear
(8a) along the z-axis, the strain at the mid-span of concrete slab
(8b) εc (y, z) as a function of y and z can be expressed as:

By using Eqs. (7) and (8) we can analytically obtain the z − h c + z c (y)
εc (y, z) = εct (y). (10)
values of εct (y) that are plotted in Fig. 15(a)–(c) to compare z c (y)
 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407
(a) Longitudinal strain along z-axis under load q.
(b) Longitudinal strain along z-axis under load P1 .
(c) Longitudinal strain along z-axis under load P2 .
Fig. 12. Strain distributions along slab depth (z-axis) for different loadings.
Fig. 13. εct (y), ϕ(y) and z c (y) in concrete slab.
1403
Fig. 14. Values of α under different loading types and b/L ratios.
6. Analytical effective width and depth of rectangular-
stress block
According to the uniaxial compressive stress–strain relation-
ship of concrete as shown in Eq. (5), the analytical stress dis-
tribution in the concrete slab at the mid-span of the composite
beam can be expressed as:
 ε (y, z)  εc (y, z)

c
 fc 2− ,
ε0 ε0



σc (y, z) = 0 > εc (y, z) > −ε0 (11)
f , −ε > ε (y, z) > −ε

 c 0 c cu


0, εc (y, z) > 0,
where ε0 = 0.002, εcu = 0.0033, and the tensile strength of
concrete is ignored.
At the ultimate strength state, the maximum strain at the top
surface of the concrete εct (0) = εcu . By substituting Eq. (10)
and εct (0) = εcu into Eq. (11) we can obtain an equation where
σc (y, z) is expressed as a function of the section dimensions,
material strength, and z c0 . Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (2)
into (4) leads to three simultaneous equations from which the
three unknowns z c0 , β and ξ can be analytically solved and thus
the analytical solution of the effective width can be derived.
A series of composite beams with L = 6 m, ratios b/L =
0.1–0.5, h c = 90 mm, h c / h s = 0.1–0.4, concrete class C30,
and yield strength of steel f y = 235 MPa, subjected to a single-
point load, a two-point load and a uniform load were analysed
by using the developed analytical approach. The steel beam
section with a variable height h s , 200 × 12 mm for top and
bottom flanges, and 276×8 mm for web are used in all analyses.
The values of z c0 , β and ξ are solved from Eqs. (2)–(4) and the
results are listed in Tables 2 and 3.
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the effective width factor β is
greater than 0.99 under various beam sizes and loading types
when b/L ≤ 0.5. In general the effective width be increases
with the increase in the actual (physical) width b. Therefore,
the be when b/L > 0.5 should be larger than the corresponding
be when b/L = 0.5. It is suggested that the be in the case of
b/L > 0.5 (this situation does not happen often) be chosen
the same value as the be in the case of b/L = 0.5, which is
on the safe side for the ultimate strength analysis. Based on
these arguments, the effective width be for the ultimate strength
design of composite beams may be obtained as
1404 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407

Table 2
Results of z c0 , β and ξ with various b/L and h c / h s (under uniform load and two-point loads)

hc / hs β ξ
b/L b/L
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.1 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.996 0.993 0.285 0.886 0.910 0.882 0.852
0.2 1.000 1.000 0.998 0.996 0.993 0.886 0.942 0.914 0.883 0.852
0.3 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.993 0.913 0.946 0.914 0.883 0.852
0.4 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.993 0.927 0.946 0.914 0.883 0.852

hc / hs z c0 βbh f c /As f
b/L b/L
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.1 315.53 101.57 93.97 84.15 69.97 0.304 0.608 0.913 1.217 1.521
0.2 101.54 93.04 75.13 58.48 48.64 0.438 0.875 1.313 1.750 2.188
0.3 98.54 90.46 64.14 49.93 41.53 0.513 1.025 1.538 2.050 2.563
0.4 97.04 84.90 58.66 45.66 37.97 0.560 1.121 1.681 2.242 2.802

Table 3
Results of z c0 , β and ξ with various b/L and h c / h s (under one-point load)

hc / hs β ξ
b/L b/L
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.1 1.000 1.000 0.998 0.999 1.000 0.285 0.883 0.954 0.994 1.000
0.2 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.886 0.966 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.913 0.995 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.927 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.000

hc / hs z c0 βbh f c /As f
b/L b/L
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.1 315.53 101.63 93.01 74.44 59.17 0.304 0.608 0.913 1.217 1.521
0.2 101.54 92.67 68.59 51.41 41.13 0.438 0.875 1.313 1.750 2.188
0.3 98.55 88.31 58.54 43.90 35.12 0.513 1.025 1.538 2.050 2.563
0.4 97.05 80.43 53.53 40.14 32.12 0.560 1.121 1.681 2.242 2.802


b, b/L ≤ 0.5 axis, the results in Tables 2 and 3 can be distinguished into two
be = (12)
L/2, b/L > 0.5, situations, namely (a) and (b) as follows:
(a) When βbh c f c > As f (refer to the cases of normal fonts
where L is the span length for simply supported beam and the in Tables 2 and 3), then z c0 < h c ; at this situation the neutral
distance between the points of zero bending moments under axis lies in the concrete slab as shown in Fig. 16(a). We then
dead load for continuous beams. have force equilibrium as
For the ultimate strength analysis AISC [9] and AASHTO
codes [19,20] adopt the same effective width as that used for βbξ z c0 f c = As f. (14)
elastic analysis shown in Eq. (13) below, which is based on the (b) When βbh c f c ≤ As f (refer to the cases of bold fonts in
traditional definition of effective width shown in Eq. (1). Take Tables 2 and 3) or βbh c f c ≈ As f (the italic font in Tables 2 and
an interior girder for example, the effective width is 3, if any), then z c0 > h c ; in this situation the neutral axis lies
be = min {b, L/4, 12ts } , (13) below the concrete slab as shown in Fig. 16(b). We then have

where ts is the thickness of slab. ξ z c0 ≈ h c . (15)

In contrast, Eq. (12) is based on the new definition of
effective width shown in Eqs. (2)–(4) and the real distribution
of strain and stress at the ultimate state. Eq. (12) is more
reasonable for ultimate moment resistance calculation using
rectangular-stress block assumption.
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the plastic neutral axis shifts
upward (with smaller z c0 values) when the ratios b/L and
h c / h s increase. According to the position of the plastic neutral
After obtaining the value of β (=be /b) from Eq. (12), ξ z c0
can then be obtained with either Eq. (14) or Eq. (15). Once
both the width and depth of the stress block are known, the
moment resistance of composite beam sections at the ultimate
strength state can thus be obtained by the traditional plastic
section method specified in any design codes.
Chen et al. [21] have just published their findings from their
comprehensive study on effective width based on their NCHRP
 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407 1405

(a) f y = 300 MPa, h c = 90 mm, under loading q. (b) f y = 300 MPa, h c = 90 mm, under loading P1 .

(c) f y = 300 MPa, h c = 90 mm, under loading P2 .

Fig. 15. Comparison between εct (y) values from finite element method (FEM) and simplified formulae (SF).

Table 4
Comparison of effective width at the ultimate strength state

Cases Proposed be Proposed be in Ref. [21] AISC (AASHTO) be Comments

b/L ≤ 1/4 b b Min(b, 12ts ) Majority cases
1/4 < b/L < 1/2 b b Min(L/4, 12ts ) Some cases
b/L > 1/2 L/2 b Min(L/4, 12ts ) Very rare cases

supported project [22]. The comparison between the proposed
effective width in Eq. (12), that from [21], and that specified
in the US codes (AISC and AASHTO) in Eq. (3) is listed
in Table 4. The majority (perhaps 99%) practical structures
fall into the case of b/L ≤ 1/2. In this range the proposed
effective width be in the present study is exactly the same
as that of Chen et al. [21], though a different approach was
used in the two studies. By using their effective width and that
specified in AASHTO code [20], Chen et al. [21] have shown
that the difference is less than 4% in terms of ultimate capacity.
Therefore, the proposed effective width and that of the AISC
(AASHTO) are indirectly shown to be basically the same for
the case of b/L ≤ 1/2. For b/L > 1/2, while the proposed
effective width could be twice that of the AISC (AASHTO), the
practical structures rarely fall into this category (perhaps <1%).
However, the proposed formula is still more conservative than
that of Chen et al. [21] whose proposed be is b for all girders.
Again, the AISC (AASHTO) is based on elastic analysis, while
the present study is based on the ultimate analysis that is
supposed to be more accurate and less conservative. Due to the
rareness of the practical cases in the range of b/L > 1/2, there
is no available experimental data to directly verify the proposed
formula in the range of b/L > 1/2.
7. Discussion of the effective width
A few special notes are of worth and are mentioned below:
(1) Theoretically, the obtained formulae for the effective
width and depth are only valid for the evaluation of ultimate
strength. However, the effective width is also traditionally used
for stress and deflection calculation.
1406 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407
Fig. 16. Situations (a) and (b) for ultimate strength analysis (dashed rectangular means stress block).
(2) In the present study only simply supported decks
are studied, and other end boundary conditions have not
been considered. However, engineers are more concerned
about the mid-span section that is less affected by the
continuity/boundary conditions. Traditionally, for simplicity,
engineers only distinguish between positive and negative
moment sections without considering the changes of effective
width along the span and without considering many other
factors that may affect the effective width to different extents.
(3) The effective width depends on the level of stress and
type of loading at the section. Therefore, a more general case
of stress resultants, i.e. a case of simultaneous application
of bending and axial forces, should be analysed. However,
considering the axial force will make the problem much more
complicated since axial forces are variable. If axial force is an
important component of the section forces, then we suggest
using 3D finite element analysis directly.
(4) Theoretically, effective width varies along the span
length of the composite deck. Thus, the computation of
deflections in simply supported decks or of stress resultants
in continuous beams can be a rather complex task due
to the longitudinal variation of the cross-section properties.
Using a variable effective width along the span length is too
troublesome and is not practical for routine application.
(5) The proposed effective width is based on limited
finite element and experimental studies. A more meaningful
verification would be a comprehensive one that should include
many cases considering different parameters such as arbitrary
loading, which is out of the scope of the present study and
perhaps should be pursued in a separate study.
8. Conclusions
1. In the traditional definition, the effective width of concrete
slab is determined based on the equivalence of axial force
between the actual stress distribution and the simplified stress
block. In the present study, a new definition of the effective
width is presented for ultimate strength state of steel–concrete
composite beams under sagging moments. The effective width
factor β, the position of neutral axis z c0 , and the depth of
the rectangular-stress block ξ z c0 are solved from a set of
simultaneous equations based on the equivalencies of both the
total axial force and the moment resistance, which ensures that
the simplified stress distribution within the effective width will
represent the actual moment resistance of the original beam.
2. Through an experimental study and finite element analysis
the distributions of longitudinal strain and stress across the
concrete slab at ultimate strength state are examined and
expressed by simplified formulae, which makes it possible to
analytically derive the effective width.
3. For composite beams at the ultimate strength state with
various loading types, β, z c0 and ξ are solved from a set of
simultaneous equations based on the new definition of effective
width and simplified formulae of stress distributions across the
concrete slab.
4. The effective width for the ultimate strength state is found
to be nearly the same as the physical width for the cases
examined in the present study and a simplified effective width
be for composite beam sections subjected to sagging moment
is thus proposed. Simplified formulae for calculating the depth
of the rectangular-stress block ξ z c0 are also presented for the
ultimate strength design of composite beams. Once both the
width and depth of the stress block are known, the moment
resistance of composite beam sections at the ultimate strength
state can thus be obtained by the traditional plastic section
method specified in any design codes.
Acknowledgments
The first two authors gratefully acknowledge the financial
support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (# 50438020) and the third author appreciates
the financial support from the Louisiana State University
for international travel and collaboration. The authors also
appreciate the constructive comments from the reviewers.
References
[1] Adekola AO. Effective widths of composite beams of steel and concrete.
Structural Engineer 1968;46(9):285–9.
[2] Adekola AO. The dependence of shear lag on partial interaction in
composite beams. International Journal of Solids Structures 1973;10(4):
389–400.
[3] Ansourian P, Aust MIE. The effective width of continuous composite
beams. Civil Engineering Transitions 1983;25(1):63–9.
[4] Johnson RP. Research on steel–concrete composite beams. Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE 1970;96(3):445–59.
[5] Heins CP, Fan HM. Effective composite beam width at ultimate load.
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 1976;102(11):2163–79.
[6] Elkelish S, Robison H. Effective widths of composite beams with ribbed
metal desk. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1986;13(2):66–75.
 J.-G. Nie et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1396–1407
[7] Amadio C, Fragiacomo M. Effective width evaluation for steel–concrete
composite beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;58(3):
373–88.
[8] Amadio C, Fedrigo C. Experimental evaluation of Effective width in
steel–concrete composite beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2004;60(2):199–220.
[9] AISC. Load & resistance factor design, Volume 1, Part 5: Composite
design. 1998.
[10] CEN. 1994. Commission of the European communities. ENV 1994-1-1.
Eurocode 4-Design of composite steel and concrete structures-Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings, Bruxelles.
[11] Song QG, Scordelis AC. Formulas for shear-lag effect of T-, and I-,
and box beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1990;116(5):
1306–18.
[12] Song QG, Scordelis AC. Shear-lag analysis of T-, I-, and box beams.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1990;116(5):1290–305.
[13] Elhelbawey M, Fu CC, Sahin MA, Schelling DR. Determination of slab
participation from weigh-in-motion bridge testing. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE 1999;4(3):165–73.
[14] Chiewanichakorn M, Aref AJ, Chen SS, Ahn II S. Effective flange
width for steel–concrete composite bridge girder. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 2004;130(2):2016–30.
1407
[15] Johnson RP. Composite structure of steel and concrete, 2nd ed. vol. 1.
London: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1994.
[16] Nie JG, Cai CS. Steel–concrete composite beams considering shear slip
effect. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(4):495–506.
[17] ANSYS Inc. ANSYS theory reference. 2000.
[18] Aribert JM. Slip and uplift measurements along the steel and concrete
interface of various types of composite beams. In: Proceedings of the
international workshop on needs in testing metals: Testing of metals for
structures. London: E. &FN Spon; 1992. p. 395–407.
[19] AASHTO. Standard specification for highway bridges. Washington (DC):
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO; 2002.
[20] AASHTO. LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington (DC):
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO; 2002.
[21] Chen SS, Aref AJ, Chiewanichakorn M, Ahn II S. Proposed effective
width criteria for composite bridge girders. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE 2007;12(3):325–38.
[22] Chen SS, Aref AJ, Ahn I-S, Chiewanichakorn M, Carpenter JA,
Nottis A et al. Effective slab width for composite steel bridge members
NCHRP Report 543. Washington (DC): Transportation Research Board;
2005.