Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A steelconcrete composite beam model with partial interaction including
the shear deformability of the steel component
Gianluca Ranzi
a,
, Alessandro Zona
b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Building J05, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
b
Department PROCAM, University of Camerino, Ascoli Piceno, Italy
Received 11 May 2006; received in revised form 12 February 2007; accepted 13 February 2007
Available online 30 March 2007
Abstract
This paper presents an analytical model for the analysis of steelconcrete composite beams with partial shear interaction including the
shear deformability of the steel component. This model is obtained by coupling an EulerBernoulli beam for the reinforced concrete slab to
a Timoshenko beam for the steel beam. The composite action is provided by a continuous shear connection which enables relative longitudinal
displacements to occur between the two components. The balance conditions are derived using the principle of virtual work and the weak form of
the problem is presented. The steel of the beam and the steel of the slab reinforcement are modelled by using linear elastic laws, while the time-
dependent behaviour of the slab concrete is included by using a general linear viscouselastic integral-type constitutive law. The numerical solution
is obtained by means of the nite element method implementing a time-stepping procedure. The derived displacement-based nite elements are
tested and their performance is discussed. Extensive numerical simulations are carried out on approximately 200 realistic simply supported and
three-span composite beams to evaluate the effects of the shear deformability of the steel member on the overall structural response. The numerical
results obtained with the proposed model are compared to those of the composite beam model with partial shear interaction that does not include
the shear deformability of the steel beam to determine under which conditions shear deformations of the steel component need to be considered
in the analysis of composite systems and to evaluate how these are affected by the shear connection stiffness and by the redistributions due to the
time-dependent behaviour of the concrete slab.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Composite beams; Partial interaction; Shear deformability; Timoshenko beam; Finite element method; Locking; Steelconcrete composite structures
1. Introduction
The use of steelconcrete composite beams has gained
popularity in the last century thanks to its ability to
well combine the advantages of both steel and concrete.
Composite members exhibit enhanced strength and stiffness
when compared to the contribution of their components acting
separately, and represent a competitive structural solution
in many civil engineering applications, such bridges and
buildings. In the 40s and 50s of the last century the rst
studies on composite beam behaviour underlined that the
relative displacement between the steel beam and the reinforced
concrete slab requires to be included in the beam model for

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9351 5215; fax: +61 2 9351 3343.
E-mail address: G.Ranzi@civil.usyd.edu.au (G. Ranzi).
an adequate representation of the composite action. One of
the earliest papers dealing with this problem is the one by
Newmark et al. [1] and the model proposed at that time is
usually referred to as the Newmark model. This model couples
two EulerBernoulli beams, i.e. one for the reinforced concrete
slab and one for the steel beam, by means of a deformable shear
connection distributed at their interface. The shear connection
enables relative longitudinal displacements to occur between
the two components (partial shear interaction) while preventing
their vertical separation. Since then, many researchers have
extended the Newmark model to include vertical separation
(e.g. [2]), material nonlinearities (e.g. [3]), time dependent
behaviour of concrete (e.g. [4]), shear-lag effects (e.g. [5]),
geometric nonlinearities (e.g. [6]), and out-of-plane bending
as well as torsion [7]. It is beyond the scope of this paper to
provide a review of the current state of the art; useful reviews
were presented in recent works such as [8,9].
0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.02.007
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3027
The objective of this paper is to propose a further
modication of the original Newmark beam model to include
the shear deformability of the steel beam. The Newmark
model neglects the shear deformation of the concrete slab
and of the steel beam, being both components modelled
as EulerBernoulli beams (i.e. beams with innite shear
stiffness), and this hypothesis might not be appropriate in
some cases, e.g. for composite beams with reduced span-
to-depth ratio and for wide ange cross-sections with thin
webs. The simplest beam model that incorporates the effects of
shear deformability is the Timoshenko model. Two Timoshenko
beams coupled together by means of a deformable shear
connection at their interface were recently used by Berczy nski
and Wr oblewski [10] for studying the dynamic behaviour of
composite beams associated with their free vibration and for
developing a damage detection model. Based on comparisons
with experimental results presented by Biscontin et al. [11],
they concluded that their model was the most suitable to
depict damage in composite members as shown to be extremely
sensitive to higher modes of exural vibrations. However,
no information is available in the technical literature to the
knowledge of the authors about the inuence of the shear
deformability on the static behaviour of composite beams with
partial interaction, and the work presented in this paper aims at
lling this gap.
The proposed model is formulated by coupling an
EulerBernoulli beam for the reinforced concrete slab with
a Timoshenko beam for the steel member. The composite
action is provided by a continuous shear connection which,
as in the Newmark model, enables longitudinal relative
displacements to occur between the two components (partial
shear interaction). This model is referred throughout this paper
as the EulerBernoulliTimoshenko composite beam model
(EBT model). Such a model has been preferred to a model
coupling two Timoshenko beams for two reasons: (i) the shear
deformability of the slab is commonly very small due to its
exural slenderness while the shear deformability might not be
negligible for the steel beam; (ii) it permits a more practical
extension to include material nonlinearities in the analysis as a
biaxial constitutive law for the concrete is not required.
The weak form of the balance conditions for the EBT
model is derived using the principle of virtual work. Linear
elastic behaviour is assumed for the steel beam, shear
connection, and reinforcement. The time-dependent behaviour
of the concrete slab is represented by an integral-type linear
viscouselastic constitutive model. Numerical solutions are
sought by means of a displacement-based nite element
formulation relying on a step-by-step procedure for the
time-dependent analysis. Three nite elements are derived
(i.e. one element formulated using the lowest order shape
functions for the problem and two rened elements) and their
performance is tested for two realistic benchmark problems
which consist of a simply supported beam and a two-span
continuous beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load
and to creep and shrinkage effects. An extensive parametric
study is then proposed to investigate the inuence of the
shear deformability of the steel beam on the overall response
Fig. 1. Typical composite beam and cross-section.
using realistic composite members based on Australian
design recommendations [12]. This investigation is carried
out considering approximately 200 simply supported and
three-span continuous beams, specifying various levels of
shear connection stiffness, and accounting for the stress
redistributions due to the time-dependent behaviour of the
concrete slab. Particular attention is given in this study to
identify under which conditions the proposed formulation
yields a structural response signicantly different from the one
obtained using the Newmark model. It is worth observing that
the inclusion in this study of high and low stiffness values for
the shear connection permits to have qualitative information on
the effect of the nonlinear behaviour of the shear connection
itself. In fact the shear connection strongly reduces its stiffness
even with small values of the interface slip, as happens in the
service state conditions when the other materials are still in
the linear elastic range. Thus the two cases of high and low
shear connection stiffness approximately represent the upper
and lower bounds of the expected response in the case of a
service state analysis including the nonlinear behaviour of the
shear connection.
2. Analytical model
2.1. Model assumptions
A prismatic steelconcrete composite beam is made of a
reinforced concrete slab and a steel beam, as shown in Fig. 1.
In its undeformed state, the composite beam occupies the
cylindrical region V = A [0, L] generated by translating its
cross-section A, with regular boundary A, along a rectilinear
axis orthogonal to the cross-section and parallel to the Z axis
of an ortho-normal reference system {O; X, Y, Z}; i, j, k are
the unit vectors of axis X, Y, Z. The composite cross-section
domain is formed by the slab, referred to as A
1
, and by the steel
beam, referred to as A
2
. The two components of the composite
cross-section, A
1
and A
2
, are assumed to be symmetrical about
the Y Z plane. Loads are symmetrical with respect to the Y Z
plane which represents the plane of bending. No torsion and
out-of-plane exure are considered.
The slab component is assumed to obey the EulerBernoulli
beam model, i.e. small displacements and strains, plane
sections perpendicular to the beam axis remain plane, rigid
and perpendicular to the beam axis after deformation. Perfect
bond occurs between reinforcement and concrete. The steel
beam component is modelled using the Timoshenko beam
theory, i.e. small displacements and strains, plane sections
3028 G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041
Fig. 2. Displacement eld of the EBT composite beam model.
perpendicular to the beam axis remain plane and rigid but not
necessarily perpendicular to the beam axis after deformation,
being their rotation independent from the slope of the beam.
The composite action between the two components is provided
by a continuous deformable interface along a rectilinear line
at the interface between the two layers, whose domain consists
of the points in the Y Z plane with y = y
sc
and z [0, L], y
sc
being dened in Fig. 1. The connection is assumed to permit
only discontinuities parallel to the beam axis; thus no vertical
separation can occur between the two layers.
2.2. Displacement and strain elds
The displacement eld of a generic point P(x, y, z) of the
composite beam is dened by vector d:
d(y, z; t )
=
_

_
d
1
(y, z; t ) = v(z; t )j + [w
1
(z; t ) (y y
1
)v

(z; t )]k
(x, y) A
1
, z [0, L]
d
2
(y, z; t ) = v(z; t )j + [w
2
(z; t ) +(y y
2
)(z; t )]k
(x, y) A
2
, z [0, L]
(1)
where w
1
(z; t ) and w
2
(z; t ) are the axial displacements of the
reference bres of the two beam components located at y
1
and y
2
respectively (Fig. 2); v(z; t ) represents the deection
of both components as no vertical separation can take place;
(z; t ) is the rotation of the bottom layer. For generality, the
reference bres of the two components are located at arbitrary
levels referred to as y
1
and y
2
respectively. Translations and
rotations are assumed positive when directed towards their
relevant positive axes and when counter clockwise respectively.
Variable t is time or another ordering parameter in the problem
considered (for example t might represent the time from casting
of the slab concrete). The prime represents the derivative with
respect to z. The functions dening the displacement eld can
be grouped in the vector:
u
T
(z; t ) =
_
w
1
(z; t ) w
2
(z; t ) v(z; t ) (z; t )
_
. (2)
The slip between the two components, which represents the
discontinuity of axial displacements at their interface, is given
by the vector s as
s(z; t ) = s(z; t )k = d
2
(0, y
sc
, z; t ) d
1
(0, y
sc
, z; t )
= [w
2
(z; t ) w
1
(z; t ) h
2
(z; t ) + h
1
v

(z; t )]k (3)

where h
1
= y
sc
y
1
and h
2
= y
2
y
sc
.
Based on the assumed displacement eld, the non zero
components of the strain eld are:

z
(y, z; t ) =
d
z
k =
_

z
1
(y, z; t ) = w

1
(y y
1
)v

(x, y) A
1
, z [0, L]

z
2
(y, z; t ) = w

2
+ (y y
2
)

(x, y) A
2
, z [0, L]
(4a)

yz
2
(y, z; t ) =
d
2
z
j +
d
2
y
k = v

+
(x, y) A
2
, z [0, L] (4b)
where
z
1
and
z
2
are the axial strains of the two components
and
yz
2
is the shear deformation of the steel beam. The
functions describing the strain eld can be grouped in the vector

T
(z; t )
=
_

1
(z; t )
2
(z; t )
1
(z; t )
2
(z; t )
yz
2
(z; t ) s(z; t )
_
(5)
where
1
(z; t ) = w

1
and
2
(z; t ) = w

2
are the axial strains
at the levels of the reference bres of the two components
respectively,
1
(z; t ) = v

is the curvature of the Bernoulli

beam, and
2
(z; t ) =

is the curvature of the Timoshenko

beam. The vector of strain functions can be obtained from the
vector of displacement functions by means of the relation:
= Du (6)
where the matrix operator is dened as:
D =
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
2
0
0 0 0
0 0 1
1 1 h
1
h
2
_

_
(7)
being the derivative with respect to z.
Hereafter, for ease of notation, space and time variable
dependency is omitted when clear from the context.
2.3. Balance conditions
The principle of virtual work is utilized to obtain the weak
form of the balance condition of the problem:
2

=1
_
L
_
A

z

z
dAdz +
_
L
_
A
2

yz
2

yz
2
dAdz +
_
L
g
sc
sdz
=
2

=1
_
L
_
A

b

ddAdz +
2

=1
_
L
_
A

t

ddsdz
+
2

=1
_
A
0,L
t

ddA

d (8)
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3029
in which
z
,
yz
2
and g
sc
represent the active stresses
(i.e. stresses that produce internal work) computed from the
relevant strains
z
,
yz
2
and s once the constitutive laws are
introduced, b and t are the body and surface forces respectively,
and the third integral on the right-hand side of the equation
represents the work done by the surface forces applied at the
cross-sections A
0,L
at the beam ends, i.e. z = 0, L. All applied
loads can vary in the time domain with quasi-static rate (i.e. no
dynamic effects are included). Virtual displacements and strains
are identied by means of a hat placed above the variables
considered. Integrals over the slab cross-section A
1
include the
contributions of both concrete and reinforcement. The solution
of the problem is then sought in the spaces of regular functions
fullling the kinematic boundary conditions.
Based on the weak formulation specied in Eq. (8), the
stress resultant entities, which are duals of the kinematic entities
derived from the assumed displacement eld, can be identied
and grouped in the vector r:
r
T
=
_
N
1
N
2
M
1
M
2
V
2
g
sc
_
(9)
in which
N

=
_
A

z
dA

(10a)
M

=
_
A

z
(y y

)dA

(10b)
V
2
=
_
A
2

yz
2
dA
2
. (10c)
Similarly, the load resultants along the beam are collected in the
vector g:
g
T
=
_
g
z1
g
z2
g
y
m
x1
m
x2
_
(11)
where
g
z
=
_
A

b kdA

+
_
A

t kds (12a)
g
y
=
2

=1
_
A

b jdA

+
2

=1
_
A

t jds (12b)
m
x
=
_
A

b k(y

y)dA

+
_
A

t k(y

y)ds (12c)
while vector p
i
identies the load resultants applied at beam
ends (i = 0, L for z = 0 and z = L respectively)
p
T
i
=
_
N
i 1
N
i 2
V
i y
M
i 1
M
i 2
_
(13)
in which
N
i
=
_
A

t kdA

z=z
i
(14a)
V
i y
=
2

=1
_
A

t jdA
2

z=z
i
(14b)
M
i
=
_
A

t k(y y

)dA

z=z
i
. (14c)
At this point, Eq. (8) can be rewritten in compact form as:
_
L
0
r D udz =
_
L
0
g H udz +

i =0,L
P
i
H u(z
i
) u (15)
with the matrix operator H dened as:
H =
_
_
_
_
_
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 1
_

_
. (16)
Eq. (15) forms the basis for the numerical formulation
proposed in this paper, which is derived by means of the nite
element method.
3. Material constitutive models
3.1. Time-dependent constitutive law for concrete
The time-dependent behaviour of the concrete slab is
modelled accounting for creep and shrinkage effects based on
the integral-type constitutive law [13]:

tot
(t )
sh
(t ) =
c
(t
0
)J(t, t
0
) +
_
t
t
+
0
J(t, )d
c
() (17)
where t is the time from casting of the concrete, t
0
is the time
of rst loading,
tot
(t ) is the total axial strain which combines
both stress-dependent and stress-independent strains,
sh
(t ) is
the shrinkage strain (while other stress-independent strains,
e.g. thermal dilatation, could be modelled in a similar manner),
and J(t, ) is the creep function dened as the strain at time t
due to a constant unit stress acting from time to time t ,
c
(t )
is the concrete stress calculated at time t . The superposition
integral of Eq. (17) is here approximated by means of the
step-by-step procedure, applying the trapezoidal rule [13]. This
approximation implies that [14]:
_
t
t
+
0
J(t, )d
c
()

=
k

i =1
1
2
[J(t
k
, t
i
) + J(t
k
, t
i 1
)][
c
(t
i
)
c
(t
i 1
)] (18)
with time t subdivided into discrete times t
0
, t
1
, t
2
, . . . t
i
, . . . t
k
,
and
c
(t
i
) (also referred to as
ci
) dened as the concrete
stress calculated at time t
i
. Thus substituting Eq. (18) into
Eq. (17) yields:

ck

shk

=
c
(t
0
)J(t
k
, t
0
)
+
k

i =1
1
2
[J(t
k
, t
i
) + J(t
k
, t
i 1
)][
c
(t
i
)
c
(t
i 1
)] (19)
where
ck
is the total axial strain which combines both stress-
dependent and stress-independent strains,
shk
is the shrinkage
strain, and J(t
k
, t
i
) is the creep function which is dened as the
strain at time t
k
caused by a constant unit stress acting from
time t
i
to time t
k
.
3030 G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041
Simplifying and rearranging Eq. (19) in terms of the
concrete stress
ck
at time t
k
, the concrete constitutive law can
be obtained as:

ck
=
1k

ck
+
k1

i =0

ci

2ki

1k

shk
(20)
and

1k
=
2
J(t
k
, t
k
) + J(t
k
, t
k1
)
(21a)

2ki
=
_

_
J(t
k
, t
1
) J(t
k
, t
0
)
J(t
k
, t
k
) + J(t
k
, t
k1
)
for i = 0
J(t
k
, t
i +1
) J(t
k
, t
i 1
)
J(t
k
, t
k
) + J(t
k
, t
k1
)
for i = 1, . . . , k 1.
(21b)
It is also assumed that the time-dependent behaviour of the
concrete is described by Eq. (20) in both compression and
tension. This is acceptable for stress levels in compression less
than about one half of the compressive strength of the concrete,
and for tensile stresses less than about one half of the tensile
strength of the concrete, as recommended by Gilbert [15] and
Ba zant and Oh [16]. Consequently the results obtained using
the proposed approach are assumed to be acceptable from
a qualitative and quantitative viewpoint when the calculated
stresses remain in this stress range. Nevertheless, when the
calculated stresses are outside this range the results might still
be meaningful from a qualitative viewpoint only, for example,
in comparing the effects of different cross-sectional properties.
3.2. Constitutive law for reinforcement and steel beam
The steel beam and the reinforcing bars are assumed to have
a linear elastic behaviour. The elastic and shear moduli for the
steel beam are referred to as E
2
and G
2
respectively and the
active stress components in the steel beam are:

z
2
(y, z; t ) = E
2

z
2
= E
2
[w

2
+ (y y
2
)

] (22a)

yz
2
(y, z; t ) = G
2

yz
2
= G
2
(v

+ ). (22b)
The elastic modulus for the reinforcement is referred to as
E
r
and its linear-elastic relationship is dened as:

r
(y, z; t ) = E
r

z
1
= E
r
[w

1
(y y
1
)v

] (23)
where the relevant stress for each rebar is obtained from
the deformation of the slab component at the rebar level,
having assumed a perfect bond between concrete and steel
reinforcement.
3.3. Constitutive law for shear connection
The shear connection is assumed to have a linear elastic
behaviour described by the following equation:
g
sc
(z; t ) = ks(z; t )
= k[w
2
(z; t ) w
1
(z; t ) h
2
(z; t ) + h
1
v

(z; t )] (24)
in which k represents the connection stiffness which relates the
longitudinal force per unit length g
sc
to the corresponding slip s.
3.4. Constitutive laws in matrix form
The constitutive laws introduced for the concrete slab,
reinforcement and steel beam can be written in compact form
at time t
k
as:
r = D + f
c
f
sh
(25)
in which
D =
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
E A
1
0 ES
1
0 0 0
0 E A
2
0 ES
2
0 0
ES
1
0 E J
1
0 0 0
0 ES
2
0 E J
2
0 0
0 0 0 0 GA
V2
0
0 0 0 0 0 k
_

_
. (26)
The relevant cross-sectional properties are calculated at time t
k
as
E A
1
=
_
A
1

1k
dA +
R

j =1
E
r
A
r( j )
(27a)
E A
2
=
_
A
2
E
2
dA (27b)
GA
V2
=
_
A
w2
G
2
dA (27c)
ES
1
=
_
A
1

1k
(y y
1
)dA +
R

j =1
E
r
(y
r( j )
y
1
)A
r( j )
(27d)
ES
2
=
_
A
2
E
2
(y y
2
)dA (27e)
E J
1
=
_
A
1

1k
(y y
1
)
2
dA +
R

j =1
E
r
(y
r( j )
y
1
)
2
A
r( j )
(27f)
E J
2
=
_
A
2
E
2
(y y
2
)
2
dA (27g)
in which the contribution of slab reinforcement is explicitly
considered, being A
r( j )
the resisting cross-section area of the
j -th bar located at y
r( j )
, and R the total number of bars in the
cross-section; A
w2
represents the area of the steel cross-section
resisting shear loading.
The vector f
sh
collects the shrinkage loading resisted by the
concrete component at time t
k
as:
f
T
sh
=
1k

shk
__
A
c
dA 0
_
A
c
(y y
1
)dA 0 0 0
_
(28)
and, as the time-dependent behaviour of the concrete at time
t
k
requires the stresses resisted by the concrete at time t
i
(i =
0, . . . , k 1) to be considered as dened in Eq. (20), this has
been carried out by recording the history of the concrete stress
resultants as follows
f
c
=
_
_
Ac
k1

i =0

zci

2ki
dA 0
_
Ac
k1

i =0
(y y
1
)
zci

2ki
dA 0 0 0
_
(29)
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3031
in which
zci
is the longitudinal active stress resisted by the
concrete at time t
i
.
4. Balance conditions in the linear viscouselastic case
Based on the linear viscouselastic material properties
introduced, the weak form of the EBT model can be written,
substituting Eq. (25) into Eq. (15), as:
_
L
0
(D + f
c
f
sh
) D udz =
_
L
0
g H udz
+
2

i =1
p
i
H u(z
i
) u. (30)
Several analyses are required to complete a long-term
analysis based on the step-by-step procedure. For each time
step, the previous history of the stresses resisted by the concrete
component needs to be accounted for and the cross-sectional
properties are re-calculated. This is accomplished by recording
and updating at each time step the vector f
c
collecting the
concrete stress resultants dened in Eq. (29) and by adopting
the current concrete material properties in the determination of
the cross-sectional properties.
5. Finite element formulation
5.1. Displacement-based nite element approach
A numerical solution method relying on the conventional
displacement approach of the nite element method is adopted
in this paper for the EBT composite beam model. Three new
nite elements are derived based on different shape functions
for the displacement eld. In the following, it is shown how
undesired locking problems can be avoided with a careful
selection of these shape functions.
5.2. Locking problems
Numerical problems may occur in structural modelling when
two or more displacement elds are coupled and when the
solution is sought in nite dimensional spaces, as those used
in nite element approximations [17]. The accuracy of the
solution depends on some characteristic parameters involved
in the coupled terms and, for limit values, further relations
between unknowns might develop reducing the dimensions
of the solution space. In some cases, the dimension goes
to zero and the model completely locks or, in general, a
stiffer response and spurious strains can be observed when
the phenomenon occurs. Examples of these problems include
shear locking [18,19] that may develop in Timoshenko beam
elements by varying the shear stiffness, the eccentricity
issue [2022] that may affect the ordinary EulerBernoulli
beam when varying the origin of the reference system, and
slip locking [23] that may occur in Newmark composite
beams with deformable shear connection. In all of these cases,
the generalized strains are functions of various components
of the generalized displacements or of their derivatives. For
example, in the Timoshenko beam model the shear deformation
depends on the rst derivative of the deection and on
the rotation, in the EulerBernoulli beam model the axial
deformation is determined based on derivatives of both axial
displacement and deection, while in the Newmark model the
interface slip is calculated from axial displacements and from
the rst derivative of the deection. In these cases, locking
problems can be avoided when consistent contributions of
the generalized displacements or their derivatives, i.e. same
order polynomials from each contribution, are provided to the
generalized strains [17,23].
The particularity of the proposed EBT composite beam
model is that the three types of locking problems previously
outlined, i.e., eccentricity issue, shear locking and slip locking,
may occur simultaneously in the same nite element. For
this particular model, the following functions need to be
approximated with polynomials of the same order to provide
a consistent displacement eld and to avoid the occurrence of
locking problems: (i) axial displacement w
1
and rst derivative
of deection v

in the Bernoulli component (consistency in the

rst line of Eq. (4a)); (ii) axial displacement w
2
and rotation
in the Timoshenko component (consistency in the second line
of Eq. (4a)); (iii) rotation and rst derivative of deection v

in the Timoshenko component (consistency in Eq. (4b)); and

(iv) axial displacements w
1
and w
2
as well as the two rotations
v

and (consistency in Eq. (3)).

5.3. Simplest displacement-based nite element
The simplest element (Fig. 3(a)) which can be derived
for the EBT model has 10 degrees-of-freedom (DOF) that
are the least DOF required for describing the problem
under consideration. Its shape functions consist of a cubic
function for the deection and a linear function for the axial
displacements of the EulerBernoulli component (Table 1).
Since no vertical separation can occur between the two
layers, the same cubic function is used to approximate the
deection of the Timoshenko component despite the fact that
an isolated Timoshenko beam would require a linear function
for the deection. Conversely, its shape functions for the axial
displacement and rotation are the simplest possible for an
isolated Timoshenko beam (i.e. linear functions). Based on
the previous considerations, this simple 10DOF nite element
does not full the consistency conditions between the different
displacement elds coupled in the problem; in fact, conditions
(i), (iii) and (iv) discussed in the previous sub-paragraph are not
satised. As shown hereafter, the use of this element leads to
poor and unsatisfactory results, similar to those observed for the
simplest displacement-based 8DOF element for the Newmark
model [23]. Thus, the use of the 10DOF EBT beam element is
discouraged.
5.4. Rened displacement-based nite elements
The simplest nite element fullling the consistency
conditions of the displacement eld is the 13DOF depicted
in Fig. 3(b) which enhances the order of the approximated
polynomials for the axial displacements and rotations of the
3032 G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041
(a) 10DOF nite element.
(b) 13DOF nite element.
(c) 21DOF nite element.
Fig. 3. Finite elements for the EBT composite beam model.
Table 1
Degrees of shape functions for the proposed EBT nite elements
w
1
w
2
v
10DOF EBT f.e. 1 1 3 1
13DOF EBT f.e. 2 2 3 2
21DOF EBT f.e. 4 4 5 4
Timoshenko component to parabolic functions while using the
same polynomials of the 10DOF element for the deection
(Table 1).
A second consistent element is considered in this study: a
higher order 21DOF element (Fig. 3(c)) which is derived to
provide a means for benchmarking the numerical solutions.
Its approximated elds are fth order polynomials for the
deection, fourth order polynomials for the axial displacements
of both components, and fourth order polynomials for the
rotation of the Timoshenko component (Table 1).
6. Comparisons between the proposed nite elements
The nite elements implemented for the EBT beam model
are tested for short- and long-term response analyses of
composite beams considering two structural systems, a simply
supported beam and a two-span continuous beam with 25 m
spans in both cases, subjected to a uniformly distributed
load. Comparisons are carried out for low (L = 1) and
high (L = 50) values of the shear connection stiffness,
assumed constant along the beam, where L is a dimensionless
parameter commonly used for describing the connection
stiffness, being:

2
= k
_
1
E A
1
+
1
E A
2
+
h
2
E J
1
+ E J
2
_
(31)
in which h = h
1
+ h
2
= y
2
y
1
, and the cross-sectional
properties included in
2
are calculated about the centroidal
axes of the two components.
The adopted cross-section is the one used by Tarantino and
Dezi [4], i.e. a rectangular slab 2300 200 mm
2
, a fabricated
steel beam with top ange 30020 mm
2
, web 155015 mm
2
,
bottom ange 450 30 mm
2
. The elastic modulus for the
reinforcement and the steel beam is 210 000 MPa. A shear
modulus of 80 000 MPa is used for the steel beam. For the
time-dependent analysis, both creep and shrinkage effects are
considered and the time domain is subdivided into 80 intervals.
The age of concrete at the beginning of shrinkage is taken as 4
days. An external uniformly distributed load of 64.56 kN/m is
applied at 28 days and the long-term behaviour is evaluated at
25 550 days, i.e. 70 years. All material properties are calculated
in accordance with the CEB-FIP guidelines [24] assuming a
relative humidity (RH) of the ambient environment of 70%, a
concrete strength of 32 MPa, and the use of normal and rapid
hardening cements N and R (i.e. relevant coefcient equals
0.25) [24].
For each of the three nite elements illustrated, a four-
element mesh is specied for comparative purposes, while
the benchmark solution is obtained using a 20-element mesh
based on the 21DOF element. All specied meshes are evenly
spaced. Selected results are shown in Fig. 4 for the simply
supported beam and in Fig. 5 for one span of the two-span
continuous beam. The plotted results are represented in non-
dimensional units using as reference the maximum values
calculated from the benchmark mesh. Figs. 4 and 5 show that
the 10DOF element underestimates the deection and gives a
poor description of curvature, which originates from locking
problems due to its inconsistency in the shape functions adopted
for the approximation of the displacement eld as previously
discussed. On the other hand, both 13DOF and 21DOF are able
to provide good results even with a coarse mesh.
7. Inuence of the shear deformability of the steel beam
An extensive parametric study is carried out to identify
under which conditions shearing deformations become signi-
cant and to evaluate whether the shear connection stiffness and
the concrete time-dependent behaviour affect these conditions.
For this purpose, realistic composite steelconcrete bridge ar-
rangements are considered based on Australian guidelines [12].
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the bridge specications for the
approximately 200 arrangements considered which consist of
simply supported and three-span continuous systems. Beams
are subjected to a uniformly distributed load applied at 28 days
and creep effects are evaluated at 75 years. The extreme cases
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3033
(a) Deection at time t
0
(L = 50). (b) Curvature of the bottom layer at time t
0
(L = 50).
Fig. 4. Comparison between elements: deection and curvature for a simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load.
(a) Deection at time t
0
(L = 50). (b) Curvature of the bottom layer at time t
0
(L = 50).
Fig. 5. Comparison between elements: Deection and curvature for a two-span continuous beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load (only one span shown).
of low (L = 1) and high (L = 50) shear connection stiffness
are considered. The concrete properties are specied in [12] and
are identical to those utilized in the applications presented in the
previous section.
The results presented are obtained with the proposed
21DOF element for the EBT beam model (which accounts
for shearing deformations of the steel component) and with
the 16DOF element [25] for the Newmark model (which
ignores shearing deformations). A ne mesh is adopted in all
simulations. The following displacements, strains and internal
actions are monitored (Figs. 623): vertical deection, rotations
and curvatures for the two components, slip between slab
and steel joist, and axial force and moment resisted by the
two components. The two subscript EBT and Newmark
Fig. 6. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values for the mid-
span deection calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
3034 G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041
Table 2
Parametric study: Dimensions of the simply supported bridges
Steel beam size L
A
(m) L
A
/D
steel
L
B
(m) L
B
/D
steel
L
C
(m) L
C
/D
steel
L
D
(m) L
D
/D
steel
530UB82 10.7 477.9 15.1 9.5 376.7 13.4 8.2 280.7 11.2 7.2 216.4 9.5
530UB92.4 11.2 482.0 15.8 10.1 392.0 14.2 8.8 297.5 12.1 7.8 233.8 10.3
610UB101 12.4 505.3 15.7 11.2 412.2 14.2 10.1 335.2 12.5 8.8 254.5 10.5
610UB113 12.9 505.8 16.3 11.7 416.0 14.8 10.7 348.0 13.2 9.4 268.5 11.2
610UB125 13.4 517.1 17.0 12.1 421.7 15.3 11.3 367.7 14.0 10.1 293.8 12.0
700WB115 14.0 452.2 15.9 12.8 378.0 14.5 11.6 310.4 12.9 10.2 240.0 11.0
700WB130 14.9 428.2 16.9 13.6 356.7 15.5 12.6 306.2 14.0 11.0 233.4 11.8
700WB150 15.9 404.5 18.1 14.5 336.4 16.5 13.4 287.3 14.9 12.1 234.3 13.0
700WB173 16.8 376.8 19.1 15.5 320.7 17.6 14.2 269.2 15.8 13.2 232.6 14.2
800WB122 15.0 436.5 15.3 13.9 374.8 14.2 12.8 317.8 12.8 11.3 247.7 11.0
800WB146 16.4 405.8 16.7 15.1 344.0 15.4 14.0 295.7 14.0 12.6 239.5 12.2
800WB168 17.4 379.6 17.8 16.1 325.0 16.4 14.9 278.4 14.9 13.8 238.8 13.4
800WB192 18.5 361.1 18.9 17.1 308.5 17.4 15.9 266.7 15.9 14.9 234.2 14.5
900WB175 18.6 485.6 17.2 17.2 415.2 15.9 15.9 354.8 14.5 14.9 311.6 13.2
900WB218 20.5 434.4 19.0 18.9 369.2 17.5 17.6 320.2 16.0 16.5 281.4 14.6
900WB257 22.0 404.9 20.4 20.3 344.8 18.8 18.9 298.8 17.2 17.8 265.1 15.8
900WB282 22.9 390.3 21.2 21.2 334.5 19.6 19.7 288.8 17.9 18.7 260.2 16.5
1000WB215 21.3 687.5 18.1 19.6 582.1 16.6 18.3 507.4 15.3 17.1 443.1 13.9
1000WB258 23.1 611.3 19.6 21.3 519.8 18.1 19.8 449.1 16.5 18.7 400.6 15.2
1000WB296 24.4 560.0 20.7 22.6 480.4 19.2 21.0 414.8 17.5 19.9 372.5 16.2
1000WB322 25.3 539.3 21.4 23.5 465.3 19.9 21.8 400.4 18.2 20.6 357.5 16.7
1200WB249 24.1 655.4 17.5 22.3 561.2 16.2 20.6 478.9 14.7 18.8 398.8 13.1
1200WB278 25.4 610.4 18.4 23.4 518.1 17.0 21.7 445.5 15.5 20.5 397.6 14.3
1200WB317 26.8 561.6 19.4 24.8 480.9 18.0 23.0 413.7 16.4 21.7 368.2 15.2
1200WB342 27.7 539.2 20.1 25.6 460.5 18.6 23.8 398.0 17.0 22.4 352.6 15.7
1200WB392 29.3 500.7 21.2 27.1 428.3 19.6 25.2 370.4 18.0 23.7 327.6 16.6
1200WB423 30.1 478.0 21.8 28.0 413.6 20.3 26.0 356.6 18.6 24.5 316.7 17.1
1200WB455 31.2 468.8 22.6 29.0 405.0 21.0 26.9 348.5 19.2 25.4 310.7 17.8
(i) For each steel section, four different bridge arrangements (with different concrete slab dimensions and spans) have been considered. The spans are referred to as
L
A
, L
B
, L
C
and L
D
respectively. Different concrete slab dimensions are specied for each span and these consist of: (a) 1700 mm wide 180 mm thick for L
A
;
(b) 2200 mm wide 180 mm thick for L
B
; (c) 2800 mm wide 200 mm thick for L
C
; (d) 3500 mm wide 230 mm thick for L
D
.
(ii) D
steel
represents the depth of the steel cross-section.
(a) Rotation of the concrete component at the end support. (b) Rotation of the steel component at the end support.
Fig. 7. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
are introduced for the variables included in Figs. 623 to
highlight whether their values are calculated using the EBT
or Newmark models respectively. To clearly evaluate the
differences between the two models, only the non-dimensional
variations between their results are reported for both short- and
long-term values separately; for this purpose, two additional
subscripts 0 and k are used to specify whether a variable
is calculated based on an instantaneous analysis (at time t
0
) or
a long-term one (at time t
k
) respectively. This representation
allows an immediate appraisal of the differences between the
two composite beam models. Results are plotted as a function
of the dimensionless parameter dened as
=
GA
V2
E J
2
L
2
(32)
where the cross-sectional properties are dened in Eqs.
(27), and L represents the distance between two points of
contraexure, taken as the whole beam length for simply
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3035
Table 3
Parametric study: Dimensions of the three-span continuous bridges
Steel beam size L
A
(m) L
A
/D
steel
L
B
(m) L
B
/D
steel
L
C
(m) L
C
/D
steel
L
D
(m) L
D
/D
steel
530UB82 34.3 307.3 13.0 31.2 253.9 11.8 29.1 221.2 10.7 27.8 201.9 9.9
530UB92.4 35.9 309.2 13.6 32.5 253.7 12.3 30.4 222.2 11.2 29.1 203.6 10.3
610UB101 39.8 325.0 13.6 36.1 268.2 12.3 33.8 234.6 11.2 32.0 210.0 10.3
610UB113 41.3 324.6 14.1 38.0 273.7 12.9 35.1 234.0 11.7 32.0 194.3 10.3
610UB125 43.2 335.3 14.7 39.5 281.1 13.5 36.7 241.9 12.2 34.6 215.2 11.1
700WB115 45.8 301.9 14.0 41.9 252.6 12.8 38.7 216.4 11.6 36.4 191.0 10.5
700WB130 48.4 281.9 14.8 44.2 235.5 13.5 41.1 203.4 12.3 38.7 180.9 11.2
700WB150 51.5 265.0 15.8 47.1 221.5 14.4 43.9 193.1 13.1 41.1 168.8 11.9
700WB173 54.6 248.7 16.7 49.9 207.9 15.3 46.5 180.7 13.9 43.7 159.2 12.6
800WB122 51.2 318.1 14.1 47.1 268.5 12.9 43.4 228.6 11.7 40.8 202.0 10.7
800WB146 55.4 289.2 15.2 50.4 239.9 13.9 47.1 208.8 12.7 44.2 184.2 11.6
800WB168 59.0 273.0 16.2 53.8 227.0 14.8 49.9 195.3 13.4 47.1 173.5 12.3
800WB192 62.7 258.9 17.2 56.9 213.8 15.6 52.8 183.7 14.2 50.2 166.0 13.1
900WB175 64.0 358.8 15.9 58.5 300.2 14.6 54.1 256.5 13.2 51.2 230.1 12.2
900WB218 70.5 320.7 17.6 64.5 268.6 16.1 59.8 231.0 14.6 56.4 205.6 13.4
900WB257 75.4 297.3 18.8 69.4 252.0 17.3 64.0 213.9 15.7 60.3 190.3 14.4
900WB282 78.0 283.0 19.4 72.3 243.0 18.0 66.8 207.7 16.4 62.9 184.1 15.0
1000WB215 73.1 505.5 16.7 67.1 426.1 15.3 62.1 365.7 13.9 58.5 324.1 12.8
1000WB258 78.3 438.5 17.9 73.1 382.2 16.7 67.6 327.2 15.2 63.7 290.5 13.9
1000WB296 n/a n/a n/a 77.7 355.3 17.7 72.0 304.9 16.2 67.9 270.7 14.9
1000WB322 n/a n/a n/a 80.1 337.7 18.3 75.1 297.3 16.9 70.7 263.3 15.5
1200WB249 83.2 488.2 16.2 76.7 414.9 15.0 71.8 363.2 13.8 68.1 327.3 12.8
1200WB278 n/a n/a n/a 80.1 379.2 15.6 74.9 331.6 14.4 71.2 300.1 13.4
1200WB317 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 78.8 303.3 15.2 75.4 277.8 14.2
1200WB342 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 81.9 294.6 15.8 78.0 267.2 14.7
1200WB392 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 82.4 247.6 15.5
(i) For each steel section, four different bridge arrangements (with different concrete slab dimensions and spans) have been considered. The whole lengths of the
three-span bridges are referred to as L
A
, L
B
, L
C
and L
D
respectively (with external spans equal to 0.8 of the internal one). Different concrete slab dimensions are
specied for each beamlength and these consist of: (a) 1700 mmwide180 mmthick for L
A
; (b) 2200 mmwide180 mmthick for L
B
; (c) 2800 mmwide200 mm
thick for L
C
; (d) 3500 mm wide 230 mm thick for L
D
.
(ii) D
steel
represents the depth of the steel cross-section.
(iii) Values not available (identied with n/a) have not been provided in [12].
(a) Curvature in the concrete component at mid-span. (b) Curvature in the steel component at mid-span.
Fig. 8. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
supported beams and 0.7 of the internal span for the continuous
systems. As the proposed parametric study is concerned with
H-shaped sections only, the area resisting shear actions is
assumed to include the web and its prolongations into the
anges (i.e. area with width equal to the web thickness and
height equal to the steel section depth). For completeness,
values of corresponding to the beam arrangements considered
are provided in Tables 2 and 3.
7.1. Simply supported beams
The simply supported beams considered in this study
have values for in the range 215690 (Table 2); these
represent realistic bridge arrangements according to design
guidelines [12].
Fig. 6 depicts the variation between the mid-span deection
calculated using the EBT and Newmark models. The
3036 G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041
Fig. 9. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values for the end
slip calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
Fig. 10. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values calculated
using the EBT and Newmark models.
shear connection stiffness signicantly affects the discrepancy
between these results. For weak shear connections, the
maximum difference between the two models remains within
4%, while this more than doubles for strong shear connections,
i.e. with maximum differences slightly greater than 8%. The
concrete time-dependent behaviour tends to decrease these
variations for high levels of shear connection stiffness while an
opposite trend is noted with low stiffness.
A similar situation is observed in Fig. 7(a) for the rotation
of the top component even if in this latter case the observed
discrepancies reach slightly higher peaks of 5% and 10% for
Fig. 12. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values for the
deection calculated along the beam with the EBT and Newmark models at
time t
0
.
weak and strong shear connection stiffness respectively. On the
other hand, the use of the EBT model to determine the rotation
of the bottom component leads to underestimates of its values
as shown in Fig. 7(b); also in this case both shear connection
stiffness and concrete long-term behaviour affect the results.
The curvatures of the top and bottom components follow the
trends described for their rotations, as shown in Fig. 8, even if
with slightly smaller differences.
Regarding the end slip, the differences in the results obtained
using the two models appear to be more pronounced for rigid
shear connection stiffness (Fig. 9) even if in this case the
(a) Moment resisted by the concrete component at mid-span. (b) Moment resisted by the steel component at mid-span.
Fig. 11. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3037
Fig. 13. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values for the
deection calculated along the beam with the EBT and Newmark models at
time t
k
.
magnitude of the slip is small; for lowshear connection stiffness
these differences remain within 1%.
The axial forces resisted by the two components are
marginally affected by the inclusion of shearing deformations
in the modelling as the differences in the calculated values
are small, i.e. below 1%. As the variations observed for the
axial forces resisted by the top and bottom components are
identical (as the net axial force resisted by the composite cross-
section is nil), only the results related to the axial force in the
steel component are provided in Fig. 10. Greater differences
are observed for the moments resisted by the two components
(Fig. 11). It is however worth noting that the more pronounced
differences are related to cases in which the values of the
bending moments are relatively small. The internal actions are
again inuenced by the rigidity of the shear connection and by
time effects: greater variations in their values are observed at
low levels of the shear connection stiffness, while long-term
effects tend to emphasize these differences for all levels of shear
connection stiffness.
Figs. 12 and 13 outline the distributions of the differences
between the deection calculated along the beam length using
the EBT and Newmark models for the full range of beam
arrangements considered in Table 2; for clarity, results are
grouped according to their values of . It is clear that their
variations are much more pronounced for high levels of shear
connection stiffness, in which case these differences tend to
slightly decrease with time; this trend is reversed for the
Fig. 14. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values for the slip
calculated along the beam with the EBT and Newmark models at time t
0
.
Fig. 15. Simply supported beams: Differences between the values for the slip
calculated along the beam with the EBT and Newmark models at time t
k
.
3038 G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041
Fig. 16. Continuous beams: Differences between the values for the mid-span
deection calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
cases of weak shear connection. As expected, the inuence
of shearing deformations tend to reduce while increasing the
values of .
The variations of the slip calculated using the EBT and
Newmark models along the member length are presented in
Figs. 14 and 15. These differences are small for low levels
of shear connections and signicantly increase for rigid shear
connections close to the beam ends. Time effects increase the
differences between the two models for all levels of shear
connection stiffness. It is worth observing that the points at
which both EBT and Newmark models produce nil results
have been omitted from the gures presented (i.e. in particular,
this has been carried out for the mid-span deection and the end
slip).
In general, the proposed parametric study (Figs. 615)
highlights the usefulness in utilizing the EBT model to
accurately depict the structural response of realistic composite
beams as those recommended in [12], especially for those
arrangements which possess relatively low values.
7.2. Three-span continuous beams
The proposed parametric study involves indeterminate
structures by considering three-span continuous composite
beams (with external spans equal to 0.8 of the internal one)
designed as recommended in [12]. The detailing proposed
in [12] suggests the use of two different steel cross-sections for
the sagging and hogging moment regions respectively, however,
for the purpose of this study, a prismatic beam (with cross-
section recommended for the sagging regions) is used in the
numerical simulations to avoid the inuence of the sudden
(a) Rotation of the concrete component at the end support. (b) Rotation of the steel component at the end support.
Fig. 17. Continuous beams: Differences between the values calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
(a) Curvature in the concrete component at mid-span. (b) Curvature in the steel component at mid-span.
Fig. 18. Continuous beams: Differences between the values calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3039
Fig. 19. Continuous beams: Differences between the values for the end slip
calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
Fig. 20. Continuous beams: Differences between the values calculated using
the EBT and Newmark models.
change in the cross-sectional properties on the results of the
parametric analysis.
In general, the variations between the values calculated
using the EBT and Newmark models observed for continuous
systems follow trends similar to the ones already discussed for
simply supported beams but the magnitude obtained for the
indeterminate structure is signicantly increased. For example,
the differences in the values calculated for the mid-span
deection of the internal span leads to large differences with
peaks of 25% and 13% for high and low shear connection
stiffness respectively (Fig. 16); long-term effects tend to reduce
these differences for high levels of shear connection stiffness
while leading to an opposite result for low connection stiffness.
Similar comments are applicable for the rotation and curvature
of the top component, as shown in Figs. 17(a) and 18(a),
even if their peak values are slightly reduced. A more uniform
behaviour is observed for the rotation and curvature of the
steel member, where the differences are kept within 3%4%
with peak differences observed in the instantaneous analyses
predominantly for high levels of shear connection stiffness as
illustrated in Figs. 17(b) and 18(b).
Fig. 19 shows the variations in the calculation of the slip
at the end supports. These differences are more signicant
for rigid connections in which case time effects increase
the peak differences from 4% to 6%. After inspecting the
slip distribution along the member length for the bridge
arrangements considered, it is noted that these differences are
mostly localized near the end supports and remain in general
below 3%. A similar behaviour is also noted for the simply
supported case in Figs. 14(b) and 15(b). For weak shear
connections, these differences are smaller, while still increasing
with time.
The internal actions, i.e. axial forces and bending moments
resisted by the two components calculated at mid-span of the
internal span, are signicantly affected by the shear connection
stiffness, with peak variations of 8% and 16% for rigid shear
connections for the axial forces and for the bending moment in
the top component respectively (Figs. 20 and 21(a)); the values
calculated using the proposed model for the bending moment
resisted by the bottom component remain within 3%4% of the
results based on Newmark model (Fig. 21(b)).
The variation of the deection along the member length is
shown in Figs. 22 and 23. Similarly to the simply supported
conguration, the shear deformations are affected by the
rigidity of the interface connection, i.e. deections calculated
with rigid shear connections are approximately twice of those
observed for low connection stiffness (Figs. 22 and 23). Time
effects tend to enhance the differences obtained using the two
models by a maximum of approximately 3% observed for low
levels of shear connection, while an opposite trend is observed
for stiff shear connections. For clarity, the points at which
(a) Moment resisted by the concrete component at mid-span. (b) Moment resisted by the steel component at mid-span.
Fig. 21. Continuous beams: Differences between the values calculated using the EBT and Newmark models.
3040 G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041
Fig. 22. Continuous beams: Differences between the values for the deection
calculated along the beam with the EBT and Newmark models at time t
0
.
both EBT and Newmark models produce nil results have been
omitted from the gures presented (i.e. in particular, this has
been carried out for the internal mid-span deection).
Based on the results shown, the differences between the
results calculated using the EBT and Newmark models are
signicant and highlight the need to carefully evaluate the
inuence of shearing deformations on the overall structural
response and on the determination of deformations and stress
resultants.
8. Conclusions
A model for the short- and long-term linear analysis of
steelconcrete composite beams with partial shear interaction
capable of accounting for the shear deformability of the
steel component has been presented. To the knowledge of
the authors, the proposed work is the rst to investigate
the effects of shear deformation on the structural response
due to quasi static loadings and to propose suitable nite
elements. The proposed model is formulated by modelling
the reinforced concrete slab and the steel member by means
of the EulerBernoulli and the Timoshenko beam models
respectively; for this reason it has been referred throughout
the paper as the EulerBernoulliTimoshenko composite beam
model (EBT model). The analytical formulation has been
derived by means of the principle of virtual work. Due to the
complexity of the governing system of differential equations,
the numerical solution has been obtained by means of the nite
Fig. 23. Continuous beams: Differences between the values for the deection
calculated along the beam with the EBT and Newmark models at time t
k
.
element method and, for this purpose, three new displacement-
based nite elements have been derived and their performance
discussed with particular attention to possible locking problems
which may arise. The time-dependent behaviour of the concrete
slab has been modelled accounting for creep and shrinkage
effects based on the integral-type creep law; the solution has
been obtained by means of the step-by-step procedure.
Using the proposed nite element formulation, an extensive
parametric study, based on approximately 200 simply supported
and three-span continuous composite beams recommended in
Australian design guidelines [12], has been carried out to
evaluate under which conditions shearing deformations become
important and need to be considered in the structural analysis.
The beams have been subjected to a uniformly distributed load
and to time effects of the concrete. In this study two different
(high and low) values of the shear connection stiffness have
been included and, for clarity, the results have been presented
as a function of a proposed dimensionless stiffness parameter
which accounts for the ratio between shear and exural rigidity
of the steel beam as well as the beam length. Response variables
investigated in this study include the deection, the rotations,
the curvatures and internal actions calculated for both layers,
and the slip.
Signicant differences have been observed to exist between
the results calculated by means of two models, in particular for
relatively low values. A more pronounced variation between
G. Ranzi, A. Zona / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 30263041 3041
the two models has been observed for the continuous beam
arrangements.
Based on these results, the effects of shear deformations
need to be carefully evaluated for composite steelconcrete
systems, in particular in the case of continuous beam
congurations, to well depict both short- and long-term
response at service conditions.
References
[1] Newmark NM, Siess CP, Viest IM. Tests and analysis of composite beams
with incomplete interaction. Proceedings of the Society of Experimental
Stress Analysis 1951;9(1):7592.
[2] Adekola AO. Partial interaction between elastically connected elements
of a composite beam. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1968;
4:112535.
[3] Arizumi Y, Hamada S, Kajita T. Elasticplastic analysis of composite
beams with incomplete interaction by nite element method. Computers
& Structures 1981;14(56):45362.
[4] Tarantino AM, Dezi L. Creep effects in composite beams with exible
shear connectors. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1992;118(8):
206381.
[5] Dezi L, Gara F, Leoni G, Tarantino AM. Time dependent analysis of
shear-lag effect in composite beams. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
ASCE 2001;127(1):719.
[6] Cas B, Saje M, Planinc I. Non-linear nite element analysis of composite
planar frames with an interlayer slip. Computers & Structures 2004;82:
190112.
[7] DallAsta A. Composite beams with weak shear connection. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 2001;38:560524.
[8] Spacone E, El-Tawil S. Nonlinear analysis of steelconcrete composite
structures: State-of-the-art. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 2004;
130(2):15968.
[9] Leon RT, Viest IM. Theories of incomplete interaction in composite
beams. In: Proceedings of the composite construction in steel and concrete
III. 1996.
[10] Berczy nski S, Wr oblewski T. Vibration of steelconcrete composite
beams using the Timoshenko beam model. Journal of Vibration and
Control 2005;11:82948.
[11] Biscontin G, Morassi A, Wendel P. Vibrations of steelconcrete
composite beams. Journal of Vibration and Control 2000;6:691714.
[12] Rapattoni F, Eastwood D, Bennett M, Cheung H. Composite steel road
bridges concepts and design charts. BHP Integrated Steel; 1998.
[13] CEB (Comit e Euro-International du B eton). In: Chiorino MA, Napoli P,
Mola F, Koprna M, editors. CEB design manual on structural effects
of time-dependent behaviour of concrete. Saint-Saphorin (Switzerland):
Georgi Publishing; 1984.
[14] Moin P. Fundamentals of engineering numerical analysis. Cambridge
University Press; 2001.
[15] Gilbert RI. Time effects in concrete structures. Amsterdam (The
Netherlands): Elservier Science Publishers; 1988.
[16] Ba zant ZP, Oh BH. Deformation of progressively cracking reinforced
concrete beams. ACI Journal 1984;81(3):26878.
[17] Reddy JN. An introduction to nonlinear nite element analysis. Oxford
(UK): Oxford University Press; 2004.
[18] Yunhua L. Explanation and elimination of shear locking and membrane
locking with eld consistency approach. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 1998;162:24969.
[19] Reddy JN. On locking-free shear deformable beam nite elements.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1997;149:
11332.
[20] Blaauwendraad IJ. Realistic analysis of reinforced concrete framed
structures. Heron 1972;18(4):131.
[21] Gupta AK, Ma PS. Error in eccentric beam formulation. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1977;11:147383.
[22] Criseld MA. The eccentricity issue in the design of plate and shell
elements. Communications in Applied Numerical Methods 1991;7:4756.
[23] DallAsta A, Zona A. Slip locking in nite elements of composite
beams with deformable shear connection. Finite Elements in Analysis and
Design 2004;40:190730.
[24] CEB-FIB (Comit e Euro-International du B etonF ed eration International
de la Pr econtrainte). Model code 1990: Design code. London: Thomas
Telford; 1993.
[25] DallAsta A, Zona A. Non-linear analysis of composite beams by a
displacement approach. Computers & Structures 2002;80:221728.