Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D composite

steel–concrete frame structures
C.G. Chiorean ⇑
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 15 C. Daicoviciu Str., RO-400020 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an efficient computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of three-dimensional
Received 21 March 2013 composite steel–concrete frameworks. The proposed formulation is intended to model the geometrically
Revised 12 September 2013 nonlinear inelastic behaviour of composite frame elements using only one element per physical member.
Accepted 16 September 2013
The behaviour model accounts for material inelasticity due to combined bi-axial bending and axial force,
Available online 18 October 2013
gradual yielding is described through basic equilibrium, compatibility and material nonlinear constitu-
tive equations. In this way, the states of strain, stress and yield stress are monitored explicitly during each
Keywords:
step of the analysis, the arbitrary cross-sectional shape, various stress–strain relationships for concrete
Distributed plasticity
Large deflection
and steel and the effect of material imperfections such as residual stresses are accurately included in
Tangent flexural rigidity the analysis. Tangent flexural rigidity of cross-section is derived and then using the flexibility approach
Residual stresses the elasto-plastic tangent stiffness matrix and equivalent nodal loads vector of 3-D beam-column ele-
3D frameworks ment is developed. The method ensures also that the ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section is
Advanced inelastic analysis nowhere exceeded once a full plastified section develops. The proposed nonlinear analysis formulation
has been implemented in a general nonlinear static purpose computer program. Several computational
examples are given to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method and the reliability of the code
to approach large-scale spatial frame structures.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction fine-grained modelling that is often impractical to the structural

In recent years, have witnessed significant advances in nonlin-
ear inelastic analysis methods for steel and composite steel–con-
crete framed structures and integrate them into the new and
more rational advanced analysis and design procedures [1,2]. Reli-
able nonlinear analysis tools are, for instance, essential in perfor-
mance-based earthquake engineering, and advanced analysis
methodologies, that involves accurate predictions of inelastic limit
states up or beyond to structural collapse. A number of approaches
have been proposed in the last years to model the nonlinear re-
sponse of composite steel–concrete elements [3–24]. A detailed
discussion about this issue can be found in [3,4].
There currently exist several methods and computer programs
concerning the nonlinear inelastic analysis that calculate strength
limit states of steel and composite steel–concrete frame structures.
At one extreme, two-and three dimensional finite elements en-
hanced with advanced material constitutive laws [14,15,17] were
used to investigate the nonlinear response of steel and composite
steel–concrete frame members. Currently the available tools for
such analysis are general purpose FE programs that require very
⇑ Tel./fax: +40 264 594967.
E-mail address: cosmin.chiorean@mecon.utcluj.ro
engineer. At the other extreme, the line elements approach in con-
junction with either distributed or concentrated plasticity models,
have been devoted to the development of nonlinear analysis tools
for frames that provide a desirable balance between accuracy and
computational efficiency [5–13,16–31].
In the concentrated plasticity approach [16,18–20] which is
usually based on the plastic hinge concept, the effect of material
yielding is ‘‘lumped’’ into a dimensionless plastic hinge. Regions
in the beam-column elements other than at the plastic hinges
are assumed to behave elastically. In the plastic hinge locations if
the cross-section forces are less than cross-section plastic capacity,
either elastic behaviour or gradual transition (refined plastic hinge)
from elastic to plastic behaviour is assumed. The plastic hinge ap-
proach could eliminate the integration process on the cross section
and permits the use of fewer elements for each member, and hence
greatly reduces the computing effort. Unfortunately, as plastifica-
tion in the member is assumed to be concentrated at the member
ends, the plastic hinge model is usually less accurate in formulat-
ing the member stiffness, requires calibration procedures, but
make possible to use only one element per physical member to
simulate geometric and material nonlinearities in composite build-
ing frameworks [16,20]. In the distributed plasticity models grad-
ual yielding and spread of plasticity is allowed throughout

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.09.025
126 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152
cross-section and along the member length [5–14,17,22–32]. There
are two main approaches that have been used to model the gradual
plastification of members in a second-order inelastic analysis, one
based on the displacement method or finite element approach
[17,25] and the other based on the force or flexibility method [5–
14,22–24,26–32]. Because displacement based elements implicitly
assumed linear curvatures along the element length, accuracy in
this approach when material nonlinearity is taken into account
can be obtained only using several elements in a single structural
member, thus the computational effort is greatly enhanced and
the method becomes prohibited computational in the case of large
scale frame structures. On the other hand in the flexibility based
approach only one element per physical member can be used to
simulate the gradual spread of yielding throughout the volume of
the members but the complexity of these methods derives from
their implementation in a finite element analysis program and
the inclusion of the element geometrical effects [26]. Mixed finite
element approaches have been developed also to model composite
beams with bond slip [3,5,6,8,22]. However in order to allow the
concrete and steel to have independent displacements all these
methods include additional degrees of freedom at the element
ends. When modelling the semi-rigid composite frameworks some
difficulties may arise enforcing the compatibility conditions at the
semi-rigid composite connections [23].
In the efforts to develop an intermediate solution that has the
computational efficiency of plastic hinge methods and the accu-
racy of distributed plasticity methods several researchers devel-
oped quasi-plastic hinge [23,30–32] or stress-resultant constitutive
models [21]. Although subject to some limitations of required cal-
ibration these methods have been shown to make distributed plas-
ticity analyses practical for large scale 3D steel [30,31] and
composite steel–concrete frameworks [21,23], usually only one
element per member is necessary to analyze.
In spite of the availability of such nonlinear inelastic algorithms
and powerful computer programs, the advanced nonlinear inelas-
tic analysis of real large-scale composite steel–concrete frame
structures still posses huge demands on the most powerful of
available computers and still represents unpractical tasks to most
designers.
The present work attempts to develop accurate yet computa-
tional efficient tools for the nonlinear inelastic analysis of real
large-scale 3D composite steel–concrete frameworks fulfilling the
practical and advanced analysis requirements. Essentially, nonlin-
ear inelastic analysis employed herein uses the accuracy of the fi-
bre elements approach for inelastic frame analysis and address its
efficiency and modelling shortcomings both to element level,
through the use of only one element to model each physical mem-
ber of the frame, and to cross-sectional level through the use of
path integral approach to numerical integration of the cross-sec-
tional nonlinear characteristics. This is an essential requirement
to approach real large spatial frame structures, combining model-
ling benefits, computational efficiency and reasonable accuracy.
Recent studies show that the slip effect between the steel and
concrete interface has negligible influence on the global behaviour
of multi-storey and high-rise fully connected steel–concrete com-
posite frames [14]. In the proposed approach perfect bond between
steel beam and concrete slab is assumed.
Within the framework of flexibility based formulation a 3D
frame element with 12 DOF able to take into account the distrib-
uted plasticity and element second order effects is developed.
Comparing the proposed method with the related methods devel-
oped in [26–29] the present approach has several features that
make the proposed element more practical in the context of imple-
mentation in finite element analysis program and posses accuracy
comparable to that of fibre-flexibility or fibre-displacement finite
elements.
As will be briefly described in the following sections, the ele-
ment incremental stiffness matrix and the equivalent nodal loads
are derived directly from energetic principles. In this way the ele-
ments of the stiffness matrix and equivalent nodal loads can be ob-
tained analytically and readily evaluated by computing the
correction coefficients that affect the elastic flexibility coefficients
and equivalent loads. In this way numerical integrations are re-
quired only to evaluate these correction coefficients and not the
entirely flexibility or stiffness matrix elements as in [26–29]. Be-
sides, the effect of the transverse shear deformation can be readily
included in the element formulation, both in stiffness matrix and
equivalent nodal loads. The resulting flexibility matrix of the ele-
ment may have both elastic and plastic contributions. During the
loading process unsymmetrical distribution of plastic zone
throughout the cross-section may occur and consequently there
are coupling between axial force and bending moments in elasto-
plastic domain. The present formulation does not consider the
plastic interaction terms relating the axial and bending terms in
the flexibility/stiffness matrix of the element. However the ne-
glected terms in flexibility matrix have only plastic contributions
and may be ignored. This is obviously a simplification of the pro-
posed approach whose acceptance must be justified by verification
studies, but the resulting stiffness matrix does not incurring the
expense of a detailed flexibility based methods [26–29]. In its final
computerized implementation the proposed method is very simi-
lar to quasi-plastic hinge approaches [32]. Moreover, in the pro-
posed approach, the effects of the discontinuity and/or discrete
loading along element can be efficiently taken into account by
writing a single moment equation in such a way that it becomes
continuous for entire length of the element in spite of the discon-
tinuity of loading. Thus the separate moment equation for each
change of loading point is not required.
The element stiffness matrix are evaluated in [26–29] by an
iterative procedure carried out at the element level, nested in the
iterative procedure adopted to solve the nonlinear global structural
response [33]. Thus approximations in the strain distribution along
the element length, in the control sections, are required in the
force-based frame elements. This fact makes these methods to be
more complicated in implementation in finite element analysis
framework. On the other hand, in the proposed approach the ele-
ment force fields are described by the second order transfer matrix
as function of the nodal and applied element forces and the inelas-
tic response of the cross-sections (control points) is rigorously
evaluated by enforcing the equilibrium between external and
internal forces for each cross-section by a global convergence iter-
ative procedure. In this way gradual yielding throughout the cross-
section subjected to combined action of axial force and bi-axial
bending moments is described through basic equilibrium, compat-
ibility and material nonlinear constitutive equations, the states of
strain, stress and yield stress are monitored explicitly during each
step of the analysis, the arbitrary cross-sectional shape and the ef-
fect of material imperfections such as residual stresses are accu-
rately included in the analysis. Tangent flexural and axial rigidity
of the cross-sections are explicitly derived and the inelastic re-
sponse at the element level is determined by integrating the vari-
able section flexural EIy and EIz and axial EA rigidity along the
member length, depending on the bending moments and axial
force level, cross-sectional shape and nonlinear constitutive
relationships.
Comparing the proposed formulation with those described in
[23,25–29] another difference of the proposed approach refers to
how the element geometrical effects are taken into account. In dis-
placement-based formulations [23,25], the deformed shape of the
element is obtained directly based on the nodal displacement val-
ues and the adopted shape functions. Thus the implementation of
the element second-order effects are straightforward, but the accu-
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 127

racy is dependent by the number of the finite elements involved. geometrical nonlinearity sources are simulated into a computer
On the other hand in flexibility based element there are no defor- program automatically. In order to verify the efficiency and the
mation shape functions to relate the deformation field inside the accuracy of the proposed procedure and the developed code, this
element to the nodal displacements hence more elaborate and computer program was used to study the nonlinear behaviour of
more time consuming procedures are required. For instance, in or- several composite steel–concrete frame structures that has been
der to capture the element geometrical effects in [27] is developed studied previously by other researchers. Several examples includ-
a curvature-based displacement interpolation (CBDI) function ing simply column, simply-supported beams, continuous beams,
whereas in [29] Simpson integration scheme along with piecewise plane frames and large scale 3D frames were analysed and com-
interpolation of the curvature is applied. In the proposed approach pared with available experimental and numerical results. The
because the method requires tangent flexural rigidities to be com- examples run and the comparisons made prove the effectiveness
puted along the element length, the stability stiffness functions can of the proposed numerical procedure. The proposed software is
be easily applied as corrections of the element elasto-plastic tan- presented as an efficient, reliable tool ready to be implemented
gent stiffness matrix, and updating at each load increment the into design practice for advanced analysis and seismic perfor-
length, axial force and the flexural rigidity about of each principal mance evaluation of spatial composite frame structures.
axes of the element. This method minimizes the modelling and
solution time and generally only one element are needed per mem-
2. Formulation of the proposed analysis method
ber in order to simulate the second order effects. Although sub-
jected to some limitations of required calibration this approach
The following assumptions are adopted in the formulation of
has been shown to make inelastic second-order analyses practical
analytical model: (1) plane section remain plane after flexural
for large building frames [30,31].
deformation; no slip occurs at the steel–concrete interface, full
Recent studies [34–37] show that one of the most critical ele-
composite action is considered (2) warping and cross-section dis-
ment that affects both the accuracy and speed of the inelastic sec-
tortion are not considered; (3) torsional buckling do not occur;
tion response and consequently the inelastic element analysis
and (4) small strain but arbitrarily large displacements and rota-
procedure is the stress integration scheme. Most of the existing
tions are considered.
methods implemented in flexibility based or displacement based
The proposed approach is based on the most refined type of sec-
fibre elements for the inelastic analysis of cross-sections rely on
ond order inelastic analysis, distributed plasticity model, where
the numerical integration of stress resultants using the well known
elasto-plastic behaviour is modelled accounting for spread-of plas-
‘‘fibre decomposition method’’ where the cross section is decom-
ticity effect in sections and along the element and employs model-
posed in filaments and the section response is computed by com-
ling of structures with only one line element per member, which
posing the uniaxial behaviour of each filament. These techniques
reduces the number of degree of freedom involved and the compu-
are not numerically efficient due to large amount of information
tational time. The above assumptions allow the formulation details
needed to characterize the section and the high number of opera-
to be considered on two distinct levels, namely, the cross-sectional
tions required by stress integration with an allowable error level. A
level and the member longitudinal axis level. Thus the nonlinear
further complication is represented by the nonlinear constitutive
inelastic response of a beam-column element can be computed
laws that are usually assumed for concrete in compression and
as a weighted sum of the inelastic response of a discrete number
tension. These laws are defined by piecewise functions and there
of cross-sections (i.e. stations) that are located at the numerical
is no continuity in the derivative and the classical integration
integration scheme points.
methods can produce important integration errors [35,36]. As will
Although the present study concerns mainly on frames with ri-
be briefly described in this paper in the proposed approach an im-
gid joints and the effect of the floor slab action is ignored, in the
proved adaptive Gauss–Lobatto numerical integration scheme on a
proposed approach can be easily implemented the effects of the
Green path integral is applied demonstrating fast execution and
nonlinear behaviour of semi-rigid connections, with proper nonlin-
accuracy for stress integration throughout the cross-sections. This
ear moment-relative rotation models for composite connections,
approach is extremely rapid because stress integrals need only be
and the floor slab action. For instance the mathematical model de-
evaluated at a small number of points on the section boundary and
scribed in [31] can be useful to include the effects of the semi-
rapid convergence is assured by the inclusion of exactly deter-
rigidity and the penalty element method can be used, as described
mined tangent stiffnesses. A closely related issue to the aforemen-
in [31], to include the effect of the rigid floor diaphragm action.
tioned stress integration represents the incorporation and
Alternatively, the floor slab may be modelled as flat shell elements
evaluation of the residual stress effects for encased steel section
(with 6 degrees of freedom per node) and coupled in this way with
on the carrying capacity and inelastic behaviour during the loading
the beam-column element developed in this paper. Usually it is as-
process of the composite steel–concrete sections. Only a few stud-
sumed that the floor slab remain elastic until the collapse of the
ies available in the literature [38,39] have addressed this effect and
frame, consequently only one flat shell element is required to mod-
detailed finite element studies are rather scarce in the open
el the stiffness of the slab. However, under extreme loadings which
literature.
may cause severe damage in buildings, tensile membrane action of
During the loading process the equilibrium condition may be
composite slab, which may significantly affect the capacity and re-
violated as the applied bending moments at the section are greater
sponse of the frame, is not taken into account in the proposed
than the moment capacities, which is not acceptable for maximum
approach.
strength analysis of members. An important feature of the present
approach is represented by the capacity to determine directly the
ultimate bending moments in order to check that they fulfil the 2.1. Elasto-plastic cross section analysis
ultimate limit state condition. Such a procedure is absolutely nec-
essary in order to ensures that the ultimate strength capacity of the The elasto-plastic cross-section stiffness may be modelled by
cross-section is nowhere exceeded once a full plastified section explicit integration of stresses and strains over the cross-section
develops and to enforce the member equilibrium forces. area (e.g., as micro model formulation) or through calibrated para-
Using an updated Lagrangian formulation, the global geometri- metric equations that represent force-generalized strain curvature
cal effects are considered updating the geometry of the structure at response (e.g. macro model formulation). In the macro model ap-
each load increment. The combined effects of material and proach the gradual plastification through the cross-section sub-
128 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

jected to combined action of axial force and biaxial bending mo-

ments may be described by moment–curvature-thrust (M–U–N),
and moment-axial deformation-thrust (M–e–N) analytical type
curves that are calibrated either by numerical or experimental
tests. Due to the fact that the inelastic behaviour of composite
cross-sections is influenced by a various effects such as the shape
of stress–strain relationship for concrete and steel, the geometrical
shape of the cross-section, and material imperfections, rigorous
analytical relationships are difficult to develop. In the micro model
formulation, as proposed in the present paper, gradual plastifica-
tion through the cross-section subjected to combined action of ax-
ial force and bi-axial bending moments is described through basic
equilibrium, compatibility and material nonlinear constitutive
equations. In this way, the states of strain, stress and yield stress
are monitored explicitly during each step of the analysis, the arbi- Fig. 2. Stress–strain relationship for concrete in compression.

trary cross-sectional shape and the effect of material imperfections

such as residual stresses are accurately included in the analysis.
2.1.1. Basic assumptions and constitutive material models
Consider the cross-section subjected to the action of the exter-
nal bending moments about both global axes and axial force as
shown in Fig. 1. The cross-section may assume any shape with
multiple polygonal or circular openings. It is assumed that plane
section remains plane after deformation. This implies a perfect
bond between the steel and concrete components of a composite
concrete-steel cross section. Shear and torsional interaction effects
are not accounted for in the steel and concrete constitutive models.
2.1.1.1. Behaviour of concrete in compression. The constitutive rela-
tion for concrete under compression is represented by a combina-
tion of a second-degree parabola (for ascending part) and a straight
line (for descending part), Eq. (1), as depicted in Fig. 2:
8   developed by Vecchio and Collins [40] is taken into account in
> 2
< fc 2 ee  ee2 ; e 6 e0
c0
fco ¼   c0  ð1Þ
>
: fc 1  c eec0 ; e0 < e
ecu ec0
where fc represents the prism compressive strength and c repre-
sents the degree of strain-softening in the concrete and allows for
the modelling of strain-softening effect and creep in the concrete
by simply varying the crushing strain ec0, ultimate compressive
strain ecu and c respectively. The prism compressive strength fc is ta-
ken as 0.76fcu, where fcu represents the cubic compressive strength
and can be approximately evaluated as 1:25fc0 where fc0 represents
the cylinder compressive strength.
2.1.1.2. Behaviour of concrete in tension. Neglecting tension strength
of concrete could lead to a loss in the smoothness of moment–cur-
vature curves due to the sudden drop in stress from the cracking
strength to zero at the onset cracking. In addition, tension strength
of concrete results in a small change in peak strength, but this is
usually negligible. The model to account for tension strength,
the present investigation. The model of concrete in tension can
be given in the following analytical form (Fig. 3):

Fig. 1. Arbitrary composite steel–concrete cross-section.

 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152
Fig. 3. Stress–strain relationships for concrete in tension.
( neous distribution of stress and smeared crack model. The stress–
Et e; e 6 ecr
ft ¼ a1 a22
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi f ; e > ecr
1þ 500e cr
where Et denotes the modulus of elasticity of concrete in tension; fcr
represents the tensile strength of concrete; ecr is the concrete crack-
ing strain; a1 is a factor that takes into account the bounding char-
acteristics of the reinforcement and a2 represents a factor that takes
into account the effects of load duration and cyclic loads. The tensile
strength of concrete fcr is obtained as 1.4 (fc/10)2/3 and the tensile
elastic modulus before cracking Et is assumed the same as compres-
sive elastic modulus. As illustrated in Fig. 3 a slow rate of tension
softening is assumed for the concrete in tension.
2.1.1.3. Behaviour of structural steel. A multi-linear elastic–plastic
stress–strain relationship, both in tension and in compression, is
assumed for the structural steel. In this way the strain-hardening
effect may be included in analysis. The analytical model can be gi-
ven in the following form (Fig. 4):
8 usually considered in the geometric centroid of the cross-section.
< Es e; jej 6 jesy1 j 
>

fs ¼ sgnðeÞfsy1 þ Esh1 e  sgnðeÞ  esy1 ; esy1 < jej 6 esy2
>
:   the axial strain e0 can be expressed in point r ¼ ½y z in a linear
sgnðeÞfsy2 þ Esh2 e  sgnðeÞ  esy2 ; esy2 < jej 6 esu
where Es is the Young modulus, fsyi denotes the yield stresses, esyi
represents the yield strains, esu the ultimate steel strain and Eshi rep-
resents the slopes of the yielding branch, and sgn() represents the
signum function, returns 1 for negative values and +1 for positive
values.
Fig. 4. Stress–strain relationship for steel.
129
Residual stresses may be incorporated in the analysis. The mag-
nitude and distribution of residual stresses in hot-rolled members
depend on the type of cross-section and manufacturing processes
and different patterns are proposed. In the US, the residual stress
is considered constant in the web although when the depth of a
wide flange section is large, it varies more or less parabolically
(Fig. 5b). Another possible residual stress pattern in the web is
the one simplified by a linear variation as used in European calibra-
tion frames (Fig. 5a).
2.1.1.4. Behaviour of reinforcing bars. When the steel bar is sub-
jected to tension, the crack in concrete will lead to the inhomoge-
neous distribution of stress of the steel bar along the longitudinal
direction. Based on experimental results and theoretical analysis
in [41] has been proposed a method for considering the inhomoge-
ð2Þ strain relationship of the steel bar in tension concrete region could
be calculated as (Fig. 6):
(
Es e; e 6 enr
fr ¼   ð4Þ
fyr ð0:91  2BÞ þ ð0:02 þ 0:25Be=eyr Þ ; e > enr
1:5
ðfcr =fyr Þ
where the parameter B ¼ q , q = longitudinal reinforcement
steel ratio (limited to a minimum of 0.25%), the modified yield
strain of the steel bar is enr = eyr(0.93 - 2B)/(1 - 0.25B), the modified
yield stress is fnr = Esenr, and the ultimate average strain is eur = -
eyr(0.07 + 2B)/(0.25B). The hardening effect is not considered when
the steel bar bearings compression load, therefore, a perfect elas-
to-plastic model for compression is assumed.
2.1.2. Elasto-plastic flexural rigidity of cross-section
Considering the cross-section subjected to the action of the
external bending moments (My, Mz) about each global axes and ax-
ial force (N) as shown in Fig. 1. The origin of the reference axis is
Under the above assumptions the resultant strain distribution cor-
ð3Þ responding to the curvatures about global axes U ¼ bUy Uz c and
form as:
e ¼ e0 þ Uy z þ Uz y þ er ¼ e0 þ UrT þ er ð5Þ
where er represents the initial deformation produced by residual
stresses, and is taken into account in above equation only for the
structural steel. The equilibrium is satisfied when the external
130 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

computed. According to the Newton iterative method, the iterative

changes of unknowns vector X can be written as:
1
Xkþ1 ¼ Xk  F0 ðXk Þ FðXk Þ; k0 ð8Þ

where F’ represents the Jacobian (or tangent cross-section stiffness

matrix) of the nonlinear system (6) and can be expressed as:
2 3
@N int @Nint @Nint

6 @ e0 @/y @/z
7
@F 6 @Mint @Mint @Mint 7
F0 ¼ ¼6 y
6 @ e0
y
@/y
y
@/z
7
7 ð9Þ
@X 4 int 5
@M z @Mint
z @Mzint

@ e0 @/y @/z

Explicitly the expressions of the Jacobian’s coefficients are given in

Eq. (10).
Z  Z Z
@N int @ @r @e
k11 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ; /y ; /z ÞÞdAcs ¼ dAs ¼ ET dAcs
@ e0 @ e0 Acs Acs @ e @ e0 Acs
Z  Z Z
Fig. 5. Residual stress patterns. @N int @ @r @e
k12 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ; /y ; /z ÞÞdAcs ¼ dAcs ¼ ET zdAcs
@/y @/y Acs Acs @ e @/ y Acs
 Z  Z Z
@N int @ @r @e
forces (N, My, Mz) are equal to the internal ones. These conditions k13 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ; /y ;/z ÞÞdAcs ¼ dAs ¼ ET ydAcs
@/z @/z Acs Acs @ e @/z Acs
can be represented mathematically in terms of the following non- int Z  Z Z
@M y @ @r @e
linear system of equations as: k21 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ;/y ; /z ÞÞzdAcs ¼ zdAs ¼ ET zdAcs
@ e0 @ e0 Acs Acs @ e @ e0 Acs
int Z  Z Z
int ext @M y @ @r @e
FðXÞ ¼ f f ¼0 ð6Þ k22 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ;/y ; /z ÞÞzdAcs ¼ zdAs ¼ ET z2 dAcs
@/y @/y Acs Acs @ e @/y Acs
Z  Z Z
T
where X ¼ ½ e0 /y /z  , the external and internal loading vectors @M int
y @ @r @e
k23 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ; /y ; /z ÞÞzdAcs ¼ zdAcs ¼ ET yzdAcs
can then be represented by: @/z @/z Acs Acs @ e @/z Acs
 Z  Z Z
2 R 3 @M int
z @ @r @e
2 3 Nint ¼ rðeðe0 ; /y ; /z ÞÞdAcs k31 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ;/y ; /z ÞÞydAcs ¼ ydAcs ¼ ET ydAcs
N Acs @ e0 @ e0 Acs Acs @ e @ e 0 Acs
ext 6 7 int 6 int R 7 int Z  Z Z
¼6 7 @r @e
4 My ¼ Acs rðeðe0 ; /y ; /z ÞÞzdAcs 5
f ¼ 4 M y 5; f ð7Þ @M z @
k32 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ;/y ; /z ÞÞydAcs ¼ ydAcs ¼ ET yzdAcs
R @/y @/y Acs Acs @ e @/y Acs
Mz M int
z ¼ Acs rðeðe0 ; /y ; /z ÞÞydAcs int Z  Z Z
@M z @ @r @e
k33 ¼ ¼ rðeðe0 ; /y ; /z ÞÞydAcs ¼ ydAcs ¼ ET y2 dAcs
@/z @/z Acs Acs @ e @/z Acs
in which e0, /y, /z represent the unknowns and the surface integral
ð10Þ
is extended over concrete and structural steel areas (Acs). The above
system can be solved numerically using, for instance, the load-con- These coefficients are expressed in terms of the tangent modu-
trolled Newton method and taking into account the fact that the lus of elasticity Et = dr/de. The iterative procedures starts with the
stresses are implicit functions of the axial strain and curvatures all unknowns e0, /y, /z set to zero and the solutions will be com-
through the resultant strain distribution given by Eq. (5). Eq. (6) puted in just a few iterations by applying the rapid locally conver-
are solved numerically using the Newton–Raphson method, and re- gent Newton iterative procedure given by Eq. (8) enhanced with a
sults in three recurrence relationships to obtain the unknowns line search algorithm such that global convergence can be
e0, /y, /z and then flexural EI and axial EA rigidity modulus can be achieved. By a globally convergence algorithm we mean that for

Fig. 6. Stress–strain relationship for reinforcing bars.

 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 131

any initial iterate the iteration either converges to a solution or DM y

EIty ¼ ; DN ¼ 0; DM z ¼ 0
fails to do so in one way. When iteration fails to converge, within D/y
ð15Þ
a prescribed number of iterations, this means that the external DM z
loads exceeded ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section. In EItz ¼ ; DN ¼ 0; DM y ¼ 0
D/z
this case ultimate strength capacity procedure is applied as will
be described in the next sections. The convergence criterion is ex- Considering the system (14) with the unknown DF the flexural
pressed as a ratio of the norm of the out-of-balance force vector to rigidity about y axis is determined solving the system with the fol-
the norm of the total applied load. So the solution is assumed to lowing imposed restrictions:
have converged if: DN ¼ 0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð16Þ
DM z ¼ 0
FT F
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 6 TOL ð11Þ
ext T ext
f f The incremental forces DF can be expressed, in this case, as:
2 3
0
where TOL is the specified computational tolerance, usually taken as  
^ ¼ 4 1 5 DM y
DF ¼ TDF ð17Þ
1E  5.
In this way, for given bending moments and axial force we can 0
obtain the strain and stress distribution throughout the cross-sec- Substituting Eq. (17) for DF into Eq. (14) gives:
tion and then the axial and flexural rigidity of the cross-section can ^ ¼ Du
f t TDF ð18Þ
be computed, as will be briefly described below.
The tangent stiffness matrix for the cross section relates small ^ we
Multiply both members of Eq. (18) with T and solving for DF T

changes in the deformations to small changes in the actions sus- obtain:

tained. The incremental relationships between incremental efforts 1
^ ¼ ðTT f t TÞ TT Du
DF ð19Þ
and incremental deformations can be expressed as:
2 3 2 3 2 3 Eqs. (17) and (19) can now be combined by realizing that the basic
k11 k12 k13 De0 DN
6 7 6 7 6 7 force–deformation relationship is given by:
4 k21 k22 k23 5  4 D/y 5 ¼ 4 DM y 5 ð12Þ 1
k31 k32 k33 D/z DM z DF ¼ TðTT f t TÞ TT Du ð20Þ
or in explicitly matrix form:
or in a condensed matrix form:
2 3 2 3 2 3
DN 0 0 0 De0
kt  Du ¼ DF ð13Þ 6 7 6 7 6 7
4 DMy 5 ¼ 4 0 EIty 0 5  4 D/y 5 ð21Þ
where kt represents the tangent stiffness matrix of cross-section,
DM z 0 0 0 D/z
DF represents the incremental forces (axial force and bending mo-
ments about each principal axes of cross-section) and Du repre- where EIty represents the tangent flexural rigidity about x axis of
sents the incremental deformations (axial deformation and cross-section and is given by the following relation:
curvatures). The coefficients of the tangent stiffness matrix kij are 2 2
k11 k22 k33  k11 k23  k33 k12 þ 2k12 k13 k23  k22 k13
2

given by Eq. (10) and are evaluated considering the strains and EIty ¼ 2
ð22Þ
stresses at equilibrium for given external actions. Inverting the rela- k11 k33  k13
tionship (13) gives: Applying a similar approach the tangent flexural rigidity about z
f t DF ¼ Du ð14Þ axis and tangent axial rigidity can be obtained as:
2 2 2
1 k11 k22 k33  k11 k23  k33 k12 þ 2k12 k13 k23  k22 k13
where f t ¼ kt represents the tangent flexibility matrix of cross- EItz ¼ 2
ð23Þ
section. k11 k22  k12
We define the tangent flexural rigidity about one axis of cross-
section as a ratio between incremental bending moment and incre- k12 k21 k12 k23 k31 k22  k32 k21
EAt ¼ k11  
mental curvature about that axis while keeping constant the axial k22 k22 k33 k22  k32 k23
force and bending moment about the other axis (Fig. 7): k31 k22  k32 k21
 k13 ð24Þ
k33 k22  k32 k23
It is important to note that, despite the fact that the position of
the reference axis is kept fixed in evaluation of the elasto-plastic
cross-section rigidities, the effect of unsymmetrical development
of the plastic zones throughout the cross-section is efficiently ta-
ken into account by Eqs. (22)–(24). For instance, in the case of uni-
axial bending for symmetric cross-sections (considering the
bending about z axis) it can be readily derived from Eq. (23) that
the tangent flexural rigidity of the cross section can be computed
using the following relationship:
R 2
Z Et ydAcs
Acs
EItz ¼ Et y2 dAcs  R ð25Þ
Acs Acs
Et dAcs

Now it can be easily observed that the tangent flexural rigidity can
be further expressed as:
Z
EItz ¼ Et ðy  yp Þ2 dAcs ð26Þ
Acs

Fig. 7. Tangent flexural rigidity definition. where

132 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152
Fig. 8. Composite beam with full composite action.
R
Et ydAcs
yp ¼ RAcs ð27Þ
E dAcs
Acs t
and represents the coordinate of the plastic centroid of the cross-
section computed about the fixed reference axis. The above rela-
tionships can be applied even for evaluation of the elastic bending
stiffness (about z axis) of the composite cross-section, as shown in
Fig. 8. Indeed, considering the origin of the reference axis in the geo-
metric centre of the steel beam, when apply Eq. (25) the expression
of the bending stiffness can be reduced at the following
relationship:
E c Ac  E s As 2
ðEIÞ0 ¼ Ec Ic þ Es Is þ r ð28Þ
Ec Ac þ Es As
which represents the elastic flexural rigidity of the composite beam
with full composite action and where EsAs, EcAc represents the axial
stiffness of the steel and concrete components respectively and EsIs,
EcIc are flexural rigidity of steel and concrete components respec-
tively computed about their own reference axis.
2.1.3. Ultimate strength capacity evaluation
A particularly important feature of the present approach is rep-
resented by the capacity to determine directly the ultimate bend-
ing moments for a given value of axial force and bending moment
ratio in order to check that they fulfil the ultimate limit state con-
dition (Fig. 9). Such a procedure is absolutely necessary in order to
ensures that the ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section is
nowhere exceeded once a full plastified section develops and to
Fig. 9. Interaction diagram for given bending moment’s ratio. The plastic surface requirements.
enforce the member forces to move on the plastic surface during
the loading steps.
The cross-section subjected to bi-axial bending moments and
axial force, reaches its failure limit state when the strain in the ex-
treme fibre, attains the ultimate value. Consequently, at ultimate
strength capacity the equilibrium is satisfied when the external
forces are equal to the internal ones and in the most compressed
concrete or tensioned steel fibre the ultimate strain is attained.
These conditions can be represented mathematically in terms of
the following nonlinear system of equations as:
8R  
>
> Acs
r eðe0 ; /y ; /z Þ dAcs  N ¼ 0
>
>R  
< r eðe0 ; /y ; /z Þ ydAcs  Mz ¼ 0
Acs
R   ð29Þ
>
> r eðe0 ; /y ; /z Þ zdAcs u  My ¼ 0
>
> Acs
:
e0 þ /y zc ð/y ; /z Þ þ /z yc ð/y ; /z Þ  ecu ¼ 0
in which N, My, Mz, e0, /y, /z represent the unknowns, the surface
integral is extended over concrete and steel area (Acs). In Eqs. (29)
the first three relations represent the basic equations of equilibrium
for the axial load N and the biaxial bending moments My, Mz respec-
tively, given in terms of the stress resultants. The last equation rep-
resents the ultimate strength capacity condition in which yc(/y, /z)
and zc(/y, /z) represent the coordinates of the point in which this
condition is imposed (Fig. 1). The coordinates of the ‘‘constrained’’
point can be always determined for each inclination of the neutral
axis defined by the parameters /y and /z, and ecu represents the ulti-
mate strain. The numerical procedure consists on the solution of the
nonlinear system (29) for the following linear constraint:
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152
L1 ðN; My ; M z Þ  N  N0 ¼ 0
L2 ðN; My ; M z Þ  M z  tanðaÞM y ¼ 0
where N0, represents the given axial force and bending moment ra-
tio is given by tan(a). Corresponding to the linear constraint (30) we
can define a point on the failure surface (Fig. 9) for a (given) fixed
axial load (N0) and a given bending moment’s ratio. For each incli-
nation of the neutral axis defined by the parameters /y and /z the
farthest point on the compressed or tensioned side is determined
(i.e. the point with co-ordinates yc, zc). Assuming that the failure
condition is achieved in this point, the resulting strain distribution
corresponding to the curvatures /y and /z can be expressed in linear
form as:
eð/y ; /z Þ ¼ ecu þ /z ðy  yc Þ þ /y ðz  zc Þ
Then, substituting the strain distribution given by Eq. (31) in
the basic equations of equilibrium, the unknown e0 together with
the failure constraint equation can be eliminated from the nonlin-
ear system (29). Thus, the nonlinear system of Eq. (29) is reduced
to an only three basic equations of equilibrium and together with
the linear constraints (Eq. (30)), forms a determined nonlinear sys-
tem of equations (with only two nonlinear equations), and the
solutions can be obtained iteratively following the procedure de-
scribed in [34]. This procedure will be used further in the present
formulation (see Section 2.2.3) to determine the plastic bending
moment capacities associated to a given value of axial force.
2.1.4. Evaluation of tangent stiffness and stress resultant
Based on Green’s integration formula according to which the
domain integrals appearing in the evaluation of internal resultant
efforts and tangent stiffness matrix coefficients of the section can
be evaluated in terms of boundary integral. This approach is extre-
mely rapid because stress integrals need only be evaluated at a
small number of points on the section boundary and rapid conver-
gence is assured by the inclusion of exactly determined tangent
stiffnesses and, of great importance, it is assure convergence for
any load case. For this purpose, it is necessary to transform the
variables first, so that the stress field is uniform in a particular
direction, given by the current position of the neutral axis [34].
This is achieved by rotating the reference axes x, y to n, g oriented
parallel to and perpendicular to the neutral axis, respectively. As
the integration area contour is approximated by a polygon, the
integral over the perimeter L, can be obtained by decomposing this
integral side by side along the perimeter:
I nL Z
X giþ1
hðgÞnp dg ¼ hðgÞnp dg
L i¼1 gi
where nL is the number of sides that forms the integration area. The
sides are defined by the ng co-ordinates of the end-points as shown
in Fig. 1. When the integration area is a circle with radius R, the
integral over the perimeter L can be obtained by decomposing this
integral as:
I Z R
p=2
hðgÞnp dg ¼ hðgÞðR2  g2 Þ dg þ ð1Þp
L R
Z R
p=2
 hðgÞðR2  g2 Þ dg
R
This leads to a significant saving in imputing the data to de-
scribe the circular shapes, without the need to decompose the cir-
cular shapes as a series of straight lines and approximate the
correct solution when circular boundaries are involved and allows
efficiently to handle various circular shapes such as fillet regions
which define the exact geometry of the structural steel profiles
133
(Fig. 8). In order to perform the integral on a determined side of
ð30Þ
the contour (Li), polygonal or circular, of the integration area, an
adaptive interpolatory Gauss–Lobatto method is used [34].
The effect of residual stresses may be included in the analysis
providing that the residual stress can be linearized for individual
zones in the steel section associated to variations of residual stres-
ses throughout the height of cross-section. For instance assuming
the EC3 distribution of residual stresses the cross-section has to
be divided in six regions as depicted in Fig. 10. In this way for each
region the total strain in can be expressed as:
e ¼ e0 þ /y  z þ /z  y þ er ð34Þ
where er represents a linear residual strain field which can be ex-
pressed for each particularly region as:
ð31Þ
er ¼ a1 þ a2 z þ a3 y ð35Þ
Next, the integration of the stress resultant and stiffness coeffi-
cients over the steel cross-section will be transformed into line
integrals along the perimeter of the cross-section as already de-
scribed, but in this case the reference axes are rotated for each re-
gion using the following value for angle h:
/y þ a2
tan h ¼ ð36Þ
/z þ a3
2.2. Second-order inelastic member analysis
2.2.1. Elasto-plastic tangent stiffness matrix and equivalent nodal
loads
Flexibility-based method is used to formulate the distributed
plasticity model of a 3D frame element (12 DOF) under the above
assumptions. An element is represented by several cross sections
(i.e. stations) that are located at the numerical integration scheme
points (Fig. 11). The spread of inelastic zones within an element is
captured considering the variable section flexural EIy and EIz and
axial EA rigidity along the member length, depending on the bend-
ing moments and axial force level, cross-sectional shape and non-
linear constitutive relationships. The elasto-plastic sectional
rigidities are evaluated based on the iterative procedure already
described at Section 2.1.2. Fig. 12 shows the 3D beam-column ele-
ment in local system attached to the initially straight centre line,
with the rigid body modes removed.
Nonlinear analysis by the stiffness method requires incremental
loading, i.e. the inelastic behaviour is approximated by a series of
elastic analysis. The element incremental flexibility matrix fr which
relates the end displacements to the actions Dsr and the elasto-
ð32Þ
plastic equivalent nodal forces transferred to the nodes, can be de-
rived directly from energetic principles.
The elasto-plastic equivalent nodal forces transferred to the
nodes, from the member loads, will not be constant during the
analysis, and will be dependent on the variable flexural rigidity
along the member according with the process of gradual formation
of plastic zones. The equivalent nodal forces will be computed in
order to accommodate member lateral loads and the plastic
strength surface requirements.
Let us consider the element in Fig. 12 subjected to nodal bend-
ing moments (DMi, DMj), uniform distributed loads (Dq), the con-
ð33Þ centrated forces at the ‘‘a’’ location (DP) and the concentrated
bending moments at the ‘‘b’’ location and at the ‘‘j’’ end of the
member (DMpb, DMpj). The concentrated bending moments are
considered here as plastic correction moments, taken into account
only when in the respective cross-section forces get to the full plas-
tic capacity and constraining in this way that the section forces to
move on the plastic surface during the loading process. It is obvi-
ous that in this case the loading conditions change along the span
134 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

Fig. 10. Discretization of the structural steel. Incorporation of residual stresses.

Fig. 11. Beam column element with 12 DOF.

of beam, and consequently there is corresponding change in mo- ment equation be written between each change of load point.
ment and shear forces equations. This requires that a separate mo- These complications can be avoided by writing single moment
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 135

Z Z Z 2
L 1
DN 2 L DM 2z ðnÞ
1
L 1 DM y ðnÞ
DW ¼ dn þ dn þ dn
2 0 EAðnÞ 2 0 EIz ðnÞ 2 0 EIy ðnÞ
Z Z 2 Z
L 1
DM2x L 1 DT y ðnÞ L 1 DT 2z ðnÞ
þ dn þ þ ð42Þ
2 0 GIt ðnÞ 2 0 GAy ðnÞ 2 0 GAz ðnÞ
Using the second theorem of Castigliano the relationship be-
tween incremental deformations and efforts can be readily calcu-
lated and partitioned as follows:
2 @ DW
3
2 3 @ DN 23 2 3
u 6 @ DW 7 DN 0
6h 7 6 @ DM iy 7 6 DM 7 6 d 7
6 iy 7 6 7 6 iy 7 6 iy 7
6 7 6 @ DW 7
6 " # 6 7 6 7
6 hjy 7 6 @DMjy 7 7 f 1ð33Þ 0ð33Þ 6 DMjy 7 6 djy 7
6 7¼6 ¼ 6 7 6 7
6 h 7 6 @ DW 7 7 0ð33Þ f 2ð33Þ 6 DM 7 þ 6 d 7 ð43Þ
6 iz 7 6 @DMiz 7 6 iz 7 6 iz 7
6 7 6 6 7 6 7
4 hjz 5 6 @ DW 7 7 4 DM jz 5 4 djz 5
4 @ DMjz 5
hx @ DW DM x 0
Fig. 12. Beam column element with rigid body modes removed. @ DM x

or in a condensed form:
equation in such a way that it becomes continuous for entire Dur ¼ f r  Dsr þ dr ð44Þ
length of the beam in spite of the discontinuity of loading. In this
paper, Macaulay’s method [42] is applied for cases of discontinu- where fr represents the incremental flexibility matrix of the beam-
ous and/or discrete loading. Macaulay functions represent quanti- column element without rigid body modes, and in which the matri-
ties that begin at a point a. Before point a the function has zero ces fi (i = 1, 2) have the following expressions:
value, after point a the function has a defined value: 2 R1 1 3
L 0 EAðnÞ dn 0 0
6 R R R R 7
6 1 2 1 1 1 7
0; when x 6 a f1 ¼ 6 0 L 0 ðn1Þ
EIy ðnÞ
dn þ 1L 0 GAdn L 0 nðn1Þ
EIy ðnÞ
dn þ 1L 0 GAdn 7 ð45:aÞ
F n ðxÞ ¼ hx  ain ¼ ð37Þ 4
R 1 nðn1Þ R
y ðnÞ
R R
y ðnÞ 5

ðx  aÞn when x > a 0 1 1 dn 1 n 2

1 1 dn
L 0 EIy ðnÞ dn þ L 0 GAy ðnÞ L 0 EIy ðnÞ dn þ L 0 GAy ðnÞ

where n = 0, 1, 2, . . . When the exponent n = 0, we have: 2 R1 R1 R1 R1 3

ðn1Þ2 dn ðn1Þ2 dn

L dn þ 1L L dn þ 1L 0
0; when x 6 a 6 R0 EIz ðnÞ
R1
0 GAz ðnÞ 0
R1
EIz ðnÞ 0 GAz ðnÞ
R1 7
6 7
F 0 ðxÞ ¼ hx  ai0 ¼ ð38Þ f 2 ¼ 6 L 01
4
ðn1Þ2
EIz ðnÞ
dn þ 1L dn
0 GAz ðnÞ
L 0
ðn1Þ2
EIz ðnÞ
dn þ 1L dn
0 GAz ðnÞ
0 7 ð45:bÞ
5
1 when x > a R1 dn
0 0 L 0 GIt ðnÞ
These functions can be integrated and differentiated as follows:
Z and dr is a term resulting from loading actions. The equivalent nodal
x
F nþ1 ðxÞ hx  ainþ1 displacements dr of the beam-column element without rigid body
F n ðxÞdx ¼ ¼ ð39Þ
0 nþ1 nþ1 modes are computed according to Eq. (43) and their elements can
8 be written as:
n1
> nhx  ai ; n P 1
@F n ðxÞ @hx  ain < 0
diðjÞyðzÞ ¼ dbending shear
iðjÞyðzÞ þ diðjÞyðzÞ ð46Þ
¼ ¼ hx  ai ; n¼1 ð40Þ
@x @x >
:
0; n¼0 where
Z
With these functions we can determine the element force fields DqyðzÞ L3 1 nðn  1Þ2
dbending
iyðzÞ ¼ dn þ DMpbyðzÞ
(bending moments and shear forces) as functions of the nodal 2 0 EIyðzÞ ðnÞ
Z 1
element forces (DMi, DMj), lateral loads and concentrated ð1  nÞbn  hLn  bi0 c
 dn þ DM pjyðzÞ
bending moments applied along the beam column element. With 0 EIyðzÞ ðnÞ
Z 1 Z 1
positive convention as shown in Fig. 12 the internal forces, nð1  nÞ ð1  nÞ½hLn  ai1  nðL  aÞ
 dn þ DPyðzÞ ð47Þ
about each principal axis (y or z), are given by the following 0 EIyðzÞ ðnÞ 0 EIyðzÞ ðnÞ
expressions:
Z
DqyðzÞ L 1 ð1  2nÞ DMpbyðzÞ
DqyðzÞ L2 nðn  1Þ dshear
iðjÞy ¼ dn 
DM yðzÞ ðnÞ ¼ DM iyðzÞ ð1  nÞ  DMjyðzÞ n þ 2 0 GAyðzÞ ðnÞ L
h i 2 Z 1
0 1 DM pjyðzÞ
þ DM pbyðzÞ n  hLn  bi þ DMpjyðzÞ n  dn 
h i 0 GAyðzÞ ðnÞ L
þ DPyðzÞ hLn  ai1  nðL  aÞ DT yðzÞ ðnÞ Z 1 Z 1
1 ½hLn  ai0  La
L

 dn  DP yðzÞ dn ð48Þ
dM yðzÞ ðnÞ DMiyðzÞ þ DMjyðzÞ DqyðzÞ Lð2n  1Þ 0 GAyðzÞ ðnÞ 0 GAyðzÞ ðnÞ
¼ ¼ þ
dn L 2
  Z Z 1
1 1 La DqyðzÞ L3 n2 ðn  1Þ 1
þ DM pbyðzÞ þ DM pjyðzÞ þ DPyðzÞ hLn  ai0  ð41Þ dbending
jyðzÞ ¼ dn þ DMpbyðzÞ
L L L 2 0 EIyðzÞ ðnÞ 0
Z 1
where n = x/L. Assuming elastic behaviour within a load incre- nbn  hLn  bi0 c n2
 dn þ DMpjyðzÞ dn
ment, and no coupling of axial and flexural responses at the EIyðzÞ ðnÞ 0 EI yðzÞ ðnÞ
section level, the increment of the strain energy DW can be Z 1
n½hLn  ai1  nðL  aÞ
written as follows, including the additional shear and torsional þ DPyðzÞ ð49Þ
0 EIyðzÞ ðnÞ
deformations, Fig. 12:
136 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152
To produce the deformational-stiffness relation, Eq. (44) is inverted,
resulting the following deformational-stiffness equation:
Dsr ¼ kr  Dur  qr
where the vector qr is the equivalent load vector, whereas kr repre-
sents the instantaneous element stiffness matrix of the beam-col-
umn element without rigid body modes, determined by matrix
inversion of the flexural matrix fr:
" 1
# " # Once the member forces get to the full plastic surface, the equilib-
1 f1 0 k1ð33Þ 0ð33Þ
krð66Þ ¼ f r ¼ 1
¼
0 f2 0ð33Þ k2ð33Þ
qr ¼ kr dr
The integrals of the flexural coefficients and equivalent load vector
are calculated numerically using Eqs. (22)–(24) to express flexural
and axial rigidity EIy(z), EA. The cross-sections are located at control
points whose number and location depends on the numerical inte-
gration scheme. In this work, the Gauss–Lobatto rule for element
quadrature is adopted because it has integration points at each ends
of the element, where the plastic deformations is important, and
hence performs better in detecting yielding. However for members
subjected to transversal loads within the member length important
plastic deformations could be developed inside the element length
where the bending moment has a maximum value. In these situa-
tions the integration rule is applied by dividing the interval into
two subintervals, with nodes at the element ends and at the section
with maximum bending moment (at the section where the shear
force has zero value) and use the quadrature rule in each subinter-
val. In this context the Lobatto integration scheme has another
advantage over the Legendre integration scheme, given by the fact
that the point corresponding to the left end in one interval is the
same as the point corresponding to right end in the next, the cost
of evaluating a Lobatto rule is reduced by about one integrand eval-
uation compared with Legendre rule.
The resulting element stiffness matrix is a 6  6 matrix. To in-
clude rigid body modes, the stiffness matrix is pre-and post multi-
plied by a transformation matrix to result in the required 12  12
matrix [31].
2.2.2. The second-order effects on element tangent stiffness matrix
The geometrical nonlinear effects for each element are taken
into account in the present analysis, in a beam column approach,
by the use of the stability stiffness functions and updating at each
load increment the length, axial force and the flexural rigidity
about of each principal axes of the element. This way minimizes
modelling and solution time, generally only one element is needed
per member [16,30]. The effect of axial force on torsional stiffness
is ignored in the present formulation. The element force fields are
described by the second order transfer matrix as function of the
nodal element forces [30]. The equivalent nodal forces are calcu-
lated taking into account the second-order effects in a similar way.
2.2.3. The plastic surface requirements
If the state of forces at any cross-section along the beam column
element equals or exceeds the plastic section capacity (i.e. when
the strain in the extreme fibre, attains the ultimate value), the flex-
ural stiffness at the respective location approaches zero or be-
comes negative when the strain-softening effect for the concrete
in compression is taken into account. In order to avoid numerical
instabilities, for this cases, the sectional hardening is activated,
thus a residual value of the tangent flexural rigidity of the cross
EIt
section is considered to be EI 0
¼ 0:001. This effect is reflected in
the element tangent stiffness matrix coefficients given by Eqs.
(45). It is important to highlight that negative values of tangent
flexural rigidities are correlated with the strain softening degree
of the concrete in compression and with the magnitude of the
compressive axial force. For steel sections (elastic–perfect plastic)
or for composite steel–concrete sections when the strain softening
effect is not taken into account the tangent flexural rigidities are al-
ð50Þ
ways positive at ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section.
For the cross-sections when the ultimate strength capacity is at-
tained it is considered that a plastic hinge is developed. Once a plas-
tic hinge is formed, the internal forces must satisfy the condition of
plastic strength but the combination of internal forces may change.
rium condition may be violated as the applied bending moments at
ð51Þ the section are greater than the moment capacities, which is not
acceptable for maximum strength analysis of members. This re-
flects the condition of the force point lying outside the failure sur-
face indicated in Fig. 9 and a procedure has to be applied to bring
back this force point onto the failure surface. Therefore, when the
axial force of a member increases at the following loading step, the
incremental force–displacement relationships at the element level
has to be modified such that the loading result in motion along the
interaction surfaces and the plastic strength surface requirement of
the full plastified sections is always satisfied. This approach derives
from the plastic theory of work hardening (or stable) material as
one in which the work done during incremental loading is positive
and associated flow rule can be applied. An important characteris-
tic of concrete that cannot be adequately treated by the classical
work-or strain hardening theory of plasticity is the full stress–
strain behaviour beyond the peak stress called stress-softening ef-
fects. Various types of non-associated flow rules have also been
proposed, but the associated flow rule concept is applied here for
practical reasons, since the question of strain softening is highly
controversial [43] and since there is very little experimental evi-
dence reported in the literature on the direction of flow of the plas-
tic-strain-increment vector under two and three dimensional
states of stress. Assuming that at the end of a loading step, at a
cross-section, the forces violates the plastic surface, the bending
moment is adjusted to be reduced, considering the member loaded
by the correction bending moment DMp, where DMp is the change
in the plastic moment capacity at the respective cross section as
axial force changes (Fig. 9).
The correction plastic bending moments are determined as fol-
lows. Let us consider that at the current loading step in a specified
location the forces ðN  ; M y ; M z Þ exceed the plastic surface, this
means that for that loads the maximum strain in most compressed
or tensioned fibre of the cross-section exceeds the assumed ulti-
mate strain. For given value of axial force (N⁄) the iterative proce-
dure described at Section (2.1.3) is applied in order to determine
the ultimate bending moments ðM yp ; Mzp Þ for a given bending mo-
Mz
ment ratio tan a ¼ M  . Next the correction plastic bending moment
y
is determined as:
DM yp ¼ M y  M yp
ð52Þ
DM zp ¼ M z  M zp
The additional incremental moments are applied as loadings on the
element and are considered through equivalent nodal forces as al-
ready described in Section (2.2.1). Since the force-point movement
remains on the plastic strength surface of a member, the plastic
strength surface requirement of a section is not violated by the
change of member forces after the full plastic strength of cross-sec-
tion is reached.
2.2.4. Geometry updating and analysis algorithm
In order to trace the equilibrium path, for proportionally and
non-proportionally applied loads, the proposed model has been
implemented in a simple incremental matrix structural-analysis
program. The simple Euler stepping algorithm is used in conjunc-
tion with constant work-load increments and the natural deforma-
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 137

tion approach. This analysis is simple, reliable and is not sensitive
to convergence failures that can occur in incremental-iterative
schemes, and can also give the full nonlinear load-deformation re-
sponse including the ultimate load and post-critical response. The
incremental change in the displacements can be written as the
solution of:
KiT  DUi ¼ Dki  DFil þ DFip
tions at each load increment. The natural deformation approach
(NDA) in conjunction with the geometrical ‘‘rigid body qualified’’
stiffness matrix [44] is adopted for the element force recovery
and the web plane vector approach is effectively used to update
the frame element coordinates [30].
3. Computational examples
ð53Þ

where within a particular load cycle, i, KiT the tangent stiffness ma-
trix; DUi the incremental displacement vector, DFil the incremental
nodal force vector including the member loads; DFip the additional
self-equilibrating nodal force vector. Only those elements that have
moments in excess of the strength capacities will contribute to DFip .
The incremental load factor Dk is computed so as to keep constant
the incremental work DW, performed by the applied external loads,
at each load cycle:
DW  DFip  DUi
Dki ¼
DFil  DUi
The accuracy of the solution is controlled via multiple analyses
based on convergence of system response.Using an updated
Lagrangian formulation (UL) the nonlinear geometrical effects are
considered updating the element forces and geometry configura-
Based on the analysis algorithm just described, a computer pro-
gram, NEFCAD, has been developed to study the combined effects
of material and geometric nonlinear behaviour on the load-ver-
sus-deflection response for spatial composite steel–concrete
framed structures. It combines the structural analysis routine with
a graphic routine to display the final results. The computational en-
gine was written in Compaq Visual Fortran. The graphic interface
was created using Microsoft Visual Basic 6. Dynamic Link Libraries
(DLL) are used to communicate between the interface and engine.
The accuracy of the analytic procedure and the computer program
ð54Þ developed here, has been evaluated using several benchmark prob-
lems analyzed previously by other researchers using independent
finite element solutions. The selected problems consist of simply
column, proposed here, simply-supported beams [45], continuous
beams [46], plane frames [18,23,47] whose nonlinear response is
dominated by spreading plasticity effects in individual members,

Fig. 13. Composite steel–concrete column.

Fig. 14. Moment–curvature analysis for different values of compressive axial loads with and without residual stress effects: (a) weak axis bending; and (b) strong axis
bending.
138 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

and two large-scale space frames [18,23] in which both geometric
and material nonlinear effects contributed to the failure. In the
present approach, one element has been used to model each col-
umn and beam in all computational examples.
3.1. Example 1: Composite steel–concrete column
Two sets of nonlinear analyses have been conducted for axially
compressed element, proposed in this work, as shown in Fig. 13, to
verify the performance and the efficiency of the proposed method
in capturing spread of plasticity, second-order effects and also the
effects of residual stresses over ultimate strength capacity, defor-
mability and flexural rigidity of composite steel–concrete
elements.
In the first set of tests inelastic cross-section analyses have been
conducted. In this respect parametric studies concerning moment–
curvature response, moment-tangent flexural rigidity evaluation
under condition of constant axial load and ultimate strength capac-
ity evaluation for different loading orientation have been
performed.
The automatic drawing of the moment -curvature diagram and
subsequently the bending moment-tangent flexural rigidity
diagram, is accomplished here by applying the iterative procedure
described at Section 2.1.2, scaling the bending moments through
the load factor under constant axial force and then an automatic
step length adaptation scheme, such as arc length strategy, for
the loading factor is applied [34].
The cross-section consists of a concrete core and a symmetri-
cally placed USA wide flange section W12  120 (Fig. 13). Charac-
teristic strength for concrete in compression is fc = 20 MPa and the
stress–strain curve which consists of a parabolic and linear part
was used in the calculation (Eq. (1)), with crushing strain
e0 = 0.002, ultimate strain ecu = 0.0035. The strain softening of con-
crete is taken into account with c = 0.15. The Young modulus for
encased structural steel and reinforcements is 200 GPa. A bi-linear
elasto-perfect plastic stress–strain relationship for the reinforce-
ment bars and structural steel, both in tension and in compression,
is assumed with the yield strength of fyr = 400 MPa and fys = 300 -
MPa respectively.
Fig. 14 shows the comparative bending moment–curvature dia-
grams of cross-section, considering uniaxial bending about X-axis
(strong) and Y-axis (weak) respectively under several compressive
axial loads with and without residual stress effect. The effect of
residual stresses is taken into account considering two types of

Fig. 15. Variation of tangent flexural rigidity: (a) weak axis; and (b) strong axis.

Fig. 16. Variation of tangent flexural rigidity: biaxial bending-(a) strong axis; and (b) weak axis.
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 139

Fig. 17. Interaction diagrams for different values of bending moment’ s ratio.

Fig. 18. Lateral load–displacement curves (a) Minor axis bending; and (b) Major axis bending.
140 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

residual stress patterns for structural steel element, EC3 and AISC-
LRFD, respectively. The comparison reveals that the influences of
residual stresses play an important role on both carrying capacity
and inelastic behaviour, during the loading process, on composite
cross section and this effect becomes more effective when EC3 dis-
tribution is taken into account and for bending about weak axis.
The moment-tangent flexural rigidity curves, for weak and strong
axis bending, under condition of constant axial load, shown in
Fig. 15 demonstrate that the stiffness degradation of composite
section, in presence of residual stresses, is evident and more pro-
nounced especially for weak axis bending, in the case when EC3
distribution for residual stresses is assumed.
This section was also analysed for different compressive axial
loads and with moments applied about an axis at a = 30° to the
strong axis. Tangent flexural rigidities for weak and strong axis
bending are shown in Fig. 16. The results indicate similar behav-
iour as already described in the cases of uniaxial bending. Fig. 17
presents the interaction diagrams for different values of bending
moment ratio (a = 0-strong axis bending, a = 30°; a = 60° and
a = 90°-weak axis bending) and with and without the presence of
residual stresses. As it can be seen the presence of residual stresses
indicates lower capacity of cross section, even for low compressive
axial load, and this effect is more pronounced when bending take
place about weak axis of the cross-section and in the case of EC3
distribution for residual stresses. Fig. 18 shows the lateral applied
load–displacement curves for the column considering uniaxial
bending about either weak or strong axis respectively and for dif-
ferent values of compressive axial load N. The column is subjected
to non-proportional loads. The compressive axial force N is first ap-
plied and kept constant whereas the lateral loads, either Hx (bend-
ing on weak axis) or Hy (bending on strong axis) are then applied
and progressively increased. For the encased structural steel EC3
distribution for residual stresses has been considered. As it can
be seen when the residual stresses effect is taken into account

Fig. 19. Simply supported composite beam subjected to two concentrated loads.

Fig. 20. Simply supported composite beam subjected to concentrated load at midspan length.
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 141

Fig. 21. Two span continuous composite beam.

tion of the column is more pronounced in the presence of the resid-

ual stresses especially in the case of bending about weak axis.
One important conclusion from this case study can be drawn
that the influence of residual stresses, for encased steel section,
on the carrying capacity and inelastic behaviour during the loading
process is important, especially for bending about weak axis, and
neglecting this effect may overestimate the structural stiffness
and ultimate capacity of composite steel–concrete elements.

3.2. Example 2: Simply supported composite beams

Fig. 22. Composite beam frame.
the ultimate load factor is reduced and also the stiffness degrada-
Two simply supported composite beams subject to saging mo-
ments, tested by Nie and Cai [45], are presented here, for numerical
verification of the proposed approach. The composite beams have
been also analysed numerically by Nie et al. [14] using an advanced
mixed finite-element approach combining the fibred beam and

Fig. 23. Load–displacement curves for composite beam frame.

142 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

Fig. 24. Composite portal frame: (a) the geometry and loading arrangement; and (b) cross-sections details.

Fig. 25. Load–displacement curves for composite portal frame.

Fig. 26. Composite steel–concrete portal frame.

layered shell elements. The geometry, material and section proper- is fcu = 27.7 N/mm2, the yield stress of the steel beams is
ties of the simple composite beams are depicted in Figs. 19 and 20. fsy1 = 310 N/mm2 , Young’s modulus is Es = 20 000 MPa, Esh1 = 0,
The cubic compressive strength of the concrete in compression esy1 = 2.5% (Fig. 4) and the strain hardening modulus is
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 143

Fig. 27. Load–displacement curves of composite portal frame.

Fig. 28. Tangent flexural rigidity (1  EIt/EI0) distribution at ultimate load factor: (a) about weak axis; and (b) about strong axis.

Esh2 = 100 MPa. The behaviour of the reinforced bars, both in account according with the model described in Fig. 3, with a1 = 1
tension and compression, are modelled according with the and a2 = 0.75.
model described in Section 2.1.1 with the yield strength According to the present analysis, the midspan deflection is
fyr = 290 N/mm2. The tensile strength of the concrete is taken into plotted on Figs. 19 and 20 where the experimental results from
144 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

[45] and fibre finite element analyses [14] are also compared. As it shear slip effect between concrete slab and steel beam is not taken
can be seen the behaviour of composite beams predicted by the into account, the load deflection curves predicted by the proposed
present analysis is consistent with that of experimental tests and model indicates a slightly stiffened behaviour of the beams as com-
is in close agreement with that of mixed-finite element analysis. pared with the experimental tests.
It is important to note that when the contribution of the rebars
is neglected the proposed numerical approach gives conservative
3.3. Example 3. Continous composite beam
predictions compared to the experimental results. This fact has
been also observed by Nie et al. [14] based on their advanced finite
The two span continous composite beam with a loading
element simulations. However, because in the present model, the
arrangement as shown in Fig. 21 has been tested by Slutter and

Fig. 29. Orbison’s six story rigid space frame: (a) plan view; (b) perspective view; and (c) member cross-sections.
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 145

Driscoll [46] and numerically analysed by the Liew et al. [23] and
Nie et al. [14]. The geometry and section properties of the contin-
ous composite beam are depicted in Fig. 21. The cylinder compres-
sive strength of the concrete in compression is fc0 ¼ 16 MPa, the
yield stress of the structural steel is fsy1 = 252.4 MPa, Young’s mod-
ulus is Es = 20 000 MPa, Esh1 = 0, esy1 = 2.5% (Fig. 4) and the strain
hardening modulus is Esh2 = 100 MPa. As it can be seen in Fig. 21
the behaviour of continuous composite beam predicted by the
present analysis is in close agreement with that of experimental
test [46] and mixed-finite element analysis [14].
3.4. Example 4. Composite beam frame
The fully connected composite frame tested by Bursi and Gra-
mola [47] is depicted in Fig. 22. This frame has been analysed
numerically by Nie et al. [14] using an advanced mixed fibre fi-
nite-element approach. The geometry, section properties and load-
ing arrangement of the composite frame are depicted in Fig. 22.
The reinforcement in the concrete slab is doubled near the column.
The cylinder compressive strength of the concrete in compression
is fc0 ¼ 39 MPa, the yield stress of the steel beams is fsy1 = 300 MPa,
Young’s modulus is Es = 20 000 MPa, Esh1 = 0, esy1 = 2.5% (Fig. 4) and

Fig. 30. Load–deflection curves at node A in X and Y directions.

Fig. 31. Tangent flexural rigidity (1  EIt/EI0) distribution along the member’s length at ultimate load factor: (a) composite frame; and (b) pure steel frame.
146 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

Fig. 32. Details of tangent flexural rigidity (1  EIt/EI0) distribution for composite frame: (a) third floor beams (strong axis); and (b) first level columns (strong and weak axis).
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 147

Fig. 33. Details of tangent flexural rigidity (1  EIt/EI0) distribution for pure steel frame: (a) third floor beams (strong axis); and (b) first level columns (strong and weak axis).
148 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

the strain hardening modulus is Esh2 = 100 MPa. The behaviour of (elastic–perfect plastic, Esh1 = 0) the ultimate load factor is drasti-
the reinforced bars, both in tension and compression, are modelled cally reduced and a clear plastic mechanism is revealed. For this
according with the model described in Section 2.1.1 with the yield case the Ref. [16] does not presents comparative results.
EIt
strength fyr = 480 MPa. The tensile strength of the concrete is taken Fig. 28 shows the variation of the flexural rigidities (1  EI 0
)
into account according with the model described in Fig. 3, with along the member lengths, at the ultimate load factor. As it can
a1 = 1 and a2 = 0.75. As it can be seen in Fig. 23 the results obtained be seen plastic deformations are concentrated at the midspan
by the present analysis correlate well with that of experimental and right-side of the beam and at the column’s base. The failure
test and mixed-finite element analysis. It is important to note that of the frame is due to progressive yielding of the composite beam
in absence of the strain hardening for the structural steel compo- and columns leading to significant stiffness degradation and side-
nents (elastic–perfect plastic, Esh1 = 0, Esh2 = 0) the proposed way deflection. Running the present computer program on a laptop
numerical approach gives conservative predictions compared to computer with 2 GHz processor, the present analysis was
the experimental results (Fig. 23). performed in only 4 s, with over 100 load cycles, whereas the
load–displacement curve obtained by Abaqus and reported in
3.5. Example 5. Composite portal frame [16] requires almost 48 min running on a similar computer. This
result demonstrates the computational efficiency and time saving
The steel–concrete portal frame shown in Fig. 24 consists of a of the proposed approach.
composite steel–concrete beam with full composite action and
two wide flange W12  50 steel profiles completely encased in
concrete. This frame has been analysed by Liew et al. [23] consid-
ering the steel columns and composite beam and further modified
by Iu et al. [18] in which the columns have been completely en-
cased in concrete as shown in Fig. 24. A refined plastic hinge model
for composite elements was employed in [18]. In this study the
behaviour of a steel frame with or without composite action for
beam and columns is investigated. The geometry, section proper-
ties and loading arrangement of the fully composite frame are de-
picted in Fig. 24. The frame is subjected to both vertical and lateral
loading, proportionally applied. The yield strength of all steel
members is 248.2 MPa and Young’s modulus is E = 20 000 MPa.
The stran hardening effect of the steel is ignored. Characteristic
strength for concrete in compression is fc = 16 MPa and the
stress–strain curve which consists of a parabolic and linear part
was used in the calculation, with crushing strain e0 = 0.002 and
ultimate strain ecu = 0.0035. The tensile strength of the concrete
is ignored in the proposed analysis. The inelastic behaviour repre-
sented by the load–deflections curves calculated by the proposed
approach and those given in [18,23] is compared in Fig. 25. As it
can be seen the results agree closely.

3.6. Example 6: Steel portal frame with composite beam

The steel–concrete portal frame shown in Fig. 26 consists of a

composite steel–concrete beam with full composite action and
two wide flange W12  50 steel columns. The geometric configura-
tion and loading arrangement is shown in Fig. 26. This frame has
been analyzed by the Ngo-Huu and Kim [16] using a fibre plastic
hinge approach and an advanced fine-grained finite element
numerical model developed in the Abaqus software. The frame is
subjected to the combined action of concentrated load
(P = 150 kN) at midspan of the beam and a lateral load as shown
in Fig. 26. Both loads are considered to be applied proportionally
until the collapse of the structure. The yield strength of all steel
members is 252.4 MPa, Young’s modulus is E = 20 000 MPa and
the strain hardening modulus is Esh1 = 6000 MPa. The beam section
consists of a W12  27 steel section and a concrete slab
102 mm  1219 mm. Characteristic strength for concrete in com-
pression is fc = 16 MPa and the stress–strain curve which consists
of a parabolic and linear part was used in the calculation, with
crushing strain e0 = 0.002 and ultimate strain ecu = 0.00 806. The
strain softening of concrete is not taken into account (c = 0).
Fig. 27 shows the comparative load factor-lateral displacement
curves obtained using the proposed approach, with and without
strain hardening effect, and the results retrieved from [16]. As it
can be seen the proposed model agrees fairly well with references, Fig. 34. Twenty story composite space frame: (a) plan view; and (b) perspective
when strain hardening effect is taken into account. However in ab- view.
sence of the strain hardening for the structural steel components
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 149

3.7. Example 7: Six-story composite space frame
The Orbison’s six story rigid space frame, studied previously by
other researchers, has been modified and included in this verifica-
tion study (Fig. 29a–c). In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the numerical procedure developed here, this example converts
the pure steel frame to a composite frame [18]. The steel beams
in the frame rigidly support the concrete floor slab, and the steel
columns are partially encased in the concrete (Fig. 29c) [18]. The
yield strength of all steel members is 250 MPa, Young’s modulus
is E = 20 700 MPa and shear modulus G = 79 293 MPa. The compres-
sive yield stress of concrete is fc = 16 MPa and the stress–strain
curve which consists of a parabolic and linear part was used in
the calculation, with crushing strain e0 = 0.002 and ultimate strain
ecu = 0.0035. The strain softening of concrete is not taken into ac-
count (c = 0). The frame is subjected to the combined action of
gravity and lateral loads acting in the Y-direction. Uniform floor
pressure is 9.6 kN/m2 (simulated here as uniform distributed loads
on each beam) and the wind loads are simulated by point loads of
53.376 kN in the Y direction at every beam-column joints. The
inelastic behaviour represented by the load–deflections curves at
node A in X and Y directions calculated by the proposed approach
and those given in the literature is compared in Fig. 30. A refined
plastic hinge model for composite elements was employed in
[18], whereas a fibre finite element approach for pure steel ele-
ments was included in [17]. Good correlation of the numerical re-
sults can be observed. However in the case of full composite frame
(beams and columns) the proposed approach indicates the ulti-
mate load factor 1.23 which is slightly higher than ultimate load
factor obtained by Iu et al. (1.17) using a refined plastic hinge ap-
proach [18]. Some differences can be observed also over the lateral
stiffness of the frame. In the analysis of frame while considering

Fig. 35. Load–deflection curves at node A.

Fig. 36. Load–deflection curves at node B.

150 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152

the composite beams and columns the ultimate load factor is the columns (both major and minor axes) at the first level and
slightly higher than in the case of steel frame with composite for the beams (about major axis) at the third level are depicted
beams only, in the last case the ultimate load factor resulting in Figs. 38 and 39 respectively. It can be clearly observed the flex-
1.19. As it can be seen the lateral stiffness of the frame slightly in- ural stiffness degradation for beams and columns in these cases. As
creases for full composite case (beams and columns) as compared it can be seen in Fig. 39 the stiffness degradation is more accentu-
with the case in which the composite action is taken into account ated for the beams in the y direction and plastic deformations are
only for beams. Fig. 31 shows the variation of flexural rigidities concentrated significantly toward the end region of the beams. The
along the member lengths, at the ultimate load factor, for the pure same observation has been reported by Liew et al. [23] when a dis-
steel frame and for the composite steel–concrete frame, respec- tributed plasticity approach was involved to study the behaviour of
tively. Details of the flexural rigidity distribution (1  EIt/EI0) for the beams of this frame.
the columns (both major and minor axes) at the first level and Running the present computer program on a laptop computer
for the beams (about major axis) at the third level are depicted with 2 GHz processor, the present analysis, for the case when com-
in Fig. 32 (composite frame) and Fig. 33 (pure steel frame), respec- posite columns and composite beams is considered, was performed
tively. It can be clearly observed the flexural stiffness degradation in almost 2 min, despite the fact that the analysis has been
for beams and columns in these cases. Running the present com- launched within the graphical user interface. This result proves
puter program on a laptop computer with 2 GHz processor, the the high computational efficiency of the proposed approach.
present analysis was performed in almost 20 s, considering 5 inte-
gration points along the member’s length.
4. Conclusions
3.8. Example 8: Twenty-story composite space frame
A reliable and robust nonlinear inelastic analysis method for
Twenty-story steel space frame with dimensions and properties composite steel–concrete space frames has been developed. The
shown in Fig. 34 has been studied previously by Liew et al. [23], proposed model is based on the most refined type of second order
Jiang et al. [17] and Ngo-Huu et al. [48]. Liew et al. [23] analyzed inelastic analysis, the plastic zone analysis. Gradual yielding is de-
also this frame considering composite beams with full shear con- scribed through basic equilibrium, compatibility and material non-
nection. A50 steel is used for all steel sections, the yield strength
of steel is assumed to be fy = 344.8 N/mm2, Young modulus
E = 2  105 N/mm2 and elastic–perfect plastic constitutive rela-
tionship is considered. Overall slab depth is assumed to be
127 mm, and the compressive yield stress of concrete is
fc = 27.6 N/mm2. The concrete slab is considered within the range
of effective flange width (1/4 span length for interior beams and
1/8 span length for exterior beams). The frame is analyzed for
the combination of gravity loads = 4.8 kN/m2 (simulated here as
uniform distributed loads on each beam) and wind
loads = 0.96 kN/m2, acting in the y-direction (simulated here as no-
dal loads). In Liew’s et al. [23] study, rigid floor diaphragm action is
assumed in the global analysis. Liew employed one plastic-hinge
beam-column element to model each steel column and four ele-
ments for each beam. The inelastic behaviour of beams is taken
into account considering M–U relationship. The limit load of the
frame is reached at the load ratio of 1.031, for bare steel frame
whereas a load factor of 1.338 is obtained when composite steel–
concrete beams are considered. In Ngo-Huu’s et al. [48] study,
the fibre plastic hinge concept has been used to predict the sec-
ond-order inelastic behaviour of the pure steel frame, and the
inelastic limit point reported is 1.003. In present analysis one ele-
ment with five integration points has been used to model each col-
umn and beam and the stress–strain curve for concrete in
compression which consists of a parabolic and linear part was used
in the calculation, with crushing strain e0 = 0.002, ultimate strain
ecu = 0.0035. The strain softening of concrete is not taken into ac-
count (c = 0). The comparative load–deflection curves of nodes A
and B at the top of the frame calculated by the previous researchers
and the results obtained from the new method are shown in
Figs. 35 and 36. As it can be seen the results obtained by the pro-
posed model agree fairly well with the references. In the analysis of
frame while considering the composite beams and columns the
ultimate load factor is practically the same as in the case of steel
frame with composite beams only, but the lateral stiffness of the
frame is slightly increased for full composite case (beams and col-
umns) as compared with the case in which the composite action is
taken into account only for beams. Fig. 37 shows the variation of
flexural rigidities (1  EIt/EI0) along the member lengths, at the Fig. 37. Tangent flexural rigidity (1  EIt/EI0) distribution along the member’s
ultimate load factor, for the steel–concrete frame with composite length at ultimate load factor.
beams. Details of the flexural rigidity distribution (1  EIt/EI0) for
 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152 151

Fig. 38. Details of tangent flexural rigidity (1  EIt/EI0) distribution for first level columns (strong and weak axis).

Fig. 39. Details of tangent flexural rigidity (1  EIt/EI0) distribution for third floor beams (strong axis).

linear constitutive equations and path integral approach is applied
to numerical integration of the cross-sectional nonlinear
characteristics.
The proposed analysis can practically account for major factors
influencing nonlinear composite steel–concrete space frame
behaviour: gradual and distributed yielding associated with biaxial
bending and axial force, stress–strain relationships for concrete in
compression and tension, residual stress distribution in encased
steel elements, shear deformations, local and global second order
effects with computational efficiency, and the necessary degree
of accuracy, usually only one element per member is necessary
to analyze. Lateral loads acting along the member length can be
152 C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125–152
directly input into the analysis without the need to divide a
member into several elements, leading to a consistency in the
linear and nonlinear structural models.
The model has been implemented in a simple incremental ma-
trix structural analysis program and allows proportionally and
non-proportionally loading, and has been verified by comparing
the predicted results with the established results available from
the literature. The studies show that the proposed analysis com-
pares very well to experimental and finite fibre element solution
with much less computational effort. The proposed software is pre-
sented as an efficient, reliable tool ready to be implemented into
design practice for advanced analysis and pushover analysis of spa-
tial composite steel–concrete frame structures.
Future work is envisaged, considering the extension of the pro-
posed method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D composite
steel–concrete frameworks with partial shear connection of com-
posite beams and semi-rigid behaviour of composite connections.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support from
Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research (ANCS and
CNCSIS Grant PNII-IDEI No. 193/2008) for this study.
References
[1] Li GQ, Li JJ. Advanced analysis and design of steel frames. Wiley; 2007.
[2] Ziemian RD. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 6th
ed. Wiley; 2010.
[3] Ayoub A. Analysis of composite frame structures with mixed elements-state of
the art. Struct Eng Mech 2012;41:157–81.
[4] Spacone E, El-Tawil S. Nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite
structures: state of the art. J Struct Eng ASCE 2004;130:159–68.
[5] Nguyen QH, Hjiaj M, Uy B, Guezouli S. Analysis of composite beams in the
hogging moment regions using a mixed finite element formulation. J Constr
Steel Res 2009;65:737–48.
[6] Valipour HR, Bradford MA. A steel-concrete composite beam element with
material nonlinearities and partial shear interaction. Finite Elem Anal Des
2009;45:966–72.
[7] Hjiaj M, Battini JM, Nguyen QH. Large displacement analysis of shear
deformable composite beams with interlayer slips. Int J Non-Linear Mech
2012;47:895–904.
[8] Salari MR, Spacone E. Analysis of steel-concrete composite frames with bond-
slip. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:1243–50.
[9] Zona A, Barbato M, Conte JP. Nonlinear seismic response analysis of steel-
concrete composite frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 2008;134:986–97.
[10] Elghazouli AY, Treadway J. Inelastic behaviour of composite members under
combined bending and axial loading. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:1008–19.
[11] Pi YL, Bradford B, Uy B. Second order nonlinear analysis of composite steel-
concrete members. I: theory. J Struct Eng ASCE 2006;132:751–61.
[12] Fang LX, Chan SL, Wong YL. Strength analysis of semi-rigid steel-concrete
composite frames. J Constr Steel Res 1999;52:269–91.
[13] Bursi OS, Sun FF, Postal S. Non-linear analysis of steel concrete composite
frames with full and partial shear connection subjected to seismic loads. J
Constr Steel Res 2005;61:67–92.
[14] Nie J, Tao M, Cai CS, Chen GE. Modeling and investigation of elasto-plastic
behavior of steel-concrete composite frame systems. J Construct Steel Res
2011;67:1973–84.
[15] Ellobody E, Young B. Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel
composite columns. J Construct Steel Res 2011;67:211–22.
[16] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite
frames using fiber-hinge method. J Construct Steel Res 2012;74:90–7.
[17] Jiang XM, Chen H, Liew JYR. Spread of plasticity analysis of three-dimensional
steel frames. J Construct Steel Res 2002;58:193–212.
[18] Iu CK, Bradford MA, Chen WF. Second-order inelastic analysis of composite
framed structures based on the refined plastic hinge method. Eng Struct
2009;31:799–813.
[19] Iu CK. Inelastic finite element analysis of composite beams on the basis of the
plastic hinge approach. Eng Struct 2008;30:2912–22.
[20] Liu SW, Lui YP, Chan SL. Advanced analysis of hybrid steel and concrete frames.
Part I: cross section analysis technique and second-order analysis. J Construct
Steel Res 2012;70:326–36.
[21] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonllinear analysis of mixed steel-concrete frames. I:
element formulation. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:647–55.
[22] Ashraf A, Filippou FC. Mixed formulation of nonlinear steel-concrete
composite beam element. J Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126:371–81.
[23] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE. Inelastic analysis of steel frames with
composite beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:194–202.
[24] Nukala PKV, White DW. A mixed finite element for three dimensional
nonlinear analysis of steel frames. Comp Methods Appl Mech Eng
2004;193:2507–45.
[25] Izzudin BA, Siyam AAFM, Lloyd-Smith D. An efficient beam-column
formulation for 3D RC frames. Comput Struct 2002;80.
[26] Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC. Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite-element
models. J Struct Eng ASCE 1997;123:958–66.
[27] Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC. A geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based frame
finite element. J Struct Eng ASCE 1998;124:704–11.
[28] Sivaselvan MV, Reinhorn AM. Collapse analysis: large inelastic deformations
analysis of planar frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 2002;128:1575–83.
[29] Valipour HR, Foster SJ. A total secant flexibility-based formulation for frame
elements with physical and geometrical nonlinearities. Finite Elem Anal Des
2010;46:288–97.
[30] Chiorean CG, Barsan GM. Large deflection distributed plasticity analysis of 3D
steel frameworks. Comput Struct 2005;83:1555–71.
[31] Chiorean CG. A computer program for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D semi-
rigid steel frameworks. Eng Struct 2009;31:3016–33.
[32] Attala MR, Deierlein GG, McGuire W. Spread of plasticity: quasi-plastic hinge
approach. J Struct Eng ASCE 1994;120:2451–73.
[33] Marmo F, Rosati L. An improved flexibility-based nonlinear frame element
endowed with the fiber-free formulation. In: European Congress on
Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS
2012). Viena, Austria; 2012. p. 1–17.
[34] Chiorean CG. Computerised interaction diagrams and moment capacity
contours for composite steel-concrete cross-sections. Eng Struct
2010;32:3734–57.
[35] Papanikolau VK. Analysis of arbitrary composite sections in biaxial bending
and axial load. Comput Struct 2012;98-99:33–54.
[36] Bonet JL, Romero ML, Miguel PF, Fernandez MA. A fast stress integration
algorithm for reinforced concrete sections with axial loads and biaxial
bending. Comput Struct 2004;82:213–25.
[37] Marmo F, Serpieri R, Rosati L. Ultimate strength analysis of prestressed
reinforced concrete sections under axial force and biaxial bending moments.
Comput Struct 2011;89:91–108.
[38] Skrabek BW, Mirza SA. Strength reliability of short and slender composite
steel-concrete columns. In: Civil Engineering Report Senes. No. CE-90-1.
Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario; 1990. 323 p.
[39] Virdi KS, Dowling PJ. The ultimate strength of composite columns in biaxial
bending. In: Procedures institution of civil engineers (London), vol. 56(May).
1973. p. 251–72.
[40] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 1986;83:219–31.
[41] Mansour M, Lee JY, Hsu TTC. Cyclic stress-strain curves of concrete and steel
bars in membrane elements. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:1402–11.
[42] Yavari A, Sarkani S, Moyer ET. On applications of generalized functions to
beam bending problems. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37:5675–705.
[43] Zhao XM, Wu YF, Leung AYT. Analyses of plastic hinge regions in reinforced
concrete beams under monotonic loading. Eng Struct 2012;34:466–82.
[44] Yang YB, Yau JD, Leu LJ. Recent developments in geometrically nonlinear and
postbuckling analysis of framed structures. Appl. Mech Rev 2003;56:431–49.
[45] Nie JG, Cai CS. Steel concrete composite beams considering shear slip effects. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2003;129(4):495–506.
[46] Slutter RG, Driscoll GC. Flexural strength of steel-concrete composite beams. J
Struct Div ASCE 1965;91:71–99.
[47] Bursi OS, Gramola G. Behavior of composite substructures with full and partial
shear connection under quasi-static cyclic and pseudodynamic displacements.
Mater Struct Paris 2000;33:154–63.
[48] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE, Oh JR. Nonlinear analysis of steel frames using fiber plastic
hinge concept. Eng Struct 2007;29:649–57.