MECHCOMP2014

AN IMPROVED MODELLING OF STEEL-CONCRETE

COMPOSITE BEAMS BASED ON A HIGHER ORDER
THEORY

Hamid Sheikh
Associate Professor
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering
The University of Adelaide, Australia
E-mail: ahsheikh@civeng.adelaide.edu.au

MECHCOMP2014
Steel-Concrete Composite Structure

Main advantage of this structure:

Concrete (weak in tension but relatively strong in
compression) used in compressive region
Steel (strong in tension but relatively weak in compression
due to buckling) used in tensile region

Shear connectors

MECHCOMP2014
Steel-Concrete Composite Beam
Shear connectors are not
infinitely stiff in reality
causes some slip (Partial
shear interaction)

Two layered Beam

C
T
T

No interaction between two layers

Full (shear) interaction between two layers

Two layered timber beam

MECHCOMP2014
Interfacial Shear Interactions

c : concrete

s : steel

: strain (axial)

ci

i : interface

si
ds
dx
si ci

sh

No Interaction

sh

ds
dx

Partial Interaction

sh

ds
0
dx

Full Interaction

MECHCOMP2014
Existing Models of Composite Beams
Without Partial Shear Interaction (Interface)
With Partial Shear Interaction (Interface)
Without shear deformation of the beam layers
Based on Euler-Bernoulli beam theory (EBT)
Newmark et al. (1951) Analytical solution
Numerical solutions (Direct stiffness, Finite element .)

With shear deformation of the beam layers

Based on Timoshenko beam theory (TBT)
Schnabl et al. (2007) Analytical solution
Numerical solutions (Direct stiffness, Finite element .)
Present Model: Higher order beam theory (HBT) Reddys 3rd
order beam theory (with necessary amendments)

MECHCOMP2014
w( x, y ) w( x) w

Higher Order Beam Theories Single Layer

h/2

h/2

u ( x, y ) u u0 y y 2 y 3
u

The non-physical parameters and are replaced

using the shear stress free boundary condition at the
beam top and bottom surfaces :

RA

At y h / 2, 0 or / G 0

u w

0
y x

0,

For TBT: u ( x, y ) u u0 y

4
dw

3h 2
dx

- needs shear correction factor

For EBT: u ( x, y ) u u0 y (dw / dx) - no shear deformation

u0

NA

MECHCOMP2014
Proposed Composite Beam Model
c : concrete

s : steel

hc / 2
hc / 2

hs / 2

hs / 2

uc Ac uc 0 Bc uc Cc c Dc (dw / dx) H cu u
u s As u s 0 Bs u s C s s Ds (dw / dx) H cu u

u T u c 0
H cu Ac
H su 0

uc
Bc

uc
Cc

0 0 Dc

wc ws w w(x)

dw / dx u s
Dc
As

us

0 0 0
Bs

Cs

us

u c u c 0 y c y 2 c y 3 c
u s u s 0 y s y 2 s y 3 s
The non-physical parameters
are replaced using the
following conditions:
At y hc / 2, 0
At y hc / 2, uc uc
At y hs / 2, 0
At y hs / 2, u s u s
Slip : s u s uc

MECHCOMP2014
Slip : s u s uc

Virtual Work of the Composite Beam

D dv D dv sk
T
c

uc

x
uc w

y x

c

c

T
c

du
c0
dx

du c
dx

T
s

s

s

sh

sdx wqdx

H c c

u s

x
u s w

y x

D s

Es

0
Gc
0
Gs

uc Ac uc 0 Bc uc Cc c Dc (dw / dx )

d 2w
uc 0
dx 2

Ec

d c
dx

D c

uc c

dw

dx

H cu u

H s s

T
T
T
T

D s H s dA s dx us uc k sh us uc dx wqdx

H
D
H
dA

dx

H
c
c
c
s
c
c
s

T
T

dx

c
c
c

s D s s dx us uc k sh us uc dx wqdx

MECHCOMP2014
Analytical Solution (For a beam, simply supported at both ends)
T
T

dx

c
c
c

s D s s dx us uc k sh us uc dx wqdx

Use the series solution technique

(Navier Type)
mx
w wm sin
L
m 1

mx
u s 0 u s 0 m cos
L
m 1

q qm sin
m 1

mx
L

mx
u c 0 u c 0 m cos
L
m 1

mx
u s u sm cos
L
m 1

T
c

duc 0

dx

d c
dx

du c
dx

d 2w
uc 0
dx 2

mx
u c u cm cos
L
m 1

s smcos
m 1

uc c

c cmcos
m 1

dw

dx

mx
L

mx
L

K m m Qm
m T uc 0 m

ucm cm

wm

us 0m

u sm sm

MECHCOMP2014
Finite Element Solution (3 Node beam isoparametric element)
T
T

dx

c
c
c

s D s s dx us uc k sh us uc dx wqdx

T
c

Tc

duc 0

dx

du c
dx

d c
dx

d 2w
uc 0
dx 2

uc c

dw

dx

uc Ac uc 0 Bc uc Cc c Dc ( dw / dx)

duc 0
dx

du c
dx

d c
dx

d
dx

uc c

dw
dx

uc Ac uc 0 Bc uc Cc c Dc

uc 0

Interpolation of the displacement fields:

3

w N i wi
i 1

u s 0 N iu s 0i
i 1

u c 0 N iu c 0i
i 1
3

u s N iu si
i 1

K e e Qe

u c N iu ci
i 1
3

s N i si
i 1

c N i ci
i 1

N i i
i 1

Nodal displacements: e T 1T T2 T3

1T uc 01

u c1 c1

w1 1 u s 01 u s1 s1

MECHCOMP2014
Results and Discussions

300 mm

Example 1: A simply supported 2.5 m long beam under

uniformly distributed load of 50 kN/m.
Reference

Deflection
(mm)

Slip
(mm)

Bending
stress
(MPa)

Shear
stress
(MPa)

Analytical (HBT)

2.707

0.7892

6.721

0.7847

FEM (HBT)

2.707

0.7890

6.732

0.7704

Analytical (TBT)

2.708

0.771

6.593

0.624

FEM (TBT)

2.708

0.771

6.605

0.628

Analytical (EBT)

2.400

0.765

6.650

FEM (EBT)

2.400

0.765

6.650

Schnabl et al.,
2007 (TBT-Ana)

2.710

0.7729

Layer 1
200 mm

Layer 2

300 mm

E 1E 2 12000 MPa
G1 800 MPa
G 2 1200 MPa
k sh 2.43 MPa

MECHCOMP2014

600
600

TBT
HB
T

500

HB
T

500
Beam
400 depth (mm)

Beam depth (mm)

400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
-8

0
-0.1 0
-6

-4

-2
0
2
Normal stress (MPa)

Variation of bending stress over the

depth of the beam at its mid-span

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Shear stress (MPa)

Variation of shear stress over the

depth of the beam at its left end

MECHCOMP2014
Variation of maximum deflection with respect to shear connector stiffness
ksh (Mpa)

HBT

TBT

EBT

2.43

2.707

2.708 (0.26%)

2.400 (11.34%)

24.3

2.523

2.530 (0.28%)

2.225 (11.81%)

243

1.725

1.743 (1.04%)

1.443 (16.35%)

2430

1.098

1.105 (0.64%)

0.803 (26.87%)

24300

0.991

0.994 (0.30%)

0.691 (30.27%)

MECHCOMP2014
Example 2: A 2.0m long beam clamed at its both end and
subjected to a point load of 100 kN at its mid-span.

300 mm

Layer 1
200 mm

Reference

Deflection
(mm)

Slip
(mm)

Bending
stress
(MPa)

Shear
stress
(MPa)

FEM (HBT)

0.716

0.132

5.253

0.398

FEM (TBT)

0.736

0.125

3.777

0.462

Error

2.87%

5.34%

28.10%

15.99%

Layer 2

300 mm

E 1E 2 12000 MPa
G1 800 MPa
G 2 1200 MPa
k sh 243 MPa

MECHCOMP2014

Variation of bending stress over the depth of the beam at its mid-span

MECHCOMP2014
Example 3: A simply supported 20 m long beam
under uniformly distributed load of 35 kN/m.

2300 mm
230 mm
40 mm

E c 34.2 GPa
G s 84 GPa

E s 200 GPa

G c 14.25 GPa

16 mm

1120 mm

k sh 8.55 MPa
40 mm
500 mm

Reference

Deflection
(mm)

Slip
(mm)

Bending
stress
(MPa)

Shear
stress
(MPa)

Analytical (HBT)

21.939

2.320

22.212

65.649

FEM (HBT)

21.939

2.321

22.594

65.761

Ranzi et al., 2006 (TBT-EBT)

21.409

MECHCOMP2014
Summary and Conclusions

An improved model is proposed for steel-concrete composite

beams
considering higher order shear deformation for the beam layers and
partial shear interaction at their interface.

The governing equation for the one dimensional beam problem is

solved analytically as well as numerically using finite element
approximation.

Numerical examples are solved by the proposed model for its

validation and assessment of performance which is found to be
encouraging.

MECHCOMP2014

Thank you very much for your attention ....