PJulA07

PERFORMANCE-BASED
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE BEAMS
IN BUILDING STRUCTURES
K F Chung1 and A J Wang2
1

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong SAR, China
2

Hyder Consulting Limited, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT
In order to enable effective design and construction of composite beams in building structures,
advanced three dimensional non-linear finite element models are established to assist
designers to examine and understand the deformation characteristics of composite beams
during the entire loading history. These models are provided to facilitate the performancebased design and analysis of long span composite beams with practical constructional features.
Details of the advanced three dimensional finite element models of a composite beam as well
as a composite joint are presented together with careful calibration against test data.
Moreover, the effects of the deformation characteristics of both shear connectors and tensile
reinforcement are also examined and presented.
The proposed numerical analysis and design models are demonstrated to be effective for
detailed analyses and design of composite beams and joints with practical geometrical
dimensions and arrangements. Designers are strongly encouraged to employ these models in
their practical work to exploit the full advantages offered by composite construction.
KEYWORDS
Composite beams, finite element models, integrated analysis and design.

COMPOSITE BEAMS IN BUILDING STRUCTURES

Composite beams are strong and stiff flexural members with long spanning capacities. The
structural form of a composite beam is essentially a thin wide concrete flange connected with
a steel section where the concrete flange is in compression while the steel section is largely in
tension. Shear connectors, usually headed studs, are welded to the top flange of the steel

PJulA07

section and embedded in the concrete flange. Depending on the number of shear connectors
provided along the interface between the steel section and the concrete flange which is either
a solid concrete slab or a composite slab, the composite beam may operate in either full shear
connection or partial shear connection, and hence, exhibit a wide range of deformation
characteristics according to the flexibility of the shear connectors.
Prescriptive Design of Composite Beams
In many structural design codes, plastic design principles are adopted in designing composite
beams, and their moment resistances under sagging and hogging moments are determined
according to plastic stress blocks. In general, flexibility of shear connectors is often ignored
in strength assessment while stringent requirements on the slippage ductility of shear
connectors are imposed in order to justify uniform distribution of shear resistances along
shear spans at ultimate limit state.
In continuous composite beams, the amount of moment re-distribution is specified in a
prescriptive manner according to the geometrical dimensions of the composite cross-sections
as well as the provision of tensile reinforcement. Moreover, while both full and partial shear
connection may be adopted in composite beams under sagging moments, full shear
connection is usually required in composite beams under hogging moments. In general, this
is readily achieved through the provision of few shear connectors in transferring the tensile
resistances of steel reinforcement over the hogging moment regions.
At present, design methods for composite beams using plastic stress blocks with full or partial
shear connection are given in various design codes such as BS5950 (1), AS2327 (2),
Eurocode 4 (3), and the Hong Kong Steel Code, CoPSteel (4). Design handbooks for
composite beams with either solid concrete slabs or composite slabs with profiled steel
decking may also be found in the literature (5-9).
Practical Issues in Composite Beam Design
In general, it is often necessary for designers to refer to specialist design guides in designing
composite beams and floor systems with practical constructional features:

composite beams with asymmetric rolled or fabricated I sections,

composite beams with fabricated I sections with tapered webs,
composite beams with web openings for full integration with building services,
composite beams with partial continuity offered by the connections with columns, and
long span composite beams against floor vibration in service.

Although there are many design methods available in the literature, their use in practice are
fairly limited. Many methods require extensive design efforts together with a deep learning
curve to achieve high structural efficiency. Some of them are product specific, and hence,
their applicability is rather limited. Moreover, little information on associated failure criteria
is provided.
In general, it is highly desirable to develop performance-based analysis and design tools for
practical design of composite beams. This allows designers to understand the structural
behaviour of the composite beams as well as to monitor their stress and strain condition
during the entire loading history. Moreover, different failure criteria in designing composite

PJulA07

beams and joints with specific mechanical properties, geometrical dimensions, and member
configurations as well as constructional features may be adopted as required in various
projects.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

In this paper, a research and development project is reported which aims to develop advanced
numerical analysis and design models for practical design of long span composite beams in
building structures. Details of advanced finite element models of composite beams and joints
are presented and established to assist designers to examine and understand the deformation
characteristics of composite beams and joints during the entire loading history. Moreover,
the effects of the deformation characteristics of both shear connectors and tensile
reinforcement are also examined and presented. The project aims to develop these models to
facilitate the performance-based design and analysis of long span composite beams with
practical constructional features.

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

In order to simulate numerically the structural behaviour of composite beams and joints with
practical member configurations and loading conditions, three dimensional finite element
models are established using the general purpose finite element package ABAQUS (Version
6.4, 2004) (10). In general, the steel sections are modelled with shell element S8, and the
concrete flange and the profiled steel decking are modelled with solid element C3D8.
Material Models
It is important to have a suitable material model for each material in the composite beams and
joints. For steel under uni-axial loading condition, a bi-linear stress-strain curve, as shown in
Figure 1a), is adopted as the material model. Moreover, failure of the steel is assumed to
follow the von Mises failure criteria which failure surface is also shown in Figure 1a).
For concrete under uni-axial loading condition, a non-linear stress-strain curve as shown in
Figure 1b) is adopted in the material model. The compressive strength of concrete is taken to
be equal to its cylinder strength while its tensile strength is taken as only 10 % of its
compressive value. The limiting compressive strain of concrete against crushing is taken to
be 0.35 %. As shown in Figure 1b), failure of the concrete is assumed to follow the DruckerPrager failure criteria (10,11) when subjected to tri-axial loading.
In order to simulate controlled concrete cracking in the presence of longitudinal
reinforcement and profiled steel decking, the concept of smeared layers is introduced in
which smeared reinforced concrete layers and smeared composite decking layers are adopted.
The mechanical properties of the smeared layers, namely, the equivalent compressive
strength, the equivalent tensile strength and the equivalent Youngs modulus, are evaluated
(10,11) according to the respective areas and the respective material curves of concrete, steel
reinforcement and profiled steel decking as shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that the
adoption of smeared layers and the corresponding modified material curves is very effective
in suppressing numerical divergence during solution iterations in the finite element analyses.

PJulA07

For simplicity, transverse reinforcement and profiled steel decking in the transverse direction
are ignored in the material models.

Esh = 0.005Eo
py

1
Eo
1

2
-py

3
Tri-axial loading

Uni-axial loading

a) Steel

( / c' )
p
1 ( / c ' ) c

pc

E 5.5 f cu

0.3 pc

0.001

'
c 0.0035

0.025

c' 2.4 10 4

f cu

c 1.55
32.4
3

pc = 0.8 fcu
Uni-axial loading

Tri-axial loading

b) Concrete

Figure 1: Material models

Material and Geometrical Non-linearities
With both material and geometrical non-linearities incorporated into the finite element
models, large deformation in any severely yielded regions of the steel sections can be
modelled accurately. In addition, the first eigen-mode of the finite element model is adopted
as the initial geometrical imperfection, and the magnitude of the maximum initial
imperfection is taken as 25% of the web thicknesses of the steel beams. The presence of the

PJulA07

Smeared reinforced concrete layer

for concrete and reinforcement

Smeared reinforced concrete layer

for concrete and reinforcement

Layers of concrete

Layers of concrete

Layers of steel

Layers of steel

i. Cross-section between troughs

ii. Cross-section at troughs

a) Composite beams under sagging moments

Layers of steel

Smeared composite decking layer for

concrete and profiled steel decking

Layers of concrete
Smeared reinforced concrete layer for
concrete and reinforcement

C
s(i)
c(i) and t(i)
As
Ac
Es(i)
Ec(i)

is the strength of steel reinforcement or profiled steel decking at

a strain of i;
are the compressive and the tensile strengths of concrete at a
strain of i;
is the area of steel reinforcement or profiled steel
decking in the smeared layer;
is the area of concrete in the smeared layer;
is the Youngs modulus of steel reinforcement or profiled
steel decking at a strain of i; and
is the Youngs modulus of concrete at a strain of i .

Equivalent compressive strength of the smeared layer:

( ) A s c ( i ) A c
eq, c (i ) s i
As Ac
Equivalent tensile strength of the smeared layer:
( ) A s t ( i ) A c
eq, t ( i ) s i
As Ac
Equivalent Youngs modulus of the smeared layer:
E ( ) A s E c ( i ) A c
E eq ( i ) s i
As Ac

Figure 2: Smeared layers of reinforced concrete and composite decking

PJulA07

initial geometrical imperfection in the finite element model will facilitate solution iterations
during non-linear analyses.
Furthermore, it should be noted that in order to avoid local inclusion between the finite
elements of the concrete flanges and the steel sections during non-linear analyses, axial
spring elements with extremely high compressive stiffness but zero tensile stiffness are
provided along the interfaces between the concrete flanges and the steel sections.
Shear Connectors
Every shear connector is modelled with one horizontal spring, one transverse spring and one
vertical spring in order to simulate both the longitudinal and the transverse shear forces as
well as the pull-out force of the shear connector. The load-slippage curves of the horizontal
and the transverse springs are obtained from the normalized load-slippage curve proposed by
Ollgaard et al (12) as follows:
Fh

Ps (1 e -S )

(1)

where
Fh
Ps

is the longitudinal shear force developed in the shear connector at a slippage of S

(mm);
is the shear resistance of the shear connectors;
is a non-dimensional parameter with its value between 0.5 and 1.5; and
is a parameter with a unit of mm-1; its value is typically between 0.5 and 2.5.

In general, the typical load-slippage curve of headed shear connectors reported by Lawson
(13) may be represented by Equation (1) with = 1.2 and = 2.0.

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND JOINTS

In the present study, the structural behaviour of a continuous composite beam and a semirigid composite joint are examined, and effects of the deformation characteristics of flexible
shear connectors and tensile reinforcement are thoroughly studied.
Among dozens of continuous composite beams and semi-rigid composite joints tested and
reported in the literature, the following are adopted in the present study:

Beam CTB4 reported by Ansourian (14), a continuous composite beam exhibiting

significant moment re-distribution.

Joint B5 reported by Brown & Anderson (15), a symmetrically load semi-rigid composite
joint with beam end-plate connections.

Finite Element Study on Composite Beam

Figure 3 illustrates the overall test arrangement of the continuous composite beam, Beam
CTB4, together with the three dimensional finite element model. The predicted loaddeflection curve of Beam CTB4 is plotted in Figure 4 together with the measured data for

PJulA07

IPB200
HE
A
200

800
At = 804 mm2

P/2
2250

2250

100

2250

Ab = 767 mm2

3
5
7

HE
3 28 @ 320 c/cA
200

190

2250

P/2

3
5
7

200 10
6.5

Beam CTB4

Beam CTB4. py = 236.0 N/mm2, pc = 27.2 N/mm2.

Section C-C

Details of test specimen

P/2

P/2

3 28 @ 320 c/c

Finite element mesh

Shell elements: C3D8

three shear connectors

three shear connectors

Shell elements: S8
Contact spring elements not shown for clarity

Shear connector: 19 mm headed shear connector

with as-welded height equal to 75 mm.

Initial imperfection

Figure 3: Beam CTB4

500

500
PJulA07

400 600

400

Stage 1
Stage 2
495.3 (s)max = 0 mm
450.8 (s)max = 0.24 mm

300

300

200

Apllied load, P (kN)

Total load, P (kN)

Total load, P (kN)

Total load, P (kN)

500
455.0
431.2

400

430.0 (s)max = 0.45 mm

405.6

200 300

200

100

100

E-R
Test

100

P-R-72P-R-72

E-100 E-100

P-100-72
P-100-72

Test Test

P-50-72
P-50-72

N-72 N-72

E-R

510

10

20
10

15 3015

2040 20

Deflection
at mid-span
(mm)
Vertical
deflection
at mid-span,
(mm)
Vertical
deflection
at mid-span,
(mm)

Figure 4: Load deflection curves of Beam CTB4

direct comparison. It is shown that there is good agreement between the predicted and the
measured data. As shown in Figure 5, it is found that failure of a continuous composite beam
often involves a two-stage mechanism as follows:

Stage 1 Failure at internal support under hogging moment; and

Stage 2 Failure at mid-span under sagging moment.
Stage 1
Failure at internal support under hogging moment

von Mises stress

(N/mm2)

Stage 2
Failure at mid-span under sagging moment.
Figure 5: Failure mode of Beam CTB4

1.0 py
0.8 py
0.6 py
0.4 py
0.2 py
0

PJulA07

Hence, the continuous composite beam is considered to be failed when plastic hinges are
formed at both the internal support and near the mid-span, i.e. when both the hogging and the
sagging hogging moment capacities of the composite beam are fully mobilized. A plastic
hinge is regarded to be fully developed at a critical cross-section when its maximum strain
reaches the limiting value, max , which is defined as follows:
max

= 6

fy
Es

(2)

where
fy
Es

is the yield strength of the steel; and

is the Youngs modulus of the steel.

Hence, it is shown that the proposed three-dimensional finite element model is able to
provide accurate prediction to the structural behaviour of continuous composite beams in
both linear and nonlinear deformation stages.
Moment re-distribution in a continuous composite beam
It is interesting to examine the moment re-distribution behaviour in continuous composite
beams, and the development of moment re-distribution in Beam CTB4 is illustrated in Figure
6. It should be noted that the first plastic hinge is formed at the internal support under a total
load of 455.0 kN while the hogging and the sagging moments at the critical cross-sections are
159.7 and 165.3 kNm respectively. Upon further increase of the applied load, the second
plastic hinge is formed near the mid-span under a total load of 495.3 kN while the hogging
and the sagging moments at the critical cross-sections are 159.7 and 195.5 kNm respectively.
Owing to moment re-distribution in the continuous composite beam, the total load carrying
capacity is increased from 455.0 kN at Stage 1 failure to 495.3 kN at Stage 2 failure, i.e. an
increase of 8.9%. The degree of moment re-distribution at the internal support is found to be
19%. Refer to Chung & Wang (16) for further details on the numerical analysis and design
models of continuous composite beams.
It should be noted that plastic local buckling is also successfully captured in the compressive
flange of the steel sections near internal supports well after plastic hinges have been fully
developed. In general, the occurrence of such plastic local buckling is only important to
composite beams with wide flanges in steel sections in which the hogging moment capacities
of the composite beams may decrease significantly after the onset of plastic local buckling.
Flexibility of shear connectors
In order to examine the effects of flexible shear connectors to the structural behaviour of
continuous composite beams, shear connectors with different load-slippage characteristics as
shown in Figure 3 are incorporated into the finite element model. The corresponding
predicted load-deflection curves are also plotted in the same graph in Figure 4 for direct
comparison.
It is shown that there is a significant variation in the load carrying capacities among all these
beams, and the maximum difference among the load carrying capacities is found to be 15%.
Hence, it is demonstrated that the load-slippage characteristics of shear connectors are

PJulA07

10

300

Stage 1
Stage 2

Moment, M (kNm)

250

FEM: Hogging moment

FEM: Sagging moment
Mhog,e = 197.2

200

Msag1 = 165.3

Msag2 = 195.5

Mhog1 = 159.7
Mhog2 = 159.7

Hogging moment
from elastic analysis

150

100

Stage 1

Stage 2

50

455.0

0
0

200

495.3

400

600

800

Total load, P (kN)

Elastic analysis
Nonlinear analysis
P/2

197.2 kNm
159.7 kNm

37.5 kNm

176.8 kNm
195.5 kNm

b) Applied moment at failure

The degree of hogging moment redistributed from internal support, mr, is
given by:
mr

= (Mhog, e - Mhog2) / Mhog,e

where
Mhog, e
Mhog2

mr

is the applied moment at the internal support at failure

according to elastic analysis, and
is the applied moment at the internal support at failure
according to nonlinear analysis.
= (197.2 159.7) / 197.2
= 19 %

Figure 6: Moment redistribution in Beam CTB4

PJulA07

11

important in assessing the load carrying capacities of continuous composite beams as the
internal force distribution depends not only on the flexural rigidities of the composite beams
but also on the flexibility of shear connectors. On the contrary, the flexibility of shear
connectors is considered not important in predicting the load carrying capacities of simply
supported composite beams, although it will affect their deflections.
Finite Element Study on Composite Joint
Figure 7 illustrates the overall test arrangement of a semi-rigid composite joint, Joint BA5.
The corresponding three dimensional finite element model is presented in Figure 8 together
with the details of the beam end-plate connections (17). Figure 9 presents the deformed mesh
of the finite element model, Joint BA5, at failure. It should be noted that in physical tests,
composite connections often fail owing to the rupture of tensile reinforcement. This is
readily predicted in the finite element models. In addition, severe yielding and stress
concentration are found in the following locations:

the upper portion of the end-plate of the steel beam under the pull-out action of the bolt
forces; and

part of the flange to web junction of the steel column under direct bearing of the lower
portion of the end-plate of the steel beam.

The predicted load-deflection curve of the composite joint is plotted in Figure 10 together
with the measured data for direct comparison. It is shown that there is good agreement
between the predicted and the measured data.
Hence, it is shown that the proposed three-dimensional finite element model is able to
provide accurate prediction to the structural behaviour of semi-rigid composite joints with
beam end-plate connections in both linear and nonlinear deformation stages.
Moment capacities of composite joints
According to experimental investigations reported in the literature, most of the tests on
composite joints are terminated due to excessive deformation in the connections or rupture of
tensile reinforcement. Hence, in order to establish the moment capacities of composite joints,
the moment capacities are defined to be the applied moments at which the strain in the tensile
reinforcement reaches a limiting value, t , at 5%. Rupture of the tensile reinforcement, and
hence, failure of the composite joint is likely to happen beyond that value.
Development of internal forces
It is interesting to examine the tensile forces in the bolts and the tensile reinforcement as well
as the compressive (bearing) forces near the bottom flanges of the steel beams during the
entire loading history; the development of various internal forces in the composite joint is
presented in Figure 11.
It is found that the forces in the tensile reinforcement are mobilized in the early loading stage,
as shown in Figure 11, because of the relatively large deformation in the tensile
reinforcement, when compared with the deformation in the bolts. This leads to early yielding
of the tensile reinforcement, and the tensile forces in the bolts are subsequently developed at

PJulA07

12

120

1100
At = 804 mm2
P

208.7 13.2

235 typ

UC 25425473

528.3

9.6

1410

45 45

80 90 328

Bolts M20
Grade 8.8
End plate:
578 250 15
250

Connection BA5py = 355 N/mm2, pc = 38 N/mm2.

Fs (kN)
Shear force,
Ph (kN)

100

Load-slippage curve of shear

connector

Connections details

80

Measured yield strength (N/mm2)

60

Fs = F(1 - e

40

Steel beam
Flange
Web
351

Test
FEM

20

-2 S 0.8

385

Steel column
Flange
Web
285

331

0
0

Slippage,
s (mm)
h (mm)

Figure 7: Joint BA5

End- plate

Reinforcement

Measured cylinder
strength of concrete
(N/mm2)

305

504

38.4

578

80

25

1410

UB 533 210 82

PJulA07

13

Smeared layer for reinforced concrete

(Solid elements: C3D8)
Concrete flange
(Solid elements: C3D8)

Steel decking
(Shell elements: S8)

Steel beam
(Shell elements: S8)

Steel column
(Shell elements: S8)

Steel beam

End-plate

Flange of
column

Web of column

Note:
Spring contact elements are not shown for clearity.

Figure 8: Finite element model of Joint BA5

PJulA07

14

a) Perspective view
von Mises stress
(N/mm2)
1.0 py
0.8 py
0.6 py
0.4 py
0.2 py
0

b) Side view

von Mises stress

(N/mm2)
1.0 py
0.8 py
0.6 py
0.4 py
0.2 py
0

Figure 9: Typical failure mode of Joint BA5

PJulA07

15

600

Moment, M (kNm)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0

10

20

Rotation, (10-3 rad)

30

40

Figure 10: Moment-rotation curves

of Joint BA5

1000

Fc = 817.1 kN
Compressive contact force, Fc
Tensile force in reinforcement, Fr
Tensile force in bolts, Ft

Internal force, F (kN)

800

Tensile force in reinforcement, Fr

600

Tensile force in bolts, Ft

Fr = 410.5 kN
400

Ft = 406.6 kN

200

Compressive contact force, Fc

M3D = 440.1 kNm

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Moment, M (kNm)

Figure 11: Development of internal forces in Joint BA5

PJulA07

16

large deformation stage of the composite joint. Thus, tensile reinforcement with sufficient
ductility should be provided in order to fully mobilize the moment capacities of the
composite joints.

PARAMETRIC STUDIES
After careful verification of the finite element models for both composite beams and joints, it
is possible to examine the effects of deformation characteristics of both shear connectors and
tensile reinforcement on the structural behaviour of composite beams and joints through
systematic parametric studies. A total of 120 non-linear finite element analyses on composite
joints, continuous composite beams and semi-continuous composite beams with shear
connectors and tensile reinforcement having different deformation characteristic were
conducted (17). Owing to the limited space in this paper, only some of the key findings of
the parametric studies are presented.
In general, three different shear connectors, namely, Shear connectors A, B and C, with
different slippage limits are considered in the parametric studies, and their deformation
characteristics are plotted in Figure 12a). Moreover, two different tensile reinforcement,
namely, tensile reinforcement N and H, with different deformation limits are considered, and
their deformation characteristics are plotted in Figure 12b). Both the slippage limits of the
shear connectors and the deformation limits of the tensile reinforcement are considered to
range within the corresponding limits in practice.
Composite Joints with Different Shear Connectors and Tensile Reinforcement
Figure 13a) illustrates the overall arrangement of a composite joint with beam end-plate
connections; details of the connections are also presented. It should be noted that in the
composite joints, tensile reinforcement H is adopted while three different shear connectors
are used for comparison. The moment-rotation curves of the composite joints with different
shear connectors and tensile reinforcement are plotted in Figure 13b) for comparison. It is
shown that:

The composite joint with Shear connector A exhibits very ductile deformation along
the entire loading history owing to the ductile slippage characteristics of Shear
connector A as well as the ductile deformation characteristics of tensile
reinforcement H.

In the composite joint with Shear connector B, reduction in the moment capacity of
the composite joint at large deformation is found. This may well be explained by the
reduced shear resistance of Shear connector B at any slippage larger than 5 mm.

Despite the ductile deformation characteristics of tensile reinforcement H, the

composite joint with Shear connector C is shown to have severe reduction in its
moment capacity at large deformation owing to the rupture of shear connectors at a
slippage larger than 7 mm. As no composite action is possible, only the moment
capacity of the steel beam is readily mobilized.

PJulA07

17

100

Lawson (13)
Ollgaard (12)

FP
(kN)
h h(kN)

80
72

Shear connector A

60

Shear connector B

40
36

20
Shear connector C

0
0

6
Sh(mm)
(mm)

10

12

a) Assumed load-slippage curves of shear connectors

500
500

450
400
400

Stress, (N/mm2)

Tensile reinforcement N
300
300

Tensile reinforcement H

205 kN/mm2
1

200
200

100
100

110

50

00
00

2
20
10

40
4
20

60
6
30

80
8
40

10
100
50

12
120

60

-2

Strain, ( 10 )

b) Assumed stress-strain curves of tensile reinforcement

Figure 12: Material models of shear connectors and tensile reinforcement

Similarly, the structural behaviour of the composite joints with different tensile reinforcement
is also studied; Shear connector A is used in both cases. The moment-rotation curves of the
composite joints are also plotted in Figure 13b), and it is shown that:

PJulA07

18

15

UC 356
368 153

210 typ

15

UB 610 305 179

1500

1500

92 92

12

307.0 23.6

365.1
62

617.5

14.1

641.5

62

130

70

2500
18Y6@175, At = 508 mm2

368.4
Notes:
Concrete cylinder strength, pc = 24 N/mm2.
Yield strength of steel, py = 355 N/mm2 .

a) Details of composite joint

Failure, t = 5%

800

Moment, M (kNm)

1000

Tensile reinforcement H
Shear connector A
Shear connector B
Shear connector C

575.4

600

502.4
400

Shear connector A
Tensile reinforcement H
Tensile reinforcement N

800

Moment, M (kNm)

1000

452.4

575.4

600

400

200

200

0
0

20

40

60

Rotation, (10-3 rad)

20

40

60

Rotation, (10-3 rad)

b) Moment-rotation curves

Figure 13: Parametric study on a composite joint

The composite joint with tensile reinforcement H exhibits very ductile deformation
along the entire loading history owing to the ductile deformation characteristics of
tensile reinforcement H as well as the ductile slippage characteristics of Shear
connector A.

In the composite joint with tensile reinforcement N, despite the ductile slippage
characteristics of Shear connector A, the composite joint is shown to have severe
reduction in the moment capacity of the composite joint at large deformation owing to

PJulA07

19

the rupture of tensile reinforcement. Hence, only the moment capacity of the steel
beam is readily mobilized.
Consequently, it is shown that the proposed models are able to predict the detailed structural
behaviour of composite joints based on the deformation characteristics of both the shear
connectors and the tensile reinforcement.
Composite Beams with Different Shear Connectors and Tensile Reinforcement
The overall arrangement of the internal span of a semi-continuous composite with beam endplate connections is illustrated in Figure 14; details of the connections are also presented. It
should be noted that in the composite beam, tensile reinforcement H is adopted while three
different shear connectors are used for comparison. The predicted moment-rotation curves of
the composite beams with different shear connectors and tensile reinforcement are plotted in
Figure 14 for comparison.
In general, the structural behaviour of the composite beams is found to be very similar to
those of the composite joints, i.e. both the slippage characteristics of shear connectors and the
deformation characteristics of tensile reinforcement have significant effects on the structural
behaviour of composite beams. Moreover, the maximum values of slippage in the shear
connectors in various cases are summarized in Figure 14 for easy comparison. It is shown
that

For composite beams with tensile reinforcement H, the maximum values of slippage
on Shear connectors A, B and C are found to be 12.6, 15.2 and 19.1 mm respectively.
Hence, in the presence of non-ductile shear connectors, larger slippage is often needed
to develop the full failure mechanism in the composite beams while lower load
carrying capacities of composite beams is normally obtained.

In the composite beam with Shear connector A and tensile reinforcement N, the
composite beam is shown to have small reduction in its load carrying capacity at large
deformation owing to partial yielding of the tensile reinforcement. It should be noted
that there is a steady load transfer from the tensile reinforcement to the shear
connectors at large deformation. Moreover, partial composite action is developed in
the composite beam at failure.

As demonstrated in the parametric studies, the proposed models are able to predict the
detailed structural behaviour of composite beams based on the deformation characteristics of
both the shear connectors and the tensile reinforcement.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the development of three dimensional finite element models which are
advanced numerical analysis and design models for composite beams under practical member
configurations and loading conditions. These models are provided to facilitate the
performance-based design and analysis of long span composite beams with practical
constructional features.

PJulA07

20

UC 356
368 153

UC 356
368 153

UB 610HEA
305200
179
47 @ 210 c/c
10000
Internal span

2500
18Y6@175, At = 508 mm2
130

70

617.5

307.0 23.6
14.1
Notes:
Concrete cylinder strength, pc = 24 N/mm2.
Yield strength of steel, py = 355 N/mm2.

a) Details of composite beam

6000

6000

First crack
Stage 1
Stage 2

4742.2
4104.1

4000

3765.1

3489.2
3000

2000

1765.4
Tensile reinforcement H
Shear connector A
Shear connector B
Shear connector C

1000

4742.2

5000

Applied load, W (kN)

Applied load, W (kN)

5000

4504.2
4000

3489.2
3000

2000

1765.4
Shear connector A
Tensile reinforcement H
Tensile reinforcement N

1000

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

Beam
Shear connector A
Shear connector B
Shear connector C

100

150

200

250

Deflection at mid-span, (mm)

Deflection at mid-span, (mm)

Maximum slippage of shear

connectors at failure,
Smax (mm)
Stage 1
Stage 2
4.9
12.6
4.9
15.2
4.9
19.1

Beam
Tensile
reinforcement H
Tensile
reinforcement N

Maximum slippage of shear

connectors at failure,
Smax (mm)
Stage 1
Stage 2
4.9

12.6

4.9

12.2

b) Load-deflection curves

Figure 14: Parametric study on a semi-continuous composite beam

300

PJulA07

21

It is shown that:
1.

Prescriptive design methods are often presented in a simplistic formulation as they

operate with certain implicit assumptions on both material and structural behaviour.
Hence, they are conservative, but easy to use. The proposed performance-based
analysis and design models allow design to operate beyond what are currently
permitted by those prescriptive design methods. While the analysis and design
models are more rigorous in their prediction capabilities, their effective use certainly
requires a thorough understanding on the material models as well as the structural
behaviour of the structures.

2.

Through extensive calibration against a wide range of test data, the proposed models
are able to provide detailed information on the structural behaviour of composite
joints, continuous composite beams and semi-continuous composite beams. Based on
the material models of the steel and the concrete as well as the deformation
characteristics of the shear connectors and the tensile reinforcement, the loaddeflection curves of the structures can be obtained along the entire loading history.

Designers are strongly encouraged to employ the models in their practical work to exploit the
full advantages offered by composite construction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project leading to the publication of this paper is supported by the Research Committee
of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project No. G-W039).

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

British Standards Institution (1990). BS5950: Structural use of steelwork in building.

Part 3 Section 3.1: Code of practice for design of composite beams.
Standards Australia, Australian Standard AS2327.1 (1996). Composite Structures.
Part 1: Simply supported beams. Standards Australia International Ltd.
British Standards Institution, prEN 1994-1-1. (2002). Eurocode 4: Design of composite
steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. European
Committee for Standardization.
The Buildings Department of the Government of Hong Kong SAR (2005). The Hong
Kong Steel Code: Chapter 10 Composite Structures.
Lawson RM (1989). Design of composite slabs and beams with steel decking. The
Steel Construction Institute.
Johnson RP and Anderson D (2001). Designers Handbook to Eurocode 4: Part 1.1:
Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Thomas Telford, London.
Lawson RM and Chung KF (1994). Composite beam design to Eurocode 4. The Steel
Construction Institute.
Oehlers DJ and Bradford MA (1995). Composite steel and concrete structural members:
Fundamental behaviour. Pergamon.
Australian Institute of Steel Construction and Standards Australia (1997). Composite
beam design handbook in accordance with AS2327.1 - 1996, SAA HB91.
ABAQUS. (2004). Users Manual, Version 6.4, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc.

PJulA07

11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.

17.

22

Baskar K, Shanmugam NE and Thevendran V (2002). Finite-element analysis of steelconcrete composite plate girder. Journal of Structural Engineering 128(9): 1158-1168.
Ollgaard JG, Slutter RG and Fisher JW. (1971). Shear strength of stud connectors in
lightweight and normal-weigh concrete, American Institute of Steel Construction
Engineering Journal, 8(2): 55-62.
Lawson RM. (1989). Design of Composite Slabs and Beams with Steel Decking. The
Steel Construction Institute, 1989.
Ansourian P. (1981). Experiments on continuous composite beams. Proceeding of
Institute of Civil Engineering, Part 2, 71:25-51.
Brown ND and Anderson D. (2001). Structural properties of composite major axis end
plate connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 57: 327-349.
Wang AJ and Chung KF. (2006). Integrated analysis and design of composite beams
with flexible shear connectors under sagging and hogging moments. Steel and
Composite Structures 6(6): 459-478.
Wang AJ. (2007). Advanced Nonlinear Finite Element Investigation into Structural
Behaviour of Composite Beams. PhD thesis. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.