NONLINEAR FE ANALYSIS OF STEEL-CONCRETE

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
By Wendel M. Sebastian1 and Richard E. McConnel2

ABSTRACT: This paper presents an advanced nonlinear finite-element (FE) program developed for the analysis
of general composite structures of steel and reinforced concrete, including composite space trusses. The elements
used to represent the concrete slab and steel beam actions are described, and in particular the ability to model
ribbed composite slabs of reinforced concrete on profiled steel sheeting is demonstrated. Attention is drawn to
the usefulness of the layering technique in determining local stress redistributions associated with progressive
through-depth cracking and yielding in the slab and steel beam elements. Concrete is represented as a nonlinear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

elastic isotropic material before cracking and nonlinear orthotropic thereafter, while steel is taken to be initially
elastic with strain-hardening capabilities after yielding. All material models are empirical in origin. A specialized
stub element with empirical nonlinear shear force-slip relationships is used at the concrete slabsteel beam
interface to permit modeling of either full or partial shear connector action. Results obtained from the use of
the program, including predicted crack patterns, are shown to compare very well with those from experiments
on reinforced concrete slabs and steel-concrete composite structures up to failure.

INTRODUCTION been a steady increase in the use of profiled steel sheeting (Fig.
1) in composite construction as both permanent unpropped
The level of success achieved in predicting load-deforma- formwork and external bottom reinforcement to the concrete
tion characteristics of steel-concrete composite structures slab. This creates a ribbed composite slab with behavior more
through finite-element (FE) analysis can be very dependent on complicated than that of a solid reinforced concrete slab; but
the adoption of suitable models to account for the effects of to the best of the writers knowledge, the extra modeling re-
cracks that spread through the concrete slab away from regions quired in layered FE formulations to represent this increased
of high local curvature. This is especially so for the deck slabs complexity has not to date been presented. In many of the
of highway composite bridges, where significant curvatures previous analyses, the properties of concrete under 2D stress
can develop in the slab under the effects of heavy concentrated states have been realistically modeled by the extrapolation of
wheel loads. data obtained from uniaxial tests.
In attempting to account for the complex morphology of The FE program described here can be used to model com-
concrete, several models have been proposed by past research- posite structures containing either solid reinforced concrete
ers for both the pre- and postcracking regimes. Jofriet and slabs or ribbed composite concrete slabs by including the ac-
McNeice (1971) used empirical moment-curvature relation- tions of the profiled steel sheeting and the concrete in the ribs.
ships to predict the response of simply supported reinforced Moreover, the program is equipped to analyze not only con-
concrete slabs without in-plane restraints. The method proved ventional composite structures, but also composite space
to be efficient, but Schnobrich (1977) later stated that this ef- trusses (comprising 3D steel trusses acting in structural unison
ficiency would rapidly disappear in the presence of significant with overhead concrete slabs) where the 3D truss action results
membrane effects (as would be the case for slabs used in com- in very complex responses to applied loads. Also, shear con-
posite construction). Arizumi et al. (1981) presented a simpli- nector action is here modeled by a novel concrete slabsteel
fied FE model for the analysis of one-way composite beams. beam interface (stub) element consisting of axial and rotational
Other researchers have put forward FE programs that assume springs. In addition, improved constitutive models for concrete
biaxial stress states in the plane of the concrete slab. A behavior, obtained (Cedolin et al. 1977) by curve fitting of
significant contribution in this field was made by Wegmuller data from tests on concrete under generalized states of stress,
and Amer (1977), who used a layered 2D element for the con- are provided. It is believed that these features of the program
crete slab and a layered one-way element for the steel beams;
but their analysis did not allow for partial steel beamconcrete
slab interaction, owing to the absence of shear connector el-
ements. Razaqpur and Nofal (1990) introduced a nonlinear
shear connector element between the tops of the steel beams
and the centroid of the concrete slab, although it is not clear
how (if at all) compatibility of rotations was maintained be-
tween nodes at the ends of each shear connector element.
In the previously reported formulations, the composite
structures under analysis contained solid concrete slabs with
embedded reinforcement. In recent times, however, there has
1
Lect., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Bristol, Queens Building, Uni-
versity Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, U.K.
2
Lect., Dept. of Engrg., Univ. of Cambridge, Trumpington St., Cam-
bridge CB2 1PZ, U.K.
Note. Associate Editor: David J. Stevens. Discussion open until No-
vember 1, 2000. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on October
7, 1996. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 126, No. 6, June, 2000. ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/00/0006-0662
0674/$8.00 $.50 per page. Paper No. 14222. FIG. 1. Profiled Steel Sheeting in Composite Construction

662 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674

 represent significant improvements on previously reported for-
mulations.
ELEMENT LIBRARY AND FORMULATIONS
Five different FEs were implemented in the computer pro-
gram, as follows:
1. A four-noded layered thin-plate bending-membrane
(2D) element for concrete slabs, with nodes located at the
base of the slab to enable connection of the shear stud
element
2. A two-noded layered bending-membrane (1D) element
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for the steel beams connected to the concrete slab in
reality, with the nodes located along the concrete slab
steel beam juncture lines
3. A stub shear connector element, which connects adjacent
nodes of elements (1) and (2) above
4. The standard beam-column element for the bottom
chords of a space truss
5. The truss element (axial stiffness only) for space truss
bottom chords and/or diagonals
Fig. 2 shows an assembly of a slab element (for a general
ribbed composite slab) and a layered two-noded bending-
membrane element (for a T-section steel member) complete
with two stub shear connector elements. The stub elements are
initially of zero length, but are shown in Fig. 2 to be of finite
length for clarity. Further connection of beam-column and
truss elements as required for space truss analysis is accom-
plished with little extra effort.
It should be noted that, in all the analyses reported here,
deflections are assumed to be small relative to the main struc-
tural dimensions, and so nonlinear geometric effects are not
considered.
For the slab element, as shown in Fig. 2, the degrees of
freedom u and v account for membrane actions, while w,
x, and y relate to flexural effects. Linear shape functions are
used for the membrane degrees of freedom. The four-noded
thin-plate bending element is taken from Crisfield (1983), who
derived the element through removal of transverse shear
strains from a nine-noded thick-plate parent element with
quadratic shape functions. The four-noded element retains the
high order shape functions of, whilst simultaneously requiring
much less computer storage than, the nine-noded parent ele-
ment.
FIG. 2. Assembly of One-Layered Beam and One-Layered
Slab Finite Element
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674
In order to account for any through-depth variation of
material properties, the slab element is divided into thin layers
of concrete and steel (Fig. 2), with the properties of each
layer dependent on the material present and the extent of de-
formation. Each level of reinforcement is represented by a
thin, uniformly smeared steel layer of equivalent cross-sec-
tional area per unit width. Each steel layer is centered at the
level of the centroid of the corresponding reinforcing bars and
is allocated stiffness in the direction of the reinforcement only.
Since the displacements within the layers are assumed to be
interrelated via the Kirchhoff-Love assumption (Love 1988),
each concrete layer is considered to be in a state of plane
stress, with properties defined through biaxial stress-strain re-
lations.
As previously noted, the nodes of the slab elements are lo-
cated at the base of the real slab, and so the reference surface
for the displacement functions does not in general coincide
with the neutral plane of the undeformed slab. In order to
allow for this departure from the neutral plane, the generic in-
plane strains for a slab element layer located at a distance zck
above the reference surface are obtained by combining mem-
brane and flexural components, as follows:
x
y
xy
= Bm dm zck Bf df (1)
where dm is an 8 1 tensor containing the nodal membrane
displacements (ui, vi from node i); df is a 12 1 tensor con-
taining the nodal flexural displacements (wi, xi, yi from node
i); and, using standard FE notation, Bm and Bf are, respectively,
3 8 and 3 12 matrices containing first derivatives of the
element displacement shape functions. Perfect bond is as-
sumed between the steel and the concrete (see next section),
so the above equations are used to find the in-plane concrete
strains and the axial strains in the reinforcement.
Once the strains have been determined, the stresses in the
concrete and reinforcement are found from the constitutive
equations discussed further on in this paper. In this manner,
the generic in-plane direct and shear stresses are calculated
and placed in a 3 1 tensor , as follows:
x x
= y = Ds y (2)
xy xy
where Ds is formulated in local element coordinates. The prin-
ciple of virtual work is then applied to find the equivalent
nodal force tensors Rm and Rf , which correspond in a work
sense to the membrane (dm) and flexural (df) nodal displace-
ment tensors respectively, as follows:
Rm =
volume
B Tm dvol; Rf =
volume
zckB Tf dvol (3a,b)
The integrations are performed for each layer and summed to
give the overall actions for the element. Each layer is assumed
to be sufficiently thin that the stress and strain conditions at
its middepth applies throughout its depth. Using this approach,
(3a) and (3b) reduce to integrals over the plan area of each
layer. A 2 2 Gaussian integration is used within each layer
in the solid slab region.
Virtual work is also used to develop separate expressions
for the membrane and flexural tangent stiffness matrices for
the layers in both the solid and ribbed slab regions. The forms
of the expressions in the nondimensionalized element coordi-
nates (, ) for a typical layer in the solid slab region, are as
follows:
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 663

1 1
Km = tck B TmDT BmJ d d
1 1
1 1
Kf = tck z 2ck B Tf DT Bf J d d
1 1
where tck is the thickness of the layer; DT is a 3 3 material
tangent stiffness matrix; and J refers to the determinant of
the Jacobean matrix.
Since the reference surface for the displacement functions
does not coincide with the neutral plane of the undeformed
slab, there is some degree of coupling between membrane and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
flexural actions in the slab element. This coupling effect,
which assumes even more importance after cracking of the
concrete layers and yielding of the reinforcement layers, is
included in the analysis through the following tangent cou-
pling stiffness matrices:
1 1
Kfm = zck tck B Tf DT BmJ d d; Kmf = K Tfm
1 1
As before, the integrations are facilitated by calculating the
values of the integrands at the Gauss points within each con-
crete and steel layer, and the overall stiffness matrices for the
element are obtained by summing the contributions from each
layer.
If the structure under analysis contains a ribbed composite
slab, extra modeling is required to represent both the action
of the concrete in the ribs and the behavior of the profiled
steel sheeting as bottom reinforcement to the slab. For the
concrete in the rib layers, flexural and membrane effects
along the rib only are considered, and since the ribs are ori-
ented parallel to the elements coordinate axis (Fig. 2) for
the examples considered here, (4) and (5) reduce to integrals
along this axis, with the integration along the axis being
replaced simply by the width of the rib layer concerned. Two-
point Gaussian integration is used to facilitate the 1D inte-
gration, with the Gauss points located along the centerline of
the layer. The steel sheeting in each rib layer is treated sim-
ilarly and is allocated only a uniaxial stiffness in the direction
of the sheeting ribs. Perfect bond is assumed between the
steel sheeting and the adjacent points on the concrete rib lay-
ers.
The layering technique is also applied to the two-noded el-
ement used to represent structural steel member behavior, in
order to keep track of the spatial variation of material prop-
erties associated with progressive plastification through these
members under conditions of rapidly varying local curvature.
The nodes of the element are located at the top of the structural
steel member, so that any stub shear connector elements used
can physically represent interface connections between the
steel member and the concrete slab.
It will be seen further on in this section that the shear con-
nector elements are allocated very high rotational and vertical
axial stiffnesses to enforce compatibility of the associated
displacements between adjacent nodal points on the concrete
slab and steel beam elements. In order to further satisfy these
compatibility requirements along the entire concrete slab-
steel beam juncture lines, the displacement functions used
for the membrane and flexural behavior of the concrete slab
element are also employed for the layered steel beam ele-
ment.
Formulation of the stiffness matrix for the layered steel
beam element proceeds along very similar lines to that de-
scribed for the slab element. The main assumptions made dur-
ing the formulation are listed as follows:
664 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674
1. Flexural strains, obtained by applying the Kirchhoff-
(4a) Love assumption (Love 1988), are superimposed on
membrane strains.
2. The state of stress at the middepth of each layer is taken
as representative for the whole layer.
(4b) 3. Through-depth shear stresses and strains are ignored in
deriving the stiffness matrix. Also, the edges of the slab
elements, and hence the line of the beam elements, stay
straight in plan after deformation, so there is no bending
of the layered beam element about a vertical axis. Hence,
no shear force can develop along the direction of the
global u displacement at the ends of the layered beam
element. This has one important implication for the shear
connector element, as described further on.
4. St. Venant torsion is included in the analysis, but the
effects of shear forces and torsional moments on the
states of plastification of the steel layers are ignored.
Using the above assumptions, four degrees of freedom (v,
w, x, and y) are used at each node to define the behavior of
(5a,b)
the layered steel beam element. Two-point Gaussian integra-
tion is employed in each layer for calculation of the relevant
stiffness matrices.
The stub shear connector element developed here and
shown in Fig. 2 can be used, if desired, to represent each
individual shear connector of the structure under analysis.
Where this is not possible, the actual shear connectors can be
represented by stub elements of the same total shear stiffness
at the nearest nodes. The stub element, which can be used to
model any type of shear connection provided the empirical
load-deformation data are available, comprises a combination
of rotational and axial springs (not shown in Fig. 2 for clarity),
as follows:
1. Axial springs, henceforth termed a u-spring and a v-
spring, along the directions of each of the global dis-
placements u and v, respectively. These springs resist slip
between the adjacent nodal points of the layered slab and
steel beam elements. Empirical shear forceslip relation-
ships are used for these springs, thereby enabling partial
interaction due to shear connector flexibility to be mod-
eled.
2. One vertically oriented axial spring of very high stiffness
to enforce compatibility of vertical deflections between
the slab and beam elements.
3. Rotational springs of very high stiffness to enforce com-
patibility of rotations x and y between the slab and
beam elements. As rotation about the vertical axis does
not feature in the layered slab and beam element for-
mulations, there is no need to allow for this rotation in
the stub connector element.
It is important to note that, since the layered beam element
develops zero shear force along the global u displacement, any
nonzero force transmitted by the u-spring of the shear con-
nector stub element cannot be equilibrated by the layered beam
element. Thus, in modeling classical steel girdershear con-
nectorconcrete slab composite bridges, zero force develops
in the u-springs of the stub elements: a fair reflection of reality.
If, however, truss diagonal members are connected to a joint
in common with the layered beam and slab elements, the net
component of the axial forces developed in the truss members
along the global u direction will equilibrate a nonzero u-spring
force in the stub connector element. In such cases, as, for
example, occurs in the composite space truss bridge modeled
later in this paper, the stub connector elements will develop
nonzero u-spring forces.
Johnson and Buckby (1986) have stated that small tensile
forces commonly occur in shear connectors in practice, but
 that similar tensile forces occur in the pushoff tests from which 1
the shear connection strengths are derived. Therefore, the ef- 0 = (1 2 3) (7a)
3
fects of tensile forces in the stud on the stud shear failure load
have been ignored in the present formulation, and failure of 2
the stub connector element is assumed to occur when the net
0 = (1 2)2 (2 3)2 (3 1)2 (7b)
3
force on the element in the plane of the slab reaches a limiting
value. while the octahedral stresses are defined in terms of the prin-
Johnson et al. (1969) have suggested that shear connectors cipal stresses 1, 2, 3 as
may be less effective in cracked hogging regions. However, 1
friction at the slabsteel beam interface tends to restore the 0 = (1 2 3) (8a)
3
stiffness of the connection, especially near supports. Also,
Wright (1990) reported that no decrease in stud performance 1
was observed, despite longitudinal cracks forming along a line 0 = (1 2)2 (2 3)2 (3 1)2 (8b)
3
of studs in composite beams where the slab hogs (laterally)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

over the beam, probably due to the enhancing effect of the
concrete in compression at the foot of the stud. In cracked
sagging moment regions, Wright (1990) suggested that
studs may derive additional strength if their heads are embed-
ded in regions of bending compression (note that in standard
pushoff tests, the studs are subjected to shear only). For the
above reasons, reduced shear stud action in cracked regions
was not considered, with no apparent adverse effects on the
quality of the program results when compared with experi-
mental data.
The standard beam-column and truss elements needed to
model the diagonals and bottom chords in space truss analysis
can be found in, for example, Livesley (1975). Note that the
main type of stress resultant induced in space truss diagonals
and bottom chords is an axial force. When this force is tensile,
the element concerned is assumed to fail if the force reaches
the ultimate yield value. The yielded element is removed from
the analysis, and the stress resultants acting on the element at
its end nodes are reversed and applied as external loads to the
remaining structure throughout subsequent analysis. Under
compression, the element is assumed to fail by buckling and
to carry thereafter a residual load amounting to a small fraction
of the buckling load (Schmidt 1975). Note also that the pro-
gram is equipped to handle any eccentricities which may exist
at the joints of space trusses.
STRUCTURAL AND REINFORCING STEEL
MATERIAL MODELING
Steel is modeled as an elastoplastic material with constant
elastic and strain-hardening moduli, giving a bilinear stress-
strain relationship. Actual values of the yield stress and strain-
hardening moduli are presented, along with other relevant de-
tails for the examples used to verify the program.
CONCRETE MATERIAL MODELING
In the prefailure range of concrete behavior, isotropic elastic
constitutive relations are used, that are derived from curve fit-
ting of data from tests on concrete under generalized states of
stress. The nonlinear elastic isotropic model proposed by
Cedolin et al. (1977) for a general 3D stress state has been
tailored to suit the present 2D application. This model was
chosen because of its relative simplicity (only the uniaxial cyl-
inder strength, f ,
c is required to define the material behavior)
and because good correlation with experimental data has been
obtained from its use.
Cedolins stress-strain relationships are formulated in terms
of empirical secant bulk (Ks) and shear (Gs) moduli, which
relate the octahedral normal (0) and shear (0) stresses to the
octahedral strain invariants (0, 0), as follows:
0 = Gs0; 0 = 3Ks 0 (6a,b)
with the octahedral strains defined in terms of the principal
strains 1, 2, 3 as
Principal directions 1 and 2 are in the plane of the slab, while
principal direction 3 is normal to this plane. Cedolins nonlin-
ear expressions for the bulk and shear moduli are as follows:
Ks
= 0.85 2.5714 0 0.15 (9a
K0
Gs
= 0.81 2500 0 20 0.19 (9b)
G0
Expressions for the material moduli in the undeformed state
were not proposed by Cedolin, and, failing the provision of
values for these in the examples used to verify the program,
the following expressions proposed by Kotsovos (1979) were
used:
K0 = 11,000.0 3.2( f )
c
2
(10a)
G0 = 9,224.0 136.0 f c 3.296 1012( f )8.273
(10b)
c
where f c is the uniaxial cylinder compressive strength of the
concrete. All quantities are defined in units of Newtons and
millimeters. Note that (9a)(9b) are valid for compressive oc-
tahedral normal strains. Where tensile octahedral normal
strains are encountered, Ks and Gs are taken as equal to K0 and
G0, respectively.
Since the slab element assumes a biaxial formulation, the
principal strain in the third direction (3) cannot be calculated
from differentiating the elements shape functions. Instead,
plane stress formulae are used to calculate this strain, as fol-
lows:
c(1 2)
3 = (11)
(1 c)
where c, the updated Poissons ratio of concrete, is determined
as
c = (3Ks 2Gs)/(6Ks 2Gs) (12)
From (7)(12), it is clear that the quantities 0, 3, c, and Ks
are all interdependent, and an iterative process is used in the
computer program to establish the value of Ks for given values
of 1 and 2.
Having established the secant bulk and shear moduli, the
secant and tangent stiffness matrices referred to in (2), (4), and
(5) are derived following a procedure detailed by Murray
(1979).
For the concrete within the volume represented by any
Gaussian integration point in any element layer, cracking or
crushing is assumed to occur when the principal stress state
reaches the strength envelope shown in Fig. 3. The envelope,
obtained by closely approximating a curved strength enve-
lope from Bangash (1989), is symmetric about the extended
positive quadrant line equally inclined to the biaxial prin-
cipal stress axes, a direct consequence of the assumption of
isotropy.
Cracked or crushed concrete is treated as an orthotropic ma-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 665

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674

 terial for which new constitutive equations are required. The
smeared crack model, in which several parallel fissures are
assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the volume rep-
resented by the Gauss point (Fig. 4), and in which average
stresses and strains are used, is adopted. Material axes (PA and
PN in Fig. 4) are fixed to the cracks, and it is assumed that
there is no interaction (i.e., zero Poissons ratio) between the
axis directions.
Shear stresses at the reinforcing steelconcrete inter-
faces feed tension into the concrete between cracks. This
phenomenon, termed tension stiffening, is modeled here by
taking a descending branch on the tensile stress-strain curve
of concrete, as follows [after Bhide; see Hu and Schnobrich
(1990)]:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

f tu
PN = (13)
1 1,000PN(NR/90)1.5
FIG. 3. Plane Stress Strength Envelope for Concrete
where PN and PN are the updated average stress and strain
normal to the cracks; f tu is the tensile stress normal to the
cracks at the instant of crack formation; and NR is the smaller
of the angles, in degrees, between the normal to the cracks
and the axes of the reinforcing bars. The tension-stiffening
effect is assumed to be lost completely if PN exceeds 10 times
the initial cracking strain.
The tensile reinforcement stresses at the crack faces are
higher than the average values calculated within the present
analysis. This could result in a predicted artificial increase of
the reinforcement stresses beyond the yield value, resulting in
an overestimation of ultimate capacity. In order to guard
against this, Hu and Schnobrich (1990) have proposed that,
for NL layers of reinforcement existing at a cracked concrete
section, a generalized upper bound for the concrete tension-
stiffening stress can be written as follows:

NL
FIG. 4. Smeared Crack Model: Definition of Concrete Material
PN j(yj sj)cos2j (14)
Axes and Crack Stresses j=1

FIG. 5. FE Mesh for McNeice Slab

666 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674

 The material tangent stiffness matrix is first formulated in
crack coordinates by differentiating (15) and (18) (with neg-
ative values replaced by zeroes) and then transformed to global
axes.
The initial crack direction is fixed throughout subsequent
analysis, and the presence of shear stresses on the crack face
requires a further rotation of the principal stress axes to occur.
A second set of cracks is assumed to form normal to the di-
rection of the updated greater principal tensile stress if this
stress is 75% (due to lack of empirical data) of that at which
the primary cracks formed. Doubly cracked concrete is treated
similarly to singly cracked concrete [see Sebastian (1996) for
details].
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

If crushing failure occurs, axes are fixed along the principal

stress directions that existed at the initiation of crushing. A
FIG. 6. McNeice Slab: Load Deflection Curve for Node 2 softening Youngs modulus 25% that of undeformed con-
crete, and zero shear stress, are assumed along each axis.
Total failure occurs when the strain along either principal
where yj, sj, and j are the yield stress, current average tensile stress axis first reaches four times its value when crushing
stress, and reinforcement ratio, respectively, for reinforcement started.
layer j, and j is the acute angle from the direction of rein-
forcement layer j to the direction normal to the cracks. This
expression was implemented in the computer program (for ten-
sion reinforcement) to provide a more realistic modeling of
reinforcement behaviour. Note that, after yielding of all tensile
reinforcement layers at a Gauss point, (14) gives zero tension-
stiffening effect in all cracked concrete layers at the Gauss
point.
Shear stresses can be transmitted along the plane of the
crack, mainly by aggregate interlock. It seems reasonable to
assume a degradation of the shear stiffness due to aggregate
interlock as the strain normal to the crack increases, and the
following hyperbolic expression, due to Al-Mahaidi [obtained
from an ASCE report (ASCE 1982)], was used in the program
to reflect this view:

0.40GSCR
PAN = PAN (15)
PN/CR

where PAN and PAN are, respectively, the updated shear stress
and shear strain along the crack axes; and CR and GSCR are,
respectively, the tensile strain normal to the cracks and the
shear modulus of the concrete, both at the initiation of crack-
ing.
The material along the cracks can still sustain tensile or
compressive stresses. Under tension, the concrete is assumed
to possess its undeformed Youngs modulus (Ec), while
the following formula due to Vecchio and Collins (1986) is
used to reflect the loss of compressive strength along the
cracks:

fcm 1
= 10 (16)
f c 0.8 0.34PN/n

where n, the strain corresponding to fcm (updated cylinder

compressive strength), is calculated using the following for-
mula taken from Bangash (1989):

2f c
n = (17)
Ec

The Saenz (1964) curve relates compressive stress (PA) and

strain (PA) along the cracks as

Ec

PA = 2 3 PA (18)
1 PA 1 PA 1 PA
1 FIG. 7. Crack Pattern at Base of McNeice Slab Near Ultimate
3 n 3 n 3 n Load: (a) Predicted; (b) Observed

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 667

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674

 VERIFICATION STUDY
The iterative technique of displacement control (Ramm
1980) was implemented in the computer program to enhance
numerical convergence characteristics within the nonlinear re-
gimes of behavior of the structures under analysis.
Several numerical experiments were conducted with the
computer program to establish the validity and degree of ac-
curacy of the analytical models presented in the preceding sec-
tions. In this section, results obtained from using the program
to analyze four different structures are compared with
published experimental data and also with theoretical data
published by other researchers. Unless stated otherwise, the
term predicted is used to describe results obtained from the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the data obtained from the actual laboratory experiments con-
ducted.
Reinforced Concrete Slab Tested by McNeice
A corner roller supported square slab (Fig. 5) was subjected
to a central point load and tested to failure by McNeice (1967).
In the present work, the test was modeled using the FE mesh
given in Fig. 5. Due to symmetry, only one quarter of the slab
was analyzed.
The program-predicted failure mode comprises initial crack-
ing at the base of the slab under the load, with the cracks
spreading up through the slab depth and outwards. Experi-
mental (Jofriet and McNeice 1971) and predicted load-deflec-

present program, while the term measured is used to describe tion behaviors are compared in Fig. 6. Note that the program

FIG. 8. Teraskiewicz Beam: (a) Dimensions; (b) Discretization

668 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674

 was stopped very near the maximum deflection level from the
test data shown by McNeice. Fig. 6 shows that very significant
nonlinear behaviors occurs at load levels much lower than
that at which the onset of reinforcement yield is predicted.
This strongly suggests that the predicted nonlinear behavior
is due largely to the extensive cracking of the concrete. The
good agreement obtained in Fig. 6 thus demonstrates the va-
lidity of the adopted tension-stiffening model for cracked con-
crete.
Reinforcement yielding, based on the average stress in the
steel layer, was first predicted to occur at the Gauss point near-
est the center of the slab at 11.3 kN applied load (Fig. 6).
Thereafter, the program predicted a very slow outward move-
ment of the yielded region. When the analysis was stopped,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the predicted yielded region was confined to only the three
elements nearest the center of the slab.
Experimentally observed (McNeice 1967) and analytically
predicted crack patterns at the bottom face of the slab, which
occurred at a load close to the ultimate, are shown in Fig. 7.
It should be noted that since the present modeling doesnt
allow for transverse shear in the slab, only vertical cracks can
FIG. 9. Teraskiewicz Beam: (a) Slip Distribution; (b) Strains on
Lower Steel Flange; (c) Deflected Shape
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674
be predicted by this model. The analytically predicted pattern
in Fig. 7(a) shows a good agreement with the observed crack-
ing in Fig. 7(b), and so transverse shear did not strongly in-
fluence general cracking behavior of the present slab. How-
ever, the possibility of transverse shear failure near the
concentrated loads at the center and the corner of the McNeice
slab will not be accurately predicted by the FE program in its
present form. Work is currently under way to incorporate the
effect of transverse shear.
In Fig. 7, the crack directions along the diagonal lines and
along the center lines parallel to the free edges are readily
expected from symmetry considerations. Note also the gradual
rotation of the crack direction as one proceeds from the
center of the slab toward the free edges, such that the cracks
near the free edges are virtually perpendicular to those edges.
The latter is due to the absence of stresses normal to the
free edges. More curiously, observe that the cracks very near
the supports form small arcs around the supports. This is
probably due to principal bending in these regions, largely
about axes normal to the near diagonals, induced by the sup-
port reactions.
The fixed-crack approach used here is sometimes criticized.
Also, the tension-stiffening model employed here is known to
produce results that can be mesh dependent. Fracture energy
approaches are sometimes used to avoid the mesh dependency.
However, the good agreement obtained (as described above)
points to the reliability of the present modeling.
FIG. 10. Yielding of Teraskiewicz Beam: (a) P = 1.17 First
Yield Load; (b) P = 1.34 First Yield Load; (c) P = 1.49 First
Yield Load; (d) Predicted Ultimate Load (P = 1.65 First Yield
Load) and Predicted Failure Sequence of Shear Connectors
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 669
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 11. Newmark Bridge: Cross Section and Material Properties

FIG. 13. Newmark Bridge: Deflections at Midspan at 22.25 kN

per Panel

FIG. 12. Newmark Bridge: Plan of Discretization

Continuous Composite Beam Tested by Teraskiewicz

Teraskiewicz (1967) tested a 6.7 m long, two-span contin-
uous composite beam, details of which are shown in Fig. 8(a).
The FE model is presented in Fig. 8(b). Symmetry consider- FIG. 14. Load Deflection for Newmark Bridge at Midspan
ations led to the modeling of only one quarter of the composite
beam in plan. Each actual shear connector was modeled. The
FE model is such that a node does not exist underneath the force-slip relationship, proposed by Yam and Chapman (1972),
center of the concentrated span load, so this load was shared was used:
between the two nearest nodes of the model. This is reason-
Q = 32(1 e4.75S) (19)
able, as the loading pad in the actual test was of small but
finite dimensions, and the internodal distance of the finite el- where Q is the shear force in kilonewtons and S is the slip in
ement model is small. millimeters. Shear connector failure in the model was defined
For each discrete shear connection, the following shear to occur when a limiting slip of 1.25 mm is exceeded.
670 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000

J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674

 Figs. 9(ac) compare measured and predicted quantities for
the beam at a midspan load of 122 kN (91% of the predicted
ultimate load). Up to this load level, the analysis had predicted
extensive yielding of the steel beam, together with significant
cracking of the concrete and some yielding of the reinforce-
ment over the central support. The excellent agreement in Figs.
9(ac) again demonstrates the reliability of the present FE
model well into the elastoplastic range of loading. The general
form of the slip distribution is in keeping with that expected
from the shear force diagram, with the added effect of shear
connector flexibility giving rise to a smoothing out of the slip
diagram near the support and load points. In particular, note
that the good predictions of slip near the central support show
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 15. Predicted Failure Behavior of Newmark Bridge at Mid-
span at 48.5 kN per Panel
FIG. 16. Composite Space Truss Bridge (CSTB) Tested by Sebastian and McConnel: (a) Elevation; (b) Cross Section; (c) Detail A
Repeating Unit of Ribbed Slab with ALPHALOK Steel Sheeting
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674
that the decision not to consider reduced shear stud action in
cracked hogging regions does not appear to have adversely
affected the validity of the stub connector model.
The predicted progression of yielding through the I-section
steel beam is shown in Fig. 10. It is seen that the yielded
regions within the inner half of the span remain very confined,
even at ultimate loading. This is due to the very high moment
gradient within the inner half span, causing flexural effects to
drop off very sharply at small distances away from locations
of maximum moment.
An ultimate load of 151 kN was obtained during the actual
test, at which stage shear connector failure was observed in
the region between the central support and the left-hand mid-
span. The analysis predicted an ultimate load of 135 kN, with
the predicted mode of failure involving failure of the shear
connectors within the same region as was observed in the ex-
periment. The predicted sequence of failure of the individual
shear connectors is given in Fig. 10(d).
Model Composite Bridge Tested by Newmark et al.
A simply supported composite bridge model of 4.57 m span
and 1.83 m width has been tested by Newmark et al. [see Fig.
11 for the bridge section and midspan load (Wegmuller and
Amer 1977)].
The layered discretizations of the beam-slab assemblage
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 671
 used for the present FE analysis are shown in Fig. 12. Sym-
metry considerations resulted in the modeling of half the struc-
ture. Adequate shear connection was used by Newmark et al.
(Wegmuller and Amer 1977) to provide for complete interac-
tion, so one set of nodes common to the slab and steel beam
elements was used at the slab-girder juncture lines in the FE
discretization. Stub shear connector elements were thus not
employed. At the support nodes of the FE model, freedom of
displacement and rotation were permitted with the exception
of vertical movement and rotation about the longitudinal axes
of the beams, both of which were fully restrained. The rota-
tional restraint was employed as a simple representation of the
effect of diaphragms used at the supports in Newmarks actual
experimental model.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The measured and predicted midspan section deflection pro-
files at a load level of 22.25 kN per panel are compared in
Fig. 13. There is good correlation, with the predicted deflec-
tions being slightly higher. The deflected shape of the slab
across the girders has been correctly predicted, which suggests
that lateral bending effects in the slab and distribution of load
between girders are both well predicted by the analysis.
The present analysis was conducted well into the structures
elastoplastic regime. Predicted nonlinear load-deflection be-
havior can be seen in Fig. 14, along with predictions from an
FE analysis of the same structure by Wegmuller and Amer
(1977). There is fair agreement: differences between the FE
shape functions and the concrete material models used may be
culpable for the disparities.
Fig. 15 shows, for a load level near the ultimate, the pre-
dicted failure behavior of the structure at midspan. As seen,
predicted failure occurs through gross yielding of the steel
FIG. 17. CSTB: (a) Plan View of FE Mesh of Slab; (b) Elevation of FE Model
672 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674
girders and combined cracking and crushing of the concrete
slab. The distribution of failed material corresponds to that
expected from the deflection profile given in Fig. 13. In Fig.
15, note the presence of a first cracked then crushed region on
the far left side of the slab. This probably arises from the
rotational restraints applied to the steel girder elements about
their longitudinal axes at the supports. These restraints (trans-
mitted to midspan via the torsional stiffnesses of the beam
elements), together with the presence of a concentrated load
within the slab span between girders A and B, resulted in an
analytically predicted lateral hogging moment over girder A.
This hogging moment in turn induced longitudinal cracking of
the slab at midspan during the early stages of loading. Later,
the predicted compression induced by global bending of the
structure along the length of the girders gave rise to the pre-
dicted crushing of the concrete.
Composite Space Truss Bridge Tested by Sebastian
and McConnel
This example is used to verify the programs ability to
model a composite space truss with a ribbed composite slab
of reinforced concrete on profiled steel sheeting. The structure
was a simply supported composite space truss bridge of 11.1
m span 4.3 m slab width 1.1 m depth, tested at Cam-
bridge University by the present writers. See Fig. 16 for es-
sential details and Sebastian (1996) for further details. The
steel truss comprised tubular diagonals, continuous T-section
top and bottom chords, and thin tubular ties laterally between
adjacent bottom chords. The top chords were shear connected
to a ribbed composite slab of 150 mm thick reinforced con-
 crete on 1.2 mm thick ALPHALOK profiled steel sheets. Stud
shear connectors, welded through the ALPHALOK sheets on
to the tables of the T-section top chords, were employed. All
ALPHALOK sheets spanned normal to the length of the struc-
ture. Loads were applied to the slab by 16 square-in-plan steel
pads, with each side being 275 mm.
The FE model, complete with loading pad locations, is
given in Fig. 17. Symmetry was assumed about the longitu-
dinal centerline of the structure, so half the test-piece was dis-
cretized. An empirically based shear stiffness of 300 kN/mm
was used for each shear stud element. The top chords were
represented by layered two-noded elements, while each diag-
onal was modeled by one truss element and each bottom chord
bay by a beam-column element with full (local) moment con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tinuity at the nodes. Eccentricities at the joints of the truss
were small and were ignored.
FIG. 18. CSTB: Deflection Profile along Inner Top Chord
FIG. 19. CSTB: Strain in Edge Top Chord
FIG. 20. CSTB: Strains in Top Longitudinal Reinforcement
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674
During one experiment conducted on the laboratory test-
piece, the loads on all pads in the same row (across the width
of the slab) were equally incremented. For this experiment,
measured and predicted structural responses are compared in
Figs. 1821. Excellent correlation has been achieved even for
strains measured on the ALPHALOK sheeting, which confirms
the validity of the composite slab model. Fig. 18 shows that
high local curvatures are induced in the loaded top chord bays,
and Fig. 20 that shear lag effects across the width of the slab
are well represented in the predicted strain variation.
In another experiment, the test-piece was failed by simul-
FIG. 21. CSTB: Strain in ALPHALOK Profiled Steel Sheeting
FIG. 22. CSTB: Midspan Deflection during Failure Test
FIG. 23. CSTB: Bottom Chord Strain during Failure Test
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 673
 taneously loading all 16 steel pads equally. It should be
pointed out that the truss was unpropped at the wet concrete
stage, and so for the purpose of the failure analysis the yield
stresses of the truss members were adjusted to allow for initial
stresses due to self-weight. The bottom chord elements in the
model were further altered to allow for a 5% reduction in
section area to represent the effect of holes drilled through the
corresponding members in the test specimen. Typical predic-
tions from the analysis are compared with the corresponding
test data in Figs. 22 and 23, where the deflection at midspan
and the strain at one instrumented bottom chord flange location
are respectively plotted against total applied load. As can be
seen, the predicted failure behavior occurs originally by yield-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SJB Institute of Technology on 05/12/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing, at different load levels, of groups of bottom chord bays.
Once first yield has occurred, there is a dramatic reduction in
predicted global stiffness (Fig. 22), but the strain variation at
the instrumented chord bay location remains virtually un-
changed until the bay itself goes plastic (Fig. 23). Nonlinear
behavior occurred during the test at a lower load level than
that predicted by the analysis. This is thought (Sebastian 1996)
to have been the result of an observed asymmetry of the struc-
tural response, the cause of which was not fully ascertained.
The asymmetry of response was deduced from observations
such as a 20% disparity in recorded strain from bottom chord
bays which were symmetrically located about the longitudinal
centerline of the structure.
At the peak total load of 2,670 kN reached in Figs. 22 and
23, the analysis failed to converge. Up to this peak load, ex-
cessive yielding of the top chords and failure of the slab, both
within the loaded top chord bays adjacent to global mid-span,
were predicted. Although the maximum load reached during
the actual experiment was 2,400 kN, it is evident from Figs.
22 and 23 that the total load applied during the experiment
was still increasing when, due to difficulties experienced with
the loading jacks, there was a requirement for the structure to
be unloaded. It is suggested here that, had it been possible to
further increase the load applied in the experiment beyond the
maximum value of 2,400 kN actually achieved, the measured
ultimate structural capacity would have been closer to the pre-
dicted value of 2,670 kN.
CONCLUSIONS
The advanced FE computer program presented here pro-
vides very robust predictions of the failure behavior of general
steel-concrete composite structures, including those with
ribbed reinforced concrete slabs acting compositely with pro-
filed steel sheeting. Internal deformations, crack patterns, and
shear connector actions have all been determined with great
accuracy. The programs capabilities are now being extended
to deal with cases where the effects of through-depth shear in
the concrete slab and structural steel members in the elasto-
plastic regime are significant, and also to handle problems
where significant nonlinear geometric effects can occur. In ad-
dition, the incorporation of a model to account for possible
slip between the profiled steel sheeting and the adjacent con-
crete slab is currently being undertaken.
674 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000
J. Struct. Eng., 2000, 126(6): 662-674
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Arizumi, Y., Hamada, S., and Kajita, T. (1981). Elastic-plastic analysis
of composite beams with incomplete interaction by finite element
method. Comp. and Struct., Exeter, U.K., 14(56), 453462.
ASCE. (1982). Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete. State of
the Art Rep., New York, 290295.
Bangash, M. Y. H. (1989). Concrete and concrete structures: Numerical
modeling and applications, Elsevier, London, 116.
Cedolin, L., Crutzen, Y. R. J., and Dei Poli, S. (1977). Triaxial stress-
strain relationship for concrete. J. Engrg. Mech. Div., ASCE, 103(2),
423439.
Crisfield, M. A. (1983). A four-noded thin-plate bending element using
shear constraintsA modified version of Lyons element. Comp.
Methods in Appl. Mech. and Engrg., Amsterdam, 38(1), 93120.
Hu, H. T., and Schnobrich, W. C. (1990). Nonlinear analysis of cracked
reinforced concrete. ACI Struct. J., 87(2), 199207.
Jofriet, J. C., and McNeice, G. M. (1971). Finite element analysis of
reinforced concrete slabs. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 97(3), 785806.
Johnson, R. P., and Buckby, R. J. (1986). Composite structures of steel
and concrete, Volume 2: Bridges, Collins Professional and Technical
Books, London.
Johnson, R. P., Greenwood, R. D., and Van Dalen, K. (1969). Stud
shear-connectors in hogging moment regions of composite beams. The
Struct. Engr., London, 47(9), 345350.
Kotsovos, M. D. (1979). A mathematical description of the deforma-
tional behaviour of concrete under complex loading. Mag. of Concrete
Res., Thomas Telford, London, 31(107), 7790.
Livesley, R. K. (1975). Matrix methods of structural analysis, 2nd Ed.,
Pergamon, Oxford, England.
Love, A. E. H. (1988). On the small free vibrations and deformations
of thin elastic shells. Philosophical Trans. Royal Soc., London, Series
A, 179, 491546.
McNeice, G. M. (1967). Elastic-plastic bending of plates and slabs by
the finite element method. PhD thesis, University of London, England.
Murray, D. W. (1979). Octahedral based incremental stress-strain ma-
trices. J. Engrg. Mech. Div., ASCE, 105(4), 501513.
Ramm, E. (1980). Strategies for tracing nonlinear response near limit
points. EuropeU.S.Workshop on nonlinear finite element analysis
in structural mechanics, Springer, Bochum, Germany, 151177.
Razaqpur, A. G., and Nofal, M. (1990). Analytical modeling of nonlin-
ear behaviour of composite bridges. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(6),
17151733.
Saenz, L. P. (1964). Discussion of Equation for the stress-strain curve
of concrete by Prakash Desayi and S. Krishnan. J. Am. Concrete Inst.,
61(9), 12291235.
Schmidt, L. C. 91975). Effects of compression chord buckling on the
behaviour of a simply supported space truss. Proc., Fifth Australasian
Conf. on Mech. of Struct. and Mat., University of Melbourne, Australia,
457470.
Schnobrich, W. C. (1977). Behaviour of reinforced concrete structures
predicted by the finite element method. Comp. and Struct., Exeter,
U.K., 7(56), 365376.
Sebastian, W. M. (1996). The performance of a composite space truss
bridge with glass reinforced plastic panels. PhD thesis, University of
Cambridge, England.
Teraskiewicz, J. S. (1967). Static and fatigue behaviour of simply sup-
ported and continuous composite beams of steel and concrete. PhD
thesis, University of London, England.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). The modified compression-
field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. J.
Am. Concrete Inst., 83(2), 219231.
Wegmuller, A. W., and Amer, H. N. (1977). Nonlinear response of com-
posite steel-concrete bridges. Comp. and Struct., Exeter, U.K., 7, 161
169.
Wright, H. D. (1990). The deformation of composite beams with dis-
crete flexible connection. J. Constr. Steel Res., Exeter, U.K., 15(12),
4964.
Yam, L. C. P., and Chapman, J. C. (1972). The inelastic behaviour of
continuous composite beams of steel and concrete. Proc., Institution
of Civ. Engrs., 2(53), December, 487501.