Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Rotational stiffness of continuous composite beams with sinusoidal-web


proles for lateral-torsional buckling
Adenilcia F.G. Calenzani a, Ricardo H. Fakury b,, Fernando A. de Paula b, Francisco C. Rodrigues b,
Gilson Queiroz b, Roberval J. Pimenta b, c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo, Vitria, Brazil
b
Department of Structural Engineering, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, BH, Brazil
c
Codeme Engenharia, Betim, Brazil

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

Article history: In the hogging bending moment region, continuous composite beams are subjected to the ultimate limit state
Received 26 September 2011 of lateral-torsional buckling, which depends on web stiffness as well as concrete slab and shear connection
Accepted 25 July 2012 stiffnesses. These three stiffnesses compose the rotational stiffness of composite beams. Eurocode 4 denes
Available online 20 August 2012
this stiffness in composite beams with plane webs, but there are no conclusive studies on the stiffness of com-
posite beams with sinusoidal-web proles. This paper presents a formulation to evaluate the rotational stiff-
Keywords:
Continuous composite steel and concrete
ness of composite beams with sinusoidal-web steel proles presented based on (a) test results for four
beam representative prototypes of the inverted U-frame model, (b) the development and calibration of a numerical
Sinusoidal-web steel prole model using the ANSYS commercial nite element software, and (c) the computational processing of
Lateral-torsional buckling sixty-eight numerical models. In these models, the researchers attempted to vary all the parameters that
Rotational stiffness could inuence the rotational stiffness, such as web height and thickness, slab size and type (concrete or
composite), number of shear connectors in the cross-section and longitudinal spacing of connectors.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the U-frame model using just one beam (Fig. 1). This stiffness is calcu-
lated as the inverse of the compressed bottom ange rotation, which
1.1. Concept of lateral-torsional buckling depends on the web distortion, the slab's transverse bending and the
deformation of the shear connection between the steel prole and the
Lateral-torsional buckling (LTB) is an ultimate limit state that can slab.
occur in the hogging bending regions of continuous composite steel Following the Eurocode 4 procedure [2] for plane web composite
and concrete beams. This limit state is characterised by the buckling beams, the rotational stiffness, represented by ks, is calculated as the
of the compressed ange (bottom ange) in relation to its major ratio of the moment at the geometric centre of the top ange and
axis of inertia together with the distortion of the steel prole web, its corresponding rotation , caused by two disturbing forces F ap-
as shown in Fig. 1. This phenomenon has been thoroughly described plied in opposite directions to the bottom anges of the parallel
by several researchers, including Johnson [1]. beams in the inverted U-frame model (Fig. 1). The rotational stiffness
Eurocode 4 [2] provides an approximate procedure for LTB design is then obtained by the association in series of the exural stiffness of
(the Brazilian Standard ABNT NBR 8800 [3] adopts the same proce- the cracked concrete or composite slab in the direction transverse to
dure) that is applicable only to composite beams with plane web the steel beam k1, the exural stiffness of the steel web (web distor-
steel proles. It consists of the determination of the resistance bend- tion stiffness) k2, and the stiffness of the shear connection k3:
ing moment based on the behaviour of the inverted U-frame model  1
formed by two or more adjacent beams and the slab being supported 1 1 1
ks : 1
(Fig. 1). k1 k2 k3
The most important quantity needed to determine the value of the
resistance moment is the rotational stiffness of the composite beam According to Eurocode 4 [2], the exural stiffness of the slab per
per unit length, considered at the top steel ange, which can represent unit length of the steel beam is given as follows:

Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 31 34091972; fax: +55 31 34091973. EI2


k1 2
E-mail address: fakury@dees.ufmg.br (R.H. Fakury). a

0143-974X/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.07.015
A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233 23

where is a factor equal to 2 for an edge beam, with or without a can-


Nomenclature
tilever, and equal to 3 for an inner beam (for inner beams in a oor
with four or more similar beams, equal to 4 may be used); (EI)2 is
As area of tensile steel reinforcement in concrete slab
the cracked exural stiffness per unit width of the slab, taken as the
a spacing between the parallel beams in an inverted
lower of the values at mid-span, for sagging bending, and the value
U-frame model;
at the supporting steel section, for hogging bending; and a is the spac-
bf ange width of the steel prole
ing between the parallel beams (see Fig. 1).
bw total height of the sinusoidal-web wave, equal to
Also according to Eurocode 4 [2], the web distortion stiffness of
40 mm for a web thickness of 2 mm and 43 mm for
the plane web prole per unit length of the beam is as follows:
a thickness of 3 mm
D stiffness of the corrugated plate per unit length
3
Ea modulus of elasticity of steel Ea t w
k2  3
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete 4 1 2a hs
(EI)2 cracked exural stiffness per unit width of the con-
crete or composite slab where Ea is the modulus of elasticity of steel, tw is the web thickness,
F disturbing forces hs is the centreline distance between the top and bottom anges of
fc concrete compression strength the steel prole (Fig. 1), and a is the Poisson's ratio for steel.
hc height of the slab The shear connection stiffness k3 is neglected in Eurocode 4 [2] be-
hs centreline distance between the top and bottom cause its value is usually too high compared to the k1 and k2 stiffnesses.
anges of the steel prole Theoretical research has led to the current design methods, in-
hw web height of the steel prole (clear distance between cluding the work of Roik et al. [4], which obtained the elastic critical
anges) moment of composite beams with plane web steel proles through
Iwx moment of inertia of the sinusoidal-web wavelength an energy method, and the work of Hanswille [5], which considered
k1 exural stiffness of the cracked concrete or composite the LTB problem using an analogy with a compressed bar on an elastic
slab in the direction transverse to the steel beam foundation. Two experimental studies performed in England, the rst
k2 exural stiffness of the web steel prole by Fan [6] and the second by Chen [7], claried aspects of the strength
k3 stiffness of the shear connection between the steel and behaviour of composite beams in the hogging moment region.
prole and slab
k1,n slab stiffness obtained by numerical analysis 1.2. About this study
k1,p proposed slab stiffness
k2,n web stiffness obtained by numerical analysis This paper proposes a procedure to obtain the rotational stiffness
k2,p proposed web stiffness ks in composite beams with sinusoidal-web steel proles (Fig. 2), tak-
k3,n shear connection stiffness obtained by numerical ing into account the results of experimental and numerical analyses
analysis using an inverted U-frame model.
k3,p proposed shear connection stiffness Sinusoidal-web steel proles have a doubly symmetrical I shape
ks rotational stiffness of the composite beam composed of thick plate anges and a sinusoidal thin plate web
ks,n numerical rotational stiffness of the composite beam (Fig. 2). The sinusoidal-web geometry used in these proles has a
ks,p proposed rotational stiffness of the composite beam constant wavelength w of 155 mm and a total height bw (twice the
n number of shear connectors in the composite beam amplitude) of 40 mm for a web thickness tw of 2 mm and a total
cross-section height of 43 mm for a thickness of 3 mm. In addition, the proles
s longitudinal spacing between shear connectors have web heights hw ranging from 468 mm to 1168 mm, ange
td thickness of the proled steel sheeting widths ranging bf from 125 mm to 300 mm and ange thicknesses
tf ange thickness of the steel prole tf ranging from 6.3 mm to 19 mm.
tw sinusoidal-web thickness of the steel prole, equal to
either 2 mm or 3 mm 2. Experimental analysis
u displacement
w wavelength of the sinusoidal-web, equal to 155 mm 2.1. Number and general characteristics of prototypes
red reduction coefcient for the web stiffness
rotation The experimental analysis was performed in the Experimental
a Poisson's ratio for steel Analysis Laboratory of the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil,
and involved the testing of four prototypes, two with concrete slabs

slab bending
ks
tf
web A A
distortion
shear connection hs hw t
deformation w

F F
a bf

Fig. 1. Lateral-torsional buckling deformations of an inverted-U frame model and ks representation.


Adapted from Eurocode 4 [2].
24 A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233

2.3. Prototypes U1-MT and U2-MT (with composite slabs)

tf
In the prototypes U1-MT and U2-MT were used composite slabs
with proled steel sheeting. The total height of the slab was 140 mm.
The proled steel sheeting had a thickness of 1.25 mm, trapezoidal
hw
ribs spaced 274 mm apart (axis to axis), height of 75 mm, bottom open-
ing of 119 mm and upper opening of 155 mm. No additional positive
reinforcement was used in this case, and the negative reinforcement
was composed of a 100 mm 100 mm welded wire mesh with bar di-

bw
tf

bf ameters of 4.2 mm, a nominal steel yield strength of 600 MPa and con-
crete cover of 15 mm.
The beam length of these prototypes was 636 mm, which is the
necessary length to use three transverse lines of shear connectors.
w w w This dimension was slightly larger than the length used in the con-
crete slab prototypes (see Section 2.2) because the proled steel
Fig. 2. Sinusoidal-web steel prole and web corrugation geometry. ribs required a greater distance between the connector lines. In pro-
totype U1-MT, each line had a stud bolt connector in the centre, and
in prototype U2-MT, two connectors were spaced 80 mm apart.
(U1-PT and U2-PT) and two with composite slabs (U1-MT and
U2-MT), to simulate the behaviour of an inverted U-frame model 2.4. Description of the tests
(Fig. 3-a). The prototypes were built out of two sinusoidal-web steel
beams spaced 2 m apart and connected by the top ange to the slab To measure the rotational stiffness of the inverted U-frame model,
through stud bolt shear connectors with a diameter of 19 mm and a a force application system (see Fig. 3-a, which shows a prototype with
height of 76 mm after welding. The steel proles had a web height a concrete slab) was designed to apply horizontal forces of the same
of 600 mm, a web thickness of 2.0 mm, and anges with widths of intensity and in opposite directions to the free anges of the two
150 mm and thicknesses of 8.0 mm. steel proles. This system was composed of two identical hydraulic
actuators with capacities of 50 kN. The horizontal forces were direct-
ed towards the opening of the prototypes, resulting in tension in
2.2. Prototypes U1-PT and U2-PT (with concrete slabs) the concrete slab surface in contact with the steel anges and com-
pression in the opposite surface.
Prototypes U1-PT and U2-PT used reinforced concrete slabs with a Dial gauges were used to register the vertical displacements of the
thickness of 100 mm and reinforcing bars with concrete cover of slab and top anges and the horizontal displacements of the webs at
26 mm. The positive reinforcement consisted of bars with a diameter several points. From these displacements, the total rotation of the
of 8.0 mm spaced 200 mm apart, and the negative reinforcement was U-model s and the isolated rotations of the slab 1, the web 2, and
composed of bars with a diameter of 6.3 mm that were spaced the shear connection 3 were calculated, as Fig. 3-b illustrates.
200 mm apart. The steel used in both types of reinforcement had
nominal yield strength of 500 MPa. 2.5. Characterisation of the materials
The beam length of both prototypes was 512 mm, which allowed
the use of three transverse lines of shear connectors. In prototype Characterisation tests were performed on the concrete used in the
U1-PT, each of these lines received one welded connector on the slabs and the steel used in the webs of the prototypes. Six samples
top ange. In prototype U2-PT, each line received two connectors were tested from the concrete batch used for the slabsthree samples
spaced 80 mm apart and symmetrically welded to the longitudinal were used to determine the modulus of elasticity and three were used
axis of the top ange. to determine the tensile strength. These tests yielded average values

(a) General arrangement (b) Dial gauge positions


Force application system
Sinusoidal-web beam

Load cell

Hydraulic actuators

Data
Acquisition
Concrete slab System

Dial gauges

Fig. 3. Laboratory test setup (concrete slab).


A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233 25

(a) Concrete slab models (b) Composite slab models

Fig. 4. Finite elements used in the numerical analysis.

of 21,602 MPa for the elasticity modulus and 2.77 MPa for the tensile whilst the compression strength of the concrete corresponded to a
strength. Three additional concrete samples from each prototype compression deformation equal to 2/1000 according to Fig. 6 (the
were tested to determine the compression strength, the average re- Brazilian Standard ABNT NBR 6118 [9] adopts this behaviour). The
sults of which were 25.96, 25.29, 21.47 and 23.79 MPa for prototypes parabolic curve was approximated with a multilinear representation
U1-PT, U2-PT, U1-MT and U2-MT, respectively. using seven segments.
Four samples were extracted and tested from the steel plates used The values for the beam web yield strength, concrete compression
in the webs, from which average values of 349.8 MPa for the yield and tensile strengths and modulus of elasticity were equal to those
strength and 470 MPa for the ultimate strength were obtained. obtained in the laboratory characterisation tests. The steel yield
Other steels used in the prototypes were not characterised. strengths of the beam anges, slab reinforcement, shear connectors
and proled steel sheeting (properties less important in the
3. Denition and calibration of the numerical models U-model behaviour) were considered to have typical nominal values
of 350, 500, 345 and 280 MPa, respectively.
The U-frame prototypes were simulated using numerical models The steel plasticity condition was veried using the Von Mises cri-
that were analysed with the nite element method (FEM) using terion with the isotropic hardening rule. The WillamWarnke failure
ANSYS 9.0 [8] software. The rst step was to nd the best nite ele- criterion, the default for the SOLID65 element, was adopted for con-
ment mesh that would provide consistent results when compared crete. The shear transfer coefcients for open and closed cracks
with those obtained from the prototype tests. were taken as equal to 0.2 and 0.6, respectively, as mentioned by
Fig. 4 illustrates the elements adopted in the numerical models. Queiroz et al. [10].
The SOLID65 element was used to represent the slab concrete (a suit- Non-linear analyses were run with large displacements. The full
able element because it can simulate concrete cracks and crushing). NewtonRaphson incrementaliterative procedure was used to solve
In this element, the reinforcement bars (rebar) are dispersed in the the differential equilibrium equations. Technical prediction and adjust-
total volume of the elements. The orientation is dened by two angles ment of the stiffness matrix were used together with this procedure to
(in degrees) from the element coordinate system. For the composite
slab, the proled steel sheeting was included in the model using
LINK8 bar elements connected to the same nodes of the concrete ele-
ments. Shear connectors were simulated with the SOLID45 element
and the steel prole with the SHELL181 element. A pair of elements, Z translation
CONTA173 and TARGE170, was used to represent the contact be- restrained
tween the slab and the top ange of the steel prole.
The prototypes are symmetric, and this condition was used to re-
duce the number of nodes in the numerical models. Horizontal trans-
lation (in the Y-direction) was restrained in the symmetry plane, as
observed in Fig. 5. To simulate the prototype supports of the concrete
slabs, vertical translation (in the Z-direction) was restrained in the
nodes of the slabs' top surfaces in the position coincident with the
Y translation
web plane. Two concentrated disturbing horizontal forces were ap-
plied in the steel bottom ange at the same laboratory test positions.
restrained
The material of the steel proles, shear connectors, reinforcements Z
and proled steel sheeting was assumed to have bi-linear elastic
plastic behaviour. The uniaxial behaviour of the concrete was de- X Y
F
scribed by a stressstrain curve, where a linear elastic relationship F
is assumed for up to half of the compression strength (0.5 fc) and a
parabolic relationship is then assumed for the interval 0.5 fc to fc, Fig. 5. Boundary conditions and horizontal disturbing forces F (model U1-PT).
26 A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233

Stress
fc,j
fc

2
2

= fc 1 1 3
2 102
0.5 fc,j
0.5 fc

arcArcTan
tg E c Ec
-3
2x 210 strain
Strain
Fig. 6. Stressstrain curve of concrete.

accelerate the convergence of the numerical model results. The conver- ual deformation (rotation) that can be observed in Figs. 7 and 8. In the
gence criterion was dened for forces, adopting as a norm the square numerical analysis, the maximum moments were characterised by
root of the sum of squared unbalanced forces. Tolerance was limited loss of convergence in the results, which occurred due to rotations
to 10%, and the maximum number of iterations was set at 200. greater than those observed in the actual respective prototypes.
Fig. 7 presents graphs of the moment versus total rotation
obtained in the experimental and numerical analyses of models
U1-PT and U2-PT. The curves shown in these graphs agree well with 4. Parametric analysis
one another, and even better agreement is observed between the ex-
perimental and numerical curves of models U1-MT and U2-MT, as 4.1. Parameters
shown in Fig. 8. The proposed numerical model has been validated
based on these results. A numerical analysis was performed to evaluate the inuence of a set
It is important to mention that after a certain state of deformation of parameters on the rotational stiffness value ks. For this purpose, sixty-
during the experimental analysis, it was impossible to increase the eight numerical models were processed using the program ANSYS 9.0
applied force. The prototypes were then unloaded and showed resid- [8]. The modelling was presented and assessed in the previous section.

6 6

5 5
moment (kN.m)

moment (kN.m)

4 4
experimental
3 numerical U1-PT 3
experimental

2 numerical
2
U2-PT
1 1

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
rotation (rad) rotation (rad)

Fig. 7. Moment versus total rotation of models U1-PT and U2-PT.

6 7

5 6
moment (kN.m)

moment (kN.m)

5
4 experimental
experimental
numerical 4
3 numerical

U1-MT 3
2 U2-MT
2
1 1
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
rotation (rad) rotation (rad)

Fig. 8. Moment versus total rotation of models U1-MT and U2-MT.


A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233 27

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the materials.

Material Modulus of elasticity Poisson's ratio Yield strength (MPa) Compression strength Tension strength
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Steel prole Reinforcement Shear connector Proled sheeting

Web Flanges

Steel 205,000 0.30 300 350 500 345 280


Concrete 23,800 0.19 25 2.5

The parameters considered in evaluating the exural stiffness of axis-to-axis), a height of 75 mm, a base opening of 119 mm and a
the slab were (a) slab type (concrete or composite), (b) height hc, top opening of 155 mm were the only type considered in this study.
(c) spacing between parallel beams a, and (d) area of steel tension re- Only stud bolts with a diameter of 19 mm and height of 127 mm
inforcement As for the concrete slabs or proled steel sheeting thick- were considered because they are commonly used in composite
ness td for the composite slabs. The parameters considered in beams.
assessing the sinusoidal-web stiffness were (a) height hw, taken as The mechanical properties of all materials are listed in Table 1 and
the clear distance between anges, and (b) thickness tw. The param- were established by considering materials commonly used in
eters considered in evaluating the shear connection stiffness were sinusoidal-web proles, concrete slabs and their reinforcement, pro-
(a) number of shear connectors in the cross-section (n = 1 for a single led steel sheeting and shear connectors.
connector or n = 2 for a pair of connectors), (b) longitudinal spacing
between connectors s, and (c) width bf and thickness tf of the ange
connected to the slab. 4.2. Processed models
In each model, the top and bottom anges of the steel prole had
the same dimensions. The ange width bf was always taken as greater Tables 2 and 3 list the numerical models with concrete and com-
than or equal to one-fourth the height of the steel prole web, which posite slabs, respectively, including all parameters assigned to the
means that the results are valid only for proles falling within this steel proles, slabs and shear connections. There were thirty-eight
ratio. Steel composite slabs with spaced trapezoidal ribs (274 mm concrete slab models (U1-P to U38-P) and thirty composite slab

Table 2
Numerical models with concrete slabs.

Model Steel prole Concrete slab Shear connection

hw bf tf tw hc a As n s
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm)

U1-P 968 250 16 2 100 2000 151 1 201.5


U2-P 968 250 16 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U3-P 984 250 8 2 100 2000 151 1 201.5
U4-P 984 250 8 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U5-P 968 250 16 3 100 2000 151 1 201.5
U6-P 968 250 16 3 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U7-P 968 250 16 2 150 2000 151 1 201.5
U8-P 968 250 16 2 150 2000 151 2 201.5
U9-P 968 250 16 2 100 2000 302 1 201.5
U10-P 968 250 16 2 100 2000 302 2 201.5
U11-P 968 250 16 2 100 4000 151 1 201.5
U12-P 968 250 16 2 100 4000 151 2 201.5
U13-P 968 250 16 2 100 2000 151 1 403
U14-P 968 250 16 2 100 2000 151 2 403
U15-P 984 250 8 2 100 2000 151 1 403
U16-P 984 250 8 2 100 2000 151 2 403
U17-P 962 250 19 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U18-P 962 250 19 3 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U19-P 484 125 8 2 100 2000 151 1 201.5
U20-P 484 125 8 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U21-P 484 250 8 3 100 2000 151 1 201.5
U22-P 484 250 8 3 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U23-P 484 125 8 2 100 2000 151 1 403
U24-P 484 125 8 2 100 2000 151 2 403
U25-P 468 125 16 2 100 2000 151 1 201.5
U26-P 468 125 16 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U27-P 468 125 16 2 100 2000 151 1 403
U28-P 468 125 16 2 100 2000 151 2 403
U29-P 487 125 6.3 2 100 2000 151 1 201.5
U30-P 487 125 6.3 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U31-P 487 125 6.3 2 100 2000 151 1 403
U32-P 487 125 6.3 2 100 2000 151 2 403
U33-P 484 250 8 2 100 2000 151 1 201.5
U34-P 484 250 8 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U35-P 1168 300 16 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U36-P 1168 300 16 3 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U37-P 1162 300 19 2 100 2000 151 2 201.5
U38-P 1162 300 19 3 100 2000 151 2 201.5
28 A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233

Table 3
Numerical models with composite slabs.

Model Steel prole Composite slab Shear connection

hw bf tf tw hc a td n s
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

U1-M 968 250 16 2 140 2000 1.25 1 263.5


U2-M 968 250 16 2 140 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U3-M 984 250 8 2 140 2000 1.25 1 263.5
U4-M 984 250 8 2 140 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U5-M 968 250 16 3 140 2000 1.25 1 263.5
U6-M 968 250 16 3 140 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U7-M 968 250 16 2 200 2000 1.25 1 263.5
U8-M 968 250 16 2 200 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U9-M 968 250 16 2 140 2000 0.80 1 263.5
U10-M 968 250 16 2 140 2000 0.80 2 263.5
U11-M 968 250 16 2 140 4000 1.25 1 263.5
U12-M 968 250 16 2 140 4000 1.25 2 263.5
U13-M 968 250 16 2 140 2000 1.25 1 527
U14-M 968 250 16 2 140 2000 1.25 2 527
U15-M 984 250 8 2 140 2000 1.25 1 527
U16-M 984 250 8 2 140 2000 1.25 2 527
U19-M 484 125 8 2 140 2000 1.25 1 263.5
U20-M 484 125 8 2 140 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U21-M 484 250 8 3 140 2000 1.25 1 263.5
U22-M 484 250 8 3 140 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U23-M 484 125 8 2 140 2000 1.25 1 527
U24-M 484 125 8 2 140 2000 1.25 2 527
U25-M 468 125 16 2 140 2000 1.25 1 263.5
U26-M 468 125 16 2 140 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U27-M 468 125 16 2 140 2000 1.25 1 527
U28-M 468 125 16 2 140 2000 1.25 2 527
U29-M 487 125 6.3 2 140 2000 1.25 1 263.5
U30-M 487 125 6.3 2 140 2000 1.25 2 263.5
U31-M 487 125 6.3 2 140 2000 1.25 1 527
U32-M 487 125 6.3 2 140 2000 1.25 2 527

models (U1-M to U16-M and U19-M to U32-M), for a total of slab rotation 1. The shear connection rotation 3 was calculated by
sixty-eight models. subtracting the slab rotation 1 from the top ange central node rotation
. Finally, the web rotation 2 was calculated by subtracting from the
4.3. Procedure for determining isolated stiffnesses bottom ange central node rotation s (equal to the total beam rotation).
The slab stiffness k1 was obtained from the slope provided by a lin-
The slab, web prole and shear connection stiffnesses were obtained ear regression of the moment versus rotation curve after concrete
from the tangent line to the moment versus rotation curves. The transla- cracking. In concrete slab numerical models, the cracking threshold
tions in the global Z direction of nodes 1 and 2 and the horizontal dis- is evidenced by one or more levels, as observed in Fig. 10-a showing
tance b1 between them, as shown in Fig. 9, were used to calculate the model U3-P. The trend line was drawn in the nal phase of the test

s (rotation of bottom flange central node)


Web rotation:
2 = s

Shear connection rotation:


3 = 1
Slab rotation:
u z1 u z 2
1 =
b1
Node 1
(rotation of top flange central node)

Node 2
b1

Fig. 9. Determination of rotations.


A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233 29

(a) Moment versus slab rotation


5.0

4.0

moment (kN.m)
y = 134.8x + 0.454
R = 0.999
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040
slab rotation (rad)

(b) Moment versus web rotation (c) Moment versus shear connection rotation
5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0
moment (kN.m)

moment (kN.m)
3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0 y = 907.6x + 0.018


y = 72.52x + 0.001
R = 1 R = 0.999
0.0 0.0
0 0.04 0.0 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.010
web rotation (rad) shear connection rotation (rad)

Fig. 10. Numerical determination of model U3-P stiffnesses.

and extended far enough to dene the stiffness with good linear cor- that in design practice, the lower of the value at mid-span, for sagging
relation. In composite slab models, the moment versus rotation curve bending, and the value at the supporting steel section, for hogging
did not always show dened levels, but rather small, almost horizon- bending, must be used.
tal increments followed by a reduction in slope. In this case, the trend
line was drawn after the slope no longer showed signicant variation.
5.2. Proposed method for the calculation of sinusoidal-web stiffness and
The web and shear connection stiffnesses, k2 and k3, respectively,
comparison with numerical results
were taken as equal to the slope provided by the linear regressions
at the start of the moment versus rotation curves. In this study, points
The sinusoidal-web stiffness per unit length, considering the web
with moment coordinates of up to 1 kN m were used to trace the
as a cantilever corrugated plate xed on the prole's top ange, can
trend line. These points denitely belong to the linear-elastic range,
be calculated by the following expression:
which is necessary to determine elastic stiffnesses. Examples are
shown in Fig. 10-b and c with model U3-P.
3D
k2 4
5. Proposed method for the calculation of rotational stiffness hs

5.1. Calculation of slab stiffness


where D is the stiffness of the corrugated plate per length. McFarland
This work conrms that Eq. (2) is accurate in determining the slab [11] concluded the following:
stiffness of composite beams with sinusoidal-web proles. This con-
clusion is justied because the values obtained by this equation are
Ea Iwx
lower, or at most 10% higher, than the numerical slab stiffness values, D : 5
w
with only three exceptions, as observed in Table 4 (in this table, k1,n is
the value of the stiffness obtained from the numerical analysis and k1,
p is the value obtained using Eq. (2)). In this equation, Iwx is the moment of inertia of the sinusoidal-web
The three models where the stiffnesses calculated with the proposed wavelength w with respect to its medium plane, which, according to
equation exceeded the numerical values by more than 10% have com- Pasternak and Kubieniec [12], is equal to the following:
posite slabs with only one shear connector placed in alternated ribs of
the proled sheeting (U15-M, U23-M and U31M). Usually, however,
 2:12
the connectors are positioned in all ribs and these failed results are in- 3 bw
Iwx 0:158 t w w 6
signicant. Moreover, at least two shear connectors are normally used w
in all ribs in negative-moment regions of composite beams.
The slab stiffness values in Table 4 were calculated by the equation
in Eurocode 4 [2] considering the exural stiffness at mid-span be- where bw is the height of the sinusoidal corrugation (i.e., twice the
cause the prototypes were subjected only to sagging moments. Note wave amplitude).
30 A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233

Table 4 Table 5
Comparison between the numerical and proposed slab stiffnesses. Comparison between the numerical and proposed web stiffnesses.

Concrete slab Composite slab Concrete slab Composite slab

Model k1,n k1,p k1,n/k1,p Model k1,n k1,p k1,n/k1,p Model k2,n k2,p k2,n/k2,p Model k2,n k2,p k2,n/k2,p
(kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad)

U1-P 333 215 1.55 U1-M 2364 1890 1.25 U1-P 154 153 1.01 U1-M 155 153 1.01
U2-P 357 215 1.66 U2-M 3233 1890 1.71 U2-P 155 153 1.01 U2-M 155 153 1.01
U3-P 264 215 1.23 U3-M 1762 1890 0.93 U3-P 142 135 1.05 U3-M 141 135 1.05
U4-P 326 215 1.51 U4-M 2541 1890 1.34 U4-P 140 135 1.04 U4-M 141 135 1.04
U5-P 323 215 1.50 U5-M 2002 1890 1.06 U5-P 227 236 0.96 U5-M 229 236 0.97
U6-P 355 215 1.65 U6-M 2440 1890 1.29 U6-P 228 236 0.97 U6-M 229 236 0.97
U7-P 1365 673 2.03 U7-M 5091 5440 0.94 U7-P 154 153 1.01 U7-M 155 153 1.01
U8-P 1530 673 2.27 U8-M 10,786 5440 1.98 U8-P 155 153 1.01 U8-M 155 153 1.01
U9-P 514 367 1.40 U9-M 2237 1372 1.63 U9-P 154 153 1.01 U9-M 155 153 1.01
U10-P 511 367 1.39 U10-M 2846 1372 2.07 U10-P 155 153 1.01 U10-M 155 153 1.01
U11-P 267 108 2.47 U11-M 1722 945 1.82 U11-P 154 153 1.01 U11-M 155 153 1.01
U12-P 282 108 2.61 U12-M 2279 945 2.41 U12-P 155 153 1.01 U12-M 155 153 1.01
U13-P 381 215 1.77 U13-M 2394 1890 1.27 U13-P 155 153 1.01 U13-M 154 153 1.01
U14-P 338 215 1.57 U14-M 4054 1890 2.15 U14-P 155 153 1.02 U14-M 154 153 1.01
U15-P 248 215 1.15 U15-M 1541 1890 0.82 U15-P 145 135 1.07 U15-M 142 135 1.05
U16-P 334 215 1.55 U16-M 2908 1890 1.54 U16-P 142 135 1.06 U16-M 141 135 1.04
U17-P 357 215 1.66 U17-P 156 139 1.12
U18-P 360 215 1.67 U18-P 231 245 0.94
U19-P 259 215 1.20 U19-M 1851 1890 0.98 U19-P 238 242 0.98 U19-M 249 242 1.03
U20-P 310 215 1.44 U20-M 2714 1890 1.44 U20-P 233 242 0.96 U20-M 249 242 1.03
U21-P 248 215 1.15 U21-M 1805 1890 0.96 U21-P 335 309 1.09 U21-M 350 309 1.13
U22-P 313 215 1.46 U22-M 2909 1890 1.54 U22-P 324 309 1.05 U22-M 348 309 1.13
U23-P 236 215 1.10 U23-M 1406 1890 0.74 U23-P 244 242 1.01 U23-M 248 242 1.02
U24-P 299 215 1.39 U24-M 2944 1890 1.56 U24-P 234 242 0.97 U24-M 244 242 1.01
U25-P 289 215 1.34 U25-M 2052 1890 1.09 U25-P 286 278 1.03 U25-M 294 278 1.06
U26-P 320 215 1.49 U26-M 3336 1890 1.77 U26-P 287 278 1.03 U26-M 295 278 1.06
U27-P 240 215 1.12 U27-M 1843 1890 0.97 U27-P 290 278 1.04 U27-M 290 278 1.04
U28-P 327 215 1.52 U28-M 3170 1890 1.68 U28-P 289 278 1.04 U28-M 291 278 1.05
U29-P 222 215 1.03 U29-M 1742 1890 0.92 U29-P 215 215 1.00 U29-M 225 215 1.05
U30-P 299 215 1.39 U30-M 2692 1890 1.42 U30-P 203 215 0.95 U30-M 219 215 1.02
U31-P 193 215 0.90 U31-M 1043 1890 0.55 U31-P 226 215 1.05 U31-M 230 215 1.07
U32-P 284 215 1.32 U32-M 2568 1890 1.36 U32-P 208 215 0.97 U32-M 221 215 1.03
U33-P 269 215 1.25 U33-P 242 242 1.00
U34-P 305 215 1.42 U34-P 239 242 0.99
U35-P 361 215 1.68 U35-P 130 132 0.98
U36-P 368 215 1.71 U36-P 192 202 0.95
U37-P 357 215 1.66 U37-P 130 121 1.08
U38-P 363 215 1.69 U38-P 194 210 0.93

Substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) in Eq. (4), the analytical expression
for sinusoidal-web stiffness per unit length is obtained:

2  2:12
0:474Ea t w w bw
k2 : 7
hs w

Considering that the sine wavelength w has a constant value equal


to 155 mm, and replacing hs with the height of the web hw because
these two values are very close to each other, Eq. (7) can be rewritten
with negligible error according to Calenzani [13]:

local deformations deformation 0:4Ea b2w t w


k2 : 8
of the web of the top flange hw

The results obtained with Eq. (8) were compared to the web stiffness
numerical results k2,n, and it was noted that this equation always provided
higher values than those obtained from the numerical models. This result
occurred because Eq. (8) does not consider the deformation of the top
ange in the space between shear connectors or in the region near a
single central connector. Another inuence is the imperfection of the
xed end assumed in the connection between the web and the top ange.
Fig. 11. Deformation of the top ange and web of the steel prole. This imperfection is caused by local deformations of the web (Fig. 11). For
A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233 31

Table 6
Shear connection stiffness values for concrete slabs.

Flange connected to slab k3,p


(kN/rad)

Longitudinal distance between connectors

s 201.5 mm 201.5 mm b s 403 mm

Thickness Width 1 connector in the 2 or more connectors in the 1 connector in the 2 or more connectors in the
(mm) (mm) cross-section cross-section cross-section cross-section

16 tf 19 bf 250 6000 15,600 4000 6300


125 tf b 250 5500 10,800 3400 4500
8 tf b 19 bf 250 1750 2700 1100 1250
125 tf b 250 1700 2100 1100 1050
6.3 tf b 8 125 tf b 250 1300 1350 850 650

Table 7
Shear connection stiffness values for composite slabs.

Flange connected to slab k3,p


(kN/rad)

Connectors in all ribs Connectors in alternating ribs

Thickness Width 1 connector in the 2 or more connectors in the 1 connector in the 2 or more connectors in the
(mm) (mm) cross-section cross-section cross-section cross-section

16 tf 19 bf 250 4000 8000 2800 3500


125 tf b 250 3200 5200 2100 2800
8 tf b 19 bf 250 1200 1800 900 950
125 tf b 250 1050 1300 950 900
6.3 tf b 8 125 tf b 250 800 850 750 600

Table 8
Comparison between the numerical and proposed shear connection stiffnesses.

Concrete slab Composite slab

Model k3,n k3,p k3,n/k3,p Model k3,n k3,p k3,n/k3,p


(kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad)

U1-P 6136 6000 1.02 U1-M 4067 4000 1.02


U2-P 16,225 15,600 1.04 U2-M 8068 8000 1.01
U3-P 1775 1750 1.01 U3-M 1237 1200 1.03
U4-P 2726 2700 1.01 U4-M 1815 1800 1.01
U5-P 6077 6000 1.01 U5-M 4224 4000 1.06
U6-P 15,614 15,600 1.00 U6-M 8295 8000 1.04
U7-P 6440 6000 1.07 U7-M 4118 4000 1.03
U8-P 16,648 15,600 1.07 U8-M 8182 8000 1.02
U9-P 6147 6000 1.02 U9-M 4062 4000 1.02
U10-P 16,247 15,600 1.04 U10-M 8057 8000 1.01
U11-P 6140 6000 1.02 U11-M 4076 4000 1.02
U12-P 16,233 15,600 1.04 U12-M 8064 8000 1.01
U13-P 4086 4000 1.02 U13-M 2876 2800 1.03
U14-P 6399 6300 1.02 U14-M 3538 3500 1.01
U15-P 1108 1100 1.01 U15-M 943 900 1.05
U16-P 1258 1250 1.01 U16-M 983 950 1.03
U17-P 25,111 25,000 1.00
U18-P 23,830 23,800 1.00
U19-P 1720 1700 1.01 U19-M 1102 1050 1.05
U20-P 2143 2100 1.02 U20-M 1358 1300 1.04
U21-P 1930 1700 1.14 U21-M 1249 1050 1.19
U22-P 2330 2100 1.11 U22-M 1508 1300 1.16
U23-P 1143 1100 1.04 U23-M 1002 950 1.06
U24-P 1108 1050 1.06 U24-M 992 900 1.10
U25-P 5571 5500 1.01 U25-M 3307 3200 1.03
U26-P 10,893 10,800 1.01 U26-M 5294 5200 1.02
U27-P 3416 3400 1.00 U27-M 2204 2100 1.05
U28-P 4559 4500 1.01 U28-M 2902 2800 1.04
U29-P 1329 1300 1.02 U29-M 818 800 1.02
U30-P 1352 1350 1.00 U30-M 890 850 1.05
U31-P 865 850 1.02 U31-M 783 750 1.04
U32-P 689 650 1.06 U32-M 630 600 1.05
U33-P 1824 1750 1.04
U34-P 2773 2700 1.03
U35-P 16,309 15,600 1.05
U36-P 15,756 15,600 1.01
U37-P 25,400 25,000 1.02
U38-P 24,313 23,800 1.02
32 A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233

Table 9 275
Comparison between the numerical and proposed rotational stiffnesses.
250
Concrete slab Composite slab
225
Model ks,n ks,p ks,n/ks,p Model ks,n ks,p ks,n/ks,p
200

ks,p (kN/rad)
(kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad) (kN/rad)

U1-P 103 88 1.18 U1-M 140 137 1.03 175


U2-P 107 89 1.21 U2-M 145 139 1.04 150
U3-P 88 79 1.11 U3-M 118 114 1.04
U4-P 95 80 1.18 U4-M 124 118 1.05 125
U5-P 131 110 1.18 U5-M 196 199 0.98
U6-P 138 112 1.23 U6-M 205 204 1.00
100
U7-P 136 122 1.11 U7-M 145 143 1.01 75
U8-P 139 124 1.13 U8-M 150 146 1.03
U9-P 116 106 1.10 U9-M 140 133 1.05 50
U10-P 118 107 1.10 U10-M 144 135 1.07 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
U11-P 96 63 1.53 U11-M 137 137 1.00 ks,n (kN/rad)
U12-P 99 63 1.57 U12-M 142 139 1.02
U13-P 107 87 1.23 U13-M 137 135 1.02 Fig. 12. Values of the rotational stiffness ks and perfect-t curve.
U14-P 105 88 1.19 U14-M 142 136 1.05
U15-P 84 77 1.09 U15-M 114 111 1.03
U16-P 93 78 1.19 U16-M 118 111 1.06 values and those calculated by the formula is evident in the fact that
U17-P 108 84 1.28
U18-P 140 114 1.23
all ratios k2,n/k2,p fall between 0.93 and 1.13.
U19-P 116 107 1.08 U19-M 183 178 1.03
U20-P 125 108 1.16 U20-M 195 184 1.06 5.3. Proposed tables for shear connection stiffness
U21-P 133 118 1.13 U21-M 237 212 1.12
U22-P 149 119 1.25 U22-M 258 220 1.17
As mentioned earlier, the shear connection stiffness in plane web
U23-P 109 103 1.05 U23-M 174 175 0.99
U24-P 117 103 1.14 U24-M 183 173 1.06 proles is high compared to the slab and web stiffnesses and,
U25-P 140 119 1.18 U25-M 239 225 1.06 according to Eurocode 4 [2], can be neglected in calculating the rota-
U26-P 149 120 1.25 U26-M 258 231 1.11 tional stiffness without any loss of accuracy. However, the shear con-
U27-P 126 117 1.08 U27-M 225 217 1.04 nection stiffness cannot be neglected in composite beams with
U28-P 148 118 1.26 U28-M 244 223 1.09
sinusoidal-web proles because, as shown in the numerical model re-
U29-P 101 99 1.02 U29-M 160 155 1.03
U30-P 111 99 1.12 U30-M 165 157 1.05 sults, the shear connection rotation contributes up to 24% of the total
U31-P 93 95 0.97 U31-M 152 153 0.99 composite beam rotation.
U32-P 102 92 1.11 U32-M 154 146 1.05 This study proposes the use of Tables 6 and 7 to determine the
U33-P 119 107 1.11
shear connection stiffness of composite beams with sinusoidal web
U34-P 128 109 1.17
U35-P 95 81 1.17 proles for the cases of concrete and composite slabs, respectively.
U36-P 125 103 1.21 These tables were prepared so that the shear connection stiffness
U37-P 95 77 1.23 values will never exceed the numerical results. Note that the stiffness
U38-P 126 106 1.19 values were dened based on the thickness and width of the ange
connected to the slab, the number of shear connectors and the longi-
tudinal spacing between them.
these reasons, this study proposes Eq. (8) adjusted by a dimensionless re- Table 8 presents the numerical values of the shear connection
duction coefcient red as the web rotational stiffness k2,p: stiffness k3,n, the proposed values taken from Tables 6 and 7, k3,p,
and the ratio k3,n/k3,p. There is good agreement between the numeri-
2 cal and proposed values, considering that the ratios k3,n/k3,p are be-
0:4Ea bw t w
k2;p red : 9 tween 1.0 and 1.10 in sixty-four of the sixty-eight models processed
hw
in this study and between 1.11 and 1.19 in the other four models.
An empirical equation with constant coefcients has been pro-
5.4. Rotational stiffness of the composite beam
posed for red, employing parameters for independent variables
that, according to numerical analysis, inuence the phenomena men-
The numerical and proposed rotational stiffnesses of the compos-
tioned above and shown in Fig. 11. These parameters are the height
ite beam, ks,n and ks,p, respectively, were obtained from the stiffness of
and the thickness of the web, hw and tw, respectively, and the thick-
springs connected in series according to Eurocode 4 [2]:
ness of the top ange tf. This leads to the following equation:
1 1 1 1
t f ; max t f hw; max hw t 2f ; max t 2f 11
ks;n k1;n k2;n k3;n
red 1 2 3 4 10
tw tw t 2w
1 1 1 1
12
where tf,max is 19 mm (the maximum value foreseen for ange thick- ks;p k1;p k2;p k3;p
ness), hw,max is 1200 mm (the maximum value foreseen for web height)
and the coefcients 1, 2, 3 and 4 are equal to 0.55274571, 0.128064, where k1, k2 and k3 are the numerical stiffnesses of the slab, web and
0.000212 and 0.009255, respectively. These coefcients were calculated shear connection, respectively.
by multivariable linear regression via the least squares method. For the Table 9 shows the numerical and proposed values of the rotational
total number of observations performed, the t of the expression for stiffnesses, ks,n and ks,p, respectively, and the ratio ks,n/ks,p. In almost
red had a regression coefcient R2 equal to 0.916. all models studied, the numerical values of rotational stiffness are
Table 5 shows the numerical values for the steel prole stiffness higher than the proposed values, indicating the conservative nature
k2,n, the values calculated by the proposed formula k2,p given by of the proposed formula. This statement is illustrated in Fig. 12,
Eq. (9), and the ratio k2,n/k2,p. The agreement between the numerical where the stiffnesses are plotted together with a perfect-t curve.
A.F.G. Calenzani et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 2233 33

The adequacy of this formula is also conrmed by the agreement be- the agreement between the proposed and numerical values, with
tween the proposed and numerical values, for which the ratio ks,n/ks,p variations falling between 0.97 and 1.28 for the majority of results.
is almost always within the range of 0.97 to 1.28, except for two
models (U11-P and U12-P). Acknowledgements

6. Conclusions The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the
Brazilian government agencies CAPES, CNPq and FAPEMIG.
This paper presented a procedure to determine the rotational stiff-
ness of composite beams with sinusoidal-web steel proles based on
References
the behaviour of an inverted U-frame model. First, an experimental
methodology using prototypes representing the U-frame model was [1] Johnson RP. Composite structures of steel and concretebeams, slabs, columns,
proposed and implemented with four laboratory tests. A numerical and frames for buildings. Third Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.
[2] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1, General rules
model for the U-frame model was then developed using ANSYS 9.0
and rules for buildings. . EN 1994-1-1Brussels: European Committee for Standardiza-
[8] software, which was calibrated with reference to the prototype tion; 1994.
results. Next, sixty-eight different numerical models were processed [3] ABNT NBR 8800. Design of steel and composite structures for buildings. Rio de
with varying parameters that affected the isolated stiffnesses of the Janeiro: Associao Brasileira de Normas Tcnicas (Brazilian Association of Technical
Standards); 2008 [in Portuguese].
slab, web prole and shear connection. Finally, the results obtained [4] Roik K, Hanswille G, Kina J. Solution for the lateral torsional buckling problem of
from the numerical models were used to propose formulas and composite beams. Stahlbau 1990;59:327-32.
procedures to determine the stiffnesses being studied. The rotational [5] Hanswille G. Lateral torsional buckling of composite beamscomparison of more
accurate methods with Eurocode 4. Composite construction in steel and concrete
stiffness of composite beams with sinusoidal-web proles was IV; 2002. p. 105-16.
obtained using the formulas for springs connected in series. [6] Fan CKR. Buckling in continuous composite beams. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
The formula provided by Eurocode 4 [2] for plane web composite Warwick; U.K.; 1990.
[7] Chen S. Instability of composite beams in hogging bending. Ph.D. Thesis. University
beams was used to compute slab stiffness. A formula for web stiffness of Warwick; U.K.; 1992.
was obtained by considering a reduction coefcient red to account [8] ANSYS. Finite element program user's manuals. . version 9.0.USA: ANSYS, Inc.; 2004.
for the inuence of the connection between the sinusoidal web and [9] ABNT NBR 6118. Design of structural concrete. Rio de Janeiro: Associao Brasileira de
Normas Tcnicas (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards); 2007 [in Portuguese].
the ange connected to the concrete slab. The shear connection stiff-
[10] Queiroz FD, Vellasco PCGS, Nethercot DA. Structural assessment of composite
ness, disregarded in plane web beams, must be considered in com- beams using the Finite Element Method. EurosteelConference on Steel and
posite beams with sinusoidal-web proles. This work proposed the Composite Structures, vol. B; 2005. [pp. 4.3-494.3-58].
[11] McFarland, E.D. An investigation of the static stability of corrugated rectangular
use of tables with pre-selected shear connection stiffness values
plates loaded in pure shear. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Kansas, USA, 1967.
that were obtained from numerical analysis and sorted according to [12] Pasternak H, Kubieniec G. Plate girders with corrugated webs. J Civ Eng Manage
the parameters that inuence this stiffness. 2010;16(2):166-71.
The nal results for rotational stiffness using the proposed proce- [13] Calenzani AFG. Procedure to determine the rotational stiffness of composite
beams with sinusoidal-web proles. Ph.D. Thesis. Federal University of Minas
dure were conservative when compared with those from the numer- Gerais; Brazil; 2008 [in Portuguese].
ical analysis. Moreover, the adequacy of the formula is conrmed by