Stefan Berczyński, Tomasz Wróblewski
Technical University of Szczecin
Szczecin, Poland
MODELING OF STEEL - CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAMS BY RIGID FINITE
ELEMENT METHOD
Summary
In this paper is presented the solution of the problem
of vibrations concerning steel – concrete composite beam
by the Rigid Finite Element Method (RFEM). The results
of theoretical analysis were compared to results of exper-
imental research concerning 3,5 meter composite beam. A
very good compatibility was received which confirms
high effectiveness of RFEM.
1. Introduction
Steel - concrete composite beam is a steel welded
beam or a rolled beam with the reinforced concrete slab
rested against it. Both elements, the steel beam and the
r.c. slab are joined together by means of specially de-
signed connecting elements (steel studs). The connection
is characterized by different flexibility level depending on
assumed structural solution. This type of construction is
mostly used in bridge engineering as a main carrying
girder and also in housing industry and industrial building
as composite floor systems. Mainly in case of bridge
structures, it is needed to pay attention to modal proper-
ties of designed constructions for the reason of the charac-
ter of load occurring in it. Physical parameters of materi-
als used by the time of building and also shear connection
stiffness have the great influence on the modal properties.
The number of technological problems connected with
composite construction designing as well as by the time
of putting it up caused that the problem of analysis of its
dynamic behavior was not raised extensively in literature
so far. In recent years in the world as well as in Poland
there were some attempts made to conduct a permanent
diagnostic monitoring of bridges. It consists in registra-
tion and analysis of the bridge vibrations caused by the
service load in a specific period of time, which may be the
basic to infer about its technical condition. The diagnostic
monitoring allows fast localizing and removing any dam-
age in the object, which stops spreading damages and
minimizes the cost of possible repairs. To make the analy-
sis possible it is necessary to reconnoiter the issue of
dynamic work concerning this type of construction, to
work on the rules of such an analysis and to reconnoiter
the influence of individual parameters describing the
construction on received modal construction properties.
2. Case study
After acquainting with the literature concerning the
problem of composite constructions, it was certified that
the most research works and analysis concerned defining
load capacity and stiffness of those constructions and also
solving technological problems occurring by the time of
putting it up. In those research a great emphasis was put
on considering flexibility influence of stud connectors on
static characteristics of composite beams. By the time of
such an analysis authors often gave consideration to large
loads, which made them to exceed the elastic fields of
construction working and solving nonlinearity problems.
However there is a lot of situations, when there is no need
of exceeding the elastic fields of construction working.
One of it is determining the dynamic characteristics of
composite constructions. One of such an examples is the
paper of Biscontin, Morassi and Mendel “Vibrations of
steel – concrete composite beam” [1]. Authors present in
it an analytic solution of the problem of one–dimensional
model vibrations of free composite beam exposed to not
large vibrations. The received analytical model is used by
them to analyze 3,5 meter - composite beam as shown at
figure 1. The parameters describing the physical model
are shown in table 1.
z x
stud conector reinforced concrete slab
y
steel beam IPE140
100 220 220 11 x 220 220 220 100
3500
500
60
70 30
100
140
73
Fig. 1. The composite beam analyzed by Biscontin,
Morassi and Mendel [1].
Authors made an analytical model of beam vibra-
tions using Hamilton’s principle. They based their re-
search on an Euler – Bernoulli beam model, which means
they did not consider the effect of shear distortion and
rotary inertia effect. Omitting both of these effects may
cause large mistakes by the time of determining natural
frequency of high-order flexural vibrations. Moreover,
authors assumed that the axial stiffness of connecting
elements (studs) is equal infinity, which means that the
vertical displacement of both beams, steal beam and rein-
forced concrete slab are equal at any point of the beam.
For the reason of the fact that connecting elements are mental values is rising, getting 46,2% value with the eight
placed with short enough distance and that the elements natural frequency of flexural vibrations.
are distributed uniformly in the beam authors assumed, The flexural vibration modes received on the basis of
that it can be described by means of strain energy density analytical model reflect well the results of experimental
function used up during its deformation. research.
The comparison of the natural frequencies of longi-
Table 1. Composite beam parameters tudinal vibration modes, received on the basis of the ana-
reinforced con- Steel beam lytical model and experimental research also does not
parameter
crete slab IPE 140 cause of any reservations.
L 3.50 m 3.50 m The main factors causing discrepancy between ana-
-2 2 lytical model and experimental research are:
A 310 m 1.6410-3 m2
 passing over the effect of shear distortion,
J 910-6 m4 5.4110-6 m4  passing over the effect of rotary inertia,
E 4.5451010 N/m2 2.11011 N/m2  assuming the infinite axial stiffness of connecting
 2600 kg/m3 7850 kg/m3 elements (vertical displacements of both beams are
the same).
Stiffness of stud connector K=2.453108 N/m
The authors of present study decided to use the Rigid
Finite Element Method (RFEM) to analyze the beam
The comparison of experimental and analytical natu-
shown above, expecting significant improvement of re-
ral frequencies of flexural vibration modes is shown in the
ceived results.
table 2 and at the figure 2.
3. Creating and solution of RFEM model
Table 2. The comparison of natural frequencies
The analytical model RFEM consists of undistortable
of flexural vibrations.
solids named as rigid finite elements (RFE) connected
Experimental together by means of elastic – damping elements (EDE).
Mode Analytical Value
Value The way of connecting it is optional. The rigid finite ele-
Number ment is described by means of a mass and the mass mo-
f(Hz) f(Hz) % ments of inertia whereas the elastic – damping element is
1 59.625 59.625 0.0% described by means of stiffness and dumping factors. The
2 133.875 148.038 1.4% general rules of making RFEM models are described in
the item [2] In case of continuous constructions, it is nec-
3 235.250 265.496 3.2%
essary to start forming the model from dividing it into
4 345.000 410.268 10.3%
sections l. The division of analyzed beam is shown at
5 459.000 584.174 19.8% the fig. 3a. As the figure shows every beam (a steal beam
6 578.250 788.895 29.9% and a r.c. slab) is divided into 17 sections:
7 706.750 1025.059 39.5% — 2 extreme sections, l =100mm,
8 853.000 1292.848 46.2% — 15 middle sections, l = 220mm.
The division was conditioned by spacing of steel
1400 stud connectors. Next in the middle of every section made
Experimental Value this way EDE is placed which possesses elastic-damping
1200
Analytical Value characteristics referring to a proper section. Between
1000 these EDE we put RFE which length is equal to the dis-
Frequency [Hz]

800 tance between EDE. RFE modeling the steel beam and the
concrete slab was connected together by EDE, which
600
possesses elastic-damping characteristics of stud connect-
400 ors. Finally, the model created on the basis of the descrip-
200 tion above is shown at the fig. 3b.
As the figure shows, the model includes:
0
a) six types of the RFE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mode Number
 steel beam: l=50mm; RFE 1, 35;
l=160mm; RFE 3, 33;
Fig. 2. The comparison of natural frequencies l=220mm; RFE 5, 7,…, 29, 31;
of flexural vibrations.
 r.c. slab: l=50mm; RFE 2, 36;
l=160mm; RFE 4, 34;
As it is shown with another frequency of free flexur-
l=220mm; RFE 4, 6,…, 30, 32;
al vibration the disparity between analytical and experi-
 a)

60
70 30
y

140
100 220 220 12 x 220 220 100
3500

b) 3 6 9 12 48 51
2 4 6 8 10 32 34 36

30
4 7 10 46 49

70
30 30
1 2 5 8 11 47 50 52

1 3 5 7 9 31 33 35

25 25 80 80 110 110 110 110 80 80 25 25

50 160 220 220 12 x 220 160 50

3500
Fig. 3. Model of the RFEM: a) the division of the beam into l sections;
b) the defined model of the beam, the numbering of RFE and EDE.

b) six types of the EDE: The block of stiffness factors of EDE representing
 steel beam: l=100mm; EDE 2, 50; the steel beam and r.c. slab is defined according to the
l=220mm; EDE 5, 8,…, 44, 47; following dependence:
 r.c. slab : l=100mm; EDE 3, 51;  EA GA EJ 
C k  diag[ck1 , ck 2 , ck 6 ]  diag , ,  (1)
l=220mm; EDE 6, 9,…, 45, 48;  l l l 
 stud connectors: EDE 4, 7,…, 46, 49; where:
 support: EDE 1, 52. k – number of the EDE,
ck1 – translation stiffness factor along the x axis,
The figure also shows two supports at the extreme ck2 – translation stiffness factor along the y axis,
parts of the steel beam, which hints that we deal with a ck6 – rotation stiffness factor about z axis,
simply-supported beam, whereas the results of the exper- E – Young’s modulus,
imental research taken form [1] concern a free beam. It is G – modulus of elasticity in shear,
a result of the fact that the RFEM model was build in the A – cross-sectional area,
most universal way. This kind of model in the future J – cross-sectional moment of inertia,
makes possible the analysis of simply supported beam. At l – length of element,
this stage of work the stiffness factors of the first EDE  – coefficient of non-uniform distribution of shear
and the 52-th EDE are assumed as equal zero, which stress over a cross section.
consequently gave a free beam model. The value of E, A, J was accepted according to [1],
Since that in the analyzed problem we deal with vi- whereas, values of G,  were accepted as following:
brations of only one plane of Cartesian co-ordinate system a) steel beam
(x-y), we can build our model of rigid finite elements -
Gs = 81010 N/m2
RFE possessing less number of degrees of freedom with
s=
reference to finite elements applied in general cases. The
b) r.c. slab
RFE described above posses three degrees of freedom:
Gc = 1.631010 N/m2
they can displace along the x and y axis and rotate around
the z axis. c=
 Stiffness factors concerning EDE representing steel
stud connectors are defined as following:
A  I ~ξ  0
2
(7)
The non-trivial solution (7) exist only in case of a situa-
ck1 = 2.453108 N/m – in accordance with [1]
tion when the characteristic determinant equals zero
E A
ck 2  sc sc  8.59 10 8 N/m
ec

det A  I 2  0  (8)
The individual n eigenvalues of matrix A, with the ade-
ck6 = 0 ~
where: quate n eigenvectors ξ was described by means of a
Esc –Young’s modulus of the stud connector material, proper procedure of MATLAB program. The relation
(Esc = 2.11011 N/m2); between i–th eigenvector of matrix A and the i–th eigen-
Asc – cross sectional area of stud connector -  =12.5mm vector of mode shape of beam is shown as following:
(Asc = 1.22710-4 m2); ~
~ 
ec – half of r.c. slab thickness (ec = 0.03 m). qij  i , j = 1, 2, …, n. (9)
mi
The block of inertia factors of RFE representing the
steel beam and r.c. slab is defined according to the follow- 4. The analysis of received results
ing dependence: The results of the calculations are presented in the
figures below.
M r  diag[mr1 , mr 2 , mr 6 ] 0.15
f 1 =57.999 Hz v1
  l 2 J  (2) v2
 diag ρAΔl,ρAΔl,ρAΔl   u1
  12 A  u2

where:
r – number of the RFE 0
mr1 – mass of the RFE
mr2 – mass of the RFE
mr6 – mass moment of inertia of the RFE about z axis
-0.15
Concerning the rules of RFEM models creating [2] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m]3.5
there was a program written using the language of tech-
nical computing MATLAB, which creates automatically 0.15
of blocks of stiffness factors of EDE, blocks of inertia f 2 =137.366 Hz v1
v2
factors of RFE, blocks of points of mounting coordinates u1
u2
EDE to a proper RFE a stiffness matrix K and mass ma-
trix M for the whole system.
We receive a differential equation of free vibration 0
of a general differential equation of motion, after assum-
ing that there is no influence of external force on the sys-
tem.
Mq  Lq  Kq  0 (3) -0.15
If we overlook the influence of damping, and also 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m]3.5
transform it properly, we receive finally the transformed
differential equation of free vibration as following: 0.15
f 3 =235.103 Hz v1
ξ  Aξ  0 (4) v2
u1
where: u2

1 1 1
 
ξ  M 2q ; AM 2 KM 2 (5) 0
The matrix A is called a transformed stiffness ma-
trix. The equation (4) is a system of homogenous differen-
tial equations with constant coefficient. Assuming the
solution of the equation (4) as following: -0.15
~
ξ (t )  ξ sin(t   ) (6) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m]3.5
~ Fig. 4. First eight flexural vibration modes
where ξ is a vector of amplitudes and putting (6) into (4)
we receive a homogeneous system of linear equations:
 Signatures on figures:
0.15
f 4 =344.397 Hz v1 v1 – transversal displacement of r.c. slab – along y axis
v2
u1 v2 – transversal displacement of steel beam– along y axis
u2
u1 – axial displacement of r.c. slab – along x axis
u2 – axial displacement of steel beam – along x axis
0
The diagrams show eight first natural frequencies of
flexural vibrations. These are the frequencies form 1 to 6,
the 8-th and the 9-th. The 7-th of the natural frequency of
the beam is the first of frequencies of longitudinal vibra-
-0.15
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m] 3.5
tions. The comparison of received frequencies of vibra-
tions and the results of experimental research is shown in
0.15 the table 3. and in the fig. 5.
f 5 =461.354 Hz
Table 3. The comparison of natural frequencies
of flexural vibrations - RFEM
0
Experimental Analytical Value
Mode Value RFEM
v1
v2 Number
u1
u2
f(Hz) f(Hz) %
-0.15 1 59.625 57.999 -2.7%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m] 3.5
2 133.875 137.366 2.6%
3 235.250 235.103 -0.1%
0.15
f 6 =581.667 Hz 4 345.000 344.397 -0.2%
5 459.000 461.354 0.5%
6 578.250 581.667 0.6%
7 706.750 703.242 -0.5%
0
8 853.000 825.276 -3.3%
v1
v2 900
u1
u2 800 Experimental Value
-0.15 Analytical Value RFEM
700
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m] 3.5
Frequency [Hz]

600
0.15 500
f 8 =703.242 Hz v1
v2 400
u1
u2
300
200
100
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mode Numbe r

Fig. 5. The comparison of natural frequencies

-0.15
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m] 3.5
of flexural vibrations - RFEM

0.15 We can observe here a significant improvement of

f 9 =825.276 Hz v1
v2 the results in relation to the results received analytically
u1
u2
by the authors of the paper [1]. The improvement is a
result form considering the effects listed in p.2. in the
0 analysis of the problem. We can receive the same results
making the analytical model in a way presented in [1], but
it is necessary to use the Timoshenko beam model, which
means to consider the effect of shear distortion the rotary
-0.15 inertia effect. Additionally it is necessary to make inde-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 pendent one from another vertical displacements of steel
x [m]
beam and r.c. slab. However, conducting such an analysis
Fig. 4.(continued) First eight flexural vibration modes
is very laborious in comparison with the analysis by
RFEM.
 In case of longitudinal free vibrations of beams we The second type of longitudinal free vibrations of a
can divide it into two types. The first is when the vibra- beam is the vibrations during which the displacements of
tions of the steel beam and r.c. slab are phase-consistent. steel beam and r.c. slab are phase-different. These vibra-
The diagrams of such vibration modes are presented at tion modes are presented at fig.7. It is not possible to
fig. 6. These are 7-th, 13-th and 20-th natural frequency of compare these results with the results of experimental
beam vibrations. In the table 4 is shown the comparison research, because the vibrations which posses described
of received results with the results of experimental re- frequencies were not registered during the research.
search.
0.15
0.15 f 16 =1497.419 Hz
f 7 =616.507 Hz v1
v2
u1
u2
0
0 v1
v2
u1
u2
-0.15
-0.15 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
x [m]
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0x [m] 3.5
0.25
0.15 f 19 =1646.158 Hz
f 13 =1219.588 Hz

0
0
v1
v2
v1
u1
v2
u2
u1
u2 -0.25
-0.15 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
x [m]
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
x [m]
Fig. 7. Longitudinal vibration modes – displacements
of steel beam and r.c. slab are phase-different.
0.15
f 20 =1801.476 Hz
5. Conclusions
The presented method of vibrations of steel-concrete
0
beam analysis by means of RFEM gives very good re-
sults. The conformity of received results with the experi-
v1
v2
mental research in case of free flexural vibrations is sig-
u1 nificant. In the future authors intend to continue works on
u2
-0.15
the problem placing emphasis on analysis of natural fre-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 quencies and vibration modes sensitivity to damage of the
x [m]
beam.
Fig. 6. Longitudinal vibration modes – displacements
of steel beam and r.c. slab are phase-consistent. Bibliography
1. Biscontin G., Morassi A., Wendel P.: Vibrations of
Table 4. The comparison of natural frequencies steel-concrete composite beams. Journal of Vibration
of longitudinal vibrations - RFEM and Control, 6, s.691-714, 2000.
2. Kruszewski J. i inni: Metoda sztywnych elementów
Experimental Analytical Value skończonych. Arkady, Warszawa 1975.
Mode Value RFEM
Number
f(Hz) f(Hz) %
1 617.750 616.507 -0.2%
2 1233.625 1219.588 -1.15%
3 1858.750 1801.476 -3.17%