ELATED WORKED EXAMPLES

Worked Example 10.3: Design of a Continuous Composite Beam

SUMMARY

Elastic analysis for internal moments and forces in continuous composite beams is
of more general application than plastic analysis. Redistribution is permitted, to
allow for cracking of concrete and yielding of steel in the negative moment
regions. The extent of the redistribution depends on the classification of cross-
sections at internal supports and the assumptions made concerning the flexural
rigidity in hogging bending.

For a cross-section in Class 3 or Class 4, stresses should be calculated by elastic

theory, using an effective width for the concrete flange. Account may be taken of
creep of concrete in compression by means of an appropriate modular ratio.

The typical pattern of bending moments in a continuous beam results in the lower
flange being in compression over internal supports. As the upper flange of the steel
section is restrained by the concrete slab, lateral buckling of the compression
flange is accompanied by distortion of the cross-section. Account can be taken of
the distortional stiffness to reduce the effective slenderness for lateral-torsional
buckling.

The design methods established in the lecture are illustrated by Worked Example
10.3.

1. INTRODUCTION
Bending moments in continuous composite beams at the ultimate limit state (ULS)
may be determined by elastic analysis or, subject to certain conditions, rigid-plastic
analysis; the latter method is discussed in the previous Lecture 10.4.1. Elastic
analysis has the advantage of more general application, and may also be more
convenient to use as this approach is also required to check the serviceability limit
state (see Lectures 10.5.1 and 10.5.2).

In composite building structures no consideration of temperature effects is

normally necessary in verifications for ULS. Similarly, the effects of shrinkage
may be neglected, except in analysis involving Class 4 sections. These effects,
therefore, are not considered in this lecture.

The scope of Eurocode 4 [1] does not include members with semi-rigid
connections. Thus this lecture concerns beams in which the steel section is either
continuous over simple supports or is jointed by rigid connections.
In general, elastic analysis requires that the relative stiffnesses of adjacent spans be
known. As the stiffnesses depend on the second moment of area of cross-sections,
it is necessary to know the effective width of the concrete flange and the modulus
of elasticity of concrete relative to that of steel (the modular ratio).

2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
2.1 Effective Width of Concrete Flange

An effective width approach is used to make allowance for in-plane shear

flexibility (shear lag). Values of effective width may be related to distances along
the beam between points of zero bending moment. Different values can be
calculated therefore for sagging moment regions and hogging moment regions, as
described in Fig. 10 of the previous lecture (taken from Fig. 4.3 of Eurocode  4
[1]). For global analysis, however, it has been found that shear lag has little effect
on the results. Hence a constant effective width may be assumed for the whole of
each span, which greatly simplifies the analysis. As the greater part of each span of
a beam will usually be subject to sagging bending moment, it is appropriate that
the constant effective width be taken as the value at mid-span. For a cantilever,
however, the width should be that applicable at the support.

In determining the elastic section properties, the concrete is usually assumed to be

uncracked under positive sagging moment. If the slab is formed with profiled steel
sheeting whose ribs are transverse to the steel section, as discussed in Lecture 10.1,
the area of concrete within the profile depth is ignored.

2.2 Modular Ratio

The elastic section properties of a composite beam may be expressed as those of an

equivalent steel section by dividing the effective width of the concrete flange by a
modular ratio. Account is taken of the effects of creep of concrete in compression
by choice of an appropriate value for the ratio, as described in Lectures
10.5.1 and 10.5.2.

2.3 Load Arrangements and Load Cases

For continuous beams in buildings, without cantilevers, subject to mainly

uniformly distributed loading, only the following arrangements of variable load
need be considered:

1. Alternate spans loaded.

2. Two adjacent spans loaded.
In both cases, the same value of the partial safety factor, gG, for permanent load
may be taken for each span, whether or not such load on a particular span is a
favourable or unfavourable action.

3. DISTRIBUTION OF BENDING MOMENT

Loss of stiffness due to cracking of concrete in negative moment regions has more
effect on distribution of bending moment in continuous composite beams than in
continuous reinforced concrete members. This is because in the latter loss of
stiffness also occurs due to cracking in the mid-span regions. It has been found that
in continuous composite beams the bending moment at an internal support at the
serviceability limit state (SLS) may be 15 to 30% lower than that given by an
elastic analysis in which no account is taken of cracking. At the ultimate limit
(ULS) the distribution of moments will also be influenced by yielding of steel.

The redistribution of moments cannot be predicted accurately because the

longitudinal tensile stress in the concrete slab, in negative moment regions, is
influenced by the sequence of casting and the effects of temperature and shrinkage,
as well as by the proportions of the composite member and the dead and imposed
loading. A wide variation in flexural rigidity can occur along a composite beam of
uniform cross-section, leading to uncertainty in the distribution of bending
moments and hence the amount of cracking to be expected.

Two methods of elastic global analysis are permitted by Eurocode 4 [1] for the
ultimate limit state:

1. Cracked section method.

2. Uncracked section method.

Both may be used in conjunction with redistribution of support moments, the

degree of redistribution being dependent on the susceptibility of the steel section to
local buckling.

3.1 Cracked Section Analysis

It is assumed that for a length of 15% of the span on each side of internal supports,
the section properties are those of the cracked section for negative moments. The
assumption of a fixed proportion of the span as "cracked" is a considerable
simplification, since it makes feasible the use of formulae or standard computer
programs for the global analysis, without the need for iteration. The second
moment of area of the cracked section is calculated using a section comprising the
steel member together with the effectively anchored reinforcement located within
the effective width of the concrete flange at the support (see Figure 1a). Outside
the "15% length", the section properties are those of the uncracked section. They
are calculated using the mid-span effective width for the concrete flange but
ignoring any longitudinal reinforcement (Figure 1b).

The effect of assuming a length other than 15% to be cracked has been studied (see
Figure 2). It was found that bending moments calculated assuming a cracked
length of 15% would be correct to within 5% if any proportion of the span between
8% and 25% was in fact cracked; the simplifying assumption is therefore justified.
3.2 Uncracked Section Method

The properties of the uncracked section are used throughout. Thus, the analysis is
not dependent on the amount of reinforcement over the supports. Indeed for a
continuous beam of uniform section, the analysis can be carried out without any
prior calculation of the cross-section. For equal spans, standard bending moment
coefficients from reference books can be used.

3.3 Redistribution of Support Moments for Elastic Analysis

Design codes commonly permit negative (hogging) moments at supports to be

reduced, except at cantilevers, by redistribution to mid-span. The extent of the
redistribution is dependent, in part, on the method of analysis, as shown in Table 1,
which is taken from Eurocode 4 Table 4.3 [1].

Table 1 also shows that the degree of redistribution depends on the classification of
the cross-section at the supports (the limits which define the various classes of
composite section will be discussed further in a later part of this lecture).

Consider first a Class 4 section, i.e. one in which local buckling may prevent the
design resistance from being attained. If redistribution is less than the designer
assumes, the steel web or the compression flange at the support may buckle
prematurely. For safety therefore, the maximum amount of redistribution to mid-
span must be no greater than the minimum redistribution likely to occur in
practice. Redistribution is therefore not permitted if a "cracked" analysis has been
used.
Studies on composite beams with critical sections in Class 3 or Class 4 have shown
that provided at least 10% of the span is cracked, as is likely in practice, the
reduction in support moment due to cracking will exceed 8% (Figure 2). It is
reasonable to assume therefore that in round terms the difference between an
'uncracked' and a 'cracked' analysis with such beams is equivalent to 10%
redistribution of the 'uncracked' support moments, as shown in Table 1 for Class 3
and Class 4 sections.

There is no need to be so cautious for Class 3 ("semi-compact") sections as these

can reach the design resistance, with local buckling only preventing the
development of the full plastic moment. Numerical analysis, using experimental
data on the falling branch of moment-rotation relationships for locally-buckling
Class 3 cantilevers, confirms that up to 20% redistribution can be allowed, as given
in Table 1.

In a Class 2 section the full plastic moment resistance can be developed. It has
been proposed that a redistribution of 30% be permitted from an "uncracked"
analysis to allow for local yielding at the supports and cracking of concrete.
Comparisons with test results made during the assessment of Eurocode4 confirm
the latter figure as appropriate for sections which can attain the plastic resistance
moment at the supports.

A beam with Class 2 (or Class 1) sections at supports will typically have a
relatively low neutral axis, in order to meet the restrictions on the depth of the web
in compression required in such sections. Hence only light tensile reinforcement
can be provided and the ratio of "uncracked" to "cracked" flexural stiffness (I 1/I2)
can exceed 3.0. For such beams, the bending moment at the internal support from
"cracked" analysis may then be less than 70% of the value from "uncracked"
analysis and is almost always less than 85% of the "uncracked" value. This
contrasts with the studies referred to above and summarised in Figure 2, for which
the ratio I1/I2 was nearer 2 than 3. It follows that for Class 2 and Class 1 sections a
15% difference between "uncracked" and "cracked" analysis is more appropriate
than the 10% difference adopted for beams with sections in Class 3 or Class 4. A
15% difference is given in Table 1 for Class 2 and Class 1 sections.

Finally, a Class 1 section is one which can, not only attain the plastic resistance
moment, but also sustain this level of moment whilst rotation occurs. In steel
structures, the limits on flange and web slenderness which define a 'plastic' section
are sufficiently restrictive to permit plastic global analysis without further checks
on rotation capacity. This is not true for composite beams, partly because the
degree of redistribution needed to attain a plastic hinge mechanism will be higher
due to the greater relative moment resistance at mid-span. The conditions required
for plastic global analysis have been discussed in the previous lecture. The
redistribution of elastic support moments permitted in Table 1 for Class 1 sections
is based on the recognition that some rotation capacity exists for such sections.
4. CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-SECTIONS OF
BEAMS
The limitations on flange slenderness and web slenderness for Class 1 and Class 2
sections have been given in the previous lecture. For a section in Class 1 or Class
2, the bending resistance can be calculated by rectangular stress block theory, as
described in Lectures 10.3 and 10.4.1. The determination of the plastic resistance
moment is not considered further in this lecture.

The limiting slendernesses for Class 3 cross-sections are those beyond which local
buckling occurs in the structural steel section prior to the yield stress being
reached. It is logical, therefore, that the limits for composite beams, without web
encasement, are the same as those for steel beams. Eurocode 4 [1] specifies these,
as shown in Tables 1a and 1b of Lecture 10.4.1; a Class 4 section is one which
does not comply with these requirements.

Web encasement may be assumed to contribute to resistance to local buckling

provided that it is reinforced and mechanically connected to the steel section. A
Class 3 web which is encased, may be treated effectively as if it was in Class 2.

Provided the flanges are Class 1 or Class 2, the moment resistance of a section
with an uncased web in Class 3 may still be determined by plastic analysis,
provided that part of the web is discounted. The resulting effective section in
hogging bending is shown in Figure 3. Without this approach, change of
classification of the web from Class 2 to Class 3, due to small changes in
longitudinal reinforcement, would prevent plastic analysis from being used. As a
consequence, the calculated resistance moment would be unduly sensitive to
changes in reinforcement.
5. ELASTIC RESISTANCE MOMENT
Following global analysis at ULS, it is necessary to ensure that the proposed
sections possess adequate resistance to the internal moments and forces.

For a section in Class 3 or Class 4, stresses should be calculated by elastic theory.

To determine the section properties, allowance should be made for shear lag using
the appropriate effective width of the concrete flange for sagging or hogging
bending (see Figure 10 of Lecture 10.4.1). In the analysis it is assumed that strain
varies linearly over the full depth of the composite cross-section. This implies that
there is negligible slip at the steel-concrete interface. Use is made of the theory of
transformed sections, assuming that both concrete in compression and steel are
linearly elastic materials. This assumption enables the composite section in sagging
bending to be replaced in the analysis by an equivalent all-steel cross-section. The
breadth of the equivalent steel slab depends upon the modular ratio ae, defined by:

ae = Ea/E1c

where Ea is the elastic modulus of steel.

E1c is an appropriate elastic modulus for concrete.

The transformation is illustrated in Figure 4a for the case where the slab is formed
with profiled sheeting. The ribs of depth Dp run transverse to the beam and all
concrete above the ribs is in compression. The area of concrete within the depth of
the profiled steel sheet is ignored.

As elastic theory is being used, calculations are therefore similar to those to be

made for all classes of section when checking serviceability, and reference should
be made to Lectures 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 for detailed explanation of the analysis of
the transformed section. Account should be taken of creep of concrete in
compression due to permanent loads by use of an appropriate value for the modular
ratio.

In hogging bending, the whole of the concrete slab may be assumed to be cracked.
The effective section therefore comprises the structural steel section and effectively
anchored reinforcement within the effective width for hogging bending (Figure
5a).
The ultimate bending resistance of the member is attained when a stress reaches
the limiting strength of one of the components in the cross-section. In Eurocode 4
[1] the limiting strengths for ULS are as follows:

1. Structural steel in tension or compression fy/ga

2. Reinforcing steel in tension fsk /gs
3. Concrete in compression 0,85fck/gc

These limits are illustrated in Figure 4b for a section in sagging bending and in
Figure 5b for a section in hogging bending. In the particular cases shown, the
neutral axes are in the structural steel section.

For sections in Class 4, account should be taken of local buckling, for example by
using effective widths for the compression elements as described in Eurocode 3 [2]
and discussed in Lecture 7.3.

Where unpropped construction is used, stresses due to loads on the structural

steelwork alone need to be added to stresses due to loads on the composite
member.

When high vertical shear co-exists with high bending moment, account needs to be
taken of the resulting interaction. The manner in which vertical shear affects the
plastic resistance moment has been described in Lecture 10.3. For sections in Class
3 and Class 4, Section 4.4.3 of Eurocode 4 generally reduces the elastic resistance
moment to account for vertical shear.
6. LATERAL-TORSIONAL BUCKLING
In composite beams, the upper flange of the steel section is restrained against
lateral buckling by the concrete slab. However, the typical pattern of bending
moments in a continuous beam (see Figure 6a) results in the lower flange being in
compression in the region of internal supports. The length of the lower flange in
compression can be considerable when only dead load acts on the span under
consideration (Figure 6b).
Methods for the design of unrestrained steel beams against lateral-torsional
buckling, as discussed in Lectures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2, are not applicable to negative
moment regions of continuous composite beams because in the former case it is
assumed that each cross-section of the member rotates as a whole, without
distortion (see Figure 7a). In the negative moment region of a composite member,
the restraint afforded to the upper flange results in distortion of the cross-section if
the lower (compression) flange is to buckle laterally (Figure 7b). This restraint is
provided by the torsional stiffness of the slab, a

ctin
g together with adjacent steel sections as an inverted U-frame (Figure 8). The
effectiveness of the restraint is also dependent on the stiffness of the shear
connection.
For composite beams whose steel member is a conventional hot-rolled I-section,
inverted U-frame action may provide full restraint to the lower (compression)
flange. The conditions under which this can be assumed to be achieved are given in
Section 4.6.2 of Eurocode 4 [1]; they include some limitation on the depth of the
steel member, the restriction becoming more severe as the design strength of the
steel increases.

The effect of the restraint to the compression flange resulting from the distortional
stiffness of the cross-section, and other components in the U-frame action, can also
be accounted for by reducing the effective slenderness of the beam when
calculating the buckling resistance moment. Despite the possibility of local
plastification at the ends of the beam, the plastification is not considered to affect
the elastic mode of instability of the beam (Figure 9) because of the reducing
negative moment over the buckled length. A method for the calculation of the
slenderness is given in Eurocode 4, Annex B [1].
6.1 Lateral Restraint

The above method relates to the lateral stability of the member between restraints.
Two possible forms of discrete lateral restraint of the lower compression flange are
shown in Figure 10. It is necessary to ensure that such restraint is sufficiently
strong and stiff to be effective and that the pull-out strength of the shear connectors
is not exceeded. It is usual to check the resistance of the restraint components to a
lateral force calculated as a small percentage of that in the compression flange.
This is discussed further in Lecture 10.10 on composite bridges.
1. INTRODUCTION
Continuous beams offer the following advantages over simple construction:

1. greater load resistance.

2. greater stiffness.

These result in a smaller steel section being required to withstand specified

loading.
In this lecture, members are assumed to be continuous over simple supports or to
be rigidly connected to columns in braced frames. Additional cost will be incurred
if special methods, such as more complicated jointing, have to be provided to
achieve continuity. However, continuity of structural steel can be achieved
economically by running a single length of section across two or more spans. The
concrete is cast continuously over the supports and, to control shrinkage and other
cracking, the concrete is reinforced. A typical cross-section of a composite beam,
in the region of an internal support, is shown in Figure 1.

The disadvantages associated with continuous construction are:

1. increased complexity in design.

2. susceptibility to buckling in the negative moment region over internal
supports (see Figure 2a). Indeed this negative moment region may extend
over the whole of one span during construction (see Figure 2b). Two forms
of buckling may also be involved: local buckling of the web and/or bottom
flange, and lateral-torsional buckling. Only the former is treated here;
lateral-torsional buckling is discussed in the following Lecture 10.4.2.
After conceptual structural design has been done, which might possibly include
initial sizing of members based on experience or rough calculations, the designer
will wish to proceed to detailed calculations for the structure. The next stage is
therefore determination of internal moments and forces in critical regions for the
various loading cases and limit states. This is known as "global analysis" and
procedures for this, at the ultimate limit state, are discussed here and in the
following lecture.

Internal moments in continuous composite beams may be conveniently determined

by elastic analysis or, subject to certain conditions, by rigid-plastic analysis.
Whether plastic analysis is appropriate depends on the ductility of the
reinforcement and on the susceptibility of the steel section to local buckling, as
explained below. Elastic analysis is treated in the following lecture.

2. RIGID-PLASTIC GLOBAL ANALYSIS

This is a well-established method of analysis for determining internal moments and
forces in continuous steel structures. It is based on the assumption that plastic
regions are concentrated at discrete points which may be represented by "plastic
hinges". For the analysis to be valid, critical cross-sections must be capable of
developing and sustaining their plastic resistance moment until, under increasing
load, sufficient regions have fully-yielded for the plastic hinges to form a
mechanism.

The mechanism arises as a result of redistribution of moment which is achieved by

rotation of the already-yielded regions. To ensure that the resulting strains can be
accommodated without a reduction in resistance below the plastic moment,
limitations must be placed on the slenderness of the elements of the cross-sections
which are in compression. For steel structures, sections which can form a plastic
hinge with the rotation capacity required for plastic global analysis, are designated
Class 1 cross-sections. The limitations on flange slenderness and web slenderness
for such sections are given in design recommendations, such as Eurocode 3 [1], as
discussed in Lectures 7.2 and 7.3. These limitations recognise that some loss of
rotation capacity due to local buckling will be offset by beneficial effects such as
strain-hardening and the finite length of plastic regions. However, because of the
latter effect, it is necessary that cross-sections away from the theoretical locations
are also in Class 1, or at least in Class 2. By definition, Class 2 cross-sections can
develop the plastic resistance moment of the section although local buckling limits
the rotation capacity and prevents full redistribution of moment at such sections.

3. BEHAVIOUR OF CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE

BEAMS
The flexural performance of continuous composite beams has been investigated by
tests in which the secondary elements (shear connectors, transverse slab
reinforcement) were conservatively designed in order to preclude forms of failure
such as loss of interaction and longitudinal splitting of the slab. Initially, the
behaviour is substantially linear (Figure 3), but as load increases reduction in
flexural stiffness occurs.
In hogging moment regions, fine cracks appear in the concrete at relatively low
levels of load. As loading continues, cracking continues over an increasing length
and yielding and later strain-hardening may occur in the reinforcement and in the
lower (compression) part of the steel section. Redistribution of moment will occur
to the mid-span regions. Provided that collapse of the beam is not triggered by
crushing of the midspan concrete, by failure in shear, or by fracture of the
reinforcement, the support section will develop flange buckles, eventually causing
a loss of moment of resistance which initiates collapse (Figure 4).
In mid-span sagging moment regions, yielding occurs in the lower part of the steel
section and crushing occurs in the top of the concrete slab, causing redistribution
of moment to the supports. Typical sagging moment-curvature curves are shown in
Figure 5. The moment achieved can be significantly greater than the theoretical
plastic resistance moment (Mpl) of the composite section, mainly on account of
strain-hardening of the structural steel. It is evident from Figure 5, that deformation
may continue without drop in moment for a considerable curvature. However, the
rotation is small in composite beams having small slabs and/or weak concrete,
large steel sections and/or high yield stress; in such beams crushing limits the
rotation that will take place before reduction in moment occurs.
 Buckling equation for columns pinned at both ends
In order to analyse this structure, we’re going to use the differential equation of the
defection curve in which   is the internal bending moment at a given cross-
section,   represents the lateral deflection of the column and   the distance along
the length of the column.   is referred to as the flexural rigidity and is the product
of Young’s modulus   and the second moment of area of the cross-section  .

  
💡This equation simply models the deflected shape of the column for a
given flexural rigidity.
You’re likely to have come across this equation elsewhere in your engineering
studies. Our laterally deflected column behaves in much the same way as a beam.
Remember buckling is a bending failure rather than a failure due to direct
compression (crushing). Our task now, is to use this equation to derive an
expression for the critical axial load in a pinned-end column.

📌 Just as for the idealised structure discussed in the previous post, our derivation
here will also assume all deflections are small by comparison to the size of the
structure.

Establishing the differential equation

First consider the structure, its deflected shape and the free-body diagram that
results from cutting the structure at a distance   from the bottom support…

Taking moments about point A yields:

  
Substituting   back into the differential equation of the deflection curve and
rearranging slightly yields:

  
This is a linear, homogeneous, 2nd order differential equation with constant
coefficients. It also happens to be an equation that models the deflected shape of
our structure and contains  , the axial load. Following the same approach as for
the idealised structure discussed previously, if we solve this equation we can
determine  , the value of applied load at which it is balanced by the column’s
flexural bending resistance.

So we’re faced with trying to solve a differential equation. At this point, it’s
helpful to be able to point to the general solution of this form of differential
equation:

  
Solving the differential equation

If you want to take a detour at this point to see how the differential equation is
solved, watch the video below. Otherwise, we’ll continue working out the
constants of integration in the next section.