Augmented Analysis and Design

AUGMENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF y
COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES
By
DEVANG R. PANCHAL
Guide
Dr. S. C. Patodi
Former Professor of Structural Engg.
Applied Mechanics Department

Faculty of Technology and Engineering
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
Vadodara - 390001, Gujarat
October 2010
ProQuest Number: 3743194
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 3743194
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
AUGMENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES /
A Thesis Submitted to
For the Degree of
Doctor of Qfyilosopfyy
in
Civil Engineering
By
Devang Ramanlal Panchal
Research Guide
Dr. S. C. Patodi
?Tr*TfJrTg^TJ{

Faculty of Technology and Engineering
Vadodara - 390001, Gujarat
October 2010
Abstract
Advances that have been made recently in the field of structural engineering
in the form of new methods of analysis, design and construction, new
materials, environmental impact etc. have greatly influenced the people
involved in the research, teaching, design, fabrication and construction. In
the past, for the design of a building, the choice was normally between a
concrete structure and a masonry structure. But the failure of many multi
storeyed and low-rise R.C.C. and masonry buildings due to earthquake has
forced the structural engineers to look for the alternative method of
construction. Use of composite or hybrid material is of particular interest,
due to its significant potential in improving the overall performance through
rather modest changes in manufacturing and constructional technologies.
In steel-concrete composite construction, structural steel work is typically
used together with concrete; for example, composite deck slabs comprise
profiled steel decking as permanent formwork to support the underside of the
concrete slab spanning between supporting steel beam or steel beam with
concrete floor slabs or composite columns and steel beam etc. or the entire
frame may perform as a composite assemblage. The use of composite

elements has become quite popular in some of the countries due to the
significant economy resulting from reduced materials, more slender floor
depths and faster construction and earthquake resistance. However, in India,

it is comparatively new and no updated design codes are available for the
same.
In the present work, analysis and design software are developed with pre-,
main- and post- processing facilities in VB.NET for the design of composite
slabs, beams, columns, frames and multi storey buildings based on IS codes,
Euro codes and British codes. The calculation of the limit state of different
types of composite structural elements and frame is considered. All principal
design checks are incorporated in the software. The full and partial shear
1
connection and the requirement for transverse reinforcement are also
considered. To facilitate direct selection of steel section, a database is
prepared and is available at the back end with the properties of all standard
steel sections. The concept of equivalent stiffness is used for composite
steel-concrete members and the analysis is also carried out using the moment
distribution method through a program developed in Excel.
For the size optimization of steel-concrete composite beams, composite

columns and composite plane frames, programs are developed in Visual Basic
based on the Genetic Algorithm (GA). Also, optimization modules are
developed for the configuration optimization of Warren truss, Pratt truss and
Warren truss with Vierendeel panel.
Push-out tests are commonly used to determine the capacity and load-slip
behaviour of the shear connector. In the present work, a 2D finite element
model is developed to simulate the push-out test using ANSYS software. A
parametric study is carried out to study the effects on the capacity and
behaviour of shear connection of changing the profiled steel sheeting
geometries, the diameter and height of the headed stud, as well as the
strength of concrete. Further, the results of the proposed FE model are
compared with the Indian and European specifications.
A parametric study of G+3 storied residential composite building is carried

out using various profile decks, beam sections, load pattern, country codes,
orientation of columns and grades of concrete using the software STAAD.Pro
V8i. Further, a G+10 storey steel-concrete composite commercial building is
considered under three different earthquake zones with medium class soil.
Total 10 models are analyzed and designed using the Equivalent Static
Method of Analysis and Response Spectrum Method of Analysis. For the
purpose of comparison, best efficient and economical section sizes are
selected through optimization process. Also, the response of a steel-concrete
building vis-a-vis a R.C.C. building under seismic forces is critically
examined.
ii
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitfecf AUGMENTED ANALYSIS AND

DESIGN OF COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES
su6mittecC 6y Shri Devang Ramanlal Panchal represents his
originaf worh^ which was carried out 6y him at JApptied ^Mechanics
(Department, Tacufty ofTechnoCogy and Engineering, The Tt. S. University
of (Baroda, Vadodara under my guidance and supervision for the award of
the (Degree of (Doctor of (PhiCosophy in CiviC Engineering.
The matter presented in this thesis has not 6een submitted anywhere ehse
for the award of any other degree.
Vadodara
October 2010 Research Guide
Dr. 1.1. Pandya

Head
w" Dean ^ ^ \\
Faculty of Technology and Engineer
The M. S. University of Baroda
Vadodara - 390001
Offg. Dean
Faculty of Teclpi.i& Engg.
M. S. University of Baroda,
RarnHa
Acknowledgments
blessings in the form of enormous strength of mind and body to accomplish the
present research work.
I feel immensely pleased to reveal my deep and genuine gratitude to my respected

Guide, Dr. S. C. Patodi, Former Professor of Structural Engineering, Applied
Mechanics Department, Faculty of Technology and Engineering, M.S. University of
Baroda and at present working as a Professor in Civil Engineering Department at the
Parul Institute of Engineering and Technology, Vadodara, whose perpetual energy
and enthusiasm in research served as a constant source of inspiration that made the
research endeavour smooth and rewarding for me. Fie sets a world-class example of
a guide with a clear meticulous attitude with profound concern, affection and care.
His immeasurable care in going through the manuscript and important suggestions
for improving the same has made it possible to submit the thesis in the present form.
I am grateful to Head of Applied Mechanics Department, who has been kind enough
to provide me the necessary computational facilities and moral support for this
research work.
1 am specially indebted to Dr. N. K. Solanki. Assistant Professor, Applied

Mechanics Department, for his invaluable suggestions and encouragement
throughout this work. 1 am also very thankful to all other staff members of the
Applied Mechanics Department who helped me directly or indirectly during the
entire course of the present work.
My deepest gratitude goes to my parents and my in-laws for their unflagging love
and incredible support at each and every step of this voyage.
Last but certainly not the least, 1 am thankful to my wife, Bhavika, for being a
constant source of inspiration and encouragement, during the entire course of this
work.
October 2010 D. R.Panchal
iv
CONTENTS
Abstract
Certificate
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction to Composite Construction
1.2 Advantages of Composite Construction
1.3 Limit State Method for Composite Construction
1.4 GA as an Optimization Technique
1.5 Scope and Objectives of the Present Work
1.6 Organization of the Thesis
2. Genetic Algorithm - An Overview

2.1. GA Terminology
2.2. Working of Genetic Algorithm
2.3. Coding of Design Variables
2.4. Fitness Evaluation and Fitness Scaling
2.5. Genetic Operators
2.6. Termination Criterion
2.7. Recommended Values of GA Parameters
2.8. GA Flow Chart for Solving a Problem
3. Literature Review
4. Development of Program for Composite Slabs

4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Composite Slab Elements
4.3 Analysis of Composite Slab
4.4 Resistance of Composite Slab to Bending
4.5 Shear Resistance of Composite Slab
4.6 Design of Composite Slab
4.7 Illustrative Example
4.8 Program for Composite Slabs
v
5. Development of Program for Composite Beams 64-103
5.1 An Overview
5.2 Behavior of Simply Supported Composite Beam
5.3 Behavior of Continuous Composite Beam
5.4 Basis of the Design
5.5 Design of Composite Beams
5.6 Other Design Aspects
5.8 Program for Composite Beams
6. Development of Program for Composite Columns 104-129

6.1 Preamble
6.2 Calculation Methods
6.3 Local Buckling of Steel Elements
6.4 Force Transfer at Beam-Column Connections
6.5 Design Method
6.7 Program for Composite Columns
7. Simplified Analysis and Design of Composite Frames 130-138

7.1 Introduction
7.2 Elastic Design Approach
7.3 Material Modelling
7.4 Sway and Non-sway Frames
7.5 Frame Analysis using ETABS Software
7.6 Frame Analysis using Moment Distribution Method
7.7 Frame Analysis using ANSYS Software
8. GA Based Optimization of Composite Elements 139-162

8.1 General Remarks
8.2 Optimum Design Parameters for Composite Beam
8.3 GA Based Program Developed for Composite Beams
8.4 Design Example with Fixed Beam Spacing
8.5 Variable Beam Spacing without RCC Slab Example
8.6 Variable Beam Spacing with RCC Slab Example
8.7 Optimum Design Parameters for Composite Column
8.8 GA Based Program Developed for Composite Columns
8.9 Composite Column Design Examples
9. GA Based Optimum Design of Composite Frames 163-182

9.1 General Remarks
9.2 Size Optimization Problem Formulation
9.3 Optimum Design Algorithm for Composite Frames
9.4 Design Example of a 1 x 2 Storey Composite Frame
9.7 A Parametric Study
10. GA Based Optimization of Composite Trusses 183-207

10.1 General Remarks
10.2 Truss Configurations in Common Use
10.3 Analysis and Design of Composite Truss
10.4 Configuration Optimization Problem Formulation
10.5 GA Implementation
10.6 Program Developed for the Composite Trusses
10.7 Optimum Design Example of a Warren Truss
10.8 Optimum Design Example of a Pratt Truss
10.9 Warren Truss Example with Vierendeel Panel
10.10 Comparison of Results
11. FE Modeling of Shear Connection 208-232

11.1 Introduction to FEM
11.2 Description of Push-out Test
11.3 Design Strength of Shear Connectors
11.4 ANSYS as an Analysis Package
11.5 FE Modelling of Push-Out Test with Solid Slab
11.6 FE Modelling of Push-Out Test with Deck Slab
vii
12. FE Modeling of Composite Beams 233-244
12.1 Preamble
12.2 Elements Selected

12.3 Material Properties
12.4 Failure Criterion
12.5 Validation of Model- SS Beam Example
12.6 Modeling of Continuous Beam
13. Parametric Study of A Composite Steel-Concrete Building 245-282

13.2 Moment-Rotation Curves
13.3 Types of Frames
13.4 Linear Static Analysis
13.5 Modelling of Buildings
13.6 Parametric Study
14. Seismic Behaviour of A Composite Building 283-327

14.1 Structure’s Important Dynamic Properties
14.2 Procedures for Seismic Analysis
14.3 Comparison of Seismic Analysis Methods
14.4 Seismic Design Provisions for Composite Structures
14.5 Design Example
14.6 Structural Modelling in STAAD.Pro Environment
15. Conclusions and Future Scope 328-336

15.1 Summary
15.2 Conclusions
15.3 Future Scope
References 337-346
Appendix -1 List of Papers Published 347-349
viii
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction to Composite Construction

The composite structure/construction is the way to arrange different materials in an optimum
geometric configuration, with the aim that only the desirable property of each material will be
utilized by virtue of its designated position. As per IS 11384 [1] the composite construction
consists of the use of prefabricated structural units like steel beams, precast reinforced or
prestressed concrete beams in combination with in-situ concrete. The construction should
ensure monolithic action between the prefabricated and in-situ components so that they act as
a single structural unit. In other way, two load-carrying structural members of different
materials such as steel beam and concrete slab are integrally connected so that they behave as
a single unit [2], These essentially different materials are completely compatible and
complementary to each other; they have almost the same thermal expansion and have an ideal
combination of strengths with the concrete efficient in compression and the steel in tension.
In composite construction, composite slab is defined as a slab system comprising normal

weight or lightweight structural concrete, placed permanently over cold-formed steel deck in
which the steel deck performs dual roles of acting as a form for the concrete during
construction and as positive reinforcement for the slab during service. A composite beam is
formed by a reinforced concrete slab attached to the upper flange of a hot-rolled or welded
steel beam by shear connectors so that the two components act together as a single section.
Their action is similar to that of a monolithic Tee beam. A Steel-concrete composite column
is comprising of either a concrete encased hot-rolled steel section or a concrete filled tubular
section of hot-rolled steel and is generally used as a load bearing member in a composite
framed structure. With the use of composite column along with composite decking and
composite beams, it is possible to erect high-rise structure in an extremely efficient manner.
The first systematic approach in the field of composite construction was reported in 1925 on
testing of composite beams [3]. The relevant design criteria for design of composite
1, Introduction
structures were established in 1930. Later, Newmark et al. [4] developed elastic approach to
utilize full and partial composite action. Based on the above work, behaviour as well as
flexural strength of steel concrete composite construction was explained by Slutter [5] using
ultimate strength approach. During the 1980’s in UK and USA, structures with steel concrete
composite elements experienced a renaissance, resulting in new construction concept and
structural details.
Unfortunately these two important building materials, steel and concrete, are promoted by
two different industries. Since these industries are in direct competition with each other, it is
sometimes difficult to promote the best use of the two materials. It should be added that the
combination of concrete cores, steel frame and composite floor construction has become now
the standard construction method for multi-storey buildings in several countries.
Consequently, composite construction is just now entering its second phase of expansion and
growth.
> In USA, UK and many other European countries most of the multi-storey buildings,
office buildings and multi-storey car parking are now constructed with steel concrete
composite element.
> Much progress has been made in Japan, where combination of concrete cores, steel
frame and composite floor construction is the standard system for tall buildings as
they are best suited to resist repeated earthquake loadings, which require a high
amount of resistance and ductility.
> For India, composite steel concrete construction is comparatively a new concept as no
appropriate updated design codes are available. During the last few decades, however,
few such constructions have come up in India due to the potential benefit of
composite steel-concrete construction.
1.2 Advantages of Composite Construction
Composite construction offers following advantages [6] over non-composite construction:
• Speed of construction: Use of rolled steel sections, profiled metal decking and/or
prefabricated composite members speed up the execution. For maximum efficiency and
economy the joints should be cheap to fabricate and straightforward to erect on site.
Hence one gets a quick return of the invested capital.
2
1. Introduction
• Effective utilisation of material: In composite construction, RCC slab is in

compression and steel joist is in tension and hence one has the most effective utilization
of the material.
• Higher stiffness: The bending stiffness of composite beam is about two to three
times higher than the steel beam alone thus it experiences less deflection and floor
vibrations which results in a safe structure.
• Shallower construction: The stiffness and bending resistance of composite beams
is higher so beams can be shallower for the same span. This may lead to smaller storey
height and saving in cost of cladding.
• Saving in weight: Reduction in overall weight of beam by saving in steel weight is
typically 30% to 50% over non-composite beam. Lighter beams require smaller columns
and less steel tonnage to be supported which reduce the foundation size.
• More usable space: Composite construction provides efficient arrangement to cover
large column free space. Even keeping span and loading unaltered, a lower structural steel
section (having lesser depth and weight) can be provided in composite construction.
• Structural stability: The concrete slab or deck slab is tightly connected to steel
beam by shear connectors so as to act as a diaphragm to resist lateral loads on the
structure.
• Better seismic resistance: Due to improved ductility and higher resistance,
composite construction is best suited to resist repeated earthquake loadings.
• Fire resistance: Less fire proofing of beams exposed faces due to reduced depth.
Encased steel beam sections in concrete result in improved fire resistance and corrosion.
1.3 Limit State Method for Composite Construction

1.3.1 Basis Of Design
The aim of structural design may be stated as the achievement of acceptable probabilities that
the structure being designed will not become unfit for the use for which it is required during
its intended life. Steel-concrete composite structures shall be designed by the limit state
method using the partial safety factor. A composite structure or part of it is considered unfit
for use when it exceeds a particular state called the limit state, beyond which it infringes one
of the criteria governing its use. The limit states can be classified into: The ultimate limit
states, which are those corresponding to the maximum load-carrying capacity; and the
3
1. Introduction
serviceability limit states, which are related to the criteria governing normal use and
durability.
In steel-concrete composite structures used in buildings, the significant ultimate limit states to
be considered are listed below:
> Collapse due to flexural failure of one or more critical sections.
> Collapse due to horizontal shear failure at the interface between beam and the slab.
> Collapse due to vertical separation of the concrete slab from the steel beam.
The important serviceability limit states to be considered are:

> Limit state of deflection.
> Limit state of stresses in concrete and steel.
Other less common serviceability conditions relating to control of vibrations are not included
in EC 4 [7] and IS 11384 [1], No reference is given to limiting values for deflections in EC4.
Therefore, calculated deflections should be compared with specified maximum values in EC
3 [8] and IS 11384, which tabulates limiting vertical deflections for beams.
1.3.2 Structural Analysis
For the ultimate limit state, both elastic and plastic global analysis may be used, although
certain conditions apply to the use of plastic analysis. When using elastic analysis the stages
of construction need to be considered. The stiffness of the concrete may be based on the
uncracked condition for braced structure. In other cases, some account may need to be taken
of concrete cracking by using a reduced stiffness over a designated length of beam. The
effect of creep is accounted for by using appropriate values of the modular ratio, but
shrinkage and temperature effects may be ignored.
Rigid-plastic global analysis is allowed for non-sway frames, and unbraced frames of two
storeys or less, with some restrictions on cross-sections. Also, elastic analysis must be used
for the serviceability limit state. The effective width is as defined for the ultimate limit state,
and appropriate allowances maybe made for concrete cracking, creep and shrinkage.
1.4 GA As An Optimization Technique

Genetic Algorithm (GA) is very effective at finding the optimal solution to a variety of
problems. This innovative technique performs especially well when solving complicated real
world problems because it does not impose limitations similar to those imposed by the
4
1. Introduction
traditional optimization methods. This technique is inspired by the Darwin’s theory of natural
evolution and natural genetics [9]. It finds an optimal solution by generating population of
solution strings randomly and improving the solutions in succeeding generations.
Since most classical algorithms are serial in nature, not much advantage can be achieved
from them. While GAs are stochastic, parallel search algorithms which are designed
efficiently to search large, non-linear, poorly understood search spaces where traditional
optimization techniques fail [10]. They are flexible (domain independent) and robust,
exhibiting the adaptiveness and graceful degradation of biological systems.
A GA begins its search with a random set of solutions usually coded in a binary string form.
Every solution is assigned a fitness which is directly related to the objective function of the
. search and optimization problem. Thereafter, the population of solutions is modified to a new
population by applying three operators similar to natural genetic operators-reproduction,
crossover and mutation. A GA works iteratively by successively applying these three
operators in each generation till a termination criterion is satisfied. GAs have been
successfully applied to a wide variety of problems because of their simplicity, global
perspective and inherent parallel processing capabilities.
1.5 Scope And Objectives of The Present Work

Composite structural forms have been extensively developed in the western world to
maximise the respective benefits of using structural steel and concrete combination, but this
technology was largely ignored earlier in India due to the non-availability of skilled
labourers, inefficient codes, limitation of rolled sections and misconception regarding
corrosion of steel [11]. It is a fact that now due to the availability of skilled labour, new rolled
sections, advancement in anticorrosive paints; engineers have started designing composite
and mixed building systems of structural steel and reinforced concrete to produce more
efficient structures when compared to designs using either material alone. Generally,
composite deck slabs comprise of profiled steel decking as permanent formwork to support
the underside of the concrete slab spanning between supporting beam. This floor system
offers numerous advantages over traditional reinforce concrete construction. Time as well as
cost involved in a composite construction comes down, particularly by using pre-fabricated
steel beams and profile steel decks, avoiding use of any other temporary shuttering materials
or props and utilizing mechanized construction procedure. Also, the life of structures is much
higher (more than double) than that of reinforced concrete structures. To accelerate the
5
1. Introduction
adoption of such innovations of fast track design and construction methodology in India,
ready design codes, simplified modelling techniques, low cost analysis and design software
are required so as to utilize the full potential of composite steel-concrete construction.
The growing body of experimental research is increasingly providing engineers with

guidance on the analysis and design of composite members and systems. But the full-scaled
experimental tests remain a costly and time-consuming option, hence the analytical procedure
that can predict the nonlinear response are to be developed in order to replace most of the
experiments once the verification of the analytical method has been established from
selective, well-controlled experimental results.
The primary goal of this research work is to fill the knowledge gap and to facilitate the
greater acceptance and use of composite steel concrete systems as a viable alternative to
conventional systems. It is aimed to develop pre-and post-processors in Visual Basic.NET
[12] for the analysis and design of composite steel-concrete elements. Visual Basic.NET,
environment is selected here because it is designed to make significant improvements in code
reuse, code specialization, resource management, multi-language development, security,
deployment and administration. The .NET framework is the foundation on which one can
design, develop and deploy applications. Its consistent and simplified programming model
makes it easier to build robust applications.
Structural optimization is the process of finding optimum shape and size of the structure
while satisfying various constraints imposed by design codes and other functional
requirements proposed by engineers and designers. From the literature review, it is found that
one of the soft computing tools i.e. Genetic Algorithm (GA), which is based on the concept
of the survival of the fittest, has been mainly used for the design optimization of steel and
RCC structures [13-20]. It has been successfully applied to a variety of problems of size,
configuration and topology optimization of structure. However, the use of GA for the
optimum design of composite structures has not been taken up in any research study so far.
As varieties of shapes and sizes of composite structural components are used in construction,
it will be certainly beneficial to find the optimum size of concrete slab and steel beam in
composite slab beam construction and optimum shape and size of composite column.
Therefore, in the present work, another important objective is to develop GA based programs
for the size optimization of various composite structural components and to attempt, where
possible, configuration optimization of composite structures.
6
1. Introduction
A number of popular finite element analysis packages are now available commercially. Some
of the popular packages are STAAD.Pro, ANSYS, GT STRUDEL, NASTRAN, NISA,
ABAQUS, ETABS and COSMOS. Using these packages, one can analyse and design
different types of complex structures. For the true representation of the behavior of a complex
structure like composite structure, however, it requires sound knowledge of finite element
modelling of the problem. In the present work, it is not only planned to simplify finite
element modelling of push out test and composite beams but also to carry out detailed
parametric study of composite steel-concrete buildings using the suitable commercially
available software.
Consistent with the above, the objectives of the present investigation are listed as follows:
> To identify the theory related to the analysis and design of steel-concrete composite
components and to study carefully the different codal provisions for the development of
the computer code.
> To develop user friendly programs in Visual Basic.NET for the analysis and design of
composite steel-concrete slabs, beams, columns, and frames to not only eliminate a
number of large scale tests needed for the design but also to promote the use of such
programs.
> To use the concept of transformed section and moment distribution method to develop
program in Excel for steel - concrete composite sections under various loadings which
may prove useful in actual practice due to its simplicity and effectiveness in solving
framed structure problems.
> To develop programs based on Genetic Algorithm to find the optimum combinations of
sections for beams and columns in the steel-concrete composite frames to achieve greater
economy in the high rise structures.
> To develop a program in .Net environment especially for the design of composite truss,
using limit state method of design and thus to attempt both size and configuration
optimization of composite truss.
> To carry out a simplified modelling of shear connector, which plays a very important role
in ensuring the composite behavior in a structural system, with the aim to simulate
working of push out test using Finite Element Method (FEM) with solid slab and deck
slab options to study the behavior of shear stud under various conditions.
> To carry out parametric study of push-out test specimens with different size headed studs
as well as concrete strength using FE models.
7
1. Introduction
> To develop 2D FE models of composite simply supported and continuous beams to know
the mid span deflection of beam subjected to concentrated or uniformly distributed load
and thus to know the longitudinal slip at the steel-concrete interface.
> To carryout detailed parametric study of a composite building using various codes,
different types of profile sheets, sections, column orientations and grades of concrete.
> To study a multi-storey building under the effect of earthquake forces using equivalent
static approach and response spectrum method.
1.6 Organization of The Thesis

Chapter 1 starts with brief introduction to composite construction and its advantages. It also
describes the limit state method for composite steel-concrete construction, Genetic
Algorithms for optimization followed by the scope and objectives of the present work.
Chapter 2 explains the working principles of Genetic Algorithms with brief description of
various GA parameters and operators. Also, the steps required for solving a problem are
given in the form of flow chart.
Chapter 3 is devoted to detailed review of literature based on the experimental, numerical

and FE modelling work reported in the literature on composite structures.
Chapter 4 introduces the general behavior and role played by the profile steel sheets in
composite deck slab. After giving the basic formulation, analysis and design program
developed in VB.NET is illustrated with the help of different menus and forms created for
supply of data and display of results for composite slab with profiled sheets.
The behavior and design of composite beam are shown in Chapter 5. The concept of partial
interaction is introduced. A software is developed using VB.NET for composite simply
supported and continuous beams and the results are compared with the available solutions.
Chapter 6 is devoted to tire design of composite columns where a program is developed

incorporating the principal checks of composite column under different loading conditions.
Design of steel concrete composite column is carried, out according to the Eurocode 4 and
demonstrated with the help of suitable examples.
Chapter 7 explains the concept of equivalent stiffness used for the composite steel-concrete
members. A program in the form of Excel sheet is developed to facilitate the analysis based
8
1. Introduction
on the moment distribution method and the results obtained are compared with those
provided by the commercially available ETABS and ANSYS software.
For the size optimization of steel-concrete composite beam and composite columns, a
program is developed in VB based on Genetic Algorithm (GA) in Chapter 8 and is
illustrated with the help of suitable examples.
In Chapter 9, GA based optimization module is augmented to tackle problems of moment

resistant composite plane frames with equal as well as unequal bay width and storey height.
The developed module provides graphical user interface wherein geometry, load and support
conditions can be specified graphically.
Chapter 10 describes the various types of composite trusses and a program which is
designed for steel-concrete composite trusses using GA. It also considers provisions of limit
state method of design as per British Standards.
Chapter 11 explains push out test for shear connector which gives capacity and load-slip
behavior of shear connectors. Here a 2D FEM model is developed to simulate the push out
test using ANSYS software. A parametric study is also carried out to study the effect on the
capacity and behaviour of shear connectors.
Chapter 12 explains the behaviour of a simply supported composite beam and a continuous
composite beam which is modeled using the ANSYS software. Detailed parametric study is
carried out using the FEM and results are compared with the available experimental results to
confirm the proposed modeling aspects.
In Chapter 13, a 3D model of G+3 storey buildings is developed in STAAD.Pro software

and analysis and design is carried out with detailed parametric study by changing country
codes, design methods, concrete grades, loading conditions, profile sheets etc. to see the
effect of change of these parameters on the analysis and design.
Chapter 14 is devoted to highlight the significant advantages of use of multi-storey

composite construction of steel-concrete as the primary lateral resistance system in building
structure subjected to seismic load. Here equivalent static analysis and response spectrum
analysis (Dynamic analysis) are carried out for earthquake loading and 3D model is generated
for B+G+9 storey building in STAAD.Pro software for the analysis and design.
Finally, Chapter 15, after a recap, highlights the important conclusions of the present work
followed by the recommendations for the future work.
9
2. Genetic Algorithms - An Overview
2.1 GA Terminology
Genetic Algorithms (GAs), which are adaptive methods used to solve search and
optimization problems, are based on the genetic processes of biological organisms [10]. As
GA is quite efficient and easy to use in finding a nearly global optimum solution, it has been
used by a number of researchers in a variety of structural engineering applications. In GAs, a
design variable is not generally presented by its actual design value, instead a sufficiently
long arrays of bits is used to code it.
The technical terms related to GA are as follows:

• Coding : The representation of problem specific variables in a form suitable for genetic
operators to operate and produce better offspring, e.g. binary coding, real coding.
• Decoding : The reverse process of coding. The coded variables are converted to a form
representing the actual value of the variables.
• Mapping : Mapping is the process of scaling the decoded values of various variables
between their upper and lower limits.
• Population : Number of chromosomes or solution string in each GA generation.
• Population Size : Number of solution strings in one GA generation is known as
population size. If there are too few chromosomes, GA has a few possibilities to perform
crossover and only a small part of search space is explored. On the other hand, if there are
too many chromosomes, GA slows down.
• Generation : A generation is one complete cycle of various genetic operators like
reproduction, crossover, mutation, selection, etc. on a set of population strings.
• Objective Function : It is the function indicating the main objective to be achieved
i.e. representing the parameter to be optimized.
• Constraints : Specific conditions pertaining to the problem under consideration, which
should not be violated.
10
Penalty : It is the punishment bearded by the fitness value of a population for violating
a constraint.
Fitness : Fitness indicates the “goodness” or quality of the solution. Better the solution
more is the fitness of the solution. It is used as a criterion for selecting strings that are to
be used for creating a mating pool.
Fitness Scaling : Fitness scaling is implemented to prevent some strong solution
string from dominating the whole population in early generation and to give a fair
survival chance to weaker population members.
Selection : The technique used to determine which chromosomes in a population will
serve as parents for the next generation.
Mating Pool : It is a collection of strings, chosen on the basis of their fitness values,
for the purpose of carrying out genetic operations like mutation and crossover in order to
produce better off springs.
Roulette Wheel Selection : It is used for selecting members of old population for
mating and producing new members of next population, based on probability theory.
Parent String : The string selected from the mating pool for producing new child
strings.
Crossover : The method used to exchange parts of two parent chromosomes to create
two child chromosomes, which have attributes from both parents.
Mutation : It is the process of occasional alteration of a bit of population strings in
order to prevent the algorithm from getting trapped into local optimum solution and to
maintain the diversity of population.
Child String : The string resulting from the parent string after application of various
genetic operators on the parent strings.
Elitism : In this method, one copy of best member in a population passes unchanged to
the next population to ensure that any optimized value is no worse than the best
previously attained and the rest of the new population is filled by the traditional selection,
crossover and mutation. Elitism can very rapidly increase the performance of GA because
it prevents loosing the best found solutions.
Generation Gap : The generation gap G is a parameter which controls the percentage
of the population to be replaced during each generation. In order to minimize the
disruption of the structure of the population and improve the exploitation efficiency, a
small generation gap is beneficial.
2.2 Working of Genetic Algorithm

In the most common type of GA, a population is created with a group of individuals created
randomly. The individuals in the population are then evaluated. The evaluation function is
provided by the programmer which gives the individuals a score based on how well they
perform at the given task. Two individuals are then selected based on their fitness. Higher is
the fitness, higher is the chance of being selected. These individuals then "reproduce" to
create one or more offsprings, after which the offsprings are mutated randomly. This
continues until a suitable solution has been found or a certain number of generations have
passed, depending on the needs of the programmer. A schematic representation of the
evolution process is shown in Fig. 2.1.
Fig 2.1 Schematic Diagram of GA Based Optimization
2.3 Coding of Design Variables

Encoding of chromosomes is one of the important tasks to be performed, when solving
optimization problem using GA. There are a large number of coding schemes. The
selection of a particular encoding scheme is based on the type of optimization problem
under consideration. As binary encoding is generally used in structural optimization
problems, it is discussed here in detail.
In binary encoding every chromosome is a string of bits, 0 or 1. Binary encoding gives many
possible chromosomes even with a small number of alleles.
Chromosome A 101100101100101011100101
Chromosome B 111111100000110000011111
The length of string is usually determined according to the desired accuracy of the solution.
For example, if four bits are used to code each variable in two variable function optimization
12
problem, the strings (0000 0000) and (1111 1111) would represent the points (Xi(L), X2(L))T
and (Xi(U), X2(U))Trespectively, because the substring (0000) and (1113) have the minimum
and the maximum decoded values. Any other eight-bit string can be found to represent a
point in the search space according to a fixed mapping rule. Usually the following linear
mapping rule is used:
'Xt(U)~Xt(L)
Xi=Xi(L) + x decoded value (Si) (2.1)
2li -1
The variable Xj is coded in a substring Si of length lj. The decoded value of a binary substring
S, is calculated as X 2J.Sj, j = 0 to lj-1. For example, a four bit string (1110) has a decoded
value equal to [(0).2° + (1).2' + (1).22 + (1 )-23] i.e. 14. With four bits to code each variable
there are only 24 or 16 distinct substring possible, because each bit position can take a value
either 0 or 1. The accuracy that can be obtained with a four-bit coding is only approximately
1/16th of the search space. It is not necessary to code all variables in equal substring length.
The length of substring representing a variable depends upon the desired accuracy of that
variable and is given by [Xj (U) - X; (L)] / 2.1,. After coding of variables the corresponding
point X = (Xj, X2, Xn)T can be found. Thereafter, the function value at that point can be
calculated by substituting X in the given objective function f(X).
2.4 Fitness Evaluation and Fitness Scaling

2.4.1 Fitness Evaluation
GAs mimic the survival of the fittest principle of the nature to make the search process. Thus,
GA’s are naturally suitable for solving maximization problems. The fitness is the measure of
ability of individual for survival. In general, a fitness function F(x) is first derived from the
objective function and used in successive genetic operations. Some genetic operators require
the fitness function to be non-negative. For maximization problems the fitness function can
be considered the same as the objective function i.e. F(x) = f(x). For minimization problems
the fitness function transforms it in to an equivalent maximization problem such that the
optimum point remains unchanged. The following transformation is normally used:
(2.2)
* 1+/C0
2.4.2 Fitness Scaling
It is very important to regulate the number of copies in a small population of GA. During the
early stages of GA runs, it is common to have a few extraordinary individuals in a population
13
of mediocre colleagues. If normal selection rule is used, the extraordinary individuals would
take over a significant proportion of finite population in a single generation, which may lead
to premature convergence. In the later stages of GA runs, although there may be significant
diversity within the population, the population average fitness may be close to the population
best fitness. This will lead to a situation wherein the average members and the best members
gets the same number of copies in the future generations, and the survival of fittest, necessary
for improvement in solution, becomes a random walk among the mediocre. Scaling helps to
prevent early domination of extraordinary individuals, while later on encourages a healthy
competition among near equals. Thus, in both the cases, i.e. at beginning of the run and as the
run progresses fitness scaling can be of immense help.
2.5 Genetic Operators

There are mainly three operators used in genetics. They are Reproduction, Crossover and
Mutation. The reproduction operator selects good strings and the crossover operator
recombines good strings together to hopefully create a better substring. The mutation
operator alters a string locally.to hopefully create a better substring.
2.5.1 Reproduction
The basic idea in any reproduction operator is that above average strings are picked from the
current population and their multiple copies are inserted in the mating pool in a probabilistic
manner. A string is selected for the matting pool with a probability proportional to its fitness.
If H(x) is the objective function then the H(x) is converted in to a corresponding fitness
values and is done in such a way that the best individual has maximum fitness. According to
Goldberg [9], for minimization problems, H(x) should be subtracted from a large constant so
that all the fitness value are obtained according to the actual merit. The large constant is
obtained by adding the maximum and minimum value of the H(x). Thus, the expression for
the fitness becomes:
Ft = W(x)max + H(x)max\ - Hf(x) ... (2.3)
where, Fj is the fitness of the i* population. The factor Fj/FaVg for all the individuals is
calculated where Favg is the average fitness. The factor is the excepted count of the
individuals in the mating pool and is then converted in to the actual count by approximately
rounding off so that individuals get copies in the mating pool according to their fitness. As
the number of individuals (populations) in the next generation is the same, the worst fit
individuals die off. In the next generation these best populations are mated randomly and
14
crossed at random lengths of the full string.
2.5.2 Crossover
Crossover operator is applied to the mating pool with a hope that it would create a better
string. In this, pair of strings known as parent strings is selected form the mating pool at
random and some portion of the strings is exchanged between the strings. The two resulting
string obtained from the crossover operation are known as child strings or offsprings. Thus,
good substrings from parent strings can be combined to form a better child string, if an
appropriate crossover site is chosen. The populations obtained after crossing will form new
population set for the next generation. The following are few types of crossover operators
available in genetic algorithm:
2.5.2.1 Single Point Crossover

One crossover point is selected, binary string from beginning of chromosome to the crossover
point is copied from one parent, and the rest is copied from the second parent as shown in
Fig. 2.2.
Before Crossover
ooooooooocooooooo
After Crossover
Fig. 2.2 Single Point Crossover Example
2.5.2.2 Two Point Crossover

Two crossover points are selected, binary string from beginning of chromosome to the first
crossover point is copied from one parent, the part from the first to the second crossover point
is copied from the second parent and the rest is copied from the first parent again as depicted
in Fig. 2.3
15
Before Crossover
oooooocoooocooooo
After Crossover
w\A7UUva7v7\. A A.A ,A^7wV_A_A_y

Fig. 2.3 Two Point Crossover Example
2.5.2.3 Uniform Crossover

Bits are randomly copied from the first or the second parent. This type of crossover, assign
“head” to one parent and “tail” to the other parent. Then, a coin is flipped for each gene of
first child. An inverse copy of first one is made for the second child as shown in Fig. 2.4.
Before Crossover
00000000000000000
After Crossover
O§OO0OCM)OOOOOOiO
rv y yv y \nnrv v~v
wvAvwvoWwvAVWWWV. v~\r\
yWVAvW
Fig. 2.4 Uniform Crossover Example
16
2.S.2.4 Arithmetic Crossover

Some arithmetic operation is performed to make a new offspring. A crossover
operator linearly combines two parent chromosome vectors to produce two new
offspring according to the following equations:
Offspring! =a *Parentl + (l-a) * Parent2

Offspring2 = (1 - a) * Parent! + a * Parent2
where, a = random weighting factor (chosen before each crossover operation).
The effect of crossover may be detrimental or beneficial. Thus, in order to preserve some of
good strings that are already present in the mating pool, not all strings in the mating pool are
used in crossover. When a crossover probability of Pc is used, only !00.Pc percent strings in
the population are used in the crossover operation and the 100 (1 - Pc) percent of the
population remains as they are in the current population.
Crossover probability means how often will be crossover performed. If there is no crossover,
offspring is exact copy of parents. If there is a crossover, offspring is made from parts of
parents' chromosome. If crossover probability is 100%, then all offspring is made by
crossover. If it is 0%, whole new generation is made from exact copies of chromosomes from
old population. But this does not mean that the new generation is the same.
2.5.3 Mutation
Purpose of mutation is to simulate the effect of error that happens with low probability during
duplication. One can restore lost information to the population by mutation. Mutation also
helps to prevent the population from stagnating. Much of the power of a GA comes from the
fact that it contains a rich set of strings of great diversity. Mutation helps to maintain that
diversity throughout the GA’s iterations. Thus, mutation creates a point in the neighbourhood
of the current point, thereby achieving a local search around the current solution.
The GA uses a mutation probability, Pm, which dictates the frequency at which mutation
occurs. For each string element in each string in the mating pool, the GA checks to see if it
should perform a mutation. If it should, it randomly changes the element value to a new one.
In binary strings, 1 s are changed to 0s and 0s to 1 s. For example, the GA decides to mutate
bit position 5 in the string 100000 as follows.
Mutate
100000 ------------- ►. 100010
17
The mutation probability should be kept very low (usually about 0.001%) as a high mutation
rate will destroy fit strings and degenerate the GA algorithm into a random walk, with all the
associated problems.
2.6 Termination Criterion
Termination is the criterion by which the GA decides whether to continue searching or stop
the search. Some of the well-known termination methods are:
i. Generation Number : A termination method that stops the evolution when the user-
specified maximum numbers of evolutions have been run.
ii. Evolution Time : A termination method that stops the evolution when the elapsed
evolution time exceeds the user-specified maximum evolution time.
iii. Fitness Threshold : A termination method that stops the evolution when the best
fitness in the current population becomes greater than the user-specified fitness
threshold.
iv. Fitness Convergence : A termination method that stops the evolution when the fitness
is deemed as converged.
v. Population Convergence : A termination method that stops the evolution when the
population is deemed as converged.
2.7 Recommended value of GA Parameters
Here some general recommendations are given to select various GA parameters.

Crossover rate : Crossover rate generally should be high, about 80% - 95%. However,
some results show that for some problems crossover rate about 60% is the best.
Mutation rate : Mutation rate should be low. Best rates reported are about 0.5% -1%.
Population size : It may be surprising, that very big population size usually does not
improve performance of GA (in terms of speed of convergence). Good population size is
about 20-30, however, sometimes sizes 50-100 are reported as the best. Some research also
shows that best population size depends on encoding and on size of encoded string.
Selection : Basic roulette wheel selection can be used, but sometimes rank selection can be
better. There are also some more sophisticated methods, which changes parameters of
selection during run of GA. But surely elitism should be used (if any other method for saving
the best found solution is not used). The Tournament selection method is seemed to have
been used more often in structural optimization problems.
18
Encoding : Encoding depends on the problem and also on the size of instance of the
problem. Selection of type of crossover and mutation operators also depends on encoding and
on the type of problem.
2.8 GA Flow Chart for Solving A Problem
START
'r
READ GEN ETIC DATA
GENERATE RANDOM
1NT1TAL POPULATION
CALCULATE FITNESS FOR

EACH POPULATION
_________
SELECT FIT STRINGS
APPLY GENETIC
OPERATORS ON SELECTED
STRINGS
19
In 1964, Chapman [21] described the behaviour of simple composite section and shear
connectors. He suggested that the relatively large shape factor of the composite section, for
ultimate load design, is advantageous. Restrictions are, however, necessary to provide the
limited rotational ductility of the composite section. The importance of the standard testing
procedure for the shear connectors was emphasized. He also mentioned that for most of the
loading conditions the shear connector spacing can be uniform.
Also, in 1964, Chapman and Balakrishnan [22] investigated the behaviour of seventeen
simply supported composite T-beams under static concentrated and distributed loading
applied on the axis of the beam. The amount of shear connection was varied within the range
which might be contemplated for design purposes and the effect of interface slip on elastic
and ultimate load behaviour was observed. They recommended that the shear connection
should be designed to carry the horizontal shear force existing in the beam at ultimate load.
For this purpose it was recommended that 80 percent of the experimentally determined
ultimate capacity of the shear connectors should be used.
In 1985, Vallenilla and Bjorhovde [23] explained that the deflection of composite beams
with formed steel deck is influenced most significantly by the beam span, the slab width and
the degree of shear connection. They also pointed out that the procedure used in the AISC
Specification for determining the effective width gives excessive beam stiffness properties.
As a result, beams designed on this basis tend to underestimate actual deflections. Results of
the proposed formulation for the effective width were found in good agreement with actual
test data. Use of the suggested approach gives the designer a better way of accounting for the
effects of partial shear connection on the strength and behaviour of a composite beam with
formed steel deck.
20
In 1987, Leon et.ai. [24| indicated that the composite semi-rigi i frames
gains in strength and stiffness over "bare" steel connections. For th s service
connections offer rigidities similar to those of rigid frames; while for the ulti
provide excellent ductility and energy-dissipation capacity. For tl ie stability
continuous composite action over the column lines provides significant additional stiffness
resulting in decreased drifts and associated P-8 effects. Moreover, semi-rigid composite
frames provide a large degree of redundancy and have excellent force redistribution
characteristics leading to increased safety. Thus, semi-rigid composite frames represent a
very economical and structurally efficient solution to the design of low-rise frames.
In 1988, Vinnakotas and Foley 1251 proposed a simplified approach for the design of
composite beams using the new LRFD Specification. The approach is applicable to
composite beams with flat soffit slab, with haunched slab or with composite metal decking
wherein the ribs run perpendicular to the beam. Both partially composite and fully composite
beams were included in the study. Unlike the design tables, the design charts provided in this
paper are quite useful, because in using them it is possible to isolate a range of alternate
designs that satisfy the LRFD strength design criteria. The most desirable or the most
economical design could then be selected from this set using engineering judgement.
Razaqpur and Nofal in 1989 |26| developed a three dimensional bar element to model the
nonlinear behaviour of the shear connectors in composite concrete-steel structures. To
establish the shear stiffness properties of the element the available shear force deformation
relationship were used. The axial deformations were considered while flexural and torsional
stiffness of the bar was neglected. Comparison was made with the available experimental
data. The results of the analysis show that the assumption of negligible flexural and torsional
deformations in the connectors is reasonable for the problems analysed.
In 1990, Lloyd and Wright |27| conducted 42 ‘through-deck’ push-out tests on specimens
that incorporated trapezoidal profiled steel sheets and headed shear connectors to study the
effects of varying basic through-deck push-out test parameters in order to recommend a
standard configuration for such tests and to study the effect of practical sheeting-joint details
on connection strength. As ultimate connection strength for the majority of the tests fell
below current code-design values, a method to predict the observed ultimate strength was
proposed based upon a wedged-shear-cone failure mode as observed throughout the tests.
21
In 1990, Murrey and Hillman [28] investigated the potential of reducing the dead load of a
structure by creating new light-weight floor systems using various configurations of building
materials. The experimental versus theoretical values for the deflection at center slab were
measured. The floor system was also tested for susceptibility to annoying vibrations induced
by human occupancy. The vibrations were measured using a seismic accelerometer and the
digital signals collected and filtered using a lap top computer. Once the vibration
measurements were recorded, the natural frequencies were determined by processing the data
using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm. The measured frequencies were found
relatively close to the theoretical values. Thus, it is possible to predict the first natural
frequency of this type of floor system with reasonable accuracy for use in vibration
perceptibility analysis.
In 1993, Chien and Ritchie [29] conducted study on composite floor framing systems
including conventional beam-girder systems, composite steel trusses and the stub-girder
systems. Each of these systems was evaluated and discussed, including the concomitant deck-
slab system, and slab reinforcing requirements. The quality of structural concrete, especially
the shrinkage and creep characteristics that affect either structural performance,
serviceability, or both, were noted. The problem areas of composite design and construction
were also addressed. They concluded that, the features of composite floor framing utilizing
composite deck-slabs in multi-storey buildings that have made it economically attractive
include access to alternative structural systems, efficiency on longer spans, improved
integration of structure with mechanical systems, and superior flatness of floors with minimal
deflections under both superimposed dead and live loads.
In 1993 Daniels and Crisinel [30-31] provided an alternative approach to full-scale testing
for composite slabs with ribbed decking used in buildings. The procedure consists of
combining shear-bond test results with a numerical analysis to predict the behaviour and
strength of composite slabs. The procedure incorporates certain simplifications and
assumptions that allow for a reasonable yet conservative prediction of both behaviour and
strength. Advantages of using this procedure rather than full-scale test results are versatility
and reduced cost, the estimation of deformations at working loads, the inclusion of additional
variables such as end anchorage (over the end supports), additional positive moment
reinforcement (in the span), and reinforcement in negative moment regions (near interior
supports). This procedure may also be used for the development of new decking and to
improve the performance of slabs with existing decking.
22
In 1993, Xiao, Choo and Nethercot [32] described a test programme to study systematically
the moment resistance, initial stiffness and rotational capacity of composite connections. A
wide range of variables were considered to investigate these properties under the influence of
the composite action. Full details of the experimental behavior of all the specimens were
reported. The initial stiffness, moment resistance and rotational capacity were found to be
dramatically affected by changes in the reinforcement ratio in the slab, metal decking, steel
joint type, column web stiffening and moment shear ratio. Flexible fmplate composite
connections can produce appreciable resistance moment if properly designed. The bearing
capacity of the bolts in the lower portion of the fmplate was found to control the final
moment capacity of the connection.
In 1995, Krige and Mahachi [33] tested composite slabs statically and dynamically in
bending with special interest to bond failure between the concrete and steel deck. The effect
of both small and large amplitude loading on fatigue strength and deformation characteristics
was examined. Based on the fatigue strength results, some guidelines for the design of
composite slabs subjected to fatigue loading have been provided. The information is given in
the form of modified Goodman diagrams and algebraic expressions that can be utilized for
design. In composite slab, for a 2-point line loading an improved endurance was indicated to
repeated loading, as compared to the central line loading for a given minimum load.
In 1996, Hanswille [34] discussed the effect of tension stiffening of concrete on the internal
forces, stresses and the flexural stiffness with regard to the serviceability, ultimate and fatigue
limit states of composite beams. For continuous composite beams the serviceability and the
ultimate limit states as well as the limit state of fatigue are significantly influenced by the
effects of cracking of concrete in hogging moment regions. In the limit state of fatigue the
effects of tension stiffening of concrete are relevant for the reinforcement, the shear
connection and the failure of the top flange of the steel beam.
Wang [35] in 1998 calculated the maximum deflection of steel-concrete composite beams
with partial shear interaction. Under the guidance of various available design codes, this
deflection is related to the strength of shear connectors in the composite beam. He developed
a shear connector stiffness based approach based on the solution for a simply supported beam
under uniformly distributed load. In both the finite-element analysis and the proposed
method, uniform distribution of shear connection stiffness along the beam length was
23
assumed. In the absence of a reliable way to calculate the shear connector stiffness, this paper
suggested a simple procedure to obtain this value for use in practice.
In 1999, Chung and Narayanan [36] introduced the provisions of the Eurocode 4 (EC 4) and
the UK International Application Document related to the design of steel concrete composite
columns. The terminology employed in Eurocodes was explained first, followed by the
design philosophy of composite columns with encased I sections and concrete filled hollow
sections. The objective was to assist designers to deal with practical problems encountered by
them in their day to day work. The simplified method of designing composite columns based
on EC 4 was explained in step by step manner and a design example was solved to illustrate
the procedure for an isolated non sway column. Design tables for composite columns with
concrete encased I-sections and concrete filled hot finished hollow sections were also
presented to assist designers at the scheme design stage.
In 1999, Dissanayake, Davison and Burgess [37] investigated the influence of composite
beam-to-steel column joints on the behaviour of composite beams. A computer model was
developed to simulate the behaviour of steel-framed buildings with composite floor decks.
The program is capable of simulating the behaviour of two-dimensional subframes. It is also
capable of taking into account the partial interaction between the steel beam and the
composite slab, the orientation of the profiled metal deck, the effect of additional
reinforcement over supports and the semi-rigid nature of the joint between the composite
beam and steel column. In contrast to the usual observations made in isolated joint tests, the
study indicated very low values of strains in reinforcing bars at the composite beam-to-steel
column joint at the ultimate limit state. The results also indicated that the common types of
composite joints available are capable of providing the rotation capacity required to sustain
the ultimate load with about 1% of reinforcement over the support, without the use of
expensive column web stiffeners.
In 1999, Gattesco [38] presented a numerical procedure for the analysis of steel and concrete
composite beams considering nonlinear behaviour of concrete, steel and shears connectors.
The most refined stress-strain constitutive relations were used. An empirical nonlinear load-
slip relationship was used for shear connectors. He pointed out that the shear transfer between
concrete slab and steel beam occurs only where connectors are located and this procedure is
capable of tracing the detailed response of composite beams over the whole loading range up
to failure, provided failure is not initiated by buckling.
24
In 1999, Jasim [39] applied a linear partial interaction theory to determine the deflections at
mid span of simply supported composite beams with partial shear connection. The
differential equations governing the behaviour of beams, when the distribution of connectors
along the span is triangular, were developed. The exact solution was found and the results
were so arranged that the deflections of partially composite beams were defined as ratios of
the corresponding deflections of the equivalent fully composite beams. A design chart for
determining the central deflections of beams was constructed. This chart can be used
irrespective of variations in type of loading, geometry of beam and properties of materials.
In 2000, Dissanayake, Burgess and Davison [40] developed a computer program to analyse
the behaviour of steel-framed buildings with composite floor decks, taking into account both
geometric and material non-linearities. The validation of the computer program against
experimental results showed very good agreement not only in terms of load-deflection
response but also in load-joint rotation and load-reinforcing bar strains.
In 2000, Galambos [41] presented a brief review of the status of the structural steel research
in the US at the end of the twentieth Century. They highlighted some of the needed research
in steel structures like systems reliability tools development for bridges and buildings, area of
fatigue and fracture mechanics, performance of members, connection and connectors under
severe cyclic and dynamic loading etc.
In 2001, Chiew, Lie and Dai [42] investigated the moment resistance of steel I-beam to
concrete-filled tube (CFT) column uniplanar connections under monotonic static loading. An
empirical formula was derived based on more than 100 numerical parametric analysis results.
The proposed formula was found effective in predicting the moment resistance of the
composite connection with or without stiffening details. The difference between the predicted
values and finite-element analysis results, as well as the experimental results, was found less
than 10% in most of the cases. The empirical formula shows that the tube thickness is one of
the main parameters that influence the moment resistance. To verify the empirical formula
and to understand clearly the static behaviour of the composite connections, eight specimens
were designed and tested to failure, of which four specimens were semi rigid beam-to-column
connections and others were rigid connections with different types of stiffening details. It was
found that the best way to improve the moment resistance is by improving the boundary
conditions at the interface, as well as moving the failure cross section far away from the
column face.
25
In 2001, Fabbrocino, Manfredi and Cosenza [43] proposed a method of analysis for the
continuous composite beams based on a specific kinematic model of the cross section. The
main feature of the model is the capability to take into account the slip at the slab-profile
interface and the slip at the concrete-reinforcement interface. This approach allows the
introduction of a constitutive relationship for bond between reinforcing bars and concrete in
the theoretical analysis; thus, the tension stiffening effect in the negative bending moment
regions can be computed, and the actual mechanical behaviour of reinforcing bars of the slab
can be analysed. The results of numerical analyses are compared with the experimental data;
a very good agreement is indicated.
In 2001, Liew, Chen and Shanmugam [44] described a method of inelastic analysis that
provides the necessary degree of accuracy for studying the limit-state behaviour of steel
frames with composite floor beams subjected to the combined action of gravity and lateral
loads. The proposed composite beam model is based on the closed-form M-0 relationships.
To ascertain the accuracy of the composite beam model, two composite beams and a steel
portal frame are analysed and the results are compared with those obtained from tests and the
more established methods. Finally, the robustness of the model is demonstrated by studying
2D and 3D building frames using various floor beam models so that their effects on the
serviceability deflection and limit load can be compared. Studies indicate that the limit load
of steel frames while considering the composite beam effect is about 30 % higher than that of
the pure steel frames and the lateral stiffness can be significantly enhanced by considering the
composite action.
Tryland, Hopperstad and Langseth [45] in 2001 investigated aluminium and steel beams
subjected to concentrated loading and compared the results with experimental data available
in the literature. The modelled test specimen referred to simply supported beams where the
concentrated loading is applied either at the midspan or at the end support. The modelled
cross sections cover a wide range of web geometries and flange stiffnesses, and loading
through both circular and rectangular bars. The contact between the beam specimen and the
loading bars is modelled with a contact algorithm, and the problem is solved by an explicit
code. The correlation between the experimental and numerical results is quite good,
especially for the ultimate capacity where the difference between predictions and tests is not
prominent when compared to the scatter in the test results. The error in the ultimate capacity
from finite-element simulations is within 14% of the measured value, and for the web
deformation, simulations could predict the main effects that are obtained from the tests. The
26
results showed that small elements are necessary for predicting the correct mode of failure,
and the development of the local instability depends on the mass scaling and assumed
imperfection field.
In 2002, Amadio and Fragiacomo [46] analyzed the problems connected to the effective
width evaluation for serviceability and ultimate analysis of steel-concrete composite beams.
By a parametric study carried out by them through the ABAQUS code it was pointed out that
how the actual codes do not provide, in general appropriate results, for elastic and ultimate
limit state checks. The most important parameters that influence the effective width were
analyzed. Some preliminary criteria for an adequate design were presented and they
concluded that for two or three span continuous composite beam, a practically constant
effective width along the beam axis may be considered.
In 2002, Campione and Scibilia [47] investigated the experimental and theoretical flexure
and compressive behaviour of short tubular steel columns filled with plain concrete and fiber
reinforced concrete (FRC). In the case of short columns in compression, the presence of
concrete inside steel tubes increases the bearing capacity with respect to unfilled columns and
this effect is more evident in the square section. In flexure tests, the behaviour of composite
members is strongly influenced by steel characteristics and the presence of FRC does not
alter the maximum bearing capacity of beams with respect to beams filled with plain
concrete. The presence of FRC inside the steel tubes determines higher values of deformation
at maximum load. Load-deflection curves based on the cross section analysis in the
hypothesis of perfect bond between the concrete and steel tubes allow acceptable prediction
of the experimental behaviour.
In 2002, Hajjar [48] presented work on a number of composite lateral resistance systems,
including un-braced moment frames consisting of steel girders with concrete-filled steel tube
(CFT) or steel reinforced concrete (SRC) columns; braced frames having concrete-filled steel
tube columns; and a variety of composite and hybrid wall systems. The benefits of these
structural systems relative to more common systems include their performance characteristics
when subjected to service or ultimate loads, and their economy with respect to both material
and construction. He also presented more in-depth research results on composite systems,
consisting of partially-restrained steel frames with composite reinforced concrete infill walls.
In 2002, Mediratta [49] presented the steps for the analysis and design of composite truss
using limit state method while using the Indian standard sections. In support of this they also
27
provided detailed solution of a composite truss design problem showing the use of
methodology.
In 2002, Foutch and Yun [50] designed 9-story and 20-story buildings. Different models for
these structures were developed and analyzed statically and dynamically. The models
investigated involved the use of centerline dimensions of elements or clear length
dimensions, nonlinear springs for the beam connections, and linear or nonlinear springs for
the panel zones. A second group of models also incorporated the fracturing behavior of beam
connections to simulate the pre - Northridge connection behavior. Two suites of ground
motions were used for the dynamic analysis. The differences in structural responses among
different models for both suites of motions were investigated. According to static pushover
analysis with roof displacement controlled, the benefits of the increase in capacity that results
from the detailed models was observed for both 9-and 20- storied buildings.
In 2003, Chen [51J found that in many cases, the load carrying capacity of composite slabs
depends on the shear-bond resistance at the steel-concrete interface. At the ultimate state, the
tension forces in the hogging region of a continuous composite slab are mainly transferred by
the negative bending reinforcement and the shear-bond resistance in the region do not
significantly influence the load carrying capacity of the slab. To identify the shear-bond
action in composite slabs, seven simply supported one-span composite slabs and two
continuous composite slabs were tested. The slabs with end anchorage of steel shear
connectors were found to bear higher shear-bond strength than that of slabs without end
anchorage. The prediction of the shear-bond resistance was also found in close agreement
with the vertical shear force at the onset of the initial shear-bond slip in the two-span
continuous composite slabs. He suggested that the shear-bond slip model is reasonable to
predict the shear-bond resistance of a continuous composite slab. However, the shear span of
the continuous composite slabs must be related to the sagging region, which could be derived
on an elastic analysis basis or simply taken as 0.8 times span for the side span and 0.6 times
span for the interior span. At the onset of the initial shear-bond slip, the mean ratios of the
vertical shear force to shear-bond resistance are found as 1.065 for the one-span slabs and
1.165 for the two-span continuous composite slabs, which are on the safe side.
In 2003, Miranda and Rulz-Gareia [52] found that analysis and design of various mid-rise
and high-rise composite building structures is controlled by drift rather than by strength
criteria. Hence, adequate estimation of lateral deformation demands is particularly important.
28
A simplified method to estimate peak interstorey drift demands in multi-storey composite

buildings was presented. Results from the simplified method were compared with the results
from nonlinear response history analyses. It was concluded that for a wide range of building
structures simplified seismic criteria may be used to estimate interstory drift demands and
lateral stiffness requirements. Comparison of result suggested that for periods of vibrations
longer than 1.2s, maximum inelastic deformations could be underestimated for certain
seismic resisting systems.
In 2003, Sabelli, Mahin and Chang [53] conducted research to identify ground motion and
structural characteristics that control the response of concentrically braced frames, and to
identify improved design procedures and code provisions. The focus of this paper was on the
seismic response of three- and six- story concentrically braced frames utilizing buckling-
restrained braces. A brief discussion was provided regarding the mechanical properties of
such braces and the benefit of their use. Buckling-restrained braces provided an effective
means for overcoming many of the potential problems associated with special concentric
braced frames. Results of detailed nonlinear dynamic analyses were then examined for
specific cases as well as statistically for several suites of ground motions to characterize the
effect on key response parameters of various structural configurations and proportions.
Viest and Ivan [54] in 2003 reviewed historical development of the requirements for the
design of composite structures made up of steel elements and concrete, as practiced in the
United States. He concluded that the composite construction is a system suitable for areas of
high seismicity. The first U.S. seismic provisions for composite construction were included in
the 1994 version of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program’s Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings issued by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency in 1994. AISC included composite construction in the 1997 Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings and the provisions were also included in the 2000
edition of the International Building Code.
In 2004, Amadio et al. [55] evaluated effective width for elastic and plastic analysis of steel-
concrete composite beams. The experimental study was performed on four specimens. Both
cases of sagging and hogging bending moments were investigated, with the influence of the
beam-to-column joint. It was found that for all specimens the effective width increases with
the load, approaching the width of the whole slab near the collapse. The presence of a beam-
to-column joint does not affect the result. The comparison with the Eurocode 4 formulation
29
demonstrated that such an approach is adequate for elastic analysis, whereas it may be too
restrictive for plastic analyses. They highlighted that the use of the effective width evaluated
for an elastic analysis is not appropriate for plastic analysis of composite beams. A simple
approach was therefore presented for collapse analysis of composite beams under hogging
bending moment.
Gopal and Manoharan [56] in 2004 studied the strength and deformation of both short and
slender concrete filled steel tubular columns under the combined actions of axial compression
and bending moment. Sixteen specimens were tested to demonstrate the influence of fiber
reinforced concrete on the strength and behaviour of concrete filled steel tubular columns.
In 2004, Liang et al. [57] evaluated the ultimate strength of the composite beams in
combined bending and shear based on a finite-element analysis. They mentioned that the
design models for vertical shear proposed for the design of the simply supported composite
beams in combined bending and shear should provide an economical solution when the
concrete slab connected to the top steel flange contributes to the shear strength of the beam as
long as the shear connection is efficient.
In 2004, Loh, Uy and Bradford [58] described the development of an iterative based
analytical model to study the behavior of composite beams subjected to hogging type
bending. Partial interaction concepts allowing for interface slip were considered, in
conjunction with the inherent equilibrium and compatibility principles. The analysis results
showed reasonable agreement with the results of the eight experimental beams. The full
flexural response of the beams including shear connector slip was predicted adequately.
Comparison with available results further verified the reliability and robustness of the model.
An extensive parametric study was undertaken using the model that has been properly
calibrated. In addition, a modified rigid-plastic method was proposed to improve the
approach for use in practice, and to facilitate the inclusion of partial shear connection in the
hogging moment regions of composite structures.
In 2004, Neal and Johnson [59] presented the design procedure for the composite truss using
BS codes and British sections. They focused on the important parameters of the composite
truss design which affect the design considerably. They also suggested the various geometry
options for the design of composite trusses.
30
In 2004, Nie, Fan and Cai [60] reported that in negative bending regions near interior
supports, tension in concrete is unfavourable and is a complicated issue, which deserves a
special study. In this work, a mechanics model based on the elastic theory was established to
investigate the stiffness of composite beams in negative bending regions by considering slips
at the steel beam-concrete slab interface and concrete-reinforcement interface.
In 2004, Sapouutzakis [61] presented a solution to the dynamic analysis problem of

reinforced concrete slabs stiffened by steel beams with deformable connection including
creep and shrinkage effect. The adopted model takes into account the resulting inplane forces
and deformations of the plate as well as the axial forces and deformations of the beam, due to
combined response of the system. The analysis consists of isolating the beams from the plate
by sections parallel to the lower outer surface of the plate. The forces at the interface
producing lateral deflection and inplane deformation to the plate and lateral deflection and
axial deformation to the beams are linearly related with the interface slip through the shear
connector stiffness.
In 2004, Spacone and El-TawU [62] described the current state of the art of nonlinear
analysis of steel-concrete composite structures. It mainly discussed frame elements which are
computationally faster than continuum finite element models. Models with lumped and
distributed inelasticity, as well as models with perfect and partial connections are covered.
Rigid and partially restrained joints are reviewed and discussed at length.
In 2004, Thermou et al. [63] discussed the seismic design and performance of composite
steel-concrete frames. The deficiencies of the codes and the clauses that cause difficulties to
the designer were discussed. One of the main issues observed in the analysis is the high over
strength exhibited by the frames. This is due to design code constraints on section selection,
such as second order effects (h<l), leading to grossly over-conservative design. The inelastic
static pushover analysis was employed for obtaining the response of the frames.
In 2005, Cheng and Chen [64] investigated the seismic behavior of steel beam connected to
RCC column with or without the floor slab, acting as a proof test for a three-story three-bay
reinforced concrete column and steel beam in-plane frame tested at the National Center for
Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE), Taiwan. Parameters considered included
composite effects of the slab and beam, the tie configuration in the panel zone, effects of the
cross-beam, and the loading protocol. All the specimens performed in a ductile manner with
plastic hinges formed in the beam ends near the column face. Ultimate strength of the
31
composite beam was found to increase by 27% compared to of the steel beam without the
slab. On the basis of the comparison of the force-deformation simulation and test results, it
was found that distortions in the panel zone accounting for the concrete bearing in addition to
the panel shear can appropriately predict the total shear stiffness in the panel zone of RCS
connections.
In 2005, Castro, Elghazouli and Izzuddin [65] conducted study of the panel zone region
within beam-to-column connections in steel and composite moment-resisting frames. The
method rationally accounts for the effect of different boundary conditions, as well as shear
and flexural deformation modes, in evaluating the elastic and inelastic responses. Validation
of the proposed approach was carried out through comparisons against available experimental
results in addition to more detailed continuum finite element analyses. The panel zone
response within a composite frame was found to be significantly affected by several
geometric and loading parameters, including the influence of beam-to-slab interaction on the
stress distribution and distortional demand imposed on the panel. The results demonstrated
that the approach developed provides a more realistic representation of the behavior in
comparison to existing models, especially in case of composite connections. It was shown
that, for composite joints, commonly used simple moment-distortion relationships may not
be adequate which is primarily due to the dependency of the behavior on the internal force
distribution at the joint. The study described the implementation of the suggested approach
within frame analysis procedures, and substantiated the important role played by the panel
zone in the response of moment frames under lateral loading conditions.
In 2005, El-Dardiry and Ji [66] developed isotropic and orthotropic flat plate models for
predicting dynamic behavior of composite floors with reasonably accurate. The two
equivalent flat plate models were developed using the equivalence of the maximum
displacement of a sophisticated 3D composite panel model. Thin shell elements were used to
model the steel sheet and 3D-solid elements to represent the concrete slab. Parametric studies
were conducted to examine the effects of boundary condition, loading condition, shear
modulus and steel sheet on the equivalent models. The isotropic flat floor model was found
more accurate than the orthotropic flat floor model, but it required the calibration using a 3D
composite panel model. Significant time saving is achieved when either of the two simplified
models is used. It is found from the study that the variation of floor thickness due to
construction can significantly affect the accuracy of the prediction and the locations of
32
neutral axes of beams and slabs are not sensitive to the prediction provided they are
considered in the analysis.
In 2005, Han et al. {67] attempted to study the monotonic and cyclic behaviour of steel tube
confined concrete (STCC) columns. The main parameters varied in the tests were column
section types, tube diameter to thickness ratio and load eccentricities ratio. Comparisons were
made with the predicted column strengths and flexural stiffness using the existing codes. It
was found that the STCC columns exhibit very high level of energy dissipation and ductility,
particularly when subjected to high axial loads. Generally, the energy dissipation ability of
the columns with circular section was much higher than those of the specimen with square
sections. The formula developed for concrete filled steel tube columns was found to
underestimate the moment capacity of STCC members.
In 2005, Jurkiewiez and Hottier [68] studied a new connection device, based on horizontal
shear connectors and avoiding welding through a steel-concrete composite beam subjected to
a static bending test. Test results indicated behaviour similar to those of steel-concrete
composite beams with usual connectors. A flexural failure occurred with a plastic hinge in
the mid-span cross-section accompanied by yielding of the steel girder and crushing of the
concrete. Therefore, the connection did not fail during the test and allowed to efficiently
transmit shear forces from the slab to the girder though it was designed with no safety factor
from ultimate capacity measured during push-out tests. Slip and up-lift remained low.
Consequently, this study validated the proposed connection device under static loading and
showed that it suits the structural modem code requirements.
In 2005, Lam and Lobody [69] presented a paper on “Behaviour of Headed Stud Shear
Connectors in Composite Beam” and developed a finite element model to simulate the load
slip characteristic of the headed shear stud in a solid RC slab. The model takes into account
the linear and nonlinear material properties of the concrete and shear stud. The FEM results
compared well with the results obtained from the experimental push-off tests and specified
data in the codes. All the modes of failure were accurately predicted by the FE model. The
formulas given in EC4 gave a good correlation with the experimental results and FE
solutions. Furthermore, all the codes seem to overestimate the shear capacity of the 22 mm
diameter headed stud. They concluded with the remark that it may be possible to replace the
need for expensive experimental push-off tests in the future to determine the shear capacity of
the shear connector.
33
Lee, Shim and Chang [70] in 2005 investigated the static and fatigue behaviour for shear
stud and compared it with design equations. The ultimate strength of the shear connection
showed that the design shear strength in Eurocode-4 and AASHTO LRFD gives conservative
values for large studs. The fatigue endurance obtained from the tests was slightly lower than
the current design codes in Eurocode-4. Based on the push-out test results on large studs,
partial composite beams with about 38% degree of shear connection were fabricated and
static tests were performed. They observed that the ultimate strength of the shear connection
is about 1.59 times of that obtained from push-out tests.
In 2005, Vesey, Kwan and Xu [71] described some recent and unusual designs using
structural steel or composite steel and concrete which have been carried out in Hong Kong
and East Asia Region. They mentioned that the well designed and properly fabricated steel
structure can benefit the environment and permit faster and cleaner on-site construction by
carrying out fabrication in high quality factories and by use of modular design. Modem
design codes should improve design efficiency, provide clear and simple clause for normal
structures and also contain guidance for more complex structures and design issues. The
benefits of life cycle cost evaluation should become more widely recognised.
In 2005, Yao, Chen and Yu [72] made attempt to study the monotonic and cyclic behaviour
of steel tube confined concrete (STCC) columns. It was found that STCC columns exhibit
very high level of dissipation of energy and ductility.
In 2005, Zeghichea and Chaouib [73] conducted tests on 27 concrete-filled steel tubular
columns. The test parameters considered were the column slenderness, the load eccentricity
covering axially and eccentrically loaded columns with single or double curvature bending
and the compressive strength of the concrete core. They also concluded that the column
squash resistance calculated in accordance with the EC4 method is a reasonable estimate of
the actual failure load of a stub column of concrete-filled CHS. The increase in the column
slenderness decreases the load carrying capacity of composite columns. The use of high
concrete strength enhanced the load carrying capacity of the tested columns, but with a load-
slenderness relationship decreasing at a higher rate compared to that for columns using
normal strength concrete. EC4 predictions for axially and eccentrically loaded columns with
single curvature bending were on the safe side and in good agreement with the experimental
and numerical failure loads. A comparison of experimental failure loads with the method
described in Eurocode 4 Part 1.1 showed good agreement for axially and eccentrically loaded
34
columns with single curvature bending whereas for columns with double curvature bending
the Eurocode loads were higher and on the unsafe side.
In 2006, Lobody and Young [74] proposed an accurate and efficient nonlinear finite element
model to investigate the behaviour of shear connection in composite beams with profiled
steel sheeting perpendicular to the steel beam. The models take into account the nonlinear
material properties of the concrete, steel beam profiled steel sheeting, reinforcement bars and
headed stud shear connectors. The capacity of shear connection, load-slip behaviour of
headed stud and failure modes were predicted by the finite element analysis which compared
well with the experimental results. The comparison of shear connection capacities obtained
from the finite element analysis with the design rules specified in the American Specification,
British Standard and European Code has shown that the American and British specifications
overestimate the capacity of shear connection with a maximum value of 27% and 25%
respectively. The design rule specified in the European Code are generally conservative,
except for some cases that overestimate the capacity of shear connection with a maximum
value of 11 %.
In 2006, Marciukaitis, Jonaitis and Valivonis [75] pointed out that the deflection of
composite slabs depends directly on the shear stiffness of the connection between profiled
steel sheeting and concrete. A method for calculating deflections of slabs is presented in this
paper which is based on a theory of built-up bars, which allows one to take into account
directly the shear stiffness of the connection. Influences on the stiffness of the structure of
normal cracks in the concrete layer and plastic deformations of concrete that has been
subjected to compression are also taken into account in the analysis. The method gives an
opportunity to assess variations of these factors at all stages of the slab’s behaviour from the
start of loading up to the ultimate moment. In the results of these investigations, three stages
of behaviour of the contact are distinguished. A connection shear characteristic is determined
for each stage, which is used for calculating the deflection of the slab. Experiments are
performed on deflections of composite slabs with a Holorib type of profiled sheeting.
Variations in experimental deflections of slabs are explored from the beginning of loading up
to the ultimate moment.
In 2006, Ranzi, Gara and Ansourian [76] presented an analytical formulation for the
analysis of two-layered composite beams with longitudinal and vertical partial interaction.
The pecularity of this model is its ability to incorporate an interface connection deforming
35
both longitudinally, i.e., along the beam length, and vertically, i.e., transverse to the
connection interface, which is modelled by means of a uniformly distributed spring. The
partial interaction problem is then solved by means of the finite element method. A
parametric study is presented to investigate the effects of different combinations of
longitudinal and transverse connection rigidities on the overall structural response. For the
purpose of these simulations, a bi-linear constitutive model has been specified for the
transverse interface connection to reflect the more realistic case in which two different
responses are observed in the transverse interaction: one in which one layer is bearing against
the other and another when the two layers are separating. An iterative procedure has been
proposed to obtain the convergence to the final solution.
In 2006, Ranzi et al. [77J presented a comparison of available numerical structural analysis
formulations for composite beams with partial shear interaction. Using the solution of the
exact analytical model as a benchmark, the accuracy of the three numerical techniques is
tested for the cases of a simply supported beam and a propped cantilever. A qualitative
comparison is carried out to highlight the adequacy and characteristics of these numerical
formulations. For the two structural systems considered, the minimum spatial discretisations
that need to be adopted to keep the error within an acceptable tolerance are provided for each
of the formulations. It has been observed that the exact analytical solutions and the direct
stiffness fonnulation provide identical results. It has been noted that the 10 dof element yields
good results for relatively coarse discretisations.
In 2006, Vellasco et al. [78] presented a parametric study of semi-rigid low-rise portal frame.
They considered parameters like: connection stiffness and strength, structural system (steel or
composite) and lateral frame stability. The parametric analysis, based on the Eurocode 3, led
to the development of a simple structural model implemented in the AN SYS software. The
model takes into account geometrical and material nonlinearities and the semi-rigid
behaviour of their associate connections. Finally, the investigation results are summarized to
access the economic potential and efficiency of the semi-rigid solutions. Up to a 15%
economy in terms of steel weight was indicated for the investigated structures, even when
compared to the traditional most economical solution.
In 2007, Marimuthu et al. [79] carried out the experimental study to investigate the shear
bond behaviour of composite deck slab to evaluate the m-k values. Totally 18 numbers of
specimens were cast using M20 grade concrete. The specimens were tested as per the
36
Eurocode 4. They concluded that the shear behaviour of the embossed profiled deck slab
depends mainly on the shear span. For the shorter shear spans, strength of slab is governed by
the shear bond failure. If the shear span is large enough then the behaviour of the slab is
governed by the flexural failure.
In 2007, Queiroz, Vellasco and Nethercot [80] focused their investigation on the evaluation
of full and partial shear connection in composite beams using the package ANSYS. The
proposed 3D FE model is able to simulate the overall flexural behaviour of simply supported
composite beams subjected to either concentrated or uniformly distributed loads. This covers:
load deflection behaviour, longitudinal slip at the steel-concrete interface, distribution of stud
shear force and failure modes. It was shown that the continuation of the shear connection
beyond the beam supports of simply supported beams can affect not only the overall system
response, but also the slip and the stud force distributions along the beam. It was also
demonstrated that, by decreasing the level of shear connection, the composite system
becomes more flexible, with reduced strength and stiffness, mainly for beams for which the
partial interaction effects are significant and must be taken into account.
In 2007, Yu, Ding and Cai [81] presented an experimental study on the behaviour of
circular, concrete-filled, steel tube (CFT) stub columns with self-compacting concrete (SCC)
and normal concrete (NC) concentrically loaded in compression to failure. Seventeen
specimens were tested to investigate the effects of concrete strength, notched holes or slots,
and different loading conditions on the ultimate load carrying capacity and the load-
deformation behaviour of the columns. The behaviour of these stub columns in confinement
was discussed. By using higher strength concrete, the specimens with the entire section
loaded experienced a significant increase in the ultimate capacity, but their residual capacity
after failure was almost constant. In some cases the ultimate capacity was also reduced and
the steel tube acted more as a transverse confinement than an axial compression component.
Eurocode 4 predicted a reasonable capacity for the unnotched CFT stub columns with both
SCC and NC when the entire section of the specimen was loaded.
Also in 2007, Yahya and Kasim [82] presented a paper on “Effects of concrete nonlinear
modelling on the analysis of push-out test by finite element method”. This study considers
the practical application of nonlinear models using the reinforced concrete model of the
general purpose finite element code ANSYS. The consequences of small changes in
modelling are discussed and it is shown that satisfactory results can be obtained by relatively
37
simple and limited models. This method can be used to conduct an extensive parametric
study.
In 2007, Yassin and Nethercot [83] presented a procedure for the calculation of the key
cross-sectional properties of steel-concrete composite beams of complex cross-section. The
formulation was developed in a format that is directly suitable for computer programming
The procedure was applied to a new type of composite beam known as the PCFC (pre-cast
cold-formed composite) beam. This is shown to perform better than equivalent, more
conventional composite beams at the ultimate condition, but is slightly less efficient when
considering some serviceability aspects.
In 2008, Wang and Li [84] proposed a practical method suitable for the design of semi-rigid
composite frames under vertical loads. The proposed method provides the design of the
connections, beams and columns for semi-rigid composite frames at the ultimate and
serviceability limit states. The rotational stiffness of beam-to-column connections for
calculating the deflection of the frame beams and the effective length factor of columns was
also determined. In addition, the accuracy of the proposed design method was verified by a
pair of tests carried out on the full-scale semi-rigid composite frames. It was shown that the
proposed design method is simple and convenient for a designer to use in practice.
In 2009, Cheng and Chan [85] presented the optimal lateral stiffness design of composite
steel and concrete tall frameworks subjected to overall and interstorey drift constraints as
well as member sizing limits using an efficient numerical approach developed based on the
Optimality Criteria (OC) method. A general finite element analysis process using ETABS for
tall building structures was incorporated into the automated optimization approach using the
developed program OCTB. The necessary optimality criteria were then derived for the design
followed by the construction of an iterative scheme to satisfy these optimality conditions
while indirectly optimizing the design problem with multiple constraints. The recursive OC
process was then carried out with the initial member sizes obtained from a closed-form
solution developed for the similar problem with a single drift constraint. A rapid convergence
of the design optimization procedure was obtained. The efficiency and applicability of this
automated optimization technique was further illustrated through a set of framework design
examples.
In 2009, Ernst, Bridge and Wheeler [86] pointed out that the application of trapezoidal type
of steel decking with wide open ribs in secondary composite beams can create numerous
38
premature concrete-related failure modes which significantly reduce the strength and
deformation capacity of the shear connection and violate the requirement of a sufficiently
ductile shear connection to be used in plastic composite beam design. The combined
application of waveform reinforcement elements and spiral stud performance-enhancing
devices surrounding the individual studs was found to delay the onset and reduce the effects
of the concrete-related failure modes; hence they increased the ultimate strength and ductility
of the shear connection. As none of the current design approaches distinguishes between
brittle and sufficient ductile shear connection behaviours, a new design method has been
proposed that differentiates between the various failure modes and specifies the suitable
reinforcing measures to ensure ductile shear connection behaviour. Based on the 65 push-out
tests performed on the Australian types of trapezoidal steel decking, this new method was
found quite reliable for the strength prediction of stud connectors when compared to other
recent approaches based on the analytical research.
In 2009, Fan et al. (87J presented a detailed study of the dynamic characteristics and seismic
responses of 508m high, 101 storied Taipei building which is located in Taipei where
earthquakes and strong typhoons are common occurrences. The seismic analysis results of the
super-tall building indicated that the structural system, with belt trusses at every eighth or
tenth story, provides equal stiffness along the height of the building, which can decrease the
lateral deformation efficiently. A shake table test was also conducted to determine the
constitutive relationships for the CFT columns and steel members for establishing the finite
element (FE) model of the tall building. The computational results indicated that the super-
tall building with the mega-frame system possesses substantia] reserve strength, and this
high-rise structure would satisfy the design requirements under severe seismic events.
In 2009, Jia and Zhou [88] carried out the experimental study on vibration behavior of 4 full
scale cold-formed steel composite floors. The tested specimens analyzed with finite element
program ANSYS. The research was focused on the fundamental frequency of composite
floor, considering the influence of screw spacing and rigid blocking under different loading
conditions. The finite element analysis model of cold-formed steel composite floors was set
up to study the vibration behaviour; results were found close to those of the experiments. The
results showed that the flexural rigidity of composite floor can be improved by changing the
spacing of screws. It was suggested that the fundamental frequency of cold-formed steel
concrete composite floor should be more than 8 Hz.
39
In 2009, Vasdravellis, Valente and Castiglioni [89] investigated the influence of partial
composite action between the concrete slab and steel beam and of partial-strength
connections on the seismic response of composite frames. One-story one-bay moment-
resisting frames with steel-concrete composite beams, were tested under base acceleration on
the shake table. Specimens with intermediate and low shear connection degrees showed the
most favorable performance in terms of ductile behavior and energy dissipation. A full shear
connection does not necessarily have a good behavior under dynamic excitation, because it
may lead to brittle failures of the welded beam-to-column connections, as observed during
the tests. Then, FE models simulating the behavior of the tested specimens were developed
and, after validation, exhaustive parametric study was carried out. Numerical results
confirmed the experimental conclusions and revealed that the use of intermediate and low
shear connection degrees with partial-strength joints results in an advantageous seismic
design.
40
4. Development of Program For Composite Slabs
4.1 Introduction
A composite slab is defined as a floor system comprising normal or light weight structural
concrete placed permanently over cold-formed steel deck in which the steel deck performs
dual roles of acting as a form for the concrete during construction and as positive
reinforcement for the slab during service. Such slabs are generally used in framed structures,
with steel floor beams as shown in Fig. 4.1. Composite deck slabs are particularly
competitive where the concrete floor has to be completed quickly and where medium level of
fire protection to steel work is sufficient. However, composite slabs with profiled decking are
unsuitable when there is heavy concentrated loading or dynamic loading in structures such as
bridges. The alternative composite floor in such cases consists of reinforced or pre-stressed
slab over steel beams connected together to act monolithically. The structural behaviour of
these floors is similar to a RC slab, with the steel sheeting acting as the tension
reinforcement.
Reinforcement
Concrete
Shear Connector
Fig. 4.1 Composite Slab[2j
41
The steel decking performs a number of roles, such as:

> It supports loads during construction and acts as a working platform.
> It develops adequate composite action with concrete to resist the imposed loading.
> It transfers in-plane loading by diaphragm action to vertical bracing or shear walls.
> It stabilizes the compression flanges of the beams against lateral buckling.
> It reduces the volume of concrete in tension zone.
> It distributes shrinkage strains, thus preventing serious cracking of concrete.
> It accommodates ducts for electrical line and other services.
Care has to be taken in the construction of composite floors with profiled decking to prevent
excessive ponding, especially in the case of long spans. The profiled sheet deflects
considerably requiring additional concrete at the centre that may add to the concreting cost.
Thus, longer spans will require propping to eliminate substantial deflection.
4.2 The Composite Slab Elements
Composite floors with profiled decking consist of the following structural elements along
with in-situ concrete and steel beams:
• Profiled decking • Shear connectors • Reinforcement
4.2.1 Profiled Sheet Decking

There are many types of profiled sheets used for the construction of composite slabs. Profiled
sheets are basically cold formed sheets made of thin steel coils which vary in form, rib depth,
rib spacing, sheet size, style of lateral over-lapping, with yield strength varying between 240
MPa to 550 MPa, and in the methods of mechanical connection which ensure bond between
the steel sheet and concrete slab. The steel deck is normally rolled into the desired profile
from 0.9 mm to 1.5 mm galvanized coil. It is profiled such that the profile heights are usually
in the range of 38 -75 mm and the pitch of corrugations is between 150 mm and 350 mm.
Generally, spans of the order of 2.5 m to 3.5 m between the beams are chosen and the beams
are designed to span between 6 m to 12 m [90], There are two well-known generic types of
profiles.
> Re-entrant (Dovetail) profile (Fig. 4.2(a))
> Trapezoidal profile with web indentations (Fig. 4.2 (b-d))
42
(c) Horizontal indents (d) Circular indents
Fig. 4.2 Different Types of Profiles

In case of shorter slab span, the stresses in the composite slab after the concrete has hardened
are low. For such floors, trapezoidal steel sheets with limited horizontal shear resistance are
used. They have the lowest steel weight per square meter of floor area. While in case of
longer slab span, the final composite slab is highly stressed. In this case steel sheeting will
require good horizontal shear bond resistance. In this case, re-entrant profiles are used
leading to the higher steel weight per square meter of floor area.
4.2.2 Shear Connectors

Shear connectors are steel elements such as studs, bars, spiral or any other similar devices as
shown in Fig 4.3 which are welded to the top flange of the steel section and intended to
transmit the horizontal shear between the steel section and the cast in-situ concrete and also
to prevent vertical separation at the interface.
C ////
Fig. 4.3 Types of Shear Connectors L2J
4.2.3 Reinforcement
It is generally useful to provide reinforcement in the concrete slab for: Load distribution of
line or point loads; Local reinforcement of slab openings; Fire resistance; Upper
reinforcement in hogging moment area; Controlling cracking due to shrinkage.
43
4.3 Analysis of Composite Slab
The following methods of analysis may be used:
> Linear elastic method.
> Linear elastic method with moment redistribution.
> Plastic method according to the theory of plastic hinges.
> A higher order analysis which takes into account non-linear material behaviour and
slip between the profiled sheeting and the concrete slab.
The application of linear methods of analysis is suitable for the serviceability limit states as
well as for the ultimate limit states. Plastic methods should only be used at the ultimate limit
state. A continuous slab may be designed as a series of simply supported spans. In such a
case, nominal reinforcement should be provided over intermediate supports.
4.3.1 Analysis For The Ultimate Limit States

In most cases the analysis of composite slabs, which is continuous over several spans is
performed according to the elastic method considering a slab of unit width (1m).
It is possible to take concrete cracking into account in followings:

> Arbitrarily reduce the moment at the supports (maximum reduction 30%) and
consequently increase the span moments.
> Totally neglect reinforcement over the supports and consider the slab as a series of
simply supported beams. Minimum reinforcement must always be placed over
intermediate supports for serviceability reasons.
> Consider that the slab is a beam with variable inertia, depending on the reinforcement.
The assumed inertia is that of the cracked section.
4.3.2 Analysis for the serviceability limit states

Analysis of composite slab, for calculating deflection, may be carried out with the following
assumptions:
> The slab is comparable to a continuous beam of constant inertia, equal in value to the
average inertia of the cracked and uncracked section.
> Long-term loading effects on the concrete are taken into account using a variation in
the modular ratio Ea/Ec. For simplification, Eurocode 4 recommends an average
value of Ea/Ec for both long and short term effects.
44
4, Development of Program for Composite Slabs
Possible slip between the profiled sheeting and concrete slab must be taken into account at
the serviceability limit states. Slip may occur in the span and greatly influence deflection. It is
necessary, therefore, to fully understand the behaviour of composite slabs through testing.
4.4 Resistance of Composite Slab to Bending
The structural properties of profiled sheet along with reinforcement provided and concrete
with a positive type of interlock between concrete and steel deck is the basis of a composite
floor. Some loss of interaction and hence slip may occur between concrete - steel interface.
Such a case is known as 'Partial interaction'. Failure in such cases occurs due to a
combination of flexure and shear.
The width of the slab ‘b’ shown in Fig. 4.4 (a) is one typical wavelength of profiled sheeting.
The overall thickness ht, as required by EC4, should not be less than 80 mm; and the
thickness of concrete above the 'main flat surface' of the top of the ribs of the sheeting
should not be less than 40 mm. Normally, this thickness is 60 mm or more, to provide
sufficient sound or fire insulation, and resistance to concentrated loads.
Except where the sheeting is unusually deep, the neutral axis for bending lies in the
concrete, where there is full shear connection; but in regions with partial shear
Fig. 4.4 Resistance of Composite Slab to Sagging Bending
45
4.4.1 Neutral Axis above the Sheeting (Fig. 4.4 (b))

Full shear connection is assumed. Hence, compressive force Ncf in concrete is equal to yield
force Npa in steel.
Apfyp
NCf = Npa (4.1)
Yap
Ncf = 0.36 fck.b.x
Where, Ap = Effective area per meter width,

fyp = Yield strength of steel,
Yap 2 Partial safety factor (1.15).
The neutral axis depth x is given by
= Ncf
X K0.36/Cfe) (4.2)
This is valid when x < he, i.e. when the neutral axis lies above steel decking.
MpRd= Ncf(dp- 0.42 x) ...(4.3)
Note that centroid of concrete force lies at 0.42x from free concrete surface. Mp Rci is the
design resistance to sagging bending moment.
4.4.2 Neutral axis within Sheeting and Full Shear Connection (Fig. 4.4 (c)>
The stress distribution is shown in Fig. 4.4 (c). The force NCf is now less than Npa, and is
given by
%= (bhcx 0.36 fck) ...(4.4)
because compression within ribs is neglected, for simplicity. There is no simple method of
calculating x, because of the complex properties of profiled sheeting, so the following
approximate method is used. The tensile force in the sheeting is decomposed, as shown in
Fig. 4.4 (d) and Fig. 4.4 (e), into a force at the bottom equal to Nac (the compressive force)
and a force Na, where Na = NCf and the remaining force Nac such that the total tensile force
is Nac + Na. The equal and opposite force Nac provide resisting moment Mpr. Note that this
Mpr will be less than Mpa, the flexural capacity of steel sheeting. The relationship between
Mpr/Mpa and NCf/Npa is shown in Fig. 4.5 (a) with the dotted line. For design this can
be approximated by line ADC that can be expressed as
Ncf
Mpr = 1.25 Mpa < m,pa (4.5)
N.pa
46
The moment of resistance is given by

MpM= (Ncf)Z+ Mpr ...(4.6)
Sum of resistance is shown in Fig. 4.4 (d) and Fig. 4.4 (e), which is equal to the resistance
shown in Fig. 4.4 (c).
The lever arm z can be found by examining the two extreme cases. For case (i) where Ncr =
Npa or Ncf/Npa = 1.0, Nac = 0 and hence Mpr = 0.
MpJtd = Npa(dp-0A2hc) ...(4.7)
z = dp — 0A2hc = ht — e — 0.42/ic ... (4.8)

This is indicated by point F in Fig. 4.5 (b).
For case (ii), on the other hand,

Nrf= 0; Na = 0.
Mpr = Mpa. The neutral axis is at a height ep above the bottom. Then
z = ht— QA2hc — ep . (4.9)

This is represented by point E. Thus the equation to the line EF is
z hf 0.42hc Sp (4.10)
‘Vpa
Mpr/Mpa
ht-0.42hc—z
Fig. 4.5 Resistance Moment of Profiles
47
4.4.3 Partial Shear Connection (Nc < NCF)

In this case, the compressive force in the concrete Nc is less than Ncf and depends on the
strength of shear connection. The stress blocks are as shown in Fig. 4.4 (b) for the slab (with
Nc in place of NCf) and Fig. 4.4 (c) for sheeting.
The depth of stress block is,
Nc
... (4.11)
b(0.36 fck) ~ c
In this case, Eq. (4.5), Eq. (4.6) and Eq. (4.10) get modified by substituting Nc = NCf and Ncl-
= Npa and x = hc. Thus,
(®p e)Nc
z — ht — 0.42x — er ...(4.12)
N,Cf
Nr
Mpr = 1.25Mpa 1 - < M pa ...(4.13)
N,Cf.
Mp.Rd NCZ + Mpr ... (4.14)
4.5 Shear Resistance of Composite Slab

The shear resistance of composite slab largely depends on connection between profiled deck
and concrete. The adhesion between the steel profile and concrete is generally not sufficient
to create composite action in the slab and thus an efficient connection is achieved with one or
several of the following:
> Friction interlock provided by re-entrant shape of the ribs (Fig. 4.6).
> Mechanical interlock provided by indentation of profile sheet (Fig. 4.7).
> End anchorage like headed bolts, angle studs or end-deformations of the steel sheeting
brings a very concentrated load introduction at the ends and therefore a sudden
increase from the bare steel to the composite resistance (see Fig. 4.8).
Fig. 4.6 Frictional Interlock in Composite Slabs
48
Fig. 4.7 Mechanical Interlock in Composite Slabs
/ / / 7
Fig. 4.8 End anchorage for Composite Slabs C3T

4.5.1 Resistance to Longitudinal Shear
At section B-B (Fig. 4.9) failure corresponds to the resistance to longitudinal shear. The
verification method is to evaluate the average longitudinal shear resistance existing on shear
span Ls and compare this with the applied force. This resistance depends on the type of the
sheeting and must be established for all proprietary sheeting as the value is a function of the
particular arrangements of embossment orientation, surface conditions etc.
The direct relationship between the vertical shear and the longitudinal shear is only known
for elastic behaviour, if the behaviour is elastic-plastic, the relationship is not simple and the
m-k method, which is a semi-empirical approach, is used. The test is described below. The
failure of the beam is initiated by one of the following three modes:
(i) Flexure at a cross section such as A-A
(ii) Shear at support, along a length as B-B
(iii) Shear bond mode, at a cross section such as C-C.
Here, ls is the shear span and £ is effective span.
C /, A
I j Is _L___ j
* i
i
B B
O
Fig. 4.9 Critical Sections and Failure Modes
49
The design resistance of the slab against longitudinal shear is determined by a standardised
semi-empirical method called as m-k method which was originally proposed by Porter and
Ekberg [91] in 1976. The factors m and k are obtained from standardised full-scale tests. The
m and k values depend on the sheeting type and the dimensions of the section of the slab and
are generally given by profiled steel manufacturers.
0 --------- ► Ap
bi;
Fig. 4.10 Derivation of m and k from Test Data
The shear resistance as per EC4 is given by equation

Vt -(£)
/Ar
+k ...(4.15)
bd.
4.p
Where, Vt = maximum design vertical shear, b = width of slab, m = slope of the line, k - the
intercept of y-axis, ts = shear span, dp = average depth of the composite slab and Ap =
effective area of shearing.
For design, Ls depends on the type of loading. For a uniform load applied to the entire span L
of a simply supported beam, Ls equals L/4. This value is obtained by equating the area under
the shear force diagram for the uniformly distributed load to that due to a symmetrical two
point load system applied at distance Ls from the supports. For other loading arrangement, Ls
is obtained by similar assessment. Where the composite slab is designed as continuous, it is
permitted to use an equivalent simple span between points of contraflexure for the
determination of shear resistance. For end spans, however, the full exterior span length
should be used in design.
4.5.2 Resistance To Vertical Shear
At section C-C (Fig. 4.9) failure corresponds to the resistance to vertical shear. The resistance
to vertical shear is mainly provided by the concrete ribs. For open profiles it should be taken
as effective width. The resistance of a concrete slab with ribs of effective width bo at a
50
basic shear strength to be taken as 0.25/ckt/yc, fctk= approximately equal to 0.7 times mean
tension resistance of the concrete fctm, Ap = effective area of the steel sheet in tension
considering width bn; /q = (l.6 - dp) > 1 with dp express in m, k2 = 1.2 + 40p, and
p — Ap/b0dp < 0.02.
4.6 Design of Composite Slab
4.6.1 Design Situations

When designing composite slabs two distinct structural states must be checked: firstly, the
temporary state of execution, when only the sheeting resists the applied loads; secondly, the
permanent state, after the concrete is bonded to the steel giving composite action. Relevant
limit states and load cases are considered for both design situations.
a) Profiled sheeting as shuttering : Verifications at the ultimate limit state and the
serviceability limit state are required, with respect to the safety and serviceability of the
profiled sheeting acting as formwork for the wet concrete. The effects of any temporary props
used during execution, must be taken into account in this design situation.
b) Composite slabs : Verifications at the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit state
are required, with respect to the safety and the serviceability of the composite slab after
composite behaviour has commenced and any props have been removed.
4.6.2 Actions
The loads and other actions to be considered, for the ultimate and serviceability limit state,
are given in the relevant Eurocodes and Indian codes.
For the situation where the profiled sheeting acts as formwork, the following loads should be
considered in the calculations, taking into account any propping effects:
> Self-weight of the profiled sheeting.
> Weight of the wet concrete.
> Execution loads.
r- Temporary storage load, if applicable.
The execution loads represent the weight of the operatives, any loads due to placing the
concrete, and also take into account any impact or vibration likely to occur during execution.
51
In accordance with EC4, a representative value of execution loads (including any excess of
concrete) can be taken to be 1.5 kN/m2, distributed on an area 3m x 3m (or the span of the
sheeting, if less) and 0.75 kN/m2 on the remaining formwork surface.
For the situation where the steel and the concrete act compositely, the loads acting on the slab
should comply with Eurocode 1 [92],
> Self-weight of the slab (profiled sheeting and concrete);

> Other permanent self-weight loads (not load carrying elements);
> Reactions due to the removal of the possible propping;
> Live loads;
> Creeping, shrinkage and settlement;
> Climatic actions (temperature, wind, etc.).
4.6.3 Effective Span

The continuous slab is designed as a series of simply-supported spans, for simplicity. The
effective span can be taken as the lesser of the following two:
> Distance between centres of supports
> The clear span plus the effective depth of the slab.
If, profiled deck sheet is propped during construction then, effective span is calculated using
the formula, which is is taken from BS 5950: Part 4 [93] as there is no provision in EC 4.
I — B + dap
_ (4.17)
Where, B = width of top flanges of the supporting steel beams, dap= the depth of the
sheeting, and l = actual span of the composite floor.
4.6.4 Serviceability Limit States For Composite Floor
4.6.4.1 Deflections
The limitations on deflection for composite slabs are not explicitly provided in IS: 11384 -
1985 [1]. EC4 gives explicit guidance, which is as follows. The deflection of profiled
sheeting due to its own weight and the wet concrete slab should not exceed (e/180 or 20 mm,
where le is the effective span.
The maximum deflection below the level of the supports should not exceed span/250 and the
increase of deflection after construction (due to creep and to variable load) should not exceed
span/300 or span/350 if the floor supports brittle finishes or partitions.
52
The deflections may not be excessive when span-to-depth ratios are kept within certain limits.
These values are given in EC4 as 25 for simply supported slabs, 32 for spans with one end
continuous and 35 for internal spans. These limitations are regarded as “deemed to satisfy”
the serviceability deflection limits. ‘Depth’ limits relate to effective depths, so for composite
slabs the depth should be taken as depth of composite slab over centroidal axis of the profiled
deck sheet rather than total depth of the slab.
4.6.4.2 Cracking of Concrete
The crack width in hogging moment regions of continuous slabs should be checked in
accordance with Eurocode 2 [94]. In normal circumstances, as no exposure to aggressive
physical or chemical environments and no requirements regarding water proofing of the slab
exist, cracking can be tolerated with a maximum crack width of 0.3 mm. If the crack width is
higher than this limit, reinforcement should be added according to usual reinforced concrete
rules.
Where continuous slabs are designed as a series of simply supported beams, the cross-
sectional area of anti-crack reinforcement should not be less than 0.2 % of the cross-sectional
area of the concrete on top of the steel sheet for unpropped construction and 0.4 % for
propped construction according to EC4.
4.6.43 End Slip
For external spans, end slip can have a significant effect on deflection. For non-ductile
behaviour, initial end slip and failure may be coincident while for semi-ductile behaviour,
end slip will increase the deflection.
Where test behaviour indicates initial slip at the desired service load level for the non-
anchored slab, end anchorage (studs, cold formed angles...) should be used in external slabs.
Such end slip is considered as significant when it is higher than 0.5 mm. Where end slip
exceeding 0.5 mm occurs at a load below 1.2 times the design service load, then end anchors
should be provided or deflections should be calculated including the effect of the end slip.
53

Check the adequacy of the continuous composite profiled deck slab with spans of 3.5 m. The
cross section of the profiled sheeting is shown in Fig. 4.11. The slab is propped at the centre
during construction stage. Here yap = 1.15 and M20 grade of concrete is used.
Fig. 4.11 Cross Section of Composite Slab
Decking Sheet Data: (As per manufacturer’s tables)

Yield strength of steel, fyp = 280 N/mm2
Design thickness, allowing for zinc, tp = 0.86 mm

Effective area of cross-section, Ap = 1185 mm2/m
Moment of inertia, Ip = 0.57 * 106 mm4/m.

Plastic moment of resistance Mpa
= 4.92 kN-m/m
Distance of centroid above base e = 30 mm
Distance of plastic neutral axis above base, ep = 33 mm
Resistance to vertical shear, Vpa = 49.2 kN/m
For resistance to longitudinal shear, m = 184 N/mm2, k = 0.0530 N/mm:
Modulus of elasticity of steel, Ea = 2.0* 105 N/mm2
Load Data:
Type of Load Load Intensity (kN/m2) Factored load (kN/m2)
Imposed load 4.5 4.50* 1.50 = 6.75
Dead load of slab 2.41 2.41 * 1.35 = 3.25
Construction load 1.5 1.50* 1.50 = 2.25
Profiled steel sheeting as shuttering:
Effective length of the span: The profiled deck sheet is propped at the centre as shown in Fig.
4.12. Assume the top flanges of the supporting steel beams are at least 0.15 m wide and the
width of the prop is neglected. Sheeting
Fig. 4.12 Profiled sheeting During Construction

The effective length of each of the two spans is given by:
l-B + d.ap 3500-150 + 70
le=------2~£E =----------- 2----------- =171°
The depth of the sheeting is 70 mm.

Factored moments and vertical shears: Assume end supports are unrestrained.
Moments:
Sagging Moment = (WuD, + wu LL\ h7 = (3.25

“jjpj (-j-j- + 2.25\ ,C1-71_ )
= 1.45 kNm/m
Hogging Moment = (WuDL

(—— +wuLL\
—~J le2 =(3.25 + 2.25\
—J (1.712)
= 1.68 kNm/m
Vertical Shear:
Shear force at A — (0.5 wuDL + 0.5 wuLL)le = (0.5 x 3.25 + 0.5 x 2.25)(1.71)
= 4.7 kN/m
Shear force at B = (0-6wu_DL + 0.6wuLL)le = (0.6 x 3.25 + 0.6 x 2.25)(1.71)
= 5.64 kN/m
Check for moment:

Design Moment = Mpa/yap= 4.92/1.15 = 4.27 kN-m/m > 1.68 kN-m/m
Hence, the profiled deck is safe in flexure at construction stage.
Check for shear:

Vertical shear rarely governs design of profiled sheeting.
Design Shear = Vpa/Yap= 49.2/1.15 = 42.8 kN-m/m > 5.64 kN-m/m
Design shear is more than actual vertical shear, hence OK.
55
Check for deflection:

Design load at construction stage(Assuming prop does not deflect) = 2.41 + 1.5 = 3.91 kN/m2
The maximum deflection in span AB, if BC is unloaded, is

wit 3.91 x 1.714
Smax ~ 185EaIp ” 185 x 0.20 x 0.57 “ 1-6mm
This is less than span/1068, which is very low.
Composite Slab:
Effective span: [Propping is removed]
Distance between centre of supports = 3.5m
Clear distance between the supports + effective depth of the slab
= (3.5 - 0.15) + 0.12 = 3.47 m
Hence, effective length = 3.47 m
Flexure and vertical shear:

The design ultimate loading = (wUiDL + wUiLL) = 3.25 + 6.75 = 10.0 kN/m2
Mid-span bending moment is

Msd = 10.0 * (3.47)2/8 = 15.1 kN-m/m
For vertical shear consider effective span as 3.5 m.

Then, vertical shear at supports is
Vsd = ( 3.5 * 1.0 * 10,0)/2 = 17.5 kN/m
Check for moment:

For the bending resistance,
Avfuv 0.28
% = = H85 x — = 289 kN/m
Yap l.lo
Design compressive strength of the concrete =0.36 *20 = 7.2 N/mm2
So, from equation (2) of a previous chapter, the depth of the stress block is
NCf 289
40.1 mm
b(fck) 1 x 7.2
This is less than he.
Mp.Rd = 289 (0.12 - 0.017) = 29.8 kN m/m > 15.1 kN m/m
Hence, the bending resistance is sufficient
Check for vertical shear:

b0 = 162 mm, b = 300 mm, dp =120 mm.
The area Ap is
56
Ap = 0.86 (162 - 26 + 66) = 174 mm2,

Av 174
0.09
b0dp 162 x 120
and kv = 1.62 — 0.12 = 1.48m
The basic shear strength is tr<j = 0.30 N/mm2,
162
VVtRd = — x 120 x 0.3 x 1.48(1.2 + 36) = 45 kN/m
Vv.Rd > Vsd> hence composite slab is OK in shear.
Check for longitudinal shear:

Longitudinal shear is checked by 'm-k' method.
B = 1.0 m
m =184 N/mm2
dp = 120 mm
k = 0.0530 N/mm2
Ap =1185 mm2/m
Tvs = 1-25
4 =£14 =3470/4 = 867 mm.
The m-k method gives the vertical shear resistance as
r!84xll85 . nnrn}
VLRd = bdp—s = (1000)(120) -f*?7-----------i x 10~3 = 29.2 kN/m
Yvs l.Zb
Note that partial safety factor for shear studs is taken as 1.25.
Check for serviceability:
Cracking of concrete above supporting beams : The steel beams should be provided by
reinforcement of area 0.4% of the area of concrete, since the floor is propped during
construction. Hence, provide reinforcement of
As = (0.4/100) * 1000 * 80 = 320 mm2/m.
Deflection : In calculation of deflection, effects due to the use of propped construction and
the presence of the reinforcement of area, As, provided for cracking are neglected. Both
effects reduce deflection.
Span/depth = 3470/120 = 28.9 < 32 (For end span)

Hence, there is no need for deflection check.
57
4.8 Program for Composite Slabs

4.8.1 General
Constant need for cost-effective structural forms has led to the increasing use of composite
construction. However, complication in the analysis and design of composite structures, has
led numerous researchers to develop simplified methods so as to eliminate a number of large
scale tests needed for the design. Here details of a program developed in VB.NET for the
analysis and design of composite slabs are given.
Normally, fabricators of steel sheeting provide engineers and builders with design tables for
commonly used spans and thicknesses in order to facilitate the design of composite slabs.
However, engineers need to justify their calculations. Acceptance of steel-concrete composite
construction is dependent on availability of ready design, efficient code provisions and
cultural congenial to steel intensive construction.
4.8.2 Screen Shots of The Program For Composite Slab
Here a program is developed for the design of composite steel concrete slab. Start-up screen
and main form of the developed program are shown in Fig. 4.13 and Fig. 4.14 respectively. A
form depicted in Fig. 4.15 is included for selecting the manufacture’s data for profiled sheet
based on the test for different depth of profile sheet and also for entering user defined data in
form given in Fig. 4.16. Also, a form is developed which gives choice to the user to provide
concrete properties and partial safety factor for design as shown in Fig. 4.17 and to provide
different loading data as depicted in Fig. 4.18. Steel table is also attached with this form as
shown in Fig. 4.19, so that the designer can choose from the available steel sections for the
composite slab and thus their properties can be automatically used for design. Just with one
click on the check button, one can apply the check for moment of resistance of section, shear
and deflection as shown in Figs. 4.20 and 4.21. After that one can check the neutral axis
position using form given in Fig. 4.22. Form for checking bending moment and shear for
composite stage is shown in Fig. 4.23. Where as form for check for serviceability is shown in
Fig. 4.24.
58
Fig. 4.13 Start Up Screen for Composite Floor
Fig. 4.14 Main Form for Composite Floor Design
Fig. 4.15 Form for Selecting Data for Profiled Steel Sheet
59
DATA IS TAKEN FROM MANUFACTURER'S TABLE

r_~irg|i5ri
PROFILE SHEET PROPERTY
Depth of profllesheet width of rib |b) 300
Design thickness of sheet O.S6|

Span of sheeJ 3.5
Effective width of rib (bo) 162
DESIGN RESISTA NOE OF PROFILE SHEET
ft/mm ^2
YeiId strength of steel Fy
Distance of centroid above base (e) | 30 mm
Selfweight of sheeting 0.27 VcN / mA2
Moment of inertia 0.57 jc 10A6 mm'A4/m
2.0 rc 10A5 N/mmA2

Modiilns of elasticity of steel
4.92 kN.m/m
Elastic moment of resistance
Resistance to vertical shear 49.2 kN / m
Eor resistance to longitudinal shear 184 N/mmA2
0.0530 N/ mmA 2
Fig. 4.16 Form for Entering the Data for Profiled Steel Sheet
Ml MATERIAL PROPERT Y
BE®
MATERIAL PROPERTY
CONCRETE
Grade of concrete 30 -v N/mm ^2

O Normal weight
Density of concrete 1300 v kg/m''3
(•> I ighlweighl Depth of concrete (he)
Depth of composite slab (ht)
STEEL
Yeild strength of steel 250 N/mm~2
Yeild strength of re inforce m e nt Fsk 415 N /mm "2
PARTIAL SAFETY E'ACTOR
Material factor Load factor
Steel 1.15 Eor L L 1.5
Concrete 1.5 For DL
Reinforcement 1.15
nnr
Density of concrete ranges from 1 /50kg/m,'3-2100kg/mA3
Fig. 4.17 Form for Entering the Material Property

EH LOADING r-~ir51|STl
Loading on the deck

U D LOADING IN kN/mA2
Unfactored load F actored load
Imposed load 3.0 tN/mA2 4.5 kN/mA2
Self weight of slab 2. 14 kN/mA2 2.88 kN/mA2
Self weight of sheeting 0.27 kN/mA2 0.364) kN/mA2
Construction load 1.5 m/m”2 kN/mA2

2.25
Floor finish 0.5 kN/mA2 kN/mA2
0.675
Partition load
1.0 kN/inA2 1.5
| OK | | FACTORED LOAD
□ P® c 1
Fig. 4.18 Form for Calculating the Factored Load
60
SECTIONAL PROPERTY
sectional properties of beam
ISTVIB 450
Weight of section = Kg/m
Depth of section =
Width of flange
Thickness of web =
Sectional area (on)~2

D D
Supporting steel beam should have 150mm width of flange
Fig. 4.19 Form for Sectional Property of Supporting Steel Beam

J) CONSIRIK MON SIAM fC
PROFILED STEEL SHF.KT1NO AH SHUTTERING AT CONSTRUCTION STAOE
<S PROPPED O UNPROPPED
Profiled steel aheetu*<| dunn| comtrucuon propped at center
PROP
1 F y I
1
Effective leugth of each of two apsu
CHECK FOR MOMENT
Sagging moment 1.45 1 kN i

Hogging moment I .683 kN m/n E2S3HEJ
Design moment 4.278 kN m/m j CHECK vat* undtr benduvi
I IL J L
Fig. 4.20 Form for Bending Moment at Construction Stage

CONSTRUCTION STAGE
PROFILED STEEL SHEETING AS SHUTTERING AT CONSTRUCTION STAGE
CHECK FOR SHEAR
Vertical shear at supprot 6.440 kN/m
Vertical shear at prop 7.729 kN/m
Design vertical shear resistance 42.78 kN/m
CHECK FOR DEFLECTION

Assumed that the prop dose not deflect.
Design load at construction stage 5.143 kN/m ^2
Maximum Deflection 2.085
Allowable Deflection CHECK
i <■ 11 °k n ■» i
Fig. 4.21 Form for Shear & Deflection Check at Construction Stage
61
03 BENDING RESISTANCE 00®

RESISTANCE OF COMPOSITE SLAB TO BENDING
■4451c k
* l T ^
M"
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

(A) Typical wave length of sheeting (B) Neutral axis above sheeting
(C) Neutral axis with in sheeting Sum of resistance of fig (D) and fig (E) in fig (C)
composite stage
R917 i.m /_
Bending resistance (Ncf)
Depth to the centroidal axis (Xu)
Depth of stress block (x)
Design moment (Mprd)
OK
Fig. 4.22 Form for Shear & Deflection Calculation at Composite stage
S3 COMPOSITE STAGE 0(0®

composite slab
FLEXURE AND VERTICAL SHEAR
3.47
Effective span
Design ultimate load 9.919 kN/mA2
Mid span bending moment (Msd) 14.929: kN. in / in
Vertical shear at supprot 17.358: CALCULATE
CHECK FOR MOMENT
Bending resistance (Ncf) 288.52 kM
Design compressive strength of concrete 10.8 N/ ,
Depth of stress block (x) 26.714 inn:
Design moment (Mprd) 24.928 kN m/ m
CHECK FOR SHEAR
Effective area of shearing within width (bo) 139.32
Factor allowing higher shear strength (KV) 1.48
Basic shear strength of concrete (Zrd) 0.3 N / mmA2
Shear resistance (Vrd) 42.7731 kN/n CHECK
IS 1 °K I cs
Fig. 4.23 Form for Shear & Moment Check at Composite Stage
CHECK FOR LONGITUDINAL SHEAR

decknew
Longitudinal shear is checked by m k method
Factors for m-k method m =
k =
Vertical shear resistance (ViRd)
Design vertical shear (Vd)
CHECK FOR SERVICEABILITY
1. Cracking of concrete above supporting beams
Required area of longitudinal reinforcement 320 mmA2 / m
The steel beams should be provided by reinforcement of O.A°/a of tine

area of concrete since tine floor is propped during construction.
Diameter
Provided area 334-.93 mm" 2 / m
Spacing
provide mm spacing or 150

2. Deflection
Span/depth 28.0 1
Allowable Span/depth |CHECK

32
CSC
Fig. 4.24 Form for Check for Longitudinal Shear & Deflection
63
5. Development of Program For Composite Beams
5.1 An Overview
Composite beam is the most common form of composite element in steel frame building
construction and has been the major form for mid range steel bridges. A steel concrete
composite beam consists of a steel beam, over which a reinforced concrete slab is cast with
shear connectors, as shown in Fig. 5.1(a). The composite beam can also be constructed with
profiled sheeting with concrete topping, instead of cast-in place or pre-cast reinforced
concrete slab (Fig 5.1 (b)).
R.C.C Slab Deck Slab
Fig. 5.1 Typical Section of Composite Beam

The high bearing capacity and stiffness of composite beams allow the construction of very
wide column free rooms with comparatively little construction height. Until now composite
beams have only been built single span or continuous; rigid composite connections to the
columns have been avoided because of missing knowledge. For higher column spacing
castellated beams and trusses are brought into action. In special cases the steel beam sections
may be partially encased. The normal method of designing simply-supported beams for
strength is by plastic analysis of the cross-section. Full shear connection means that sufficient
64
5. Development of Program for Composite Beams
shear connectors are provided to develop the full plastic capacity of the section. Beams
designed for full shear connection result in the lightest beam size. Where fewer shear-
connectors are provided (known as partial shear connection) the beam size is heavier but the
overall design may be more economical.
Partial shear connection is most attractive where the number of shear-connectors is placed in
a standard pattern, such as one per deck trough or one per alternate trough where profiled
decking is used. In such cases, the resistance of the shear connectors is a fixed quantity
irrespective of the size of the beam or slab. Conventional elastic design of the section results
in heavier beams than with plastic design because it is not possible to develop the full tensile
resistance of the steel section.
5.2 Behaviour of Simply Supported Composite Beam

The behaviour of simply supported composite beams under uniformly distributed load of
w/unit length as shown in Fig. 5.2 is best illustrated by using two identical beams, each
having a cross section of b*h and spanning a distance of £, one placed at the top of the other.
For theoretical explanation, two extreme cases of no interaction and 100% (full) interaction
are considered and their effect on bending and shear stress distribution is depicted in Figs. 5.2
(b) and (c) respectively.
w jHb|—
b
A r—*-► , A
H---------- — ------------------- h ---------------------//2---------- ----------J
(a) elevation (b) section
(c) bending stress (d) shear stress
Fig. 5.2 Effect of Shear Connection on Bending and Shear Stresses
65
5.3 Behaviour Of Continuous Composite Beam
Continuous beams offer greater load resistance and greater stiffness which result in a smaller
steel section being required to withstand specified loading. 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. The mid span regions of continuous composite beams
behave in the same way as the simple span composite beam. However, the support regions
display a considerably different behaviour as shown diagrammatically in Fig. 5.3 [95]. The
concrete in the mid span region is generally in compression and the steel in tension. Over the
support this distribution reverses as the moment is now hogging. The concrete cannot carry
significant tensile strains and therefore cracks. To avoid cracking longitudinal reinforcements
are provided as shown in Fig. 5.3.
—Cracked concrete
Sagging Sagging
Bending Moment Diagram
Netural axis
Section X-X
Reinforcement
To avoid cracking
Section Y-Y
Fig. 5.3 Behavior of Continuous Composite Beam under Gravity Loadt&]
66
5.4 Basis of The Design

For design purpose, the analysis of composite section is made using Limit State of Collapse
method. IS: 11384-1985 Code deals with the design and construction of only simply
supported composite beams. Some of the design criteria are also considered as per EC4.
5.4.1 Span to Depth Ratio

EC4 specifies the span to depth (total beam and slab depth) ratios as given in Table 5.1 for
which the serviceability criteria will be deemed to be satisfied.
Table 5.1 Span to Depth Ratio as According to EC4
I ypes of Beam Eurocode 4

15-18 (Primary Beams)
Simply supported
18-20(Secondary Beams)
18-22 (Primary Beams)
Continuous
22-25 (end bays)
5.4.2 Effective Breadth of Flange

A composite beam acts as a T-beam with the concrete slab as its flange. The bending stress in
the concrete flange is found to vary along the breadth of the flange as in Fig. 5.4, due to the
shear lag effect. This phenomenon is taken into account by replacing the actual breadth of
flange (B) with an effective breadth (beff), such that the area FGHIJ nearly equals the area
ACDE. Research based on elastic theory has shown that the ratio of the effective breadth of
slab to actual breadth (beff/B) is a function of the type of loading, support condition, and the
section under consideration. For design purpose a portion of the beam span (20% - 33%) is
taken as the effective breadth of the slab.
67
5, Development of Program for Composite Beams
In EC4, the effective breadth of simply supported beam is taken as IJ8 on each side of the
steel web, but not greater than half the distance to the next adjacent web. For simply
supported beam l0 = l. Therefore,
l
ueff ^4 uuC - B ■" C5’1)
where, 10 = The effective span taken as the distance between points of zero moments, 1=
Actual span and B = Centre to centre distance of transverse spans for slab.
For continuous beams 10 is obtained from Fig. 5.5 [6].
0.25(l/+l2) j 0.25(1 ?+(3) ^ L5i4*ut < £4+0.5 is
' ..................[' ~...... [ ......
0.81, | | 0.7t2 | 10.81i-Q.314 ,|

but >0.71}
Fig. 5.5 Value of iqfor Continuous Beam as Per EC4
5.4.3 Partial Safety Factor for Loads and Materials

The partial safety factors for load yf and for materials ym are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Partial Safety Factors as per the New IS: 800: 2007
I nq/l.
■i.oau Partial safety factor, y,
Dead load 1.5
Live load 1.5
Materials Partial safety factor, y.,,
Concrete 1.5
Structural Steel 1.15
Reinforcement 1.15
5.4.4 Section Classifications
Four classes of sections are defined as follows:

a) Plastic - Cross sections, which can develop plastic hinges and have the rotation
capacity required for failure of the structure by formation of a plastic mechanism.
b) Compact - Cross sections, which can develop plastic moment of resistance, but have
inadequate plastic hinge rotation capacity for formation of a plastic mechanism.
c) Semi-Compact - Cross sections, in which the extreme fibre in compression can reach,
yield stress, but cannot develop the plastic moment of resistance, due to local
buckling.
68
d) Slender - Cross sections in which the elements buckle locally even before reaching
yield stress.
Local buckling of the elements of a steel section reduces its capacity. Because of local
buckling, the ability of a steel flange or web to resist compression depends on its slenderness,
represented by its breadth/thickness ratio. The effect of local buckling is therefore taken care
of in design, by limiting the slenderness ratio of the elements i.e, web and compression
flange. The classification of web and compression flange is presented in the Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Classification of Section

. -
Class of Section
l>pcof
Element 1 ,M ,1':uiul1 Semi-
Plaslie(|l,) < ompacldb)
conipail(fL)
Outstand element Rolled b/t < 9.4e b/t < 10.5s b/t < 15.7s
of compression
flange Welded b/t < 8.4e b/t < 9.4s b/t < 13.6s
Internal element
Bending b/t < 29.3s b/t < 33.5s b/t < 42s
of
compression
Axial Comp. Not Applicable b/t < 42s
flange
N.A. at mid
d/t < 84s d/t < 105s d/t < 126s
depth
If rl is 105s _
web Generally negative 84s ——< 42s
l + ri 126s
d/t 1 + ri
If rl is 105s
< 42s 1 1 c ^ 42s
positive 1 + 1.5r!
where, b = half width of flange of rolled section, t = Thickness, d = clear depth of web,
e = ^/250/fy , and fy= compressive stress taken as positive and tensile stress negative.
If the compression flange falls in the plastic or compact category as per the above
classification, plastic moment capacity of the composite section is used provided the web is
not slender. For compression flange, falling in semi-compact or slender category elastic
moment capacity of the section is used.
5.5 Design of Composite Beams
The composite beam is designed to have sufficient bending strength and stiffness and secure
connection to the slab. The principle aspect of behaviors of the composite beam which need
69
to be considered in this respect are bending strength, adequacy of the connection between
slab and beam and its deflection performance.
5.5.1 Reinforced Concrete Slab Supported on Steel Beams
Reinforced concrete slab connected to rolled steel section through shear connectors (Fig. 5.6)
is perhaps the simplest form of composite beam.
Fig. 5.6 Notations as per IS: 11384-1985
The ultimate strength of the composite beam is determined from its collapse load capacity.
The moment capacity of such beams can be found by the method given in IS:11384-1985 [1].
In this code a parabolic stress distribution is assumed in the concrete slab. Here a stress
factor a = 0.87fy/0.36(fck)cu is applied to convert the concrete section into steel. The
additional assumptions made by the IS: 11384-1985 are given below:
> The maximum strain in concrete at outermost compression member is taken as 0.0035
in bending.
> The total compressive force in concrete is given by fcc = 0.36 (fck)cu bxu and this acts
at a depth of 0.42 xu, not exceeding ds.
> The stress strain curve for steel section and concrete are as per IS: 456-2000.
The notations used here are : Af = area of top flange of steel beam, As = cross sectional area of
steel beam, beff= effective width of concrete slab, bf = width of top flange of steel section, dc =
distance between centroids of concrete slabs and steel beam in a composite section, tf =
thickness of the top flange of the steel section, xu = depth of neutral axis at ultimate limit state
of flexure, Mu=ultimate bending moment.
The three cases that may arise are given below with corresponding M„.
70
Case I: Plastic neutral axis within the slab (Fig. 5.7)
Fig. 5.7 Stress Distribution with Neutral Axis within Concrete Slab
This occurs when beff ds > a As
Taking moment about centre of concrete compression
Mu = 0.87Asfy(dc + 0.5ds - 0.42xu) ... (5.2)
Where, xu = aAs/beff and a = 0.87fy/0.36(fck)cu
Case II: Plastic neutral axis within the top flange of steel section (Fig. 5.8)
This happens when beffds < aAs < (beffds + 2a Af)
Equating forces, one gets
aAs bef f ds
ds + ...(5.3)
2 tya
Taking moment about centre of concrete compression
Mu = 0.87fy[As{dc + 0.08ds) - bf(xu - ds)(xu + 0.16ds)] ...(5.4)
Fig. 5.8 Stress Distribution with Neutral Axis within Flange of Steel Beam
71
Case III: Plastic neutral axis lies within web (Fig. 5.9)
This happens when, a (As - 2Af) > beffds
-2F*
0.87
w w
Fig. 5.9 Stress Distribution with Neutral Axis within the Web of the Steel Beam
Equating area under tension and compression

— 2/I/) — beffds
ds + tf + ■ (5.5)
2 atw
Taking moment about the centre of concrete compression
Mu = 0.87fyAs(dc + 0.08ds) - 2Af(0.5tf + 0.58ds)
—2tw(xu — ds — tf )(0.5xu + 0.08ds + 0.51^) ... (5.6)
5.5.2 Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Profiled Deck and Steel Beams
The design procedure of composite beams depends upon the class of the compression flange
and web. Table 5.4 shows the classification of the sections suggested in EC4 based upon the
buckling tendency of steel flange or web. The resistance to buckling is a function of width to
thickness ratio of compression members. Table 5.4 shows that for sections falling in Class 1
and 2 [7], plastic analysis is recommended. For simply supported composite beams the steel
compression flange is restrained from local as well as lateral buckling due to its connection to
concrete slab. Moreover, the plastic neutral axis is usually within the slab or the steel flange
for full interaction. So, the web is not in compression. This allows the composite section to be
analysed using plastic method.
72
Table 5.4 Classification of Sections and Methods of Analysis (EC4)
| 9 A-
Slenderness class and name
pla .tie lend -r
;
comnact
;
ifl
compact
|||
ll
■
Method of global analysis plastic elastic elastic elastic

Analysis of cross-sections plastic plastic elastic elastic
Maximum ratio of c/t for flanges

of rolled I-section
Uncased web 8.14 8.95 12.2 no limit
Encased web 8.14 12.2 17.1 no limit
Where, c is half the width of a flange of thickness t.
The notations used here are as follows:

Aa = area of steel section, ya = partial safety factor for structural steel, yc = partial safety factor
for concrete, beff = effective width of flange of slab, fy = yield strength of steel, (fCk)Cy =
characteristic (cylinder) compressive strength of concrete,(fk) = yield strength of
reinforcement, hc = distance of rib from top of concrete, ht = total depth of concrete slab and
hg = depth of centre of steel section from top of steel flange.
Note: Cylinder strength of concrete (fCk)cy is usually taken as 0.8 times the cube strength.
Case I: Neutral axis within the concrete slab (Full shear connection, Fig. 5.10)
Fig. 5.10 Distribution with Neutral Axis in Concrete Slab
73
This occurs when

QSS<M2Lb hc>^2-
(5.7)
Yc ” Ya
The depth of plastic neutral axis can be found by using force equilibrium.
' Ya ” Yc (5.8)
Agfy/Ya
(5.9)
Kr, 0.85^2
This expression is valid for x < hc.
\
The plastic moment of resistance of the section,

Aafv
Mp — (hg + ht— x/2) ...(5.10)
Ya
Case II: Neutral axis within the steel top flange (Full shear connection, Fig. 5.11)
This case arises when
Ncf < Na.p|
(fck)cv Aafv
i. e. beff hc0.85—^ ... (5.11)
Yc Ya
------—b«ff ..........................»}
0.85rC3d„ / Yc
Fig. 5.11 Stress Distribution with Neutral Axis in Flange of Beam
To simplify the calculation it is assumed that strength of steel in compression is 2fy/ya, so that,
the force Na.pi and its line of action remain unchanged. Note that the compression flange is
assumed to have a tensile stress of fy/ya and a compressive stress of 2fy/ya> giving a net
compressive stress of fy/ya. So, the plastic neutral axis will be within steel flange if,
74
Na.pi -Ncf < 2 bf tf fy/ya

Equating tensile force with compressive,
Na.pl = Ncf + Nac
i. e. = 0.85 beffhc + 2bf(x- ht) ^ ... (5.12)

Ya Yc U T Ya
The value of x is found from the above equation.

The plastic moment of resistance is found from
, , \ N,r(x — hr + hi)
Mp = Na pl (hg + h, - hc/2)---- -------_£----- L ... (S.13)
Case III: Neutral axis lies within web (Full shear connection, Fig. 5.12)
If the value of x exceeds (hc + tf), then the neutral axis lies in the web. In design this case
should be avoided, otherwise the web has to be checked for slenderness.
In similar procedure as the previous one, here x can be found from

Na.pl % T Nacf + Naw
= Ncf + Ibftffy/Ya + 2tw(x -ht- tf)fy/Ya - (5.14)
Plastic moment of resistance

Mp — Napi(hg + hi — hc/2) — NaCf(hi + t^/2 — hc/2)
~ Na w(pc + hi + tf — hc)/2 ... (5.15)
75
Case IV: Resistance to hogging Bending Moment
Fig. 5.13 Resistance to Hogging Bending Moment
The stress distribution for hogging moment region for neutral axis within flange and for
netural axis within web is shown in Fig, 5,13. In case of continuous composite beam
resistance to hogging moment is calculated by using formula given in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5 Negative Moment Capacity of Section with Full Shear Connection
Position of Plastic Condition Moment Capacit\ \/,.

Neutral Axis
Plastic neutral axis A(twfy _ Asfsk ___ Aafy

B Aafy D Asfsk
in steel flange, Ya Fs la Mp ~ + a
y Ya 2 ys
Fig. 5.13 (a)
Plastic neutral axis ^sfsk ^ Aawfy Mv

■ in web, Ys " Ya , Asf$k (D , ^ , (Askfsk\ !A A fy
Fig. 5.13 (b) r. UHfl y, J/4*1**,
5.6 Other Design Aspects

5.6.1 Vertical Shear Resistance
In a composite beam, the concrete slab resists some of the vertical shear. But there is no
simple design model for this, as the contribution from the slab is influenced by whether it is
continuous across the end support, by how much it is cracked, and by the local details of the
76
shear connection. It is therefore assumed that the vertical shear is resisted by steel beam
alone, exactly as if it was not composite.
The shear force resisted by the structural steel section should satisfy:
V<VP
where, Vp is the plastic shear resistance given by,
fv
= 0.6Dt— (for rolled l,H, C sections) (5.16)
Ya
f
= dt —~~ (for builtup / sections) (5.17)
Yay 3
In addition to this the shear buckling of steel web should be checked.
The shear buckling of steel web can be neglected if following condition is satisfied
d
— < 67e for web not encased in concrete (5.18)
d
— < 120 e for web encased in concrete (5.19)
where, e = j(250/fy ) and d is the depth of the web considered in the shear area.
5.6.2 Resistance of Shear Connectors

5.6.2.1 Effect of Shape of Deck Slab on Shear Connection
The profile of the deck slab has a marked influence on strength of shear connector. There
should be a 45° projection from the base of the connector to the core of the solid slab for
smooth transfer of shear. But the profiled deck slab limits the concrete around the connector.
This in turn makes the centre of resistance on connector to move up,' initiating a local
concrete failure as cracking. This is shown in Fig 5.14. EC 4 suggests the following reduction
Fig. 5.14 Behaviour of a Shear Connection Fixed Through Profile

(i) Profiled steel decking with the ribs parallel to the supporting beam.
b0 (h - hp\
Kp = 0.6 ^ ^... -... P J < 1.0 where h < hp + 75 ... (5.20)
(ii) Profiled steel decking with the ribs transverse to the supporting beam.
77
For studs of diameter not exceeding 20 mm,

(—h—~ ^ wêre hp — 85 and b0 > hp ... (5.21)
where, bo = is the average width of trough, h = is the stud height, hp = is the height of the
profiled decking slab, and Nr = is the number of stud connectors in one rib at a beam
intersection (Should not be greater than 2).
For studs welded through the steel decking, kt should not be greater than 1.0 when Nr=l, and
not greater than 0.8 when Nr > 2.
5.63 Longitudinal Shear Force

5.6.3.1 Full Shear Connection
Single span beams
For single span beams the total design longitudinal shear, Vt to be resisted by shear
connectors between the point of maximum bending moment and the end support is given by:
A„fv
Vl=Fcf=-JpL ...(5.22)
7a
Or
{fck ) cy beffh-c
Vt = 0.85 fck (5.23)
Yc
Whichever is smaller.
Continuous span beams
For continuous span beams the total design longitudinal shear, V( to be resisted by shear
connectors between the point of maximum positive bending moment and an intermediate
support is given by
Asfsk Aapfyp
Vi = Fcf + (5.24)
Ys Yap
where, As is the effective area of longitudinal slab reinforcement and Aap is the effective area
of profiled steel sheeting.
Numbers of shear connectors
The number of shear connector should be calculated to resist the horizontal shear force to be
transmitted at collapse between point of maximum and zero moment. This force is taken as
the force in the concrete Fcc at ultimate moment (IS: 11384-1985). Number of connectors is
calculated by dividing the total load carried by connectors to the design strength of
connectors.
78
The number of required shear connectors in the zone under consideration for full composite
action is given by:
Vi
(5.25)
P
where, Vf is the design longitudinal shear force, and P is the design resistance of the
connector. The shear connectors are usually equally spaced.
$.6.3.2 Minimum degree of shear connectors

The minimum degree of shear connection for headed studs with an overall length after
welding not less than 4 times diameter and shank diameter not less than 16 mm and not
exceeding 22 mm is defined by the following equations:
For steel sections with equal flanges :
L < 5 n/nf > 0.4
n
5 < L < 25 > 0.25 + 0.03L
nf
L>5 n/n.f > 1.0
where, L is the span of the beam in meter, Nf is the number of stud connectors determined for
relevant length of beam in accordance of with 5.8.1, and N is the number of stud connectors.
(i) Between the point of maximum bending moment and the end support VL to be resisted
by shear connectors is given by;
F, = Fc ... (5.26)
(ii) Between the point of maximum positive bending moment and an intermediate support
V, to be resisted by shear connectors is given by:
Asfsk . Aapfyp
V,=Fr ■+ ... (5.27)
Vs Yap
where,
M-M,ap
... (5.28)
M
1 lp — M
1‘ap
5.6.4 Interaction between Moment and Shear

Interaction between bending and shear can influence the design of continuous beam. Fig.
5.15 shows the resistance of the composite section in combined bending (hogging or sagging)
and shear. When the design shear force, V exceeds 0.5VP (point A in the Fig. 5.15), moment
capacity of the section reduces non-linearly as shown by the parabolic curve AB, in the
presence of high shear force. At point B the remaining bending resistance Mf is that
contributed by the flanges of the composite section, including reinforcement in the slab.
79
Along curve AB, the reduced bending resistance is given by
V
M <Mf + (Mp - Mf) 1-2 (5.29)
%
Fig. 5.15 Resistance to Combined Bending and Vertical Shear
Where, M = design bending moment, Mf = plastic resistance of the flange alone, Mp = plastic
resistance of the entire section, V = design shear force and Vp= plastic shear resistance.
5.6.5 TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
Shear connectors transfer the interfacial shear to concrete slab by thrust. This may cause
splitting in concrete in potential failure planes as shown in Fig. 5.16. Therefore reinforcement
is provided in the direction transverse to the axis of the beam. Like stirrups in the web of a
reinforced T beam, the reinforcement supplements the shear strength of the concrete.
Fig. 5.16 Surfaces of Potential Shear Failure [30]
80 ' i
The formulae suggested by EC4 and IS: 11384 - 1985 are given in Table 5.6 [6].
Table 5.6 Comparison of Provisions for Transverse Reinforcement
IS 11384-1985
Vr Z.SAf-pTjt + Aefsk/ys + Vpd .r=M< 0.232W(/ck)cu +
or
0.1Asv/yn < 0.623LSV(/Cfc)ra
0.2AcvT](fck)cy Vpd
Vr = +
Yc V3
where, where,
Ae is the sum of the cross sectional areas of Nc = Number of a shear connector at a
transverse reinforcement (assumed to be section,
perpendicular to the beam) per unit length of Fc = Load in kN on one connector at
beam crossing the shear surface under ultimate load,
consideration including any reinforcement
provided for bending of the slab, s = Spacing of connectors in m,
ACv is the mean cross sectional area per unit Ls = Length of shear surface (mm as
length of the beam of the concrete shear shown in Fig.( 5d ) of previous
surface under consideration. chapter but 2ds for T - beam ds for
L — beam,
77 = 1 for normal weight concrete,
Asv = Area of transverse reinforcement in
77 = 0.3+0.7(p/24) for light weight concrete, cm per meter of beam,
r basic shear strength to be taken as 0.25 n - 2 for T beam,
fctk/Yc, where fctjc is the characteristic tensile
n = 1 for L - beams.
strength of concrete,
[ n is the number of times each lower
Vp(j contribution of profiled steel sheeting, if
transverse reinforcement intersects shear
any surface].
= Apfyp/Yap
(for ribs running perpendicular to the beam)
= ?ybut < Apfyv/yap
(for ribs running parallel to the beam),

Ppd = design resistance of the headed stud
Ap = cross-sectional area of the profile
steel sheeting per unit length of the
beam,
fyp = yield strength of steel sheeting,
s = is the spacing centre to centre of the
studs along the beam
5.6.6 Effect of Continuity

The above design formulae are applicable to simply supported beams as well as to continuous
beams. Besides these, a continuous beam necessitates the check for the stability of the bottom
flange, which is in compression due to hogging moments at supports.
81
In order to determine the distribution of bending moments under the design loads, structural
analysis has to be performed. For convenience, the IS: 456-2000 [96] lists moment
coefficients as well as shear coefficients that are close to exact values of the maximum load
effects obtainable from rigorous analysis on an infinite number of equal spans on point
supports.
The concrete slab is usually assumed to prevent the upper flange of the steel section from
moving laterally. In negative moment regions of continuous composite beams the lower
flange is subjected to compression. Hence, the stability of bottom flange should be checked at
that region. The tendency of the lower flange to buckle laterally is restrained by the
distortional stiffness of the cross section. The tendency for the bottom flange to displace
laterally causes bending of the steel web, and twisting at top flange level, which is resisted by
bending of the slab as shown in Fig. 5.17.
Fig. 5.17 Inverted - U Frame Action

Local-torsional buckling of continuous beams can be neglected if following conditions are
satisfied:
> Adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than 20% of the shorter span or where
there is a cantilever; its length does not exceed 15% of the adjacent span.
> The loading on each span is uniformly distributed and the design permanent load
exceeds 40% of the total load.
> The shear connection in the steel-concrete interface satisfies the requirements of
section 5.8.
> ha < 550 mm.
5.6.7 Serviceability Limit States

For simply supported composite beams the most critical serviceability limit state is usually
deflection. This would be a governing factor in design for un-propped construction. Besides,
the effect of vibration, cracking of concrete, etc. should also be checked under serviceability
criteria. Often in exposed condition, it is preferable to design to obtain full slab in
compression to avoid cracking in the shear connector region. IS: 11384 - 1985 limits the
maximum deflection of the composite beam to L/325. The total elastic stress in concrete is
82
limited to fck/3 while for steel, considering different stages of construction, the elastic stress is
limited to 0.87 fy.
5.6.7.1 Stresses and deflection In service

As structural steel is supposed to not to yield at service load, elastic analysis is employed in
establishing the serviceability performance of composite beam. In this method the concrete
area is converted into equivalent steel area by applying modular ratio m = Es/Ec. The analysis
is done in terms of equivalent steel section. It is assumed that full interaction exists between
steel beam and concrete slab. The effect of reinforcement in compression, the concrete in
tension and the concrete between rib of profiled sheeting are ignored.
Refer to Fig. 5.18, where a transformed section is shown.

beff/m
Fig. 5.18 Elastic Analysis of Composite Beam Section in Sagging Bending

When neutral axis lies within the slab,
Aa{Zg ~ he) < V2 heff '"m (5.30)
The actual neutral axis depth can be found from

x2
Aa (Zg - x) = V2 beff — (5.31)
and the moment of inertia of the transformed section is given by

beff\ x3
/ - Ja+Aa m ) 3 (5.32)
When neutral axis depth exceeds hc, its depth x is found from the following equation.
83
Aa{Zg *)“ ” K (x 2C)

... (5.33)
and moment of inertia of the transformed section is obtained by
... (5.34)
For distributed load w over a simply supported composite beam, the deflection at mid-span is
5 wL4
... (5.35)
c 384EaI
where, Ea = Young’s Modulus for structural steel, and I = moment of inertia.
The beam can be checked for stresses under service load using the value of T as determined
above.
When the shear connection is only partial the increase in deflection occurs due to longitudinal
slip. This depends on method of construction. Total deflection is given by the formula,
... (5.36)
Where k = 0.5 for propped construction, k = 0.3 for un-propped construction, and 8a =
deflection of steel beam acting alone.
The expression gives acceptable results when np/nf > 0.4
The increase in deflection can be disregarded where:
> either np /nf > 0.5 or
> when the transverse rib depth is less than 80 mm.
S.6.7.2 Continuous Beam

In the case of continuous beam, the deflection is modified by the influence of cracking in the
hogging moment regions (at or near the supports). This may be taken into account by
calculating the second moment of area of the cracked section under negative moment
(ignoring concrete). In addition to this there is a possibility of yielding in the negative
moment region. To take account of this the negative moments may be further reduced. As an
approximation, a deflection coefficient of 3/384 is usually appropriate for determining the
deflection of a continuous composite beam subject to uniform loading on equal adjacent
spans. This may be increased to 4/384 for end spans. The second moment of area of the
section is based on the uncracked value.
84
5.6.7.3 Crack Control
Cracking of concrete should be controlled in cases where the functioning of the structure or
its appearance would be affected. In order to avoid the presence of large cracks in the
hogging moment regions, the amount of reinforcement should not exceed a minimum value
given by,
As . . fct
p= — — kr*k* — ... (5.37)
Ac
where p = is the percentage of steel, kc - is a coefficient due to the bending stress distribution
in the section( kc « 0.9), k = is a coefficient accounting for the decrease in the tensile strength
of concrete (k « 8), fct = is the effective tensile strength of concrete with the minimum value
as 3 N/mm2 and <rs = maximum permissible stress in concrete.

Design a simply supported composite beam with 10 m span shown in the Fig. 5.19. The
thickness of slab is 125 mm. The floor is to carry an imposed load of 3.0 kN/m2, partition
load of 1.5 kN/m2 and a floor finish load of 0.5 kN/m2.
Fig. 5.19 Layout of Composite Beam

Given data
Imposed load 3.0 kN/m2 Floor finish load - 0.5 kN/m2
Partition load 1.5 kN/m2 Construction load - 0.75 kN/m2
Data assumed Partial safety factors

( fck)cu - 30 N/mm2 Load Factor (yf)
fy - 250 N/mm2 for LL - 1.5
Density of concrete - 24 kN/m3 for DL - 1.35
85
Step 1: Load Calculation

Construction stage
Self weight of slab =3 x 0.125 x 24 = 9 kN/m
Self weight of beam = 0.71 kN/m (1SMB 450)
Construction load = 0.75 x 3 = 2.25 kN/m
Total design load at construction stage
= {1.5 X 2.25 + 1.35 X (9 +0.71)= 16.5 kN/m
Composite stage
Dead Load
Live Load
Self weight of slab = 9 kN/m
Imposed load =3x3 =9.0 kN/m
Self weight of beam == 0.71 kN/m
Load from partition wall = 1.5 x 3 = 4.5
Load from floor finish = 0.5 * 3 kN/m
=1.5 kN/m
Total live load =13.5 kN/m
Total dead load = 11.2 kN/m
Design load carried by composite beam = (1.35 * 11.2 + 1.5 * 13.5) = 35.4 kN/m
Step 2: Calculation of Bending Moment

Construction Stage
M = 16.5 xl02/8 =206 kNm
Composite Stage
M = 35.4 xio2/8 = 442 kNm
Step 3: Classification of Composite Section

Sectional Properties
T = 17.4mm; Iy = 8.34 x 106 mm4
D = 450mm; Zx = 1350 x 103 mm;
t = 9.4mm ry = 30.1mm
lx = 303.9 x 106 mm4
Classification of composite section
0.5 B/T = 0.5x150/17.4 = 4.3 < 8.9c
d/t = (450-2x17.4)/9.4 = 44.2 < 83s
Therefore the section is a plastic section.
Step 4: Check for Adequacy of the Section at Construction Stage

Design moment in construction stage = 206 kNm
Moment of resistance of steel seetion= fydX Z
= [(250/1.15) x 1.14 xi 350.7 xl03]/106kNm
= 334.7 kNm > 206 kNm
86
As the top flange of the steel beam is unrestrained and under compression, stability of the top
flange should be checked.
Step 5: Check for Lateral Buckling of the Top Flange

Elastic critical stress, fcb is given by
c2 26.5 x 105 1 (IT\2
fcb = h- —zr 1 4 k?
1 + —r {ryD)
20
(I)'
kj = 1 (as ¥ = 1.0) D = 450 mm;
k2 =0 (as <j> = 0.5) ( =10,000 mm;
c2 = ci = 225 mm; ry = 30.1 mm
T= 17.4 mm;
26.5 x 10s ^10000 17.4\2

fcb ~ 1 + — l 30.1 x------ 73N/mm2
/1()000\2 20 450 )
V 30.1 )
Therefore the bending compressive stress in beams
Fcb =-------- X ----------- r = 64.9N/mm2
[(/«)“ + (fyt'Y*
Moment at construction stage = 206 kNm
Maximum stress at top flange of steel section
x m6 x
fcb = ~ 3Q3~9 x ~1()6 = 152.5 N/mm2 > 64.9iV/mm2
So, we have to reduce the effective length of the beam.

Provide 2 lateral restraints with a distance of approximately 3330 mm between them.
26.5 x 105 1 /10000 17.4\

fcb 1 J______I V I
299.6 N/mm2
/3330\2 20 V 30.1 450/
\ 30.1 /
Therefore, the bending compressive stress in beams
299.6 x 250
fcb =------------------------------— = 165.9 N/mm2
[(299.6)1-4 + (250)14]T4
fcb = 165.9 > 152.5 N/mm2
Note: These restraints are to be kept till concrete hardens.
Step 6: Check for Adequacy of the Section at Composite Stage

Bending Moment at the composite stage, M = 442 kNm
Effective breadth of slab is smaller of
87
(i) span /4 = 10000/4 = 2500 mm

(ii) C/C distance between beams = 3000 mm
Hence, beff=2500mm
Position of neutral axis
0.87fy 0.87 x 250
d =---------------------£— =----------------------------------— 20 1
0-36(fck)cu 0.36 x 30
Aa = 9227 mm2
a xAa = 20.1 x 9227=1.85 x 10s mm2
beff xds = 2500 x 125 = 3.13 x 105mm2>aAa
Hence PNA lies in concrete.
Fig. 5.20 Cross Section of Composite Beam with Stress Diagram

Step 7: Design of Shear Connectors
The position of neutral axis is within slab.
.'. Total load carried by connectors,
Fcc = 0.36(fck)cubefrxu = (0.36 x 30 x 2500 x 74.3)/l 000 kN = 2006 kN
The design strength of 20 mm (dia) headed stud for M30 concrete is 58 kN.
Number of shear connectors required for 10/2 m = 5 m length = 2006 /58 ~ 34
These are spaced uniformly; Spacing = 5000/34 = 147 mm ~ 145 mm
If two connectors are provided in a row the spacing will be = 145 x 2 = 290 mm
Step 8: Serviceability Check

Modular ratio for live load =15
Modular ratio for deal load = 30
Deflection
For dead load deflection is calculated using moment of inertia of steel beam only
88
5 x 9.71 x (10000)4
d ~ 384 x 2 x 105 x 303.91 x 106 " 2°‘8 mm
For live load deflection is calculated using moment of inertia of composite section.
To find the moment of inertia of the composite section, one has to first locate the position of
neutral axis xu as
0.87 x 9227 x 250

xu = —————= 74.3 mm from the top of slab
0.36 x 30 x 2500 r
Moment of resistance of the section, Mp
Mp = 8.87AJy{dc + 0.5ds - 0.422Q

= 0.87x9227x250(287.5+0.5x125-0.42x74.3) = 640 kNm > 442 kNm
1
^(dg ~ ds) < — (peff/(*e)ds
9227 (350 - 125) < ‘A x 2500/15 x 1252

2.08 x 106 < 1.3X 106 which is not true
.*. N.A. depth exceeds ds
Aa{dg - Xu) = (*tt - y)

/450 \ 2500 nr/ 125\
9227 —+ 125-x
2 ’ )~ 1500 125
125 I T)
xu = 150.75 mm
Moment of inertia of the gross section(lg),
ds
lg~lx+ Aa(dg - xu)£ +^T~dm + (jxu ds)
oc„ 12
2500 x125 1252 (l50.75 125\^

■- 303.91 x 106 + 9227(350 - 150.75)2
15 12
859.6 x 106
5 x 15(1000)2
384 x 2 x 105 x 859.6 x 106
Total Deflection = Sd + St = 20.8 + 11.4 mm - 32.2 mm > 1/325

The section fails to satisfy the deflection check.
Composite Stage:
Dead load
At composite stage, dead load Wd
89
Wd = 11.2kN/m
M= 11.2 x io2/8 = 140kNm
Assuming neutral axis lies within the slab
1
A{dg ds) < — beffds f(Xe
.9227 (350 - 125) < % x 2500/30 x 1252

2.07x 106 > 6.5 x 105
.'. N.A. depth exceeds ds.
Location of neutral axis

Aa{dg ~ xu) = ^ ds (xu -
/450 \ 2500 / 125\

9227 (-y- + 125 - xuJ = —125 (xu---- —J
xu = 197.5 mm
Moment of area of the section
ig = ix+Aa(dg-Xuy+^d (xu - dsy

oc„ 12
2500 x125 1252 / 125\ 2l

= 303.91 x 106 + 9227(350 - 197.5)2 + (197.5-—)
15 12
= 721.9 x I06mm4
Stress in steel flange
140 x 106(450 + 125 - 197.5)
73.2 N/mm2.
721.9 x 106
Live load
At composite stage, stress in steel for live load
W, =13.5 kN/m
M = 13.5x 102/8 = 168.75 kNm
Stress in steel flange
168.75 x 106(450 + 125 - 150.75)
=--------------- 859.6 x 10«--------------- = 8329 N/mm
/.Total stress in steel = 73.2 + 83.29 = 156.5 N/mm2 < allowable stress in steel
In a.similar manner, the stress in concrete is found.
1 f140 x 106 x 197.54) 1 f168.75 x 106 x 150.75

30 ( 721.9 x 106 j + 15 ( 859.6 x 106
90
= 3.25 < ^ck^cu = 10 A//mm2
The section is safe.
Step 9: Transverse Reinforcement

Shear force transferred per meter length
2x58 kN
vr — —Q2y----------(n = 2, Since there are two shear studs)
= 400 kN/m
vr < 0.232LsV(/cfc)cu + 0.1 Asvfyn
Or
0.632Lsj(fck)cu
Ls = 2x125 = 250 mm
fy = 250 mm
n=2
0.232L5V(/c,)cm + 0.1 A svfyn
= 0.232 x 250V30 + 0.1 x Asv x 250 x 2 = 317.7 + 50Asy

Or
0.632 x 250V30 = 865 kN/m
■■ 400 = 317 + 50ASW = 165 mm2/m
Minimum Reinforcement
= 250 vrf!fy mm2/mm — 400 mm2/mm
Provide 120 @ 280 mm c/c.
5.8 Program for Composite Beams

In the present work, a program is developed in Visual Basic for the design of composite beam
with R.C.C. slab and design of composite beam with deck slab. A form shown in Fig. 5.21 is
startup screen for design of simply supported or continuous beam. User can tick mark the
checkbox to specify the type of design of composite beam. Program is coded in such a way
that the calculations of design of floor deck of previous chapter are transferred directly to the
selected beam and loading and moments and shear forces are calculated at construction stage
and composite stage. Form of Fig. 5.22 gives the choice of section with available section
database. Here whole steel table is interfaced so that the user can choose any section available
in the market; even user can change the properties in boxes. Selected section properties are
91
automatically added in the boxes. Form of Fig. 5.23 calculates the loading for construction
and composite stage. For calculation of bending moment and section classification, use of the
form of Fig. 5.24 can be made. A form is also developed for checking the section for the
ultimate limit state at the construction and composite stages for composite beam as shown in
Figs. 5.25 and 5.26. By entering the diameter and height of shear connector, one can get the
number of shear connectors required for the section as depicted in Fig. 5.27. For the
serviceability check of deflection, use the form of Fig. 5.28. Check for stresses in material
can be verified by using form of Fig. 5.29. Finally, Fig. 5.30 shows the calculation for
requirement for transverse reinforcement. Similarly, design program is developed for the
design of composite beam with solid slab for the simply supported and continuous beam. For
design purpose, the analysis of composite section is made using Limit State of Collapse
Method. As IS: 11384-1985 code deals with the design and construction of only simply
supported composite beams, for continuous beam design criteria are considered as per EC 4.
Various forms developed in the program of design of composite beam with solid slab are
shown in Figs. 5.31 to 5.45 whereas forms developed in the program for the continuous beam
are shown in Figs 5.46 to 5.54.
Forms Pen eloped for The Design of Composite Beams with Deck Slab
Fig. 5.21 Form for Composite Beam Design
92
35 Composite beam
COMPOSITTE BEAM
SECTIONAL PROPERTY LOADING BENDING MOMENT AND CLASSIFIC 4 ►
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
Dead Load (kN/m)
Self Weight of Slab 8.44 Total Design Dead Load 12.36 kN/m
Self Weight of Beam 0.71 Total Design Live Load kN/m
7.87
Total Dead Load 9.15
Live Load (kN/m)
Construction Load 5.25 Total Design Load 20.23 kN/m
COMPOSITE STAGE
Dead Load (kN/m)
Self Weight of Slab 8.44 Total Dead Load 10.90 kN/m
Self Weight of Beam 0.710 Total Design Dead Load 14.72 kN/m
From Floor Finish 1.75
Live Load (kN/m)

Imposed Load 10.5 Total Design Live Load 21 kN/m
Partition Load 3.5 Total Design Load 35.72 kN/m
| TOTAL DESIGN LOAD | 55.96 kN/m
Fig. 5.23 Form for Calculating Loading
Fig. 5.24 Form for Bending Moment and Classification of Section

9 construction stage
CHECK FOR THE ADEQUACY OF THE SECTION AT CONSTRUCTION STAGE

CHECK
Design Moment at Construction Stage 204.90 kN.m
Moment of Resistance of Steel Section
Moment of Resistance of Plastic Section 334.73 kN.m

decknew
CHECK
<BACK NEXT:
Fig. 5.25 Form for Check at Construction stage
93
Fig. 5.26 Form for Check at Composite Stage

@53 shear connector |"L lf^ If X |
Design of shear connector
Diameter of connector 19 v mm
Height of connector lOO v mm
Reduction factor (kp)
Design strength of connector kN
Longitudinal force kN
Number of shear connectors

Number of shear connectors required for half length
Numbers 38 Spacing 118 mm
Spacing for two connectors in row 236 mm
| <BACK | | CALCULATE ~| [ NEXT |
Fig. 5.27 Form for Shear Connectors
Fig. 5.28 Form for Check for Deflection
94
ifl stress
CHECK FOR STRESS
composite slago
Diir to Drjd Load Due to Live Loa-d
Total dead load 10.90 kN/ra Total live load 14 kN/n»

Motor nt Moment 141.75
1 10.43 k.N m U.m
Depth o( netural axis
200.58 mm Depth of netural axis 155.19 ■11 iu
Moment of intertia 562423981 mm A4 Moment of intertia 670613561 ram * 4
Stieu in »teel flange 64.68 N/nm'l2
Stress in steel flange 78.52 N/mraA2
decknew X|
StreMea
[ SECT! 06 IS SAFE
TOTAL STRESS IN STEEL 1*3.20
ALLOWABLE STRESS IN STEEL 217.S N/wn'2

| 1 O' 1
TOTAL STRESS IN CONCRETE 3 N/™,'? | CALCULATE j
ALLOWABLE STRESS IN CONCRETE | KFJCT ■ | -.RACK j

10
Fig. 5.29 Form for Check for Stress
Fig. 5.30 Form for Check for Transverse Reinforcement
Forms pen eloped For the Design Ok Composite Beams With Solid Slab
SI DESIGN nfnlfx]
DESIGN OF COMPOSITE STEEL CONCRETE BEAM
DESIGN OF SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAM IS ACCORDING TO IS:11384 AND IS 800
DESIGN OF CONTINUOUS BEAM IS ACCORDING TO EUR0C0DE4
Fig. 5.31 Form for Composite Beam
95
Fig. 5.32 Option Form for Composite Beam Design
Fig. 5.33 Form for Entering Loading Data
Fig. 5.34 Form for Entering the Material Property
96
Fig. 5.35 Form for Sectional Property
Fig. 5.37 Form for Bending Moment and Classification of Section
97
CHECK AT CONSTRUCTION STAGE
CHECK FOR THE ADEQUACY OF THE SECTION AT CONSTRUCTION STAGE
CHECK
Design Moment at Construction Stage 206 kN.i
Moment of Resistance of Steel Section
Moment of Resistance of Plastic Section 334.73 kN.m
Moment of Resistance of Semicompact or Compact Section

1
337.67 kN.]
CHECK
OK :BACK NEXT'
Fig. 5.38 Form for Check at Construction Stage
Fig. 5.39 Form for Checking Lateral Buckling

B CHECK AT COMPOSITESTAGE fD~|f51^<1
Fig. 5.40 Form for Check at Composite stage
98
i* SIII AH CONNECTORS
DESIGN OF SHEAR CONNECTORS

r^nr&ir*i
TYPE OF CONNECTORS
Design Strength Of Connectors for Concrete Of Different Oracle
TYPE OF CO GRADE LOAD PER S

3
MATERIAL O HEIGHT
Type of oonneetoi HEADED STUD
Grade of concrete M-30
Design strength of connector ]S8

kN
Number of shear connectors
Number of shear connectors required for half length
Numbers 35 Spacing 143 mm

CALCULATE
Spacing for two connectors in row 286

M SERVICEABILITY CHECK
SERVICEABILITY CHECK
DEFLECTION
Modular ratio for dead load 30
Modular ratio for liveload 15
Modulas of elasticity for steel (Es) 200000 N/mra~2
Modulas of elasticity for concrete (Ec) 27386.12 N/mmA2
FOR DEAD LOAD DEFLECTION IS C ALCULATED BY USING MOMENT OF INTERTIA OF STEEL BEAM
Moment of intertia of steel beam 303908000 mmA4
Deflection due to Dead load 20.80 mm

USING MOMENT OF INTER!A 1
FOR LIVE LOAD DEFLECTION IS CALCULATED BY
OF COMPOSITE BEAM
Depth of netural axis 150.74 mm

Moment of intertia of the composite section 859601097 mmA4
Deflection due to live load 1 1.3606 mm
TOTAL DEFLECTION 32. 162 mm

ALLOWABLE DEFLECTION 30.769 mm
1 CALCULATE 1
| M«n | m £3 |
SELECT THE HIGHER SECTION
Fig. 5.42 Form for Check for Deflection

9 CHECK FOR STRESS
CHECK FOR STRESS

composite stage
Due to Dead Load Due to |jve Load
Total Dead load 11.2 kN/m Total Live load 13.5 kN/m
M°ment 140.12 kN m
Moment 168.75 kN. m
Depth of netural axis „_ _ _ .
19 t .5)4 mm Depth of netural axis 150.74 mm
Moment of intertia 721907734 mm*4
Moment of intertia 859601097 min'M
Stress in steel Range 73 26 N/mm'2
Stress in steel flange 83.28 N/mmA2
composite beam and slab | X |

Stresses
N/mm~2 SECTION IS SAFE
TOTAL STRESS IN STEEL 156.54
ALLOWABLE STRESS IN STEEL 217.5 N/mm~2
TOTAL STRESS IN CONCRETE CALCULATE

3 N/mm'2
ALLOWABLE STRESS IN CONCRETE
lO N/mm"2
Fig. 5.43 Form for Check for Stress
99
9 TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
HE®
TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
Minimum Area required 405.59 mmA2/m
Diameter of transverse reinforcement lOmm v mm
Spacing of transverse reinforcement 180 v mm
Area of the steel provided as transverse reinforcement 436.11 mmA2/m
calculate ]
L
check
405.59 kN/m
shear force transferred per meter length
Design shear resistance per meter length 535.73 kN/m
| CHECK | provided
reinforcement is ok
Provide transverse reinforcement of 10 mm 'a spacing of 180 in in
| NEXT> || <BACK |

gH RESULTS
mrsir><n
COMPOSITE BEAM DIMENSION
SPAN OF* THE BEAM = I 1 O
C/C DIST BET BEAN,!

- m
DEPTH OF* I - S E CUT ION — | 450
= | 1 30
DEPTH O F“ SLAB
SHEAR CONNECTORS
TYPE — HEADED STUD
D IAN/I ET E R — | 20 NUMBERS" | 36
mm
HIEGHT - 175 SPACING"
mm
DIAMETER = | io mm
SPACING — ! 1 80 mm
Fig. 5.45 Form for Displaying Result

Steps For Continuous Composite Beam
9 DESIGN
LOADING AND SPAN OP COMPOSITE BEAM

r-nrair*!
Loading
Imposed load 35
kN/mA2
Partition load
1 o
Floor finish load o.s kN/mA2
Construction load
Span
Span of beam 7.5
Depth of slab O. 130
Distance between beams 3.0|
OK NEXT>
Fig. 5.46 Form for Entering Loading Data
100
5. Development of Program
SELECTION OF BEAM SECTION
(3 Single © Continuous span
Depth of composite section 340.9090909 mm
Select the section having depth less than the depth of composite section
WEIGHT SECTIONAL ***

DESIGNATION PER METRE AREA DEPTH WIDTH
ISMB 250 37.3 47.55 250 125

► ISMB 300 44 2 56.26 300 140
ISMB 350 52.4 66.71 350 140
< >
Sectional properties
IS1VTB 300
C -453.9 tcm)«
300 mm
D-y 1
CaD 1 z*« | 573.6 t—r
56.26 (cm)''2
rm 12. -4 mm 1 Zyy | 6-4.8
7.5 | mm | Rxx | 12.37 —
1 -40 mm 1 Ryy 1 2.8-4 cm

~ Kg/ m
44.2
i ■«« i 8603.6 (cm)<'4
1 w 1
Fig. 5.47 Form for Sectional Property

HO®'
[B Bending moment
Bending Moment Calculation

Betiding moment
Construction stage
Maximum positive moment 74.63 kN.m
Maximum negative moment 88.42 kN.m
Maximum shear force 69 .61 kN
Composite stage
Maximum positive moment 185.34 kN.m
Maximum negative moment 212.28 kN.m
Maximum shear force 159.70 kN
CLASSIFICATION OF COMPOSITE SECTION
| 0.5BI/T | 5.6-4 l ryp 1 217-39 N/mmA2

| D1/T-. | 36.69
] 573.6 (cm)A3
| Fy | 250 N/mm''
2 1 Zp 1 653.90 (cmp3
_Ol J
I 275.2 mm
| CALCULATE )
CLASS OF SECTION IS PLASTIC
[<BACK | | NEXT> |
Fig. 5.49 Form for Bending moment and Classification
101
;J> Form9
BBi)
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
Check for moment
Plastic Moment Resistance Of the steel Section 142. 15 kN.m
Design Moment in conatruction stage 88.43 kN.m

j CHECK |
Check for shear
Plastic Shear Resistance 293.47 kN
Shear force at conatruction atage 69.62 kN

coin|K»\itr beam and slab fS | (CHECK |
SECTION IS SAFE UNDER SMEAR

| *BACK | | NEXT *
1 OK |
____________
__________
Fig. 5.50 Form for Check at Construction Stage
LI CHICK f!T|[51|5<|
Check (or Lateral torsional buckling of the steel beam
Torsion constant (It) 213164.07 mm 4
Warping constant (Iw) 938SQ439160 mm''4
Here span is more so pr ovide lateral restrain at span/3 distance
Distance at restrain are provided 2500 m

Elastic critical moment 256.65 kN
Reduction factor 0.79
Non dimensional slender ness ratio 0.79
Design bulcking resistance moment 1 13.26 kN m
SECTION IS SAFE [ CHECK |
[ --BACK | | NEXT-* |
Fig. 5.51 Form for Check for Lateral Buckling
Fig. 5.52 Form for Check at Composite stage
102
S3 shear connector
Design of shear connectors
TYPE OF CO GRADE SIZE LOAD PER S MATERIAL O HEIGHT

HEADED ST M-30 22 mm 85 IS:961 -1 975x 100
HFADFD ST M-30 PCI mm R8 is ski-iS75x inn
TYPE OF CONNECTORS HEADED STUD 22 m m
GRADE OF CONCRETE M-30

Design strength of connector ItN
Position of connectors
1-Between simple end and point of maximum positive moment
Length 3000
Numbers 14
Spacing 214.28
2.Be tween simple end and point of maximum positive moment

Length 4500 mm
Numbers ig
Spacing 236.84
CALCULATE

REINFORCEMENT
Reinforcement
Area of the steel required as transverse reinforcement 260 mmA2/m
Diameter of transverse reinforcement 8 mm v mm
Sp acing of transverse reinforcement 190 v mm
Area of the steel provided as transverse reinforcement 264 mmA2/m
| CALCULATE
check
Longitudinal shear force 288.03 kN /m
Longitudinal design shear force 198.33 kN/m
CHECK section is safe
Provide the reinfocement of 8mm dia in two layer a spacing of 190 mm
| M«in j j <B»ck Exit
103
6. Development of Program for Composite Columns
6.1 Preamble
Composite columns may be classified into two principal types:

> Open sections partially or fully encased in concrete,
> Concrete-filled hollow steel sections.
Typical cross-sections of composite columns with fully and partially concrete encased steel
sections are illustrated in Fig. 6.1 whereas Fig. 6.2 shows three typical cross-sections of concrete
filled hollow steel sections.
Fig. 6.1 Cross Section of Fully and Partially Concrete Encased Columns
Fig. 6.2 Cross Section of Concrete Filled Tubular Sections
104
In composite construction, the bare steel sections support the initial construction loads, including
the weight of structure during construction. Concrete is later cast around the steel section, or
filled inside the tubular sections. In the case of concrete-filled hollow sections, the steel provides
a permanent formwork to the concrete core. This allows, for example, the steel frame to be
erected and the hollow column sections subsequently to be filled with pumped concrete. This
leads to appreciable savings in the time and cost of erection. In addition, the confinement
provided by the closed steel section allows higher strengths to be attained by the concrete. Creep
and shrinkage of concrete, are also generally neglected in the design of concrete-filled tubes,
which is not the case for concrete-encased sections. On the other hand, complete encasement of a
steel section usually provides enough fire protection to satisfy the most stringent requirements
without resorting to other protection systems. For partially encased sections, and for concrete-
filled hollow sections, codes of practice on fire resistance require additional reinforcement.
Partially encased sections have the advantage of acting as permanent formwork; the concrete is
placed in two stages with the section. In order to ensure adequate force transfer between the steel
and concrete it is sometimes necessary to use stud connectors or reinforcement connected
directly or indirectly to the metal profile. Another significant advantage of partially encased
sections is the fact that, after concreting, some of the steel surfaces remain exposed and can be
used for connection to other beams. Thus, concrete and steel are combined in sucn a fashion that
the advantages of both the materials are utilised effectively in composite column. Further, the
lighter weight and higher strength of steel permit the use of smaller and lighter foundations.
6.2 Calculation Methods

At present there is no Indian Standard covering composite columns. The method of design
largely follows EC4, which incorporate the latest research on composite construction. Any one
of the following two methods can be used for the calculation.
The first is a General Method which takes explicit account of both second-order effects and
imperfections. This method in particular can be applied to columns of asymmetric cross-section
as well as to columns whose section varies with height. It requires the use of numerical
computational tools, and can be considered only if suitable software is available.
105
The second is a Simplified Method [90] which makes use of the European buckling curves for
steel columns, and implicitly take account of imperfections.
These two methods are based on the following assumptions:

> There is full interaction between the steel and concrete sections until failure occurs;
> Geometric imperfections and residual stresses are taken into account in the calculation,
although this is usually done by using an equivalent initial member imperfection;
> Plane sections remain plane whilst the column deforms.
Here, Simplified Method is considered, because it is applicable to the majority of practical cases.
63 Local Buckling of Steel Elements

The presence of concrete firmly held in place prevents local buckling of the walls of completely
encased steel sections, provided that the concrete cover thickness is adequate. This thickness
should not be less than the larger of the following two values:
> 40 mm;
> One sixth of the width b of the flange of the steel section.
This cover, which is intended to prevent premature separation of the concrete, must be laterally
reinforced, to protect the encasement against damage from accidental impact and to provide
adequate restraint against buckling of the flanges.
For partially encased sections and concrete-filled closed sections, the slenderness of the elements
of the steel section must satisfy the following conditions:
> d/t < e2 (concrete-filled circular hollow sections of diameter d and wall thickness t);
> d/t < 526 (concrete-filled rectangular hollow sections of wall depth d and thickness £);
> b/tf < 44e (partially encased H-sections of flange width b and thickness t/);
In which e = ^235/fy, where fy is the characteristic yield strength of the steel section.
6.4 Force Transfer at Beam-Column Connections

The forces transmitted from a beam through the beam-column connection must be distributed
between the steel and concrete parts of the composite column. The nature of this force transfer
from the steel to the concrete depends on the structural details and follows a load path which
must be clearly identified. The introduction length p, necessary for full development of the
106
compressive force in the concrete part of the column, is usually less than twice the appropriate
transverse dimension d as shown in Fig. 6.3, and should not in any event exceed 2.5d.
For the purposes of calculation, it is recommended that the shear resistance at the interface
between steel and concrete is not assumed to be greater than the following (indicative) values:
> 0.3 N/mm for sections completely encased in concrete;

> 0.4 N/mm2 for concrete-filled hollow sections;
> 0.2 N/mm2 for the flanges of partially encased sections;
> 0.0 N/mm2 for the webs of partially encased sections.
=•===•=
Fin plates welded to the column
Fig. 6.3 Force Transfer in a Composite Beam-Column Connection
The detailed design of the beam-column connection has a considerable influence on the shear
resistance, and the effects of hoop-stress, confinement and friction are intimately linked to the
connection layout used. Figure 6.3 shows a typical beam-column connection, and defines the
introduction length p. In the particular case of a concrete-encased composite column for which
the bond strength between steel and concrete is insufficient for the transfer to the concrete part to
take place within the allowable length, it is possible to use shear connector studs welded to the
web of the steel section. It is then possible to take account of the shear resistance PRd of the
studs as an enhancement to the bond between the steel and concrete. This additional bond
strength, acting only on the internal faces of the flanges, can be taken as pPr<j / 2 on each flange.
The coefficient u can initially be taken as 0.5, although its real value depends on the degree of
confinement of the concrete between the flanges of the section. This assumption is valid only if
the distance between the flanges is less than the values in millimetres Fig. 6.4.
107 .
6.5 Design Method

6.5.1 Resistance of Cross-Section to Compression
The plastic compression resistance of a composite cross-section represents the maximum load
that can be applied to a short composite column. Concrete filled circular tubular sections exhibit
enhanced resistance due to the tri-axial confinement effects. Fully or partially concrete encased
steel sections and concrete filled rectangular tubular sections do not achieve such enhancement.
Encased steel sections and concrete filled rectangular/tubular sections
Py Pck Psk
Fig. 6.5 Stress Distribution of Plastic Resistance to Compression

The plastic resistance of an encased steel section or concrete filled rectangular section (i.e. the
so-called “squash load”) is given by the sum of the resistances of the components as follows:
Pp AaPy + T -dsPsfc ... (6.1)
where,
Aa, A c and A s = Areas of steel section, concrete and reinforcing steel respectively,
Py , Pck ond psk = —, ac{f ck)cy and —,
Ya Yc Ys
fy, (fck)cyandfsk = Yield strength of the steel section, the characteristic compressive
strength (cylinder) of the concrete, and the yield strength of the
reinforcing steel respectively, and
108
(Xc = Strength coefficient for concrete, which is 1.0 for concrete filled tubular
sections, and 0.85 for fully or partially concrete encased steel sections.
At this stage it should be pointed out that the Indian Standards for composite construction does
not make any specific reference to composite columns. The provisions contained in IS: 456 -
2000 [96] are often invoked for design of composite structures. Extension of IS: 456 - 2000 to
composite columns will result in the following equation,
— ^sPy 4" -^cPcfe -b Aspsk (6.2)
where, py = 0.87fy, pck= 0.4(fck)cu, Psk— 0.67fy and (fck)cu is the characteristic compressive strength,
(cube) of the concrete.
Concrete filled circular tubular sections: Special Provisions

For composite columns using circular tubular sections, there is an increased resistance of
concrete due to the confining effect of the circular tubular section.
The eccentricity, e, is defined as follows

M d
e=— <— (6.3)
P ~ 10
where, e = Eccentricity, M = Maximum applied design moment (second order effects are
ignored) and P = Applied design load.

The plastic compression resistance of concrete filled circular tubular sections is calculated by
using two coefficients and r]2 as given below.
Pp ~ AaPzPy 4" AcPck 1 4- Lhl

d fck-
4" Aspsk (6.4)
where, t = Thickness of the circular tubular section,

10*1
Vi = nio (6.5)
lOe
rj 2 =J?2o4-(1-??2o)- (6.6)
The basic values ijw and rj20 depend on the non-dimensional slenderness A, which can be read
off from Table 6.1. If the eccentricity e exceeds the value d/10, or if the non-dimensional
slenderness exceeds the value 0.5 then rji = 0 and rj2 = 1.0.
109
Table 6.1 Basic Values of rjio and i}20 as Provided in EC4 [(fCk)cy = 25 to 55 N/mm2]
|pi|f
Co-efficient A = 0.0 A = 0.2 2 = 04 2 >05
1
1
■
*
Vw 4.90 3.22 1.88 0.88 0.22 0.00
V20 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
A can be found out from the following equation,
1= (6.7)
where, Ppu = Plastic resistance of the cross-section to compression according to Eqn. 6.2 or Eqn.
6.4 with Ya = Yc = Ys= 10, and Pcr = Elastic buckling load of the column as defined in Eqn. 6.8.
6.5.2 Effective Elastic Flexural Stiffness
Composite columns may fail in buckling and one important parameter for the buckling design of
composite columns is its elastic critical buckling load, Pcr, which is defined as follows:
nz(EI)e
...(6.8)
l2
Where (EI)e is the effective elastic flexural stiffness of the composite column, and / is the
effective length of the column.
6.5.2.1 Short Term Loading

The effective elastic flexural stiffness, (El)e, is obtained by adding up the flexural stiffness of the
individual components of the cross-section as follows:
(EOe = EJa + 0.8EcdIc + ESIS ... (6.9)
Where Ia, lc and ls are the second moments of area of the steel section, concrete (assumed
uncracked) and the reinforcement about the axis of bending considered respectively, Ea and Es
are the moduli of elasticity of the steel section and the reinforcement, and 0.8ECdlc is the effective
stiffness of the concrete; the factor 0.8 is an empirical multiplier determined by a calibration
exercise to give good agreement with test result. Note that Ic is the moment of inertia about the
centroid of the uncracked column section.
ECd = Ecm/Yc ...(6.10)
Ecm is the secant modulus of the concrete and yc is reduced to 1.35 for the determination of the
effective stiffness of concrete according to Eurocode 2.
110
6.5.2.2 Long Term Loading

For slender columns under long-term loading, the creep and shrinkage of concrete will cause a
reduction in the effective elastic flexural stiffness of the column, thereby reducing the buckling
resistance. However, this effect is significant only for slender columns. As a simple rule, the
effect of long term loading should be considered if,
> The buckling length to depth ratio of a composite column exceeds 15.
> The eccentricity of loading is less than twice the cross-section dimension.
> The non-dimensional slenderness I is more than the limiting values given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Limiting Values of A for Long Term Loading

Braced Li!braced and/or sway
Type of Column
Non-sway systems systems
Concrete encased cross-sections 0.8 0.5
Concrete filled cross sections 0.8/1- 8 0.5/1- 8
Here, S is the steel contribution ratio and is given by [18],

S = Aa X Py/Pp ... (6.11)
However, when A limits given by Table 6.2, the effect of creep and shrinkage of concrete should
be allowed for by employing the modulus of elasticity of the concrete Eav instead of Ecd in Eqn.
6.12, which is formulated as
where, P and Pj are the applied design load and a part of it permanently acting on the column.
The effect of long-term loading may be ignored for concrete filled tubular sections with A <2.0
provided that 8 is greater than 0.6 for braced (or non-sway) columns, and 0.75 for unbraced
(and/or sway) columns.
6.5.3 Resistance of Members to Axial Compression

For each of the principal axes of the column, the designer should check,
P<XPP -.(6.13)
where, Pp = Plastic resistance to compression of the cross-section, from Eqn. 6.2 or Eqn. 6.4,
and x = Reduction factor due to column buckling and is a function of the non-dimensional
slenderness of the composite column.
Ill
The European buckling curves given in Fig. 6.6 are proposed to be used for composite columns.
They are selected according to the types of the steel sections and the axis of bending as follows.
Curve a = For concrete filled tubular sections

Curve b = For fully or partially concrete encased I-sections buckling about the strong axis of
the steel sections (x-x axis).
Curve c = For fully and partially concrete encased I-sections buckling about the weak axis of
the steel sections (y-y axis).
Ppu/Pcr
Fig. 6.6 European Buckling Curves

These curves can also be described mathematically as follows:
1
X =......... .... ■ but x ^ 1.0 ... (6.14)
0 + V02-Az
0 = 0.5 [l + a(A — 0.2) + A2] ...(6.15)
where, the factor a allows for different levels of imperfections and residual stresses in the
columns corresponding to curves a, b, and c. Table 6.3 [8] gives the value of a for each buckling
curve. Note that the second order moment due to imperfection has been incorporated in the
method by using multiple buckling curves; no additional considerations are necessary.
Using the values of determined A from Eq. 6.7 and the reduction factor x calculated from Eq.
6.13, the design buckling resistance of the composite column to compression, Pb or may thus
be evaluated.
112
Table 6.3 Imperfection Factor a for the Buckling Curves
European buckling cur\e

,
Imperfection factor a 0.21 0.34 0.49
6.5.4 Combined Compression And Uni-Axial Bending

To design a composite column under combined compression and bending, it is first isolated from
the framework, and the end moments which result from the analysis of the system as a whole are
taken to act on the column under consideration. Internal moments and forces within the column
length are determined from the structural consideration of end moments, axial and transverse
loads. For each axis of symmetry, the buckling resistance to compression is first checked with
the relevant non-dimensional slenderness of the composite column. Thereafter the moment of
resistance of the composite cross-section is checked in the presence of applied moment about
each axis, e.g. x-x and y-y axis, with the relevant non-dimensional slenderness values of the
composite column. For slender columns, both the effects of long term loading and the second
order effects are included. The design method used here is an extension of the Simplified Design
Method for the design of steel-concrete composite column under axial load.
6.5.4.1 Interaction Curve for Compression and Uni-Axial Bending
Fig. 6.5 Interaction Curve For Compression and Uni-Axial Bending
The resistance of the composite column to combined compression and bending is determined
using an interaction curve shown in Fig. 6.5 drawn using simplified design method suggested in
the UK National Application Document (NAD) for EC 4. This neglects the increase in moment
capacity beyond Mp (Under relatively low axial compressive loads).
113
Figure 6.6 shows the stress distributions in the cross-section of a concrete filled rectangular
tubular section at each point A, B and C of the interaction curve given in Fig. 6.5. It is important
to note that
^ Point A marks the plastic resistance of the cross-section to compression (at this point the
bending moment is zero).
^c^cCfck) A-sfsk
Pa cy
(6.16)
Yc Ys
Ma = 0 (6.17)
> Point B corresponds to the plastic moment resistance of the cross-section (the axial
compression is zero).
PB = 0 ... (6.18)
Mg — Mp = Py {Zva — Zpan) + Psk (ZpS — ZpSnj + pCk(ZpC — Zpcn) ... (6.19)
where, Zps, Zpa, and Zpc ~ Plastic section moduli of the reinforcement, steel section and
concrete about their own centroids respectively, and Zpsru Zpan and Zpcn ~~ Plastic section
moduli of the reinforcement, steel section and concrete about neutral axis respectively.
Point A Py Pc* Pit
Fig. 6.6 Stress Distributions for the Points of the Interaction Curve
114
> Point C, the compressive and the moment resistances of the column are given by;
Pc — Pc = AcPck ...(6.20)
Mc = Mp ... (6.21)
Pck
?jPy
1 • Pc
• z' /
'V' / Tr
• i
* v
Fig. 6.7 Variation in the Neutral Axis Positions

It is important to note that the positions of the neutral axis for points B and C, hn, can be
determined from the difference in stresses at points B and C. The resulting axial forces, which
are dependent on the position of the neutral axis of the cross-section, hn, can easily be determined
as shown in Fig. 6.7. The sum of these forces is equal to Pc. This calculation enables the
equation defining hnto be determined, which is different for various types of sections.
I. For Concrete Encased Steel Sections:

Major axis bending (Fig. 6.8)
Fig. 6.8 hn For Concrete Encase Steel Sections (Major Axis Bending)
i. Neutral axis in the web: hn < [ h/2 — tf ]
^ _ AcPck As(^2ps/C Pck)

...(6.22)
2bcPck T 2tw(2py — pck)
ii. Neutral axis in the flange: [ h/2 — tf < hn < h/2 ]
^ _ -^cPck — ^s(2psk ~~ Pck) + (h — tw)(/r — 2tf'/(/2py — Pck)

...(6.23)
2bcpck + 2b(2py - pcfc)
115
iii. Neutral axis outside the steel section: h/2 < hn < hc/2
^cPck ~ ^s(2Psfe — Pck) "1“ â(^Py — Pck)

hn 2bcPck
..(6.24)
Minor axis bending (Fig. 6.9)
i. Neutral axis in the web: hn < tw/2

_ TlcPcfc ^s(2psfe — Pck)
2/lcPcfc "h Py — Pcfc)
..(6.25)
Fig. 6.9 hn For Concrete Encased Steel Sections (Minor Axis Bending)
ii. Neutral axis in the flange: tw/2 < hn < b/2
AcPck ^sC^Psk Pck) T ^w(2t/ — b)(2py Pck)
K = 2/lcPck T 4t^(2py Pck)

..(6.26)
iii. Neutral axis outside the steel section: b/2 < hn < bc/2
^cPck ~ -^s(2Psk — Pck) “h 2la(2py — Pck)

hn ^•b-cPdc
..(6.27)
Where, A's is the sum of the reinforcement area within the region of 2hn„
II. For Concrete Filled Tubular Sections:

Major axis bending (Fig. 6.10)
Fig. 6.10 h„ For Concrete Filled Tubular Sections (Major Axis Bending)
116
&cVck AsC2psk Pck)

... (6.28)
2&cPcfc "h 4t(2py — pCk)
> For circular tubular section, bc = d,

> For minor axis bending the same equations can be used by interchanging h and b as well
as the subscripts x and y.
6.5.5 Resistance of Members under Combined Compression and Uni-axial Bending

The design checks are carried out in the following stages:
(1) The resistance of the composite column under axial load is determined in the absence of
bending, which is given by % Pp.

(2) The moment of resistance of the composite column is then checked with the relevant non-
dimensional slenderness, in the plane of the applied moment. As mentioned before, the initial
imperfections of columns have been incorporated and no additional consideration of
geometrical imperfections is necessary.
The design is adequate when the following condition is satisfied
M < 0.9pMp ... (6.29)
where, M = Design bending moment, f i — Moment resistance ratio obtained from the interaction
curve, and Mp = Plastic moment resistance of the composite cross section.
In accordance with the UK NAD, the moment resistance ratio ft for a composite column under
combined compression and uni-axial bending is evaluated as follows:
iX-Xd)
M (1 “ Xc)X ... (6.30)
...(6.31)
where,
%c = Axial resistance ratio due to the concrete,(Pc/Pp),
Xd - Design axial resistance ratio, (P/Pp) and
X — Reduction factor due to column buckling.
117
6.5.6 Combined Compression And Bi-Axial Bending

For the design of a composite column under combined compression and bi-axial bending, the
axial resistance of the column in the presence of bending moment for each axis has to be
evaluated separately. Thereafter the moment resistance of the composite column is checked in
the presence of applied moment about each axis, with the relevant non-dimensional slenderness
of the composite column. Imperfections have to be considered only for that axis along which the
failure is more likely. If it is not evident which plane is more critical, checks should be made for
both the axes.
The moment resistance ratios px and py for both the axes are evaluated as given below
_ (Xx~Xd)
when Xd^-X ...(6.32)
(1 ~Xc)Xx
_ (Xx-Xd)
when Xd < Xc ... (6.33)
(1 Xc)Xx
_ (Xy-Xd)
when Xd^-Xc ... (6.34)
(1 ~ Xc)Xy
_ (1 ~Xy)Xd
when Xd < Xc ...(6.35)
(1 ~Xc)Xy
where, and %y ~ reduction factors for buckling in the x and y directions respectively.
In addition to the two conditions given by Eqs. 6.36 and 6.37, the interaction of the moments
must also be checked using moment interaction curve as shown in Fig. 6.11. The linear
interaction curve is cut off at 0.9//* and 0.9juy. The design moments, Mx and My related to the
respective plastic moment resistances must lie within the moment interaction curve.
Fig. 6.11 Moment Interaction Curve for Bi-Axial Bending
118
Hence the three conditions to be satisfied are

Mv
<0.9 ... (6.36)
px
Mv
< 0.9 ...(6.37)
fAyMpy
+• < 1.0
M.r Mpx HyMpy
When the effect of geometric imperfections is not considered, the moment resistance ratio is
evaluated as given below:
when Xd > Xc ... (6.39)

(1 ~Xc
1.0 when Xd < Xc ... (6.40)
Check adequacy of the concrete encased composite section shown in Fig. 6.12 for bi-axial
bending.
ISHB 250 j 4 of 14 j bars
Fig. 6.12 Cross Section of Composite Column

Details of the Section
Column dimension = 350 x 350 x 3000
Concrete grade = M30
Steel section = ISHB 250
Steel reinforcement = Fe 415, 4 Nos. of 14 mm dia. bar
Design axial load = 1500 kN
Design B.M. about x-x axis = 180 kNm
Design B.M. about y-y axis = 120 kNm
119
List Material Properties

Structural steel
Steel section ISHB 250
Nominal yield strength fy = 250 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity Ea= 200 kN/mm2
Concrete
Concrete grade M30
Characteristic strength (/cfc)cu = 30 N/mm2
Secant modulus of elasticity for short term loading, Ecm = 31220 N/mm2
Reinforcing steel
Steel grade Fe415
Characteristic strength fsk= 415 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity Es = 200 kN/mm2
Partial safety factors
Ya = 1.15 Yc = 1.5 yz = 1.15
List Section Properties of the Given Section

Steel section
Aa - 6971 mm’ Iax = 79.8 x 106 mm4
tf =9.7 mm lay =20.1xl06mm4
h = 250 mm Zvx = 699.8 x 103 mm3
tw = 8.8 mm Zpy =307.6 x 103 mm3
Reinforcing steel
4 bars of 14 mm dia, As = 616 mm2
Concrete
Ac AgrOSS— Aa As
= 350 x 350- 6971-616 = 114913 mm2
Design Checks
Plastic resistance of the section
Pp — Aafy/ya + acAc Cfck)cy/Yc 4" A$ fsk/Ys
120
Pp Aa fylYa "b @cAc 0>80 X (/cfc)cu/Yc ~b -^s fsk/Ys
= [6971 x 250/1.15 + 0.85 x 114913 x 25 /1.5 + 616 x 415 /1.15]/1000

= 3366 kN
Effective elastic flexural stiffness of the section for short term loading
About the major axis

(.Ôex ~ Paâx^0.8 Ec(ilcx + Eslsx
Iax = 79.8 x 106 mm4

lsx = Ah2
= 616 x [350/2 — 25 — 7]2
= 12.6 x 106mm4
lcx= (350)4/12- [79.8 4- 12.6] x 106

= 1158 x 106 mm4
(El)ex - 2.0 x 105 X79.8 x 106 + 0.8 x 23125 x 1158 x 106 + 2.0x 105 x 12.6 x 106
= 39.4 x 10I2N mm2
About minor axis

(El)ey^ 2.0 xlO5 x 20.1x 106 + 0.8 X23125 X1217.8 x 106 + 2.0x 105 x 12.6 x 106
= 28.5x 1012 N mm2
Non Dimensonal Slenderness

TC2{El)ex n2 x 39.4 x 1012
{Pcr)X = = 43207/ciV
l2 (3000)2
Value of Ppu:
PpU Aafy 4- occAc(Jrcj()cu + Asfsk
Ppu Aafy + acj4c0.8 x (fck)cu “b Asfsk
= (6971 x 250 + 0.85 x 114913 x 25 + 415 x 616)/1000 = 4440 kN

n2 x 39.4 x 1012
(Pcr)y _____ = 31254kN
Kx = (44.4 / 432.07) % = 0.320

Ty = (44.4 / 312.54) % = 0.377
121
Check for the effect of long term loading

The effect of long term loading can be neglected if the following conditions are satisfied:
> Eccentricity, e given by
e = M/P >2 times the cross section dimension in the plane of bending considered)
ex = 180 /1500 = 0.12 < 2(0.350)
ey = 120/1500 = 0.08 < 2 (0.350)
> I <0.8
Since condition is satisfied, the influence of creep and shrinkage on the ultimate load need
not be considered.
Resistance of the composite column under axial compression
Design against axial compression is satisfied if following condition is satisfied:
P<%PP
Here, P =1500 kN, Pp =3366 kN and % ~ reduction factor for column buckling
% values:
About major axis
ax = 0.34
(t>x = 0.5 [1 + ax(Tx-0.2) + If]
= 0.5 [1 + 0.34(0.320 - 0.2) + (0.320)2] = 0.572
Xx = l/{$ + (02 ~Î)1/2}

= 1 / (0.572 + [(0.572)2 - (0.320)2]1/2 } = 0.956
XxPpx>P
0.956 x 3366 = 3218 kN > P (= 1500 kN)
About minor axis
= 0.49
= 0.5 [1 + 0.49(0.377 - 0.2) + (0.377)2 = 0.61
Xy = 1 / (0.61 + [(0.61)2 - (0.377)2]1/z } =0.918
Xy Ppy > P
0.918 x 3366 = 3090 kN > P (= 1500 kN)
The design is OK for axial compression.
122
Check for second order effects

Isolated non - sway columns need not be checked for second order effects if:
P/(PCr)x < 0.1 for major axis bending.
1500/43207 = 0.035 < 0.1

P/(Pcr)y < 0.1 for minor axis bending.
1500/31254 = 0.048 < 0.1

Check for second order effects is not necessary
Resistance of the composite column under axial compression and bi-axial bending
Compressive resistance of concrete,Pc — Acpck =1628 kN
About Major axis
Plastic section modulus of the reinforcement
Zps = 4(ti / 4 x 142 ) x (350/2-25-14/2) = 88 x 103 mm3
Plastic section modulus of the steel section

Zpa = 699.8 x 103 mm3
Plastic section modulus of the concrete

Zpc= bchc2/ 4 -Zps- Zpa = (350)3/4 - 88 x 103 -699.765 x 103 = 9931 x 103 mm3
Check that the position of neutral axis is in the web
▼y
AcPck As(2psk Pck)
2bcPck 3" 2tw(2py — pCfc)
0.85 x 25
114913 x
x------—
0.85 x 25 250 0.85 x 25.

1.5 :)
2 x 350 x + 2 x 8.8 x (2 x
1.5 1.15
= 93.99 mm <
The neutral axis is in the web.
A s= 0 as there is no reinforcement within the region of the steel web
123
Section modulus about neutral axis
Zpsn = 0 (As there is no reinforcement within the region of 2hn from the middle line of the
cross section)
Zpan = tw hr? =8.8 x (93.99)2 = 77740.3 mm3
Zpcrt = bchr? ~ Zpsn * Zpan ~ 350 (93.99)2-77740.3 = 3014.2X 103 mm3
Plastic moment resistance of section

Mp = Py ( Zpa~Zpan) + 0.5 pck (ZpcrZpcn ) + Psk ( Zps- Zpsn)
= 217.4 (699800 -77740.3) + 0.5 x 0.85 X25/1.5 (9931000-3014200) + 361 (88x1000)

= 216 kNm
About minor axis
Plastic section modulus of the reinforcement

Zps = 4(ti / 4 x 142 ) x (350/2-25-14/2) = 88 x 103 mm3
Plastic section modulus of the steel section

Zpa = 3 07.6 x 103 mm3
Plastic section modulus of the concrete

Zpc = bchc2/ 4-Zps- Zpa = (350)3/4 - 88 x 103 -307.6 x 103 = 10323 x 103 mm3
^ _ AcPck -^s(2Psfc Pck) 4” /l)(2py Pck)

2hcpck + 4tf(2py — Pck)
114913 x 14.2 + 8.8(2 x 9.7 - 250)(2 x 218 - 14.2)

2 x 350 x 14.2 + 4 x 9.7(2 x 218 - 14.2)
= 29.5 mm {^w/2 < hn < ^/-^j = < ^^^2
A's= 0 as there is no reinforcement within the region of the steel web
124
Section modulus about neutral axis

Zpsn =0 (As there is no reinforcement within the region of 2h„ from the middle line of the cross
section).
Zpan = 2tf h„2+(h-2tf)/4x tj
= 2(9.7)(29.5)2 +[{ 250-2(9.7)) /4)x8.82
=21.3xl03mm3
Zpcn — hchrZ~ Zpsn ~ Zpan
= 350 (29.5)2- 21.3xl03

= 283.3 x 103 mm3
Mpy = Py (Zpa - Zpan) + 0.5 Pck (Zpc ~ Zpcn ) + Psk( Zps- Zpsn)
= 217.4 (307.589 -21.3)xl03 + 0.5 x 14.2 x (10323 -283.3)xl03 + 361 (88 x 1000)
=165 kNm
Check of column resistance against combined compression and bi-axial bending
The design against combined compression and bi-axial bending is adequate if following
conditions are satisfied:
i. M < 0.9 p Mp
About major axis
Mx =180 kNm
MpX = 216 kNm
Px = moment resistance ratio
= 1- (Cl - *0 Xd}/{(1 - Xc) Xx}
= 1- {(1 -0.956) 0.446}/{(l -0.484) 0.956}
= 0.960
Mx< 0.9 fixMpX
< 0.9 (0.960) x (216) = 187 kNm

About minor axis
My= 120 kNm
Mpy =165 kNm
fXy=l-{(l-Xy)Xd}/{(l-Xc)Xy}
= !-{(! -0.918) 0.446}/{(l -0.448) 0.918}
= 0.928
125
My < 0.9 |iy Mpy

. <0.9 (0.928) *(165)
<138 kNm (My=120 kN)
Mx Mv
ii. -^- + —^—< 1.0
HXMpx [lyMvy
180 120
------------- +---------------- > 1.0
0.96 x 216 0.928 x 165
Since design check is not satisfied, the composite column is not acceptable.
6.7 Programs for Composite Columns
Using the features of the VB.Net, a program is developed for the design of composite columns.
Selection menu for axially loaded, uniaxially loaded and biaxially loaded column is depicted in
Fig. 6.13 whereas Fig. 6.14 shows the form in which data for an example of a design of biaxially
loaded composite column is shown. Steel table is also interfaced with the software as shown in
Fig. 6.15. After the selection of a particular section, various checks are carried out by the
software according to the code. Software also checks whether the secondary effect and long term
loading effects are required to be considered or not as shown in Figs. 6.16 and 6.17. After that,
depth of neutral axis is calculated. This is required for the calculation of the plastic section
modulus and finally the plastic moment resistance of the section for adequacy check as shown in
Figs. 6.18 and 6.19 respectively.
Fig. 6.13 Form for Selection of Type of Loading
126
COMPOSITE COLUMN 00*
DATA
LENGTH OF COLUMN |L| 3000 mm MOMENT ON COLUMN [Mx] 120 kN.m
AXIAL LOAD ON COLUMN |P| 1500 kN MOMENT ON COLUMN (My] 120 kN.m
SELECT THE TVPE OF COMPOSITE COLUMN
Fig 6.14 Form for Entering the Data for the Design of Section
Fig. 6.15 Form for Selection of Section
127
Form6
DESIGN CHECKS
[4] CHECK FOR THE EFFECT OF LONG TERM LOADING
THE EFFECT OF LONG TERM LOADING CAN BE NEGLECTED

IF ANYONE OR BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED
CONDITION 1
E IS > OR = 2 TIMES THE CROSS SECTION DIMENSION
IN THE PLANE OF BENDING CONSIDERED
EX 0 08 <09 M
EY 0.08 <0.7 M CONDITION IS SATISFIED
OK
CONDITION 2
rt SHOULD BE < 0.8
flX= 0.2411 < 0.8
flY= 0.3759 < 0.8 CHECK
O CONSIDERING LONG TERM LOADING EFFECT ____
O WITHOOT CONSIDERING LONG TERM LOADING EFFECT
Fig. 6.16 Form for Checking Long Term Loading Effect
COMPOSITE COLUMN
DESIGN CHECKS
[f-1 CHECK FOR SECOND ORDER EFFECT

FOR MAJOR AXIS BENDING
P/Pcrjr 0.015
CHECK FOR SECONDARY EFFECT IS MOT REQUIRED
FOR MINOR AXIS BENDING
P Pcry= 0.056
CHECK FOR SECONDARY EFFECT IS NOT REQUIRED
I CHECK |
Fig. 6.17 Form for Checking Secondary Effect
128
COMPOSITE COLUMN
DESIGN CHECKS
[7] RESISTANCE OF THE COMPOSITE COLUMN UNDER
AXIAL COMPRESSION AND BENDING
PROPERTY OF THE SECTION CHECK FOR N.A. S.M. <a N A
ABOUT MAJOR AXIS

SECTION MODULUS ABOUT THE NEUTRAL AXIS
Zpsn = 0
Zpan - 130028.3
CALCULATE
Zpcn = 4375903
PLASTIC MOMENT RESISTANCE OF SECTION

Mp = 358 8578
ABOUT MINOR AXIS

SECTION MODULUS ABOUT THE NEUTRAL AXIS
Zpsn = 0
Zpan= 1928142
CALCULATE
Zpcn = 19305G.G
PLASTIC MOMENT RESISTANCE OF SECTION

Mp = 209 9095
Fig. 6.18 Form for Calculation of Plastic Section Modulus
.iv. COMPOSITE COLUMN QEl®
DESIGN CHECKS
[8] CHECK OF COLUMN RESISTANCE AGAINST COMBINED
COMPRESSION AND BENDING
THE DESIGN AGAINST COMBINED COMPRESSIONAND BENDING
IS ADEQUATE IF FOLLOWING CONDITION IS SATISFIED.
& MAJOR AXIS & MINOR AXIS CHECK 2
CONDITION - 2
(Mx/p Mpx) + (My/p Mpy) <= )
(Mx/p Mpx) 0.3374793 SECTION IS ADEQUATE
(My/p. Mpy) 0.6112061
| CHECK | 0.9486853
Fig. 6.19 Form for Checking the Adequacy of the Section
129
7. Simplified Analysis and Design of Composite Frames
7.1 Introduction
The process of structural design starts with the structural modelling followed by the analysis-
design cycle with the aim of ensuring that the structure is economically able to satisfy the
design requirements. The exact analysis and design of a composite building frame is a long
and tedious process involving a number of complicated calculations and successive steps.
The analysis is conducted on a frame model based on the assumptions including those for the
structural model, the geometric behaviour of the structure and of its members and joints. The
frame consists of the following members:
> Composite beam constituting of steel profile and an effective width of slab.
> Composite column which may be concrete filled tube, partially encased section or
fully encased section.
In concrete-filled tube, the steel increases the strength of the concrete because of its confining
effect, the concrete inhibits local buckling of the steel, and the concrete formwork can be
omitted. In encased sections, the concrete delays failure by local buckling and acts as fire
proofing while the steel provides substantial residual gravity load-carrying capacity after the
concrete fails.
Compared to the well known stiffness method of analysis, the moment distribution procedure
yields bending moment directly, thus it avoids the tedious procedure of first finding the joint
displacements and then calculating the moments. The absence of the need to solve
simultaneous equations makes the method most popular. The analysis by moment
distribution, however, does not usually take into account shear and axial deformations.
In the present work, the concept of equivalent stiffness is used for composite steel-concrete
members and the analysis is carried out using moment distribution method. A program in the
form of Excel sheet is developed to facilitate the analysis based on moment distribution
130
method. To validate the proposed approach, the results obtained are compared by solving the
same problem using the commercially available ETABS and ANSYS software.
7.2 Elastic Design Approach

The mechanical and geometrical properties of a composite section are required for the
calculation of the internal stresses and deformations. In an elastic design approach, the
concrete in compression and the steel in tension are assumed to behave in a linearly elastic
fashion. Where Eurocode 4 [7] permits the use of the uncracked flexural stiffness, Eli, the
concrete in tension may be considered uncracked. Where the flexural stiffness of the cracked
section, EI2, must be used, the strength of concrete in tension is ignored. Even after cracking
has occurred, the section derives stiffness from the concrete. This "tension stiffening" is due
to the uncracked concrete between cracks. This effect is not taken into account in the
calculation of section stiffness in the present work. It is, however, taken into account
indirectly in the calculation of deflections and crack widths.
a) Composite Section b) Equivalent Transformed c) Strain in Transformed

Section Section
Fig. 7.1 Composite Steel-Concrete Section and Equivalent Transformed Section
In calculating the section properties of the composite section in the elastic range, use is made
of the concept of the transformed section in which the steel-concrete composite section is
replaced by an equivalent homogeneous section of steel. For a section subjected to positive
bending, the concrete flange of area Ac is replaced with a fictitious steel flange of area Ac/n,
where n is the modular ratio. The fictitious steel flange is of similar depth to that of concrete
flange; see Fig. 7.1. Geometrical properties are readily calculated for the transformed section,
and strains may be obtained using the elastic modulus for steel. Use is again made of the
131
modular ratio in calculating the elastic stresses in the concrete flange of the original
composite section as shown in Fig. 7.2.
Fig. 7.2 Elastic Strains and Stresses in the Composite Section
7.3 Material Modelling
7.3.1 Elastic Modulus for Steel
As per the Eurocode 4 [7] the elastic modulus of structural steel is 210 x 103 N/mm2. For both
structural and reinforcing steel the linear elastic isotropic material model is considered having
the elastic modulus of 210 x 103 N/mm2.
7.3.2 Elastic Modulus for Concrete
Concrete is a non-linear, non-elastic material. It does not display a unique or constant value
of elastic modulus as shown in Fig. 7.3 and sustains permanent deformation on removal of
load. When subjected to a constant stress, concrete strain increases with time - a phenomenon
known as creep. It is also subjected to change of volume caused by shrinkage (or swelling)
and temperature change.
Notwithstanding this non-linearity, it is necessary to quantify the relationship between stress
and strain in order to obtain a.realistic estimate of deformations. Various elastic moduli
shown in Fig. 7.3 are as follows:
> An initial tangent modulus;

> A tangent modulus corresponding to a given stress level;
> A secant modulus; and
> A "chord" modulus.
132
Fig. 7.3 Stress- Strain Curve of Concrete with Various Modulus
The values of a number of this modulus are seen to depend on the reference stress level. They
are, in addition, affected by the rate of loading. The value used in design codes is generally a
secant modulus corresponding to a specified rate of loading. An estimate of the mean value of
the secant modulus (Ecm) for short-term loading, for normal-weight concretes, can be
obtained from Table 7.1 for the range of characteristic concrete strengths normally used in
composite construction.
Table 7.1 Secant Modulus Ecm for Short Term Loading
(’omprossi\e Strength for sllilifill M/rnm“
N 111*11
- liiw W
" c\ IIIltlv-1 f.k 20 25 30 35 40 45
Si
- cube 25 30 37 45 50 55
Associated Mean fctm 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8
Tensile Strength
Secant Modulus
Ecm 29 30.5 32 33.5 35 36
of Elasticity
In the calculation of the geometrical properties of the section and stresses, reference is made
to the modular ratio n. It is the ratio of Ea/Ec, where Ea is the elastic modulus of structural
steel, and Ec is that of the concrete. The effect of the modular ratio on stress is illustrated in
Fig. 7.2. For the calculation of long-term effects in buildings, sufficiently accurate results can
be obtained by using an effective modulus for concrete (Ec) in the calculation of the modular
ratio. The effective modulus is the short-term modulus for concrete modified for the effects
of creep. Eurocode 4 [7] gives three sets of values for short-term and long-term modular
ratios. These values are listed in order of increasing simplicity in Table 7.2.
133
Table 7.2 Values of the Modular Ratio
ps
type Short-term citeets 8 I.ong-tcrm effects C onimenls
ii
s§ .
This method takes
Secant modulus Ecm Various-depending on
(a) account of concrete
(Table 7.1) concrete grade
grade and age.
Takes no account of
(b) 6 18 concrete grade, but
of concrete age.
Takes no account of
(c) 15 15 concrete grade or
age.
7.4 Sway and Non-Sway Frames

The term non-sway frame is applicable when the frame response to in-plane horizontal forces
is sufficiently stiff for being acceptable to neglect any additional forces or moments arising
from horizontal displacements of its nodes. The global second-order effects (i.e. the P-A sway
effects) may be neglected for a non-sway frame. When the global second-order effects are not
negligible, the frame is said to be a sway frame.
Normally a frame with bracing is likely to be classified as non-sway, while an unbraced
frame is likely to be classified as sway. However, it is important to note that it is theoretically
possible for an unbraced frame to be classified as non-sway (this is often the case of one
storey portal frame building) while a frame with bracing may be classified as sway (possible
for multi-storey building). When a frame is classified as non-sway, a first-order analysis may
be used.
When a frame is classified as sway, a second-order analysis shall be used. A procedure
involving iterations on a first-order elastic analysis is usually adequate for this purpose.
Furthermore, if the structure meets certain conditions, a first-order analysis (without any
iteration process) may be used either by making a nominal correction to member end forces
to allow for the global second-order effects or by analyzing for vertical loads and for sway
load effects (to be magnified for design) separately. It should be noted that bracing systems
which are themselves frames (or sub frames) must also be classified as sway or non-sway.
134
7.5 Frame Analysis Using ETABS Software
7.5.1 Section Properties

The section properties are reported in ETABS [97] software with respect to the section local
axes. Also, it is assumed that the entire section is transformed into an equivalent area of the
specified base material. In other words, each infinitesimal area of the section, dA, is
multiplied by the ratio EShape/Ebase when computing the section properties. Using this
transformation the following relationship holds true.
where,
X’
t—K
ishape=t
Asection
Ashape Eshape
= Area reported for the section,

^ section1-'base
Ashape = Area of a geometric shape (not

reinforcing shape) included in the section, EbaSe = Modulus of elasticity of the base material,
Eshape = Modulus of elasticity of the material specified for the shape, and n = Number of
geometric shapes included in the section.
The section properties are based on the gross area of all geometric shapes transformed to an
equivalent area of the base material.
7.5.2 Model of Composite Frame

Figure 7.4 shows a model of composite frame with composite encased steel concrete column
and concrete beam. Model is developed in professional ETABS software. In the drawing area
composite section is drawn and then its properties are defined. The frame is analysed to
obtain end moments and reactions for sixteen different cases.
4* ETABS Nonlinear v9 1 A (Untitled)

Eile Vt*w Cîne Draw Select fisslgn Analyze DisQlay Design Options (je<r
0 0 0 0 0
□ ^ 0 \£ ► a 3d P«
X :: ... k£ % 2 fel fct V ^ tt •? . I - □ • T -

US. Plan View STORY4 Elevation 576
- n|^
* 1 8 (2 /
0 □d
%
P4 I
Fig. 7.4 Model of Composite Frame Developed in ETABS Software
135
7.6 Frame Analysis Using Moment Distribution Method

The method of moment distribution belongs to the group of approximate methods. Based on
moment distribution method a general program is developed in Excel for the analysis of
composite frames with due provision for various types of loadings and different types of
composite sections. In case of portal frames, if the amount of‘sway’ or joint movement is not
known, the analysis is done by assuming some arbitrary fixed moments. These fixed
moments due to side sway are then distributed and the reactions are found. The algebraic sum
of horizontal reaction due to assumed sway moments must be equal to the sway force. If not,
the assumed sway moment is modified proportionately.
AB BA BC CB CO DC
DF 0 0 407 0 593 0 593 0 407 0
FEM -4 167 4 167 0 0 0 0
BAU 4 167 0 0 0 0 0
CO 0 2 0835 0 0 0 0
M 0 6.2505 0 0 0 ' 0
D-1 0 -2 544 •3 707 0 0 0

CO-1 0 0 0 -1 854 0 0
D-2 0 0 0 1 099 0 755 0

CO-2 0 0 0 55 0 0 0
D-3 0 -0 224 -0 326 0 0 0
FM 0 11 3 4825 -3 4831 | 0 755 0 755| | 0

REACTION
DUE TO M -0 6965 0 151
DUE TO LOAD 5 0
TOTAL 4 3035 0 151
TOTAL SWAY 5 8475|
M 0 -5 0 0 5 0
D-1 0 2035
2 965 — 2 965 2 035 0
CO-1 0 0 1 483 •*—483 0 0
D-2 0 -0604
■0 879 0 879 -0 604 0
CO-2 0 0 •0 44 ■*"" -0 44 0 0
D-3 0 0179
0 261 0 261 0 179 0
FM 0 Tl -3 39 3 39| | 3 39 -3 39|| 0
REACTION
DUE TO M 0 678 0 678
DUE TO LOAD 0 0
TOTAL 0 678 0 678
TOTAL SWAY 1 3561
MOM 0 -3 39 3 39 3 39 ■3 39 0
ACT SWAY FY 0 14 619 14 619 14 619 14 619 0
MOM DUE TO 0 3 4825 -3 483 •0 755 0 755 0
FINAL MOM 0 11.1365 11.136 13.864 13.864 0
HOR. REACT 7.2272 .2.7128

VER. REACT -5 5
Fig. 7.5 Excel Sheet for Composite Frame

Various composite frames like composite columns with concrete beam, with or without
considering self weight are analysed. Even frames having composite column with composite
136
beam are also analysed. The screen shot of a program which is developed in Excel
considering composite fully encased column with concrete beam, using the equation of
equivalent stiffness of members for the frame structure, is shown in Fig. 7.5 [99],
7.7 Frame Analysis Using ANSYS Software

7.7.1 Element Type
The ANSYS [98] element library contains more than 100 different types of elements. Each
element type has a unique number and a prefix that identifies the element category: BEAM4,
PLANE77, SOLID96 etc. For example, BEAM4, which has six structural degrees of freedom
(UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ), is a line element and can be modelled in 3-D space.
Here the frame has been modelled using the BEAM3 element. The element has three degree
of freedom at each node i.e. translation in the X- and Y- directions and rotation about the Z-
direction (Figs. 7.6 and 7.7). Eeq and Aeq has been provided as section properties.
NOPAL SOLUTION ANSYS

3TE9-1 OCT 12 2000
00J 47s 57
TIKE-1
UStm lAVG)
RSYS-0
UK -4. 462
SHX -4.442
1
0 .991468 1.983 2.974 3.966
.495734 1.487 2.479 3.4' 4.452
Fig. 7.6 Frame with Hinged Support having Sway Loading
NODAL SOLUTION ANSYS

sTfr-i OCT 12 2008
KX 00:44:36
SUB -I
tint-:
USUM (AVG)
PSY3-0
PIC< -.004393
3IK -.004393
tL x
0 .001421 .002941 .004262 .003683
.710r-01 .002131 .003552 .004973 .004393
Fig 7.7 Frame with Fixed Condition with Non-sway Loading

137
7.7.2 Material Modelling

Most of the element types require material properties and depending on the application,
material properties may be linear or nonlinear, isotropic, orthotropic, or anisotropic, constant
temperature or temperature-dependent. Linear material properties can be constant or
temperature-dependent and isotropic or orthotropic. Nonlinear material properties are usually
tabular data, such as plasticity data, creep data, swelling data, hyperelastic material data, etc.
and anisotropic elastic material properties are usually input in the form of a matrix. These
properties are different from anisotropic plasticity which requires different stress-strain
curves in different directions. The isotropic linear elasticity has been considered here for
modelling of the composite section. For sixteen different conditions the analysis is carried out
and compared. Results are found within 4% of analysis. Table 7.3 shows the comparison of
the left hand horizontal reaction for all the cases.
Table 7.3 Comparison of Results for Horizontal Reaction
ETABS ANSYS M.D.M.

Loading Type of Section
Result (kN) Result (kN) Result (kN)
Fully encased 7.26 7.24 7.22

Partially encased 7.14 7.145 7.12
Sway Only
Pipe 7.40 7.41 7.38
Tubular 7.20 7.20 7.24
Gravity & Sway Partially encased 7.05 7.04 7.02
(excluding Self
Weight) Pipe 6.04 6.00 5.99
Tubular 6.98 6.8 6.46
Self Weight & Partially encased 6.54 6.40 6.43

Sway only Pipe 4.38 4.20 4.10
Tubular 5.33 5.2 5.16
Composite Beam Partially encased 6.97 6.96 6.97

Only Pipe 7.00 7.10 7.09
Tubular 7.21 7.20 7.21
138
8. GA Based Optimization of Composite Elements
8.1 General Remarks

The goal of the design engineer is to arrive at structures which are safe, functionally efficient
and economical. There is no totally risk-free environment and hence the structural engineer
should make the best use of available resources to balance between safety and economy.
Thus, when designing structures, engineers have to consider not only the load carrying
capacity of the structures but also the cost to construct them. To achieve this goal
optimization techniques have been employed in structural design.
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are naturally suitable for solving optimization problems. In
general, fitness function F(x) is first derived from the objective function O(x) and used in
successive genetic operators. Fitness in biological sense is a quality value, which is a measure
of the reproductive efficiency of the chromosomes. In GA, fitness is used to allocate
reproductive traits to the individuals in the population and thus act as some measure of
goodness to be maximized. This means that individuals with higher fitness value will have
higher probability of being selected as candidate for further examination.
In the present chapter, for the optimum design of composite beam and columns, GA based
procedure is used with the objective function considered as the total cost of the structure.
Two different composite beam and columns examples are included.
The structural system of a composite beam is essentially a series of parallel T-beams with
thin wide flanges. The concrete flange is in compression and the steel beam is largely in
tension. The benefits of composite action in terms of strength and serviceability are
considerable, leading to economy in the sizing of the steel beams. The bending capacity of
the section is evaluated on “plastic” analysis principles, whereas the serviceability
performance is evaluated on elastic section analysis principles.
The columns are optimized using various load condition like axial load, axial load with uni-
139
axial bending and axial load with bi-axial bending.
Here a program is developed for optimization of composite beams and columns in VB.NET
environment. The simplicity of VB in creating menus, tool boxes, forms and MDI forms is
exploited extensively to make the software as user friendly as possible. A number of
subroutines and functions are developed to facilitate the optimum design of composite beams
and columns.
8.2 Optimum Design Parameters for Composite Beam
8.2.1 Design Variables and Coding

The design variables for optimum design of steel-concrete composite beam are the center to
center distance between beams (Spacing), size of intermediate beams (I-secl), size of end
beams (I-sec2), type of shear connectors (Type Stud) and thickness of RCC slab
(Thickness slab). The idea is to arrive at such a combination of these variable components
that the overall cost is minimum and at the same time, the composite beam and slab is safe
from structural design point of view.
Main String
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \
111111001010100011111000000001011010001
U
kness slab string

00000010
11010001
11111100
01111100
pe stu d string
Spacing string
1010100
I-sec2 string
I-secl string
__ 4 U ----
s
•H
X
Decimal r Equivalent H
' f
CO © Mapped Values
CO CO
[ ]f l
© © © ©
Fig. 8.1 Binary Representation of the Variables
140
Each potential solution is represented by a single binary string called the “Main String”,
which is then divided into five smaller strings each representing a design variable i.e.
“spacing string”, “I-secl string”, “I-sec2 string”, Type_stud string” and “Thickness_slab
string”. The binary strings are then converted into their decimal equivalents and are mapped
between upper and lower bounds to obtain the values of the variables. The procedure is
illustrated in Fig. 8.1.
8.2.2 Constraints
Safety is of prime importance in any structural design. Thus, while optimizing any structural
component there should be no compromise with safety. This requires fulfilment of certain
condition and constraints, violation of which would make the structure unsafe. In the present
case, a penalty approach is used for solutions that violate constraints. The objective function
of these solutions is penalized suitably to prevent occurrence of this solution string in the
further generations.
Plastic Moment
As discussed earlier the bending capacity of the section is evaluated based on “plastic”
analysis principles in composite construction. For the safety of the structure, the design
moment which is calculated from the design load should be less than the plastic moment of
the section.
Reinforced concrete slab connected to rolled steel section through shear connectors is
considered for the optimization. The ultimate strength of the composite beam is determined
from its collapse load capacity. The moment capacity of such beams can be found by the
method given in IS: 11384-1985 [1]. In this code a parabolic stress distribution is assumed in
the concrete slab. The equations used were explained in detail in the Chapter 5 and are
presented here in Table 8.1. Reference can be made to Fig. 8.2 for the notations used in IS:
11384-1985 [1].
Constraint:
M < Mp
Penalty • g 1 = max (M/Mp — 1,0)
where,
M = Design moment, and
Mp = Plastic moment.
141
Fig. 8.2 Notation as per IS: 11384-1985
Table 8.1 Moment Capacity of Composite Section

Position of
Plastic
.Moment Capacity M,,
Neutral
Axis
Mp = 0.87Aafy(dc +
In Slab xu — aAf/beff
0.5ds - 0.42xu)
(dAa &e//ds) Mp = 0.87fy\As{dc + 0.08ds) —

In Steel
Flange + 2 Ba
b/xu— dsxu+'0.16 ds
Mu = 0.87fyAs(dc + 0.08ds)
j , i — 2^/) ~ beffds —2Af(0.5tf + 0.58ds)

In Web xu — ds \ T \ 2at
2tw(%u ds )
tj
(0.5xu + 0.08d5 + 0.5 tr)

Af = Area of top flange of steel beam, As = Cross sectional area of steel beam, bCfr =
Effective width of concrete slab, bf = Width of top flange of steel section, dc = Distance
between centroids of concrete slabs and steel beam in a composite section, tf= Thickness of
the top flange of the steel section, xu = Depth of neutral axis at ultimate limit state of
flexure, Mu - Ultimate bending moment.
Permissible Deflection
The serviceability performance of composite beam is evaluated based on elastic section
analysis principles. For the safety of the structure, actual deflection should be less than the
permissible deflection.
142
8, GA Based Optimization of Composite Elements
Constraint: 8a < 8
Penalty : g2 = max (Sd/S — 1,0)

where, 8a = Actual Deflection, and 8 = Permissible Deflection (L/325).
Stress in Steel Flange

Assuming that fall interaction exists between steel beam and concrete slab, the beam is
checked for stresses in steel flange and concrete due to dead load and live load both.
Constraint:
For the stress in steel flange,
Constraint: (xactjS < aperiS
Penalty = g3 = max (—— — 1,0)

Oper.s
For the stress in concrete,

Constraint: aact s < aperiS
Penalty : g4 = max ( act,c — 1,0)

@per,c
Where W
Flexure Check for Concrete Slab

The slab is designed as one-way continuous slab. The coefficients given in IS: 456-2000 [96]
are used in the analysis of the slab. Using these coefficients, moments at supports and spans
are calculated. Required depth of slab is calculated from the maximum moment among all.
The depth selected for the slab must satisfy the flexure check i.e. depth obtained from the
solution string should be greater than the required depth.
dreg = ^(Mmax/Q-b) ... (8.1)
Constraint:
dreq. — dpro.
Penalty : g5 = max : — 1,0)

(tpro.
Where, Mroax = Maximum moment from span moments and support moments, Q = Material
Constant, B = Unit width of slab, dreq = Depth required for safety in flexure, and dprov =
Provided depth of the slab.
143
8.2.3 Objective Function and Fitness Function

In steel-concrete composite beam “cost” can be considered as the objective function that is to
be minimized, as it is common parameter for both steel and concrete. The objective function
for the composite beam can be formulated as
CS = (Csi * Wt,) + (Cs, * Wt2) + (Cst * N) + Csl ... (8.2)
where, CS = Total cost of beam and slab, Csi = Cost of steel in ?/Kg, Wt] = Weight of
intermediate beam in Kg, Wt2= Weight of end beam in Kg, Csl = Cost of stud (shear
connector) per number, N = No. of shear connectors, and Csi = Cost of slab which include
cost of concrete and cost of steel in slab.
Fitness function
F = ...(8.3)
1 + PC
where, F = Fitness function and Pc = Penalized cost.
8.3 GA Based Program Developed For Composite Beams

As discussed earlier. Visual Basic is used for the development of GA based program for
optimum design of composite beam. For the design purpose the limit state method is
employed as per Indian standard [100], Some of the design criteria where Indian code is
silent, EC4 code is used. The GA based inbuilt functions like “Rnd function”, “Mid, Left and
Right function” etc. are used in the program. In addition, a number of subroutine and
functions are developed. In the composite beam program, the channel sections given in the
design tables of SP 6 [101] are also used along with Indian Standard I-sections. Here various
screen shots of steps to use the program are depicted in Figs. 8.3 to 8.8.
Fig. 8.3 Invoke the Start-up Screen
144
LOAD DATA
LOAD DATA MATERIAL PROPERTY
(Fck)cu 30N/mm2 -r
Impose Load kN/m2
IT 250N /mm2 -r
Partition Load |T5 kN/m2
Density of Concrete 124 kN/m3

Floor Finish Load !o 5 kN/m2
Construction Load 10.75 kN/m2 DATA

Span [io m
DATA Length of Building |20 m

MIN MAX
C/C Dist.Between Beam (m) F5
OK
Slab Thickness (m) hgQ 1250
Fig. 8.4 Supply the Load Data
« MDIForm! [Form2]
Q INPUT DESIGN OF COLUMN EXIT 3 X
GENETIC DATA
r GENERAL------------------------------- , r CROSS-OVER PROBABILITY
Chiomosome legth lg Cross-over Probability |g g7
Population Size [50 J (* Single Point Cross-over

Generation |1 00
SELECTION SCHEME MUTATION

Mutation Probaility |g 03
C Roulette Scheme
f* Constant Mutation Rate
OK
Fig. 8.5 Supply the Genetic Data
145
INPUT
Initial Time : 4:30
Final Time : 4:32
Elapsed Time : 2 Minutes
Fig. 8.7 Run the Program
OPTIMUM PARAMETERS
C/C DISTANCE BETWEEN BEAMS 3.00 m
NO, OF BEAMS 8
SLAB THICKNESS 180 mm
TOTAL COST Rs 230597 00
BEAM SIZE
INTERMEDIATE BEAM ISLB 550 @ 86 30 Kg/m
END BEAM ISLB 450 ® 56 90 Kg/m
SHEAR CONNECTOR
TYPE OF SHEAR CONNECTOR HELICAL CONNECTOR
BAR DIAMETER 20 mm
CLOSE j
Fig. 8.8 View the Results

8.4 Design Example with Fixed Beam Spacing
Design of a simply supported steel-concrete composite beam with beam spacing of 3 m is

considered here. The thickness of slab is 125 mm. The floor is to carry an imposed load of
3.0 kN/nV, partition load of 1.5 kN/nr and a floor finish load of 0.5 kN/nr.
8.4.1 Input
Load Data
i. Impose Load - 3 kN/m2
ii. Partition Load - 1.5 kN/m2
iii. Floor Finish Load - 0.5 kN/m2
146
iv. Constructional Load - 0.75 kN/m2
v. Beam Span -10m
vi. C/C Distance between Beam -3m
vii. Thickness of Slab - 125 mm

viii. Density of Concrete - 24 kN/m3
ix. Yield Strength of Steel - 250 N/mm2
x. Characteristic Compressive Strength of Concrete ((Fdjo,) - 30 N/mm2.
Genetic Data
i. Population Size - 20
ii. Generation - 50
iii. Chromosome Length - 8
iv. Type of Crossover - Single Point Crossover
v. Crossover Probability - 0.67
vi. Selection Scheme - Roulette Wheel Scheme
vii. Mutation Probability - 0.03.
Design Constraints
i. Plastic Moment (Mp) -Q&7Aafy(dc + 0.5ds — 0A2xu)
ii. Maximum Permissible Deflection (8) = 1/325
iii. Maximum Permissible Stress in Steel = fy
iv. Maximum Permissible Stress in Concrete =(fCk)cu/3
Objective Function
Cost of Beam + Cost of Shear Connector
8.4.2 Output
i. Size of I-Section - ISLB 450 @ 65.30 Kg/m
ii. Type of Shear Connector — Headed Stud of 12 mm x 62 mm.
The final solution is obtained after three GA runs. Graph of generations v/s fitness (Fig. 8.9)
indicates that the final solution is obtained in 33rd generation after which no further
improvement is observed.
147
FITNESS V/S GENERATION
FITNESS
GENERATION
Fig. 8.9 Generation History (Fixed Beam Spacing)
8.5 Variable Beam Spacing Without RCC Slab Example
Design of a simply supported steel-concrete composite beams for a building with plan area of
10 m x 20 m (Fig.8.10) is taken up here. The floor has to carry an imposed load of 3.0 kN/nT,
partition load of 1.5 kN/m2 and a floor finish load of 0.5 kN/nr.
20 ill
Fig. 8.10 Plan Area of Building
8.5.1 Input
Load Data
i. Impose Load - 3 kN/nr

iii. Floor Finish Load - 0.5 kN/m2
iv. Constructional Load - 0.75 kN/m2
v. Plan area of Building - 20 m x 10m
148
vi. Thickness of Slab - 125 mm

vii. Density of Concrete - 24 kN/m3
viii. Yield Strength of Steel - 250 N/mm2
ix. Characteristic Compressive Strength of Concrete ((FCk)cu) - 30 N/mm2
x. Minimum and Maximum Value of Beam Spacing - (2 m - 5 m)
Genetic Data
ii. Generation - 50
iii. Chromosome Length - S
vii. Mutation Probability - 0.03
Design Constraints
i. Plastic Moment (Mp) = 0.87Aafy{dc 4- 0.5ds = 0.42xu)
ii. Maximum Permissible Deflection (5) = L/325
iv. Maximum Permissible Stress in Concrete = (/c/c)cu/3
Objective Function
Cost of Beam + Cost of Shear Connector
8.5.2 Output
i. C/C Distance between Beams -5m
ii. Size of Intermediate Beams - ISLB 500 @ 75.00 Kg/m
iii. Size of End Beams - ISLB 500 @ 75.00 Kg/m
iv. Type of Shear Connector - Channel of size 100 mm x 50 mm x 9.2 kg x 150 mm
The final solution is obtained after three GA runs. Graph of generation v/s fitness is shown in
(Fig. 8.11). No further improvement in solution is observed after 41 generations.
149
FITNESS V/S GENERATION
0.8
FITNESS 0.6
0.4 f
0.2
-J
0 ---------------- 1------------------ 1------------------ 1
0 20 40 60
GENERATION
Fig. 8.11 Generation History (Without RCC Slab)
Comparison between the optimum solutions for both cases (fixed and variable beam
spacings) is presented in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Comparison between Solutions
Items For 10 x 20 m With Fixed With Variable

Plan Area Beam Spacing Beam Spacing
C/C Distance
3m 5m
between beams
No. of Beams 8 Nos. 5 Nos.
Beam Size ISLB 450 @65.3 kg/m ISLB 500 @ 75 kg/m
Total Weight of Beams 522.4 kg/m 375 kg/m
8.6 Variable Beam Spacing With RCC Slab Example
Next, design of a simply supported steel-concrete composite beam with plan area of 10 m x
20 m is considered. The floor has to carry an imposed load of 3.0 kN/nr, partition load of 1.5
kN/m2 and a floor finish load of 0.5 kN/nr.
8.6.1 Input
Load Data
i. Impose Load - 3 kN/m2

150
iii. Floor Finish Load - 0.5 kN/mf

iv. Constructional Load - 0.75 kN/nr
v. Plan area of Building — 20 m x 10m
vi. Thickness of Slab - 125 mm
vii. Density of Concrete - 24 kN/m3
viii. Yield Strength of Steel - 250 N/mm2
ix. Characteristic Compressive Strength of Concrete ((fck)cu) - 30 N/mm'

x. Minimum and Maximum Value of Beam Spacing - (2 m - 5 m)
Genetic Data
ii. Generation - 50
Design Constraints
i. Plastic Moment (Mp) = 0.87Aafy(dc + 0.5ds = 0.42x1()
ii. Maximum Permissible Deflection (5) = L/325

iv. Maximum Permissible Stress in Concrete = (fCk)cu/3
Objective Function
Cost of Beam + Cost of Shear Connector + Cost of Slab
8.6.2 Output
i. C/C distance between beams - 3m
ii. Intermediate beam - ISWB 300 @ 48.10 Kg/m
iii. End beam - ISWB 250 @ 40.9 Kg/m
iv. Type of stud - Headed stud of size 16 mm x 75 mm
v. Slab thickness - 185 mm
vi. Total cost - ? 22,49,470
In this case the final solution is obtained after five GA runs. Graph of generation v/s
fitness (Fig. 8.12) indicates that the maximum fitness is 0.51. The cost is minimum at
45th generation after which no further improvement is observed.
FITNESS FITIIESS V S GENERATION
Fig. 8.12 Generation versus Fitness Considering RCC Slab
COST VS GENERATION
GENERATION
Fig. 8.13 Generation versus Cost Considering RCC Slab
8.7 Optimum Design Parameters for Composite Column
8.7.1 Design Variables and Coding

For the optimum design of the steel-concrete composite column, the first variable is the type
of column. As discussed earlier, there are mainly following two types of composite columns:
(i) Concrete encased steel columns (rolled steel section)

(ii) Concrete tilled inside steel tubes (square, rectangular or circular hollow section)
The other variables based on the selection of the first variables are shown in the Fig. 8.14
The idea is to arrive at such a combination of these variable components that the overall cost
152
is minimum and at the same time, the composite column is safe from structural design point
of view.
The binary string representation scheme is used for all the variables. The user can select any
string length depending on the accuracy required. Each solution is represented by a single
binary string called the “Main String”, which is then divided into smaller strings each
representing a design variable.
Fig. 8.14 Composite Column Variables
8.7.2 Constraints
These are special conditions which should not be violated for a safe and economical design.
In the present case, a penalty approach is used for solutions that violate constraints. The
objective function of these solutions is penalized suitably to prevent occurrence of this
solution string in the further generations. Following are the constraints for the composite
column optimization that are imposed on the string before evaluating the fitness function.
Resistance of member to axial compression

P < XPp (8.4)
where, Pp = Plastic resistance to compression of the section, and x = Reduction factor due to
column buckling which is a function of the non-dimensional slenderness of the composite
column.
The value mainly depends on the type of the steel sections and the axis of bending, and can
be calculated by,
153
X ---------- ,..... but X < 1.0 ... (8.5)

0 + y/02-A2
where 0 = 0.5[l + a(I — 0.2) +12]
The factor a allows for different levels of imperfections, residual stresses in the columns and
an eccentricity of load application. No further provision is necessary for composite column.
Resistance of member to uni-axial bending

Composite column is checked with the relevant non-dimensional slenderness, in the plane of
the applied moment. The design is adequate when,
M < 0.9[iMp ... (8.6)
where, M is Design bending moment, p is Moment resistance ratio obtained from the
interaction curve and Mp is Plastic moment resistance of the composite cross-section.
Reduction factor of 0.9 is applied to allow for the simplification in this approach, p can be
obtained from the interaction curve or may be evaluated from the Eqs. 6.33 and 6.34 given in
article 6.5.5.
Resistance of member to bi-axial bending [7]

After checking the axial resistance of the column, the moment resistance of composite
column is checked in the presence of applied moment about each axis with the relevant non-
dimensional slenderness of the composite column.
The design is adequate when
Mx My
< 1.0 (8.7)
hxMpX hyMvy
8.7.3 Objective Function and Fitness Function

Objective function
In steel-concrete composite column, “cost” can be considered as the objective function that is
to be minimized as it is common parameter for both steel and concrete.
The total cost in case of concrete encased steel column,
CS = (C5x) + (CS2 x WtJ + (CS2 x Wt2) + (CS3) ... (8.8)
Where/CS is total cost of composite column, CSi is cost of concrete, CS2 is unit cost of steel,
Wt ) is Weight of Bar, Wt2is Weight of I-section/m, and CS3 is Cost of Formwork.
154
Fitness function
1
F = -------- ...(8.9)
1 + Pc
Pc = (1 + KC) x CS ...(8.10)
where, F is Fitness Function, Pc Penalized Cost, K. = Penalty Perameter, and C = Total

Constraint Violation.
8.8 GA Based Program Developed For Composite Columns
The program of optimum design of composite column is developed in Visual Basic. In this
program, one has to select first the type of column. Depending on the type of column the
solution string is developed. For concrete filled tubular column the total length of string is 8.
In this case, the string returns an integer value which represents the section number from a
list of discrete column sections stored in a data base. Here, the design tables given in EC 4 [7]
are used for the design of concrete filled tubular sections. For concrete encased steel column,
the length of the solution string is 24. Here size of RCC column is treated as continuous and
type of steel section is considered as discrete variable. The optimization problem involving
discrete as well as continuous design variables is very efficiently handled in the program
wherein following three main subroutines/functions are developed:
(i) Sub Genetic ( ) to generate the initial set of population randomly and to transfer it to
the subroutine analysis for fitness calculation.
(ii) Sub Breeding ( ) develops new generations by applying GA operators on previous
generations. For this, it calls various other subroutines to carry out analysis and
calculate penalty parameters, objective function and fitness function.
(iii) Sub Analysis ( ) calculates the plastic resistance of the section and evaluates the
penalty parameters to find out the fitness function.
Steps to solve a problem are given here (Figs. 8.15 to 8.20) in the form of screen shots.
Fig. 8.15 Invoke the Start-up Screen
155
ElX
INPUT DESIGN OF COLUMN EXIT _ o' X
COMPOSITE COLUMN
DESIGN AXIAL LOAD (P) 1500 kN
DESIGN BENDING MOMENT @ X-X AXIS (Mx)

kNm
DESIGN BENDING MOMENT @ Y Y AXIS (My)

kN m
CONCRETE GRADE |35 N/nun2 -
STEEL GRADE j275 N/mm2 -
HEIGHT OF COLUMN [3000
DATA
MIN MAX
SIZE OF COLUMN (mm) |250 r400 _____ °
Fig. 8.16 Supply Load Data and Material Data

s — -—z —— :— — ———■—________ __________ :-------------------
Fig. 8.17 Enter Genetic Data
Fig. 8.18 Input Unit Costs of Materials
156
MDIForml
fflTZKM DESIGN OF COLUMN
Initial Time : 11:50:22
Final Time : 11:51:45
Elapsed Time : 83 SECONDS
■ ■1
Fig. 8.19 Run the Program
Fig. 8.20 View the Output
8.9 Composite Column Design Examples
8.9.1 Axially Loaded Column Example

Load Data
i. Axial Load - 4000 kN
ii. Concrete Grade - C35
iii. Steel Grade- S275
iv. Height of Column - 3 m
v. Minimum and Maximum Range of Size of Column - (250 mm - 400 mm)
Genetic Data
ii. Maximum No. of Generations - 100
157
iv. Type of Crossover - Single Point Crossover '
vii. Mutation Probability — 0.03
Cost Data
i. Unit Cost of Cement - ? 23 0 /Bag
ii. Unit Cost of Steel - ? 42 /Kg

iii. Unit Cost of Sand - ? 500 /m3
iv. Unit Cost of Aggregate - ? 750 /m3
v. Unit Cost of Formwork - ? 35 /m2
Design Constraints
i. Resistance of members to axial compression, P <% Pp
ii. Minimum area reinforcement = 0.5 % of gross area
Objective Function
i. Concrete filled tubular column,
Total Cost = Cost of Concrete + Cost of Casting
ii. Concrete encased steel column,

Total Cost = Cost of Concrete + Cost of Bars + Cost of I-sec + Cost of Formwork
Output
Type of Composite Column - Circular tubular filled column
Diameter of Composite Column -244.5 mm
Thickness of Tube - 10 mm
Total Cost of Column - ? 7282
The final solution is obtained after second GA run. Graph of generation versus cost of
column (Fig. 8.21) indicates that the final solution is obtained in 53rd generation after which
no further improvement is observed.
158
COST VIS GENERATION

V
COST OF COLUMN
Fig. 8.21 Generation History (Axially Loaded Column)
8.9.2 Uni-axially Loaded Column Example
Load Data
ii. Bending Moment About X-axis - 150 kNm
iii. Concrete Grade - C35
iv. Steel Grade- S275
v. Height of Column -3m
vi. Minimum and Maximum Range of Size of Column - (250 mm - 400 mm)
Genetic Data
Cost Data
i. Unit Cost of Cement - ? 230 /Bag
ii. Unit Cost of Steel - ^ 42 /Kg
iii. Unit Cost of Sand-? 850 /m '
iv. Unit Cost of Aggregate - ? 750 /m3
v. Unit Cost of Formwork- ? 35 /nr
159
Design Constraints
i. Resistance of members to axial compression, P <x Pp
ii. Resistance of member under uni-axial bending, M < 0.9 p Mp
iii. Minimum area reinforcement = 0.5 % of gross area
Objective Function
i. Concrete fdled tubular column,

Total Cost = Cost of concrete + Cost of Casing
ii. Concrete encased steel column.

Total Cost = Cost of Concrete + Cost of Bars + Cost of I-sec + Cost of Formwork
Output
i. Type of Composite Column - Rectangular tubular filled column

ii. Size of Composite Column - 300 mm X 250 mm
iii. Thickness of Tube - 6.3 mm
iv. Total Cost of Column -? 6678
COST V S GENERATIONS
COST OF COLUMN
Fig. 8.22 Generation History (Lni-Axially Loaded Column)
The final solution is obtained after 3 GA runs. Graph of generation versus cost of column
shown in Fig. 8.22 indicates that the final solution is obtained in 34lh generation after which
no improvement could be seen.
160
8.9.3 Bi-Axially Loaded Column Example

Load data
ii. Bending Moment About X-axis - 180 kNm
iii. Bending Moment About Y-axis - 120 kNm
iv. Concrete Grade — C45
v. Steel Grade- S275
vi. Height of Column -3m
vii. Minimum and Maximum Range of Size of Column - (250 mm - 400 mm)
Genetic Data
Cost Data
i. Unit Cost of Cement - 230 ?/Bag
ii. Unit Cost of Steel - 42 ?/Kg
iii. Unit Cost of Sand - 850 ?/m3
iv. Unit Cost of Aggregate - 750 ?/ m3
v. Unit Cost of Formwork- 35 ?/m2
Design Constraints
i. Resistance of members to axial compression, P < xPp

ii. Resistance of member under uni-axial bending, M < 0.9fiMp
iii. Resistance of member under bi-axial bending, Mx/[ixMpx + My /fiyMpy
iv. Minimum area of reinforcement = 0.5 % of gross area
Objective Function
i. Concrete filled tubular column,

Total Cost = Cost of Concrete + Cost of Casting
ii. Concrete encased steel column,
161
Total Cost = Cost of Concrete + Cost of Bars + Cost of 1-sec + Cost of Formwork
Output
i. Type of composite column - Rectangular tubular filled column
ii. Diameter of composite column -350 mm x 250 mm
iii. Thickness of tube - 8 mm
iv. Total cost of column -? 9210
In this case the final solution is obtained after two GA runs. Graph of generation versus cost
of column depicted in Fig. 8.23 indicates that the cost is minimum at 44l1' generation after
which no further improvement is observed.
COST V/S GENERATION
Fig. 8.23 Generation History (Bi-Axially Loaded Column)
From the results obtained for the above three cases it is clear that the optimum section of
column is concrete filled tubular section. The presence of concrete inside steel tube increases
the bearing capacity of column.
162
9. GA Based Optimum Design of Composite Frames
9.1 General Remarks

In the present chapter, GA based optimal design of steel-concrete composite plane frame is
addressed with the aim of minimizing the overall cost of the frame. In cost optimization of
composite plane frames, optimum cross sectional shape and dimensions of composite frame
members are calculated to minimize the cost of composite frames subject to various
functional and behavioural constraints. The design is carried out using recommendations of
IS: 11834 [1], EC4 [7] and BS: 5950 [93] and Indian and UK steel section tables. Stiffness
member approach is employed for the analysis of plane frame. Optimum design is based on
the limit state design philosophy. Parametric study is also carried out using various types of
column section. The database is developed for various composite sections, such that the
program automatically finds the suitable section. Provision is made to handle symmetrical
and unsymmetrical composite plane frames. The software is developed to minimize the
overall cost of the structure while satisfying moment, shear force, lateral torsional buckling
and axial compression constraints. For the development of GA based optimization program,
Visual Basic.Net environment is selected. An attempt is made to make the program user
friendly with pre-processing and post- processing facilities.
9.2 Size Optimization Problem Formulation

Problem of size optimization of steel-concrete composite plane frame can be formulated as:
Find, (x)
To minimize, Ct(x) = Cs + Cc
Subject to, gi(x) < 0 ...(9.1)
Where Cr(x) is the total cost of composite plane frame, Cs is the cost of steel used in plane
frame, Cc is the cost of concrete slab, x is the vector of design variables and g;(x) is the ith
constraint function.
163
9. GA Based Optimum Design of Composite Frame
9.2.1 Design Variables

A variable is used for composite beam which contains the details of steel section property
such as width of flange, depth of section, c/s area of section etc. Another design variable is
used for both the types of composite columns which contains column size and steel section
detail. A variable when decoded gives a unique integer number which helps in extracting the
section properties from SQL server database.
9.2.2 Design constraints

Constraints are formed by setting relationship between function of design variables with the
resource values. Constraints in the optimization process prevent the search to enter the
infeasible region.
9.2.2.1 Constraints for Composite Beam
i. Moment constraint: In ultimate limit state design the moment capacity of the
composite beams should exceed the total factored applied moment. Thus,
Mn<Mpn -(9.2)
Mp<Mpp ...(9.3)
Mpn = Py X Zpx + ^ (y + a) - (^) /4twfy/Ya ... (9.4)
Aafy (D Xu\
Where, Mp„ and Mpp are negative and positive plastic moment of resistance of the
section of the composite beam respectively. Mn is factored design negative moment
and Mp is factored design positive moment. Corresponding functions for the
constraint are;
gi(x) = Max (Mn / Mpn -1,0) ... (9.6)
g2(x) = Max (Mp / Mpp -1, 0) ...(9.7)
ii. Shear force constraint: This constraint ensures that the shear capacity of the frame
member is more than the actual load induced in the member. The constraint is:
V<VP ...(9.8)
fv
14 = 0.6 x D x t x — ... (9.9)
P Ya
where, V is the factored shear force and Vp is the plastic shear capacity of beam. The
associated constraint function is:
164
g;i(x) = Max (V/Vp-1, 0) ... (9.10)
iii. Lateral torsional buckling constraint: This constraint ensures that the capacity of
frame member is more than the actual moment induced in the member. The constraint
for member is:
M < Mb ...(9.11)
Mb — xLT0wZjpx k. ...(9.12)
Ym
where, M is the negative moment at construction stage and Mb is the buckling
resistance moment of a unrestrained beam. The associated constraint function is:
g4(x) = Max(M/Mb-l,0). ...(9.13)
9.2.2.2 Constraints for Composite Column

i. Axial compression constraint: In ultimate limit state design, the compression capacity
of the composite columns should exceed the total factored applied axial compression
force. The corresponding constraint function is:
P<XPP ...(9.14)
Pp = Aa*fy /Ya +«c *Ac *(fck)cy /Yc + As * fsk / Ys - (9.15)
where, P is design axial force, % is a reduction factor for column buckling and Pp is a
plastic resistance to compression of the cross section.
The constraint function can be written as;
gi(x) = Max(P/(XPP)-l,0) ...(9.16)

ii. Moment constraint: In ultimate limit state design the moment capacity of the
composite column should exceed the total factored applied moment and thus the
constraints is:
M < 0.9 p Mp ...(9.17)
Mp = Py ( Zpa"Zpan) + 0.5 Pck (Zpc'Zpcn ) + Psk ( Zps~ Zpsn) ••• (9.18)
where, ,u = moment resistance ratio, M is the design bending moment and Mp is plastic
moment resistance of the composite column. The design against combined compression
and uni-axial bending is adequate if Eq. 9.17 is satisfied.
The constraint function for GA based search can be written as:
g2(x) = Max (M / (0.9 p Mp) -1, 0). ... (9.19)

165
9.3 Optimum Design Algorithm for Composite Frames

Optimum design algorithm for steel concrete composite frames consists of the following
steps:
1. Initial population of trial design solutions is constructed randomly. The solutions are
generated in binary coding.
2. The binary codes for the design variables of each individual solution are decoded to find
the integer number which is assigned as an index to a composite section in the available
design table list. The analysis by member stiffness approach is carried out by extracting
the section properties of members of steel concrete composite frame. The analysis results
are used for design and to evaluate constraint functions.
3. The fitness value for each individual is calculated using [10],
F(x) = 1/(1+ 0p(x)) ...(9.20)
where, Op(x) = penalized objective function which is given by
0p(x) = (1+K* C) 0(x) ... (9.21)
where, O(x) = objective function which is the total cost of the frame, K = penalty factor,
and C = cumulative value of constraint violation. The fitnesses thus obtained are scaled
to get scaled fitness.
4. Depending on scaled fitnesses, individuals are copied into the mating pool.
5. The individuals are coupled randomly and the reproduction operator is applied. Using
one or two point cross sites, offsprings are generated and the new population is obtained.
6. Mutation is applied to the new population with a probability value between 0.01 to 0.07.
7. The initial population is replaced by the new population and steps 1 to 6 are repeated
until a pre-determined number of generations are reached or until the same individual
dominates the new population. The fittest design among generations is considered to be
the near-optimum design.
To ensure that the best individual of each generation is not destroyed from one design cycle
to another, an ‘elitist’ strategy is followed in the design algorithm. At each generation, among
the individuals which satisfy all the design constraints, the one with minimum weight is
stored and compared with a similar individual of the next generation. If the new one is
166
heavier than the old one, then there is a loss of good genetic material. This situation is
rectified by replacing the individual having the lowest fitness of the current generation with
the fittest individual of previous generation. In this way the loss of good individuals during
the development of new generations is prevented.
9.4 Design Example of A 1 x 2 Storey Composite Frame
A one bay two storey composite portal frame with fixed supports is undertaken here to
illustrate the application of the developed software. The frame is subjected to combined
gravity and lateral loads as shown in the Fig. 9.1.
Co
CO
I
Fig 9.1 Loading and Geometry of Composite Plane Frame
> Geometry data
• Number of bays in horizontal direction =1

• Number of storeys =2
• Story height =6m
• Span of beam =9m

• Slab thickness = 130 mm
> Material data
• Grade of concrete = M30
• Grade of steel = Fe 250

• Grade of reinforcement =Fe415
167
> Unit cost data

• Unit cost of steel = 32 ? / kg.
• Unit cost of concrete =3000 ?/nr.
> Genetic data
• String length =9
• Population size = 50
• Generation = 50
• Type of crossover = Single point crossover
• Crossover probability = 0.95
• Selection scheme = Roulette Wheel Scheme
• Mutation probability = 0.05 with variable mutation.
> Design Constraints for beam
• Moment constraint: Mn < MpnJ Mp < Mpp
• Shear force constraint: V< Vp
• Lateral torsional buckling constraint: M < Mi,
> Design constraints for column

• Axial compression constraint: P <x Pp
• Moment constraint: M < 0.9 p Mp
> Objective function
Total cost of composite frame = Cost of beam + Cost of connector + Cost of column.
* Optimum Design Sections
AcfujlIre sun nMnies |11andSeconds [26]andMfcecondj [GlandTic*i [8£0000000]delav second* 38

OpmvnDais
w PopotatenSee .50
_ 1
No ot Generoton *50
Polled steel Ciotwvt! Probably *090
section
MJjtan Probabiy *007
Fckjcu) ■ 30
Fy .250
Concrete Encased Column Section Beam Section

Sr no column beam width ot section Mess kg/m fitness Cost C
cT ISX325 — ISLB325 0843 77808 34 “To"
C2 165 X 325 — ISLB325 *3
165 X 325 ISLB325 43
aC4 165 X 325
-
- ISLB325 43
61 ISMB450 72
B2 - 1SMB400 62
Fig. 9.2 Output of Optimum Design Program
168
The results obtained through developed program can be summarized as follows (Fig. 9.2):
1. Type of beam: Structural steel beam with headed stud shear connector
2. Size of beam: (B1) -ISLB 450 @ 72.00 Kg/m
(B2) -ISLB 400 @ 62.00 Kg/m
3. Type of shear connector:- Headed stud of 12 mm dia. x 100 mm height

4. Type of column: Partial encased composite column
5. Size of column: (Cl)-ISLB 325 @43.00 Kg/m
(C2) - ISLB 325 @ 43.00 Kg/m
(C3) - ISLB 325 @ 43.00 Kg/m
(C4) - ISLB 325 @ 43.00 Kg/m
The final solution is obtained after 7 GA runs. The problem of minimization of cost is
transformed into maximization of fitness. GA is employed to maximize the fitness. Variation
of fitness with generation clearly displays convergence towards optimum solution as shown
in Fig 9.3 whereas Fig. 9.4 depicts reduction in cost with the development of new generation.
The final solution is obtained in 40lh generation after which no further improvement of fitness
is observed.
Generation v/s Fitness

r-
O
O
CD
oo Ln
/
oo
O
Fitness of strucure
oo
O
oo
oo
oo
oo
o
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Generation
Fig. 9.3 Generation versus Fitness
169
Generation v/s Cost

140000
120000
100000
cost of strucure
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Generation
Fig. 9.4 Generation versus Cost

The above example of steel-concrete composite frame having one bay with two storeys is
taken up from reference [102], wherein comparison between LRFD and ASD methods is
made. In the literature, only structural steel sections are used for design. In the present study,
GA based optimization program is employed for optimum design of this plane frame by using
composite beam and column sections. The results obtained by GA based program are
compared with those available in the literature and tabulated in Table 9.1
Table 9.1 Comparison of Results
Structural Steel Frame Using %

Composite
Storey Particulars Saving in
Frame
LRFD Method ASD Method Weight
2n<3 ISMB 500 @ ISMB 550 @ ISLB 400

Beam 28.65
86.9 kg/m 103.7 kg/m @62.0 kg/m
ISLB 500 @ ISMB 600 @ ISLB 325 @

Column 42.66
75.0 kg/m 122.6 kg/m 43.0 kg/m
1st ISMB 550 @ ISMB 600 @ ISLB 450 @

Beam 30.09
103.7 kg/m 122.6 kg/m 72.0 kg/m
ISLB 550 @ ISMB 600 @ ISLB 325 @

Column 50.1
86.3 kg/m 122.6 kg/m 43.0 kg/m
170
From the Table 9.1, it can be observed that about 25% to 50% of saving in material weight is
achieved which results in considerable reduction in cost.

Next, a problem of two bay three storey composite portal frame with fixed support is under
taken. The gravity loads at construction stage and composite stage are as shown in Fig 9.5
and Fig 9.6 respectively. The design parameters and GA parameters are written below
followed by the output results obtained by GA based optimization program.
Geometry data
• Number of bays in horizontal direction = 2
• Number of Storeys =3
• Storey height =3m
• Span of beam = 6.6 m
>■ Material data

• Grade of reinforcement = Fe 415
>• Load data at serviceability limit state

• Dead load on the beam = 35.16 kN/m
• live load on the beam = 14.84 kN/m
• Load data at ultimate limit state

• Dead load on the beam = 49.224 kN/m
• live load on the beam = 23.744 kN /m
y Unit cost data

• Unit cost of steel = 32 ?/kg.
• Unit cost of concrete = 3000 ?/ cum.
^ Genetic data
• String Length =9
171
Generation = 50
Type of crossover = Single Point Crossover
Crossover probability = 0.90
Selection scheme = Roulette Wheel Scheme
Mutation Probability = 0.07 with variable mutation.
^ construction stage loading £JBB

Geometry Constants Support Loading Analysis Design Option Tools Help Data
i A. * K © * i* ^ 3 W US. 1 A 1 rn 1W m 1 i_J i US
-35 16 kN/m-35 16 kN/m

f—.—4-^-4- . 1 . 1 ,B5 . | , | , | , |^3 i- T 4.., -4 -r -t--, Bb , i ;■ i ; i , -i-,.
-14.84 kN/m -14 84 kN/m
C3 C6 C9
-35.18 kN/m -35.16 kN/m

■ . | , | , 84 . | | | , f .
-14.84 kN/m -14 84 kN/m
C2 C5 C8
-35.16 kN/m -35.16 kN/m
-14 84 kN/m -14 84 kN/m
Cl C4 C7
r?
.a- ^ *
Fig. 9.5 Composite Frame under Loading at Construction Stage
Fig. 9.6 Composite Frame under Loading at Composite Stage

> Design constraints for beam
• Moment constraint: Mn < Mpn and Mp < Mpp

V< VP
• Shear force constraint:
• Lateral torsional buckling constraint: M < Mb
> Design constraints for column

P Pp
• Axial compression constraint:
• Moment constraint: M < 0.9 (i Mp
> Objective Function

Total cost of composite frame = Cost of beam + Cost of connector + Cost of column.
> Output
Figure 9.7 shows optimum results obtained through genetic algorithm.
? Optimum Design Sections
Actual (me span r Mnutes [5] end Seconds [4] end MAseconds |125] end Ticks (3041250000)deley second- 98
Oprmum De
b,-b Popoialiort Size • 50

!- ^-1
Nos ot Generation ■50
J t
Dossover Probabity • 090
I I 'J' T
'1 ‘C, 2 Mutation Piobatxlity -007
K JJ
Fck(cu] ■X
Fy • 275
Concrete Encased Cohunn Section Beam Section

Sr no column beam width of section Mass kj^m fitness Cc
~
&
Cl 203X204 .™ 203 X 203 481 0729 137111 (

C2 203X204 203 X 203 461
C3 203 X 204 — 203 X 203 461
C4 203 X 204 •— 203 X 203 461
C5 203 X 204 __ 203 X 203 461
CS 203 X 204 — 203 X 203 461
C7 203 X 204 — 203 X 203 461
C8 203 X 204 203 X 203 461
C9 203 X 204 — 203 X 203 461
OO CO CO GO CO
f . l l.K jl
81 305x102x33
B2 305x102x33
i. x
83 305x102x33
i
B4 305x102x33
i .
i i
rt> ■
B5 305x102x33
>
oo
305x102x33
t■.o
86
Fig. 9.7 Final Results for 2 Bay x 3 Storey Frame
Summary of the results obtained is given below:

1. Type of beam: Structural steel beam with headed stud shear connector
2. Size of beam : All beam are of size 305 x 102 x 33 mm.
3. Type of shear connector- Headed stud of 12 mm dia. x 100 mm height
173
4. Type of column: Partial encased composite column

5. Size of column: All columns are of size 203 x 204 mm concrete casing with 203 x 203 x
33 kg/m rolled steel encased section.
The final solution is obtained after 9 GA runs. The convergence of GA towards optimum
solution is indicated with the help of graphs of fitness v/s generation and cost v/s generations
as shown in Fig 9.8 and Fig 9.9 respectively. The final solution is obtained in 43rd generation
after which no further improvement of fitness is observed.
GENERATION V/S FITNESS

FITNESS
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
GENERATIONS
Fig 9.8 Generation versus Fitness
GENERATION V/S COST
350000
300000
2 250000
= 200000
V)
o 150000
*-•
M
5 iooooo
50000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Numbers of Generation
Fig. 9.9 Generation versus Cost
174
The design results are compared with the results available in the literature [32] in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 Comparison of Results for 2x3 Storey Frame
Con.po.ili.' I'niinc using

Composite & siixl ( nmpo\itc frame Saving
Store* Particulars
Column nitli Rigid in
Connection Weight
3rd Beam HN300xl 50x6.5x9 302x102 8.89

@ 36 kg/m @ 32.8 kg/m
Column HW 250x250x9x14 203x203 34.73
@70.63 kg/m @46.1 kg/m
2nd Beam HN300x 150x6.5x9 302x102 8.89
@ 36 kg/m @ 32.8 kg/m
Column HW 250x250x9x14 203x203 @ 34.73
@ 70.63 kg/m 46.1 kg/m
1st Beam HN300x 150x6.5x9 302x102 8.89
@ 36 kg/m @ 32.8 kg/m
Column HW 250x250x9x14 203x203 34.73
@ 70.63 kg/m @ 46.1 kg/m

A two bay five storeyed fixed footed composite portal frame is selected here. Gravity loads
acting on the frame at construction stage and composite stage are as shown in Fig. 9.10 and
Fig. 9.11 respectively.
The optimum design of this frame is carried out five times by selecting different type of
section every time. The following five sections are considered one by one for optimum
design:
• Fully encased Indian steel column section.

• Partially encased Indian steel column section.
• Square tubular section filled with concrete.
• Rectangular tubular section filled with concrete.
• Circular tubular section filled with concrete.
> Geometry data

• Number of bay in horizontal direction = 2
• Number of storey =5
• Story height =3m
175
9. G A Based Optimum Design of Composite Frame
• Span of beam =7m
• c/c distance between beams =7m
'P’ Load data
• Imposed load = 3.5 kN/rn2
• Partition load = 1.0kN/m2
• Floor finishing load = 0.5 kN/'m2
• Construction load = 0. 5 kN/m2
> Unit cost data
• Unit cost of steel

= 32 mg
• Unit cost of concrete = 3000 ?/cum
> Genetic data
• String length =9
• Generation = 50
• Type of crossover = Single point crossover
• Crossover probability = 0.90
• Selection scheme = Roulette Wheel Scheme
• Mutation probability = 0.07 with variable mutation.
>- Material data
• Grade of reinforcement = Fe 415
> Design constraints for beam
• Moment constraint: Mn < Mpn and Mp < Mpp
• Shear force constraint: V < VP
• Lateral torsional buckling constraint: M < Mb
176
Fig. 9.10 Composite Frame under Loading at Construction Stage
Fig. 9.11 Composite Frame under Loading at Composite Stage
177
> Design Constraints for column

Axial compression constraint P<%Pr
Moment constraint M < 0.9 p Mp
> Output
Analysis and design of two bay five storeyed composite frame is carried out by taking
different types of column and beam section. Figure 9.12 shows output obtained by selecting
fully encased Indian sections. The results derived from the program by selecting partially
encased Indian sections are depicted in Fig. 9.13. The optimum concrete infilled hollow
square, circular and rectangular sections obtained through the program are displayed in Figs.
9.14, 9.15 and 9.16 respectively.
9 Optimum Design Sections EBB

Actual time span in Minutes: [31 and Seconds: (321 and Miliseconds [6401 and Ticks: [2126406250ldelav second= 38
Optimum Data
Concrete Encased Column Section Beam Section

Sr no column beam width of section Mass kg/m fitness Cost C
Cl 325 X 325 — ISHB 225 43 0.7104 2815304 0
C2 325 X 325 ISHB 225 43
C3 325 X 325 — ISHB 225 43
C4 325 X 325 ISHB 225 43
C5 325 X 325 — ISHB 225 43
CG 325 X 325 — ISHB 225 43
C7 325 X 325 ISHB 225 43
C8 325 X 325 ISHB 225 43
C9 325 X 325 — ISHB 225 43
C10 325 X 325 ~~ ISHB 225 43
C11 325 X 325 ISHB 225 43
Cl 2 325 X 325 ISHB 225 43
Cl 3 325 X 325 -- ISHB 225 43
Cl 4 325 X 325 _ ISHB 225 43
C15 325 X 325 — ISHB 225 43
B1 — ISMB 500 180 87
B2 — ISMB 500 180 87
B3 — ISMB 500 180 87
B4 __ ISMB 500 180 87
B5 — ISMB 500 180 87
BG ISMB 500 180 8?
B7 — ISMB 500 180 87
B8 „ ISMB 500 180 87
B9 — ISMB 500 180 87
BIO ” ISMB 500 180 87
Fig. 9.12 Output for Fully Encased Sections
178
Fig. 9.13 Output for Partially Encased Sections
Fig. 9.14 Output for Concrete Filled Hollow Square Sections
179
Fig. 9.15 Output for Concrete Filled Hollow Circular Sections
Fig. 9.16 Output for Concrete Filled Hollow Rectangular Sections
180
In optimization process, genetic parameters such as population size, number of generations,
crossover probability and mutation probability play an important role. To find out the
optimum cross sections for composite plane frame, numbers of trials are required. The final
solutions are obtained after 4 to 8 GA runs for various composite sections. The population
size and number of members also affect the overall optimization time. The relation between
number of generations and time taken in optimization process is depicted in Fig. 9.17.
Number of Generation v/s Time taken

'£>
oo
1
in
oo
Time taken in seconds
rof
o
1
oo
m
oo
cn
—I
oo o
O
10 20 30 40 50
Numbers of generation
Fig. 9.17 Time Taken in Optimization Process
9.7 A Parametric Study

An example of five storey-two bay frame was solved in the previous section with the aim to
find the optimum sectional properties for members of plane frame, from each type of section,
among five categories discussed. Results of the parametric study are summarized here in
Table 9.3 wherein total structural weight and overall cost obtained for each type of section
are mentioned. The comparison is also shown in Fig. 9.18. It can be observed that the fully
encased Indian steel section performs better than the partially encased one. Whereas, in case
of concrete filled tubular sections, concrete filled hollow circular section performs the best
with structural steel weight of 7619 kg which is the minimum among the five types of
sections.
181
Table 9.3 Weight and Cost Comparison
Total Structural Overall Cost by

Steel used in Program For
Case Type
Composite Frame Composite Frame
(Kg) (?)
Square concrete filled tubular 7912

Case 1 272035
column and beam section
Circular concrete filled tubular

Case 2 7619 259500
column and beam section
Rectangular concrete filled

Case 3 8132 280915
tubular column and beam section
Fully encased Indian column

Case 4 8025 281530
and beam section
Partially encased Indian column

Case 5 8385 287454
and beam section
Structural Steel Weight V/s Type of Member
8400
8200
Weight in kg
8000
7800
7600
7400
7200
Square Circular Rectangular Fully encased Partially
tubular tubular tubular section encased
section section section section
Type of member section
Fig. 9.18 Comparison of Weight
182
10. GA Based Optimization of Composite Trusses
Composite truss is one of the best potential solutions for beam span in the range of 12 to 30
meters [103]. Composite action of steel truss with concrete deck gives cost effective solution
and voids between bracing members of steel truss facilitates service zone. Figure 10.1 shows
the schematic diagram of composite truss where in steel truss is connected with concrete slab
using shear studs which make these two elements act united and give composite action. The
concrete floor slab used as a part of compression chord of the truss is less vulnerable to
buckling failure. Also, the concrete can more economically carry the compression, whereas it
is very weak in tension. In composite truss system, thus, the relative merits of steel and
concrete as construction material are fully exploited. It can be further economised by
optimizing the truss depth, panel width and size of the truss members. In multi storey
buildings the composite truss systems also reduce the total height of the building, by
accommodating the services within the depth of the truss, thus integrating structural,
mechanical and electrical systems within the floor space.
Shear studs Concrete deck slab
• • • • •
/-'L
Top chord
WW Bottom chord
V
>Steel truss
Web diagonals
Fig. 10.1 Components of a Composite Truss LA 9 3
Warren truss, Pratt truss and Warren truss with Vierendeel panel are most commonly used
configurations in composite truss. Optimization of steel concrete composite truss floor system
combines optimum design of RCC slab and optimum design of steel truss so as to get
183
10. GA Based Optimization of Composite Trass
maximum benefits with minimum resources. Design of slab is governed by minimum

thickness, minimum profile sheet depth and minimum concrete cover above shear studs.
Further, reduction in slab thickness is not permitted in the standards. Moreover, increase in
the slab thickness increases the loading on composite truss and ultimately does not help in
optimization process. There are following three possibilities in optimization of a truss:
> Size optimization,

> Configuration optimization,
> Topology optimization.
In size optimization, optimums cross sectional area of truss members are calculated to
minimize the cost of steel truss subjected to various functional and behavioural constraints.
Configuration optimization is the combination of size and geometry optimization. In
configuration optimization initial truss geometry (ground structure) is supplied to the
optimization algorithm which finds optimum joint co-ordinates and optimum member
criterion so as to minimize the cost and maximize the strength. In this case final optimum
solution is greatly influenced by the initial ground structure supplied to the algorithm. Here,
number of members and joints are not held fixed.
The most complicated and most general optimization in trusses is the topology optimization.
In this category, algorithm is not supplied with initial ground structure but it is free to choose
any geometry in the search space provided by the designer. Due to large number of design
variables, however, topology optimization is computationally more involved and very time
consuming but capable of evolving new and innovative design solutions.
From the literature survey it is clear that the amount of work done related to optimization of
composite steel-concrete structures is very limited. To the best of author’s knowledge no
work has been reported in the literature on optimization of composite truss using GA. As
varieties of shapes and sizes of composite structural components are in use in construction, it
is very much desirable to find optimum composite truss parameters.
In the present work, a software is developed for the design of composite truss using Limit
State Method of design. The objective is to facilitate the design of the composite truss having
Warren truss, Warren truss with Vierendeel panel or Pratt truss configurations. GA based
configuration optimization algorithm is developed with the objective of minimizing the cost
of composite truss considering the configuration optimization parameters of the composite
184
10. GA Based Optimization of Composite Truss
truss as truss depth, panel width and size of truss members. To facilitate menu driven input of
data and continuous display of the improvement in configuration of steel truss during the
optimization search process, Visual Basic.Net environment is selected. The Limit State
Method of design consistent with BS 5950:2000 [93] is employed for the design of composite
floor and truss system following the guidelines given by Mediate [51].
10.2 Truss Configurations in Common Use

A large number of truss configurations may be worth considering for use as composite truss.
Pratt and Warren truss configurations are most common and desired ones. Pratt Truss (Fig.
10.2), although theoretically the most efficient truss configuration, has limited usefulness for
typical floor framing. Additional members increase fabrication costs and relatively small free
area between the diagonals greatly reduces flexibility for services sizes and locations.
Fig. 10.3 Warren Truss
In a conventional Warren truss as shown in Fig. 10.3, configuration limits service duct sizes
to those that will fit between the diagonal bracing members. However, the use of Vierendeel
panels without bracing members is permitted in most truss applications, which greatly
increases the zone of services. The Vierendeel panel should be located at the mid span so that
the size of the openings is maximum and the minimum stiffening of the truss chords is
required. Figures 10.4 and 10.5 show Warren truss and Pratt truss respectively with central
Vierendeel panel.
Fig. 10.4 Warren Truss with Vierendeel Panel

185
The bottom chord can be either extended to the support or terminated at the last panel point
as shown in Figs. 10.2,10.5 and 10.6. Generally the chord can terminate before the supports
where trusses are used as secondary members. If the truss acts as a primary beam, or supports
heavy point loads, it is recommended that the chord extends to the support to provide
improved resistance to “flange tripping”, i.e. lateral buckling of the bottom chord in tension.
Fig. 10.6 Warren Truss with Vierendeel Panel and Bottom Chord up to Support
In order to reduce the span between the top chord nodes and hence to minimize the top chord
size, vertical members can be introduced in Warren trusses as shown in Fig. 10.7 and 10.8.
This is especially advantageous in the first panel on either side of the Vierendeel panel where
top chord bending and axial forces are the highest. Same benefits can be achieved by varying
the panel spacing. However by experience it has been found that the minimum size of the top
chord is often governed by handling requirement. Adding vertical members or varying the
panel spacing is not advantageous until spans exceed 15 m.
Fig 10.8 Warren Truss with Vierendeel Panel and Vertical Members
Ideally the centriodal axes of the compression and the tension web members should meet at
the same ‘node’ point to avoid eccentricity. However, in the composite case the effective
‘node’ point is within the slab and therefore the chords can be ‘separated’ slightly. If the
186
chord members are rectangular hollow sections (RHS), the bottom chord web joint can
accommodate a slight eccentricity. However, for tee section chords, the additional moments
that are induced can influence the required section size. Therefore, for most of the
applications, concentric joints should be used, with the connection centerlines of the web
members separated only as necessary to simplify welding [51].
10.3 Analysis and Design of Composite Truss
10.3.1 Configuration
It is very important to judiciously select initial parameters for the truss. Since the supports are
considered as simply supported, the span to depth ratio should be typically between 15 and
20. In addition to the depth of the truss, there should be adequate depth allowance (150 - 200
mm) below the bottom chord to take care of deflection, lighting, ceiling system and fire
protection.
In order to maximize the clear zone through the truss, the slope of the bracing diagonals
should preferably be 45° or less with the horizontal. The most efficient proportion has been
found to be having panel width to truss depth ratio of 3:1 considering a slope of around 30° as
shown in Fig. 10.9. Though larger panel size leads to slightly heavier section due to higher
load, less number of members and lower fire proofing costs are the gains. The Vierendeel
panel size should be chosen such that it can accommodate the major service duct and the
panel width opening should not exceed two times the depth of the truss.
<2d
m----------------►
Fig. 10.9 Preferred Dimensional Stipulation for Composite Truss
The top chord section should take into account the following:
> Ability to span between the braced nodes and supporting the load during construction.
'> Stability during erection process and to provide bearing support for the profiled
decking. A minimum width of 120 mm is usually acceptable.
> For through deck welding cases, the minimum flange thickness to be 8 mm.
> Adequate depth for welding of the bracing members.
’> Resistance to local bending at Vierendeel panels.
187
The effective length of all the members is often based on the assumption that the ends are
pinned. Whilst this may be true of the steel truss, the bracing members in a composite truss
achieve partial restraint from the slab. A reduced effective length (say 15% reduction to
0.85L) may be considered in such cases.
10.3.2 Loading
Primary load cases applicable to this kind of truss are listed below:
> Self weight of the truss and concrete slab.

> Dead load due to service loads, raised floor system and ceiling.
> Construction load consisting of the imposed loading on the deck prior to development
of composite action of the truss.
> Imposed loading consisting of the design floor loading and the partitions in
accordance with BS 6399: Part 1.
Typical unfactored values that can be considered are:

Construction load = 0.5 kN/m2 or point load = 4 kN
Imposed load = 4.5 kN/m including partitions
Imposed loading of 4.5 kN/m on the floor is the best compromise taking into consideration a
minimum of 3.5 kN/m2 UDL, stipulated for commercial buildings and the requirements to
allow future flexibility in the floor usage. The value considered can usually accommodate all
the potential office loadings. The longer the span, the lesser is the probability that a given
total load will be attained. Hence long span structures can be designed for lower imposed
load than short span structures.
For non composite case, self weight and construction loads are considered. After the concrete
has been cast, all the primary loads are to be considered, excluding the construction load.
Unbalanced loading along the span leads to larger shear forces in the members near the mid
span than the uniform load case. While considering construction conditions, the steel truss is
designed to support the weight of wet concrete and a construction load equivalent to those
mentioned above. The minimum size of the top chord section may be influenced by local
bending. The moment capacity of the section may be determined by referring to Fig. 10.10.
Mc = Rt(Dt-Xb-Xt) ...(10.1)
188
where, = compressive resistance of the top chord, Dt = overall depth of the truss, Xc =
elastic centroid depth of top chord from top of truss, and Xb = elastic centroid depth of
bottom chord from bottom of truss.
This moment capacity should exceed the factored moment calculated using the load factors
given in BS 5950 [93], The chords may be checked for the combination of tension or
compression and local moment. Each chord may be assumed to resist a shear force in
proportional to its stiffness and the local moments is equivalent to the shear force times half
the opening width.
Fig. 10.10 Moment Capacity of Composite Truss
10.3.3 Moment Capacity

In limit state method total factored moment applied to the beam should be less than the
moment capacity of the composite truss. For construction condition additional checks are
required for the steel truss. This is usually important when considering the design of the top
chord and Vierendeel panel. The moment capacity of the steel truss system at the point of
maximum moment is determined by compression in the top chord and tension in the bottom
chord.
In composite truss, the compression force may be considered to be resisted by the concrete or
composite slab with a consequent increase in the lever arm from the bottom chord to the point
of compression in the slab. The important parameters in this analysis are compressive
resistance of the concrete slab, Rc and the tensile resistance of the bottom chord, Rb. The
contribution of the top steel chord is ignored because of concern about the amount of strain in
189
the bottom chord necessary before the full tensile action of the top chord is developed. The
resistance of the bottom chord is given by:
Rc = 0.45/^ * BC{DS - Dp) ... (10.2)
where, fcu = cube strength of concrete, Bc = effective breadth of the concrete slab, Ds =
overall slab depth, and Dp = depth of the deck profile.
Bc is defined as the sum of the effective breadths (BS: 5950 Part 3) as be of the portion of
flange on each side of the centerline of the steel beam. For slabs spanning perpendicular to
beam, be should be equal to Lz / 8 but not greater than b, and slabs spanning parallel to beam,
be should be equal to Lz/8 but should not be greater than 0.8b. Lz is the distance between
points of zero moment. For simply supported span Lz is equal to effective span L.
Rb=Ab*Py ...(10.3)
where, Ab = cross sectional area of the bottom chord, and Py = design strength of steel.
In most cases Rb < Rc and so the moment capacity Mc of the composite truss (Fig. 10.10) is
given by the tensile action of the bottom chord multiplied by the lever arm to the point of
compression in the slab. Hence,
Mc = Rb {Dt + DS- 0.SXc - Xb) ... (10.4)
where, Xc = (Z)s — DpjRb/Rc , d = depth of composite truss, Dt = overall depth of steel truss
given as, (d + Xt + Xb), and Xb = depth of elastic centroid of the bottom chord of the truss.
The increase in moment capacity of a composite truss in comparison to steel truss is usually
between 20% to 30%. Other benefits of composite action are transfer of local moment at
Vierendeel openings and substantial increase in the overall stiffness of the truss.
10.3.4 Shear Capacity And Longitudinal Shear
The shear capacity of the truss can be evaluated from first principles by considering the
component forces in the bracing members. All connections are assumed to be pinned. For the
conventional ‘Warren’ truss the inner bracing members are in compression and the outer
members are in tension. If the bracing members are positioned at an angle equal to 0 with the
horizontal their maximum tensile force is:
Ft = Reaction/sin 9 ...(10.5)
This tensile force is counteracted by a compression force in the next bracing member remote
from the support. The tension and compression forces are equal if vertical member is not
190
provided. If vertical member is provided, the compression force is reduced because the local
force is transferred from the slab via the member.
An additional requirement is that sufficient transverse reinforcement is placed in the slab so

as to permit a smooth transfer of force from the shear connection into the concrete. The
requirements for transverse reinforcement are given in Clause 5.6 of BS: 5950 Part 3.
10.3.5 Member Check
Chord Members
The sizes of the individual members are checked according to the forces and moments for
each combination of load cases. The output of the different load combinations is used to
determine the most adverse load case to be used for design at the ultimate limit State. In the
composite condition the truss model analysis leads to axial forces and moments in the top
chord member and concrete slab separately. The most severe combination of axial
compression and bending moment determines the size of the top chord member. The bottom
chord will primarily be subjected to tension. The effects of the combined moment and axial
load must be taken into account for all the load cases to determine the size of the bottom
chord.
The direction of buckling will determine the effective length of the chords. For out of plane
buckling, the effective length is conservatively taken as distance between the nodes. For in
plane buckling, the effective length may be taken as 0.85 times the distance between the node
points representing the influence of partial restraint of the nodes by the bracing members. The
top.chord is fully restrained except for in plane buckling at the construction stage.
Bracing Members
A compression force is developed in the steel top chord due to the component of force
transferred via the bracing members. However, in a composite truss this force is then
transferred uniformly to the slab by the shear connectors attached to the top chord. The top
chord must therefore be able to resist the local forces at the nodes even though its effect on
overall bending is neglected. The bracing forces may be calculated at all points along the
truss by considering equilibrium at the nodes. The size of the bracing members may be
reduced, if desired, towards the lower shear zones.
Local moments at the braced nodes in the bottom chord are usually ignored at this stage.
Where there is an eccentricity in the projected centroid of the members, the eccentric force
191
gives rise to an overall bending effect at the node, which is resisted by the members broadly
in effects as mentioned in BS 5950 Part 1. For nodes in the top chord connected to the
composite slab, the bracing members may be separated slightly as their projected centroid
need not align with the steel top chord but with the center of the concrete slab. Any further
eccentricity may be treated as a local moment in the slab.
10.3.6 Deflection Checks

The second moment of area Ic of a composite truss may be evaluated by converting the
concrete area to an equivalent steel area. Thus the composite truss becomes equivalent to two
concentrated blocks of steel area separated by the distance between the mid depth of the slab
and the bottom chord. This leads to the following expression for composite stage:
AbAc/m Ds + Dp
Ir ...(10.6)
Dr
rAb + Ac\^' -
Km)
Where, Ac = cross sectional area of concrete in the effective breadth of slab = (Ds- Dp) x B,
m = modular ratio and Ab = cross sectional area of the bottom chord.
The imposed load deflection of a composite truss subjected to uniform load of w/unit length
may therefore be calculated from the assumption that bending effect is dominant. Hence:
o
5 *Wi*l3
___ i
...(10.7)
c “ 384 *E*1C
where, L = truss span, E = elastic modulus of steel, Ic moment of inertia given by Eqn.
10.6.
For long span trusses (span/depth ratio > 15), this consideration might work well but an
additional component of deflection due to axial strain in the bracing members may need to be
considered in deep trusses or those subjected to heavy point loads. A 10 % allowance for
these additional deflections is usually appropriate for the truss proportions normally used.
The deflection for imposed load should be limited to span / 360.
Except for calculation of self weight any further checks on serviceability performance are not
needed. The second moment of area of the steel truss It for pre composite stage is obtained by
considering the separation of the bottom chord and the top chord of area A,. Thus,
h = -jrrr
Ab + At ^ ~x»- - (10-8)
192
Generally, it is found that It is smaller than Ic suggesting that self weight deflection may be of
similar magnitude to the imposed load deflections. The deflection in pre composite stage is
given as,
o __
5 *Wt*l3
t
(10.9)
f ~ 384 *E*lt
Hence total deflection is given by Sc + St.
Deflection checks can be carried out in two stages:

> Deflection due to self weight and construction loads on the non composite truss
structures.
> Deflection due to dead and imposed loads on the composite truss structures.
The elastic modulus of concrete used for the dead and imposed load conditions should be
consistent with the duration of loading under consideration. The truss is considered to be a
simply supported member and the second moment of area of the steel truss is calculated from
the properties of the top and bottom chords (and slab in the composite case) only. Deflections
calculated in this manner does not take into account the shear deformation of the bracing
members and are therefore about 15% less than the values obtained from the analysis. The
result should be checked against the following limitation.
S = Span/325 ... (10.10)
10.4 Configuration Optimization Problem Formulation

The problem of configuration optimization of composite truss can be formulated as:
Find, (x)
To minimize, Or = Cs + Cc
Subject to, gi(x)<0 ...(10.11)
where, C j (x) is the total cost of composite truss, Cs is the cost of steel truss, Cc is the cost of
concrete slab, x is the vector of design variables and g/x) is the ilh constraint function.
10.4.1 Design Variables
Following design variables are considered which not only define the complete geometry of
the truss but also the member section properties.
193
> Depth of truss: The cost of the truss depends on the length of the members which is
directly affected by the depth of truss. Depth of simply supported composite truss is
considered to vary from span/15 to span/20.
> Number of panels: For a given truss depth and span, number of panels decides the
angle of bracing member. A slope of about 30°, creating a panel width to truss depth
ratio of 3:1 has been found to be most efficient proportion.Number of panels are
selected here to keep bracing member inclination in the specified range (30° to 45°).
> Member cross-section properties: Properties of the sections suitable to four groups
of truss members (viz. Top-chord (TC), Bottom-chord (BC), Diagonal Tension (T)
and Diagonal Compression (C)) are stored in a common database with a unique
integer number assigned to each section. These four binary design variables are
decoded into integer numbers corresponding to which, section properties are extracted
from the database and used in the design. These variables takes only discrete values
corresponding to rolled steel sections stored in the database which makes the optimum
solution practically feasible.
10.4.2 Design Constraints
Safety is of prime importance in any structural design. Thus, while optimizing any structural
component there should be no compromise with safety. This requires fulfilment of certain
condition and constraints, violation of which would make the structure unsafe. In structural
problems, constraints are formed by setting relationship between function of design variables
with the resource values such as permissible stress, permissible deflection etc. Thus,
constraints in the optimization process prevent the search to enter the infeasible region. The
following constraints are imposed here.
> Moment constraint: In limit state design the moment capacity of the composite truss
(Mc) should exceed the total factored applied moment [104]. The constraint can be
written as:
Mf<Mc ...(10.12)
Corresponding function for this constraint is;
g0(x) = Max (Mf/ Mc -1, 0) ... (10.13)
^ Member force constraint: This constraint ensures that the capacity of the truss
member is more than the actual load induced in the member. The constraints for top
chord, bottom chord, diagonal tension and diagonal compression members are:
194
TCf < TCc, BCf< BCq Tf< Tc, Cf< Cc ... (10.14)
where, TCf, BCf, Tf, Cf and TCc, BCc, Tc, Cc are factored loads and capacities of top
chord, bottom chord, diagonal tension and diagonal compression members
respectively. The associated constraint functions are:
g2(x) = Max (TCf/ TCc -1, 0)

g3(x) = Max (BCf/BCc -1, 0)
d4(x) = Max (Tf/ Tc -1, 0)
g5(x) = Max (Cf/Cc -1, 0) ... (10.15)
y Deflection constraint: This constraint checks the serviceability limit state and is
given by
8 max <5 permissible (10.16)
where, 8max is the maximum deflection in the composite truss and 5Permissibie is
permissible deflection given by span/325.
10.5 GA Implementation
GA involves initial random selection of solutions from the available search space as defined
by the upper and lower bounds of the design variables. This initial population of solutions is
generated in the binary form. The solution in GA is the series of design variables defining
complete solution which in case of composite truss optimization represents geometry of truss
and cross-section properties of the truss members. Usually number of variables representing
member section properties equals to the number of truss members. However, in the present
study, the variables are reduced to four by grouping similar type of the members in four
groups. In addition there are two more variables that define configuration of truss of a
selected geometry. These variables are depth of truss and number of panels. Thus one GA
solution string, consisting of six binary substrings, defines the six design variables.
The binary string representation scheme is used for all the variables. The accuracy of the
variable depends on the number of bits in each string. Each potential solution is represented
by a single binary string called the main string, which is then divided into six smaller strings
each representing a design variable listed above. The binary strings are then converted into
their decimal equivalents and are mapped between upper and lower bounds to obtain the
values of the variables. The mapped values shown in Fig. 10.11 represent the configuration
as shown in Fig. 10.12.
195
Initial population of randomly selected solution strings in binary form is decoded to find
actual values of design variables and corresponding structures are generated. The generated
truss structures are analyzed to find constraint functions g;(x) and objective function C-r(x)
which is multiplied by penalty function (1 + kC) to find the penalized objective function Cp
given by
Cp = (1 + kC)CT(x) ...(10.17)
where k is penalty parameter which is adopted as 10 in the present study and C is cumulative
constraint function.
Main String jttom chord string
( -----------------
V
/ -----------------
/ -----------------
s_______________________
v
_____________
____________
___________
t------------------------
fo n c h o r d s tr in g
pression string
Panel string
OTOOOT
000000
000TT0
TTTTTT
010100
101000
D epth string
nsion string
<u
Decimal Equivalent
o a
O
24
Mapped Values
/ ------------------------------
s________________________________________
ISA 80X 80X 12

ISJT 112X 80
lulu
5 N um ber
in
(N
r-
1
0601
u
5
in
H
v--- __ /
Fig. 10.11 Representation of Solution String in Graphical Form
196
TC TC TC , TC TC
1090 A A A A 7
nTCTCTTCTCT
i v v v v v BC BC BC BC
Fig. 10.12 Corresponding Structural Representation of Solution String
From the above equation it is clear that for a feasible solution all the constraint functions will
be zero and objective function will not be penalized. For infeasible solution (1 + kC) value
will be more than 1 which will increase the penalized cost to be minimized and decrease the
fitness function formulated as [10]:
F(x) = 1/(1 + Cp) ... (10.18)
The fitness function is the measure of goodness of a solution in the optimization. After
calculation of fitness for each solution of the initial population (1st Generation), a new
population (2nd Generation) is produced by applying GA operators such as selection,
crossover, mutation and elitism. This new population is further evaluated to calculate the
fitness values and again the GA operators are employed to produce 3rd generation. The
process is repeated until stopping criteria is satisfied. The solution having maximum fitness
among all generations is considered as the optimum solution.
10.6 Program Developed For The Composite Trusses

The GA based inbuilt functions like “Rnd function”, “Mid, Left and Right function” etc. are
used in the program which is developed in VB.NET environment. A modular approach is
adopted by developing a number of subroutines such as Subroutine Genetic to develop strings
for given variable of design. Subroutine Fitness Scaling is written to scale the fitness.
Subroutine Crossover Mutation is made to perform Crossover and Mutation. Fitness.
function is added to calculate fitness based on the objective function which is the total cost of
the composite truss in present work. A number of menus and forms are developed to facilitate
pre- and post- processing of data.
The procedure to obtain the solution is illustrated here with the help of the screen shots of the
forms given in Figs. 10.13 to 10.22.
197
Welcome to ’OPTIMIZATION OF COMPOSITE TRUSS’
Fig. 10.13 Start up Screen for Composite Truss
Fig. 10.14 Form for Option Menus and Tools
Fig. 10.15 Form for Entering the Geometry Data
198
Fig. 10.16 Form to Enter Material Data Related to Concrete and Steel
Fig. 10.17 Data Form for Dead, Live and Construction Loads
Fig. 10.18 Form for Entering Unit Cost of Material
199
Fig. 10.19 Menus for Supply of Genetic Data
B OPTIMIZATION OF COMPOSITE TRUSS - [OPTUMUM SOLUTION]

t-j Input Data Optimum Design Exit . B X
Hit o
Depth996.03 mm Panel Nos 7 Nos
Top Chord:- ISST 250X180 Compression Member: 2 ISA 90X90X10
Bottom Chord - 2ISMC 200 Tension Member 2 ISA 75X75X8
Fig. 10.20 Perform Optimum Designl
200
? OPTIMIZATION OF COMPOSITE TRUSS - [OPTUMUM SOLUTION]
Input Data Optimum Design Exit
c? I E> IJI0IIO
Depth 774 GO mm Panel Nos 5 Nos
Top Chord ISST 200X165 Compression Member 2 ISA 80X80X6
Bottom Chord ISST 200X165 Tension Member2 ISA 90X00X0
Fig. 10.21 Perform Optimum Design_2
RESULTS
1gen T up Chord Bottom Chord Total Steel Fittness
0 ~ 0 ISJC100 /v ISLC 200 00 2308.02 0 0.5008 ^

0 - 1 ISJT75X5C ISHT75X1! 11 955 26 1 0 0113
0 2 ISLC 75 ISMC 250 22 3525.07 2 0.2860
0 3 ISLC 175 3 ISNT20X2I 3 1334 94 3 0 0093
0 4 ISJT10CX6 4 ISMC 225 4 2705.42 4 0 0170
0 5 ISMC 300 5 ISNT 50X51 5 2456.91 5 0.0434
0 6 ISST25CK' 6 ISMC 100 6 1524.71 6 0.2734
0 7 ISJC175 7 ISLC 125 7 1709.37 7 0.6205
0 8 ISLC 350 8 ISMC 75 8 2829.46 8 0.1558
0 9 IS NT 50X51 9 ISLT1 oaxi 9 838.66 9 0.0271
0 10 ISNT3CX: 10 ISNT6CXI 10 934.25 10 0 0030
0 11 issti oa> 11 ISNT40X- 11 1542.94 11 0.0102
0 12 ISJC100 12 ISMC 100 12 1317 03 12 0.1204
0 13 ISLC 200 13 ISNT2CX; 13 1545.59 13 0.0090
0 v 14 ISNT6QKI v 14 ISNT3CK v 14 602.67 V 14 0.0094 *}
0 ISJC175 ISLC125 ISA130X130Cx:i 2 0.369 38.67 61.54 226341 3
1 ISJC200 ISLC300 ISA9QX90XS 0.000 19.42 61.54 226341.3
Optimum Result Optimum Geometry
Fig. 10.22 View Generation History

9 OPTIMIZATION OF COMPOSITE TRUSS [OPTUMUM SOLUTION]
0®®
•2 Input Data Optmum Design Exit
7Y
Depth - 996 03 mm Panel Nos - 7 Nos
Top Chord ISST 250X180 Compression Member2 ISA 90X90X10
Bottom Chord 2 ISMC 200 Tension Member - 2 ISA 75X75X8
Fig. 10.23 Display of Optimum Geometry on Screen

10.7 Optimum Design Example of A Warren Truss
> Geometry data > Unit cost data

■ Truss type = Warren truss * Unit cost of steel = 52 f/ kg.
■ Span = 15 m
■ Unit cost of concrete = 6000 ?/ cum
■ Truss spacing = 3.5 m
> Genetic data
■ Slab thickness = 160 mm
■ String Length - 6
■ Profile depth = 80 mm
■ Population Size - 15
> Material data
■ Generation - 21
■ Grade of concrete = M20
■ Type of Crossover - Double Point
■ Grade of steel = Fe 250
Crossover
> Load data ■ Crossover Probability - 0.67
■ Load due to ceiling, F.F. and Services ■ Selection Scheme - Roulette Wheel
= 1.1 kN/sq. m Scheme
■ Construction load = 1 kN / sq. m ■ Mutation Probability - 0.05 with
■ Superimposed live load = 5.5 kN/sq. m. variable mutation rate.
Output
The optimum solution produced by the software is shown Fig. 10.24.
—
00®
9 OPTIMIZATION OF COMPOSITE TRUSS ■ [0PTUMUM SOLUTION]
aj Input Data Optimum Design Exit . e x
: $ J > IS H 0
Depth996.03 mm Panel Nos7 Nos.
TopChord- ISST 250X180 Compression Member - 2 ISA 90X90X10
Bottom Chord 2ISMC200 Tension Member:- 2 ISA 75X75X8
Fig. 10.24 Optimum Solution for Warren Truss (15 M Span)
202
10.8 Optimum Design Example of A Pratt Truss
Design of deck type of Pratt Truss with light weight concrete slab is tried now with the
following data.

■ Truss type = Pratt truss ■ Unit cost of steel = 52 ?/ kg.
■ Span =15 m ■ Unit cost of concrete = 6000 ?/ cum
■ Truss spacing = 3.5 m
> Genetic data
■ Population Size - 20
> Material data ■ Generation - 23
■ Grade of concrete = M20 ■ Type of Crossover - Double Point
■ Grade of steel = Fe 250 Crossover
> Load data ■ Crossover Probability - 0.81
■ Load due to ceiling, F.F. and Services = ■ Selection Scheme - Roulette Wheel
1.1 kN/sq. m Scheme
■ Construction load = 1 kN/sq. m ■ Mutation Probability - 0.07 with
■ Superimposed live load = 5.5 kN/sq. m. variable mutation rate.
Output
The final solution obtained by GA based optimization software is shown in Fig. 10.25
Fig. 10.25 Optimum Solution for a Pratt Truss (15 m Span)
203
10.9 Warren Truss Example With Vierendeel Panel

Design of a deck type Vierendeel Panel Truss with light weight concrete slab is attempted
now with the following input data:

■ Span = 18 m ■ Unit cost of steel =52 ?/ kg.
■ Truss spacing = 3 m ■ Unit cost of concrete = 6000 ?/cum.
> Genetic Data
> Material data ■ Population Size - 14
* Grade of concrete = M20 ■ Generation-18
■ Grade of steel = Fe 250 ■ Type of Cross-over - Double Point
> Load data Crossover
■ Load due to ceiling, F.F. and Services ■ Cross-over Probability - 0.87
= 1 kN/sq. m ■ Selection Scheme - Roulette Wheel
■ Construction load = 1 kN / sq. m Scheme
■ Superimposed live load = 5 kN/sq. m. ■ Mutation Probability - 0.06 with

Variable mutation rate.
Output
The optimum solution with optimum parameters for 18 m span is depicted in Fig. 10.26.
2 Main Menu
Input Data Optmum Design #Exit Show Reports Help
I $ S> O fclS J*
TOR CHORD ISMC225 COMPRESSION MEMBER ISA75X75X6

BOTTOM CHORD ISST100X50 TENSION MEMBER ISA65X65X5
SLAB WIDTH (mm) 4500 DEPTH (mm) 1023 81
PANEL Nos 6
Fig. 10.26 Optimum Solution for a Warren Truss with Vierendeel Truss
204
Total four problems with 10 m, 12 m, 15 m and 20 m spans are solved using Warren truss
and Pratt truss geometries for the input data given in Table 10.1. Results obtained using
optimization software are summarized in Table 10.2, whereas Table 10.3 summarizes the
solution obtained by conventional method i.e. without using GA.
Table 10.1 Input Data for Warren and Pratt Truss Configurations
Truss Slab Profile
Span Steel / C oncrete I otal D.L. ( Oil'll 111 noil 1 1 o:ul
Spacing Ihk. <k.W) 1 wad (kW) •
(mi Gi .lilt O/m > (kN/m)
On) (inm) (mm)
10 3 150 75 250/20 1 1 5
12 3 150 75 250/20 1 1 5
15 3.5 160 80 250/20 1.1 1 5.5
20 3 160 80 250/20 1.1 1.2 5.5
Table 10.2 Results for Warren and Pratt Truss (With GA)
r-
(oniprcssion
« ?£
/=
b
Span Bottom Depth No. ..1

l op Chord Member Vteipht (ki»)
r
c
2
(m) Choi (1 (nun.) Panels

(2 IS \) (2 1S\)
PRATT TRUSS
10 ISNT100 1SNT150 55 X 55 X 10 55 X 55 X 8 700.00 10 686.70

12 2 ISMC100 ISST200 60 X 60 X 10 55 X 55 X 6 771.40 12 943.60
15 1SST250 2 1SMC225 70 X 70 X 10 100 X 100X8 1000.00 12 2097.10
20 ISHT150 2 ISMC350 100 X 100X10 100 X 100 X 10 1321.80 10 3505.70
WARREN TRUSS
10 ISNT150 ISHT150 55 X 55 X 8 55 X 55 X 10 500.00 6 695.40

12 2 ISMC100 1SST250 80 X 80 X 6 90X90X6 784.10 6 963.00
15 ISST250 2 ISMC200 75 X 75 X 8 90 X 90 X 10 996.00 7 1775.70
20 2 ISMC150 2 ISLC300 70 X 70 X 8 150 X 150 X 10 1100.00 8 2931.90
Table 103 Results for Warren and Pratt Truss (Without GA)
Tension Compression
Span lop Bultuiii Depth No. of Weight
Member Member
(in) Chord Clin, d (mm) panels
(2 ISA) (2 ISA)
PRATT TRUSS
10 ISNT150 ISHT150 55 X 55 X 10 55 X 55 X 6 500.00 14 770.90

12 ISNT150 ISST250 60 X 60 X 10 55 X 55 X 10 700.00 12 1171.90
15 ISST250 2 ISLC250 80 X 80 X 12 70 X 70 X 10 750.00 14 2150.90
20 2 1SLC200 2ISLC350 90 X 90 X 12 80 X 80 X 10 1000.00 14 3590.30
205
WARREN TRUSS
10 1SNT150 ISHT150 70 X 70 X 6 80 X 80 X 6 500.00 7 704.00

12 1SHT125 ISST250 55 X 55 X8 65 X 65 X 10 600.00 6 1030.70
15 2ISLC175 2ISLC250 70 X 70 X 10 80 X 80 X 12 750.00 7 1870.20
20 2ISLC200 2 ISLC 350 80 X 80 X 10 80 X 80 X 12 1000.00 9 3176.90
Fig. 10.27 shows a graph between the generation number and fitness value for the composite
truss of 15 m span. From the graph it is clear that the final result is obtained in the generation
31 and after that there is no further improvement. The convergence towards minimum weight
is displayed in graphical form in Fig. 10.28.
FITNESS VERSUS GENERATION
1.2
FITNESS
o
co
o
o CD
0.2
o ••••’
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
GENERATION
Fig. 10.27 Generation History of a 15 m Span Composite Truss
WEIGHT VERSUS GENERATION

2500
ro
oo
o
WEIGHT (kg)
cn
-»■
oo
*
!:
l:
:
->•
ooo
l
♦
t
:
1
♦
♦
:♦
♦
♦:
♦
♦ t
♦
♦
oi
oo
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
GENERATION
Fig. 10.28 Weight Versus Generation History
206
Figures 10.29 and 10.30 show results of the comparative study carried out for Warren and
Pratt truss respectively. There is a noticeable reduction in the weight of the warren truss when
Genetic Algorithm is used.
WEIGHT VERSUS SPAN

cn
GJ
oo
♦ WARREN (without GA)

CO
■ WARREN (with GA)

oo
o
cn
N>
oo
WEIGHT (kg)
CM
oo
o
t
cn
oo
I
o
oo
»
oo
LO
co
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
SPAN (m)
Fig. 10.29 Weight Versus Span Graph for Warren Truss
WEIGHT VERSUS SPAN

4000
3500 * PRATT (without GA) __ t
■ PRATT (WITH GA)
3000
WEIGHT (kg)
2500
2000
1500
1000 ----------■
I
500
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
SPAN (m)
Fig. 10.30 Weight Versus Span Graph for Pratt Truss
207
11. FE Modelling of Shear Connection
11.1 Introduction to FEM

Many researchers have carried out experimental and numerical studies to investigate the
behavior of headed stud in composite beam. Oehlers [95] investigated the cracking mode
around the shear connector and stated three distinct mode of cracking. Experimental studies
carried out by Johnson [90] indicated that the concrete strength influences the mode of failure
of shear connection between steel and concrete as well as failure load. Li and Krister [104]
studied the behavior of headed studs in high strength and normal strength concrete. They
found that the compressive strength of concrete significantly affects the load-slip behavior
and shear connector capacity. Lam and Elliott [105] mentioned that the load-slip curve and
shear capacity of headed stud are currently obtained from experimental push-off test.
Although the push-off test provides a clear insight in to the behavior of these connectors, the
tests are relatively time consuming and expensive. Hence analytical models are required for
the analysis.
Over the years, the finite element technique has been so well established that today it is
considered as one of the best methods for solving a wide variety of practical problems
efficiently. There are many finite element based computer programs, which are widely used
in practically all branches of engineering for the analysis of structures, solids and fluids. As
such, techniques related to modelling and simulation in a rapid and effective way play an
increasingly important role in building advanced engineering systems.
Following are the basic steps of finite element analysis [106]:
1. Discretize the body

2. Approximate the behaviour of each element
3. Calculate element properties
4. Assemble element properties
208
5. Apply boundary conditions

6. Solve for unknown nodal displacements
7. Calculate strains and stresses
8. Interpret the results
Figure 11.1 shows the sequence of processing the information in finite element analysis.
Reduce
problem
based on
Problem domain symmetry
o Form system
of eauations
and solve, i—S
Post-process
Fig. 11.1 Illustrative Example of FEA
11.2 Description of Push-out Test
The property of a shear connector most relevant to design is the relationship between the
shear force transmitted and the slip at the interface. This load-slip curve should ideally be
found from test on composite beams, but in practice a simpler specimen is necessary. The
most common way used to evaluate shear stud strength and behaviour is push-out test. In this
test the flanges of a short length of I-beam are connected to two small concrete slabs. The
details of standard push out test are shown in Fig. 11.2.
The slab is bedded onto the lower platen of a compression testing machine and load is applied
to the upper end of the steel section. Slip between steel member and two slabs is measured at
several points, and the average slip is plotted against the load per connector. In practice, the
designers normally specify shear connector for which the strength have already been
established, for it is an expensive matter to carry out sufficient test to determine designer
strength for a new type of connector. The test has to be carried out for a range of concrete
strength, because the strength of concrete influences the mode of failure as well as the failure
load. The fact that either concrete crushing or steel yield may occur means that for design the
connector must be checked for both failure modes.
209
10 mro Ratnfefcement Bars

Steel Beam 254*254 UC73 (W10*49)
(a) Front Ele vation (b) Side Elevation (c)Han
Fig. 11.2 Details of Push out Test Setup
Specimen for push out test is prepared as follows:
> Each concrete slab should be cast in the horizontal position, as it is done for
composite beam in practice.

> Bond at the interface between flanges of the steel beam and the concrete should be
prevented by greasing the flange or by other suitable means.
> The specimens should be air-cured.
> For each mix a minimum of four concrete specimens for the determination of the
cylinder strength should be prepared at the time of casting the push-out specimens.
The concrete strength should be taken as the mean value.
Figure 11.3 shows trend of some of the results of “push-out” tests on different shear
connectors. The brittle connectors reach their peak resistance with relatively small slip and
then fail suddenly, but the ductile connectors maintain their shear carrying capacity over large
displacements. Based on the load slip curve two important parameters can be obtained - the
plastic plateau and the connector stiffness k. While ultimate strength analysis is based on
plastic behaviour of shear connectors, the ‘k’ value is required for serviceability analysis and
to find slip strain and stresses at partial interaction. In the ultimate analysis it is assumed that
concrete slab, steel beam and the dowel are fully stressed, which is known as "rigid plastic”
condition. In this condition the flexural strength of the section is determined from equilibrium
equation [90].
210
Fig. 11.3 Load-Slip Characteristics of Shear Connector
The load-slip relationship is influenced by many variables, including:
> Number of connectors in the test specimen,
> Mean longitudinal stress in the concrete slab surrounding the connectors,
> Size, arrangement and strength of slab reinforcement in the vicinity of the connectors,
> Thickness of concrete surrounding the connectors,
> Freedom of the base of each slab to move laterally, and so to impose uplift forces on
the connectors,
> Bond at the steel-concrete interface,
> Strength of the concrete slab, and
> Degree of compaction of the concrete surrounding the base of each connector.
11.3 Design Strength of Shear Connectors

The design strength of some commonly used shear connectors as per IS: 11384-1985 [1] for
Fe 540-FIT connector material is given in Table 11.1.
Generally shear connectors are uniformly spaced. The spacing of connectors should not be
greater than four times the slab thickness or greater than 600 mm. The distance between the
edge of the connector and the edge of the plate or flange to which it is connected shall not be
less than 25 mm.
211
] 1. FE Modelling of Shear Connection
Table 11.1 Design Strength of Shear Connectors for Different Concrete Strengths
Design Strength of Connectors

T\ pc of Connectors
■* (1 uud per stud (l\) in. k\)
Headed stud Concrete Grade
Diameter in mm Height in mm M-20 M-30 M-40
25 100 86 101 113

22 100 70 85 94
20 100 57 68 75
20 75 49 58 64
16 75 47 49 54
12 62 23 28 31
PRdiand PRdz represent respectively the shear failure of the stud and the local concrete
crushing around the shear connector.
Tid?
0.8
PRd, — ...(11.1)
Yv
0.29d2((fck)cyEcm)V2
Pro.2 (11.2)
Yv
where, f, = ultimate tensile strength of steel (< 500 N/mm2), (fck)cy — cylinder strength of
concrete, Ecm - mean secant (elastic) modulus of concrete, yv - partial safety factor for stud
connector = 1.25, and d = diameter of shear connector.
Equation (11.1) is based on shear failure of the stud whereas Eq. (11.2) is based on local
concrete crushing around the shear connector. The lower of the above two values governs the
design [7],
11.4 ANSYS As An Analysis Package

ANSYS is a general-purpose Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software package. The software
implements equations that govern the behaviour of the elements and solves them all; creating
a comprehensive explanation of how the system acts as a whole. These results then can be
presented in tabulated or graphical forms. This type of analysis is typically used for the
design and optimization of a system far too complex to analyze by hand. ANSYS software
enables engineers to perform the following tasks:
212
> Building computer models or transfer CAD models of structures.

> Apply operating loads or other design performance conditions.
> Study physical responses, such as stress levels, temperature distributions etc.
The ANSYS has many finite element analysis capabilities, ranging from a simple, linear,
static analysis to a complex, nonlinear, transient dynamic analysis, which is used by
engineers worldwide in virtually all the fields of engineering [98], Analysis procedure in
ANSYS is as follows:
•Analysis type?
Preliminary Decisions •Model?
•Element type?
•Define material properties

Preprocessing •Create model geometry.
•Mesh the Geometry.
•Apply loads.
Main processing
•Solve the simulation..
•Review results.
Main processing
•Validate the solution.
11.5 FE Modelling of Push-Out test With Solid Slab
11.5.1 Geometry Modelling

Successful use of finite element method in many studies involving complex structures or
interactions among the structural members has been one of the motivations for applying this
method in the present study. It has ability to accurately model the different materials and
interaction of each part of the system. In preliminary development of FE model several’
materials properties, particularly the concrete cracking parameters and non-linearity of steel
were tried to determine a suitable combination that produce acceptable results. Proper
representation of the various components of the push out test is necessary for the successful
behavior of the model. Lam and El-Lobody [76] used three dimensional eight-node element
(C3D8), three dimensional fifteen-noded element (C3D15) and three dimensional twenty-
noded element (C3D20) for modelling a push-out test as shown in Fig. 11.4.
213
1 ]. FE Modelling of Shear Connection
Load
Concrete
Steel Beam
Shear Stud
Fig. 11.4 Three Dimensional Model of Push-Out Test
As three dimensional modelling and analysis are very rigorous and time consuming, the push
out test is idealized here as a two dimensional model considering nonlinearity and assuming it
to be a plane strain analysis problem. ANSYS software is used to investigate the behavior of
shear connection in composite beams with solid slabs.
Here Plane 183 element [107] is used for shear stud, steel beam and the concrete slab. The
plane 183 is the higher order two dimensional element. Plane 183 has quadratic displacement
variation behavior and well suited for modelling irregular meshes. This element is defined by
8 or 6 nodes having two degrees of freedom at each node i.e. translation in the nodal X- and
Y- directions as shown in Fig. 11.5. The element may be used to discretize a plane stress or
plane strain problem.
Fig. 11.5 Higher Order Two Dimensional Plane 183 Elements

214
The symmetry of the push-out test is taken into account, hence only half of the setup is
modeled. The base of the concrete slab in the direction of loading is constrained. The steel
beam is restricted in X-direction along the axis of symmetry.
The meshing as shown in Fig. 11.6 is carried out which satisfies the limits and aspect ratio of
the elements. The concrete slab is divided into 6 elements in X-direction and 18 elements in
Y-direction. The shank of the stud has 3 elements in X-direction and 1 element in Y-
direction. The head of the stud has 1 element in X-direction and 3 elements in Y-direction.
The steel beam flange and web have 1 and 3 elements in X-direction respectively while they
have total 18 elements [107],
Fig. 11.6 Finite Element Mesh of 2D Model

Modelling of shear connection between steel and concrete requires successful representation
of all the components associated with connection. The region around the stud is a region of
severe and complex stresses. The shear forces are transferred across the steel-concrete
interface by the mechanical action of shear connectors. The shear stud is modelled as a
bilinear stress strain model. The stud material behaves as a linearly elastic material up to the
yield point and then becomes completely plastic. The modulus of elasticity and yield stress
considered are Es = 2 X 105 N/mnr and fys= 470.8 N/mnr respectively.
215
The stress-strain curve of the headed stud is shown in Fig. 11.7 which is a simulated bi-hnear
stress-strain model with yield stress of 275 N/mm2. The main function of steel beam is to
allow the transmission of applied load to the connectors. It is considered that the effect of the
steel beam is insignificant in a push-off test. Yahya and Kasim [67] studied the effects of
concrete nonlinear modelling on the analysis of push out test by ANSYS. The material model
suggested by them is used for simulating the concrete.
500
400 --------------------/—
Stress N /m m 2
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Strain
Fig. 11.7 Bilinear Stress-Strain Curve for Headed Stud Model
The uni-axial stress-strain relation simulating the compressive behaviour of concrete is used.
The multi-linear isotropic material is considered, using the formula given below in Eq. (11.3)
and Eq. (11.4).
For 0 < £ < £0 ,
fc = f'c ...(11.3)
For £0 < £ < £cu ,

£ - £n
fc = f'c - 0.15/'c ...(11.4)
where, fc = stress in concrete, ff = peak stress in concrete, s = strain in concrete, £o = peak

strain in concrete, and ecu = ultimate concrete strain.
11.5.3 Verification of FE Model

The comparison of results of two dimensional model is done with the results of three
dimensional model and experimental results given by Lam and El-Lobody [76] in Fig. 11.8.
The displacement contours obtained using 2D mode are as shown in Fig. 11.9.
216
80
70
Slip (mm)
Fig. 11.8 Comparison between Experimental, 3D and 2D Model
I I I I I I I
c
-0.244293 -Q 169821 -0.095349 -Q02CG78 0.053594
-Q 207057 -O. 132585 -0.0581 14 Q 016358 Q 09083
Fig. 11.9 Displacement Contour Plot (2D Model)
11.5.4 Parametric Study

The strength of connector and the concrete are the main factors affecting the behavior of
shear connectors. To investigate the effect of the shear capacity of the headed stud with the
variation in concrete strength and stud diameter, the parametric study is carried out for the
different grades of concrete i.e. 25, 30, 35 and 40 N/mm2 and the stud diameters as 13, 16, 19
and 22 mm. The results for 4 different size of studs are depicted in Figs. 11.10, 11.11, 11.12
and 11.13 respectively. The results are compared with the characteristic resistance of the
headed stud specified by EC4 [7],
217
-t*
Ln
Load per Stud(kN)
O
rg
oo
6
O
d
o
T
£
Q.
E
F i
s
era’
W
■o'
Q.
Q.
un
ON
CL
Ji
rD
ro
X
X
cJ
o
3
r
cr-
60
M25
M30
M35
M40
Slip (mm)
Fig. 11.11 Load-slip curve of 16 x 75 Headed Stud
80
Slip (mm)
Fig. 11.12 Load-slip curve of 19 x 100 Headed Stud
218
100
Load per Stud (kN)
11.5.5 Comparison of Resistance of Stud Results

The behavior of the stud in terms of load versus slip is required for the proper modelling and
analysis of the composite beam and slab. The load versus slip values of the stud up to the
ultimate resistance of stud connectors (Pr) are given by EC4 [7]. The values obtained for 16
mm headed stud using 2D FE model are compared in Table 11.2 with those given in EC4.
Table 11.2 Comparison of Resistance of Stud Results

Diameter of Concrete Compressive FE Model Resistance of Shear
Headed Stud Strength Results Connection as per
(mm) (N/mm2) (kN) EC4 (kN)
16 25 35 33.85
16 30 40 38.82
16 35 45 45.70
16 40 50 48.17
11.6 FE Modelling of Push-Out test With Deck Slab

11.6.1 Finite Element Modelling
The behaviour of headed studs in composite beams with profiled steel sheeting depends on
many factors including strength and dimensions of headed stud shear connectors, geometries
and direction of profiled steel sheeting, reinforcement area and position, compressive strength
of concrete and location of the stud within the ribs of the profiled steel sheeting. Usually to
determine the capacity of shear connection and load-slip behavior of the shear connector
push-out test are used.
219
Two models are developed as shown in Figs. 11.14 and 11.15. Model A represents the actual
trapezoidal geometry of the profiled steel sheeting. It is suitable for investigating the behavior
of headed studs through profiled steel sheeting with mild side slopes. In this case, the
concrete within the ribs of the profiled steel sheeting can be modelled properly. Model B
represents the trapezoidal shape of the rib by an equivalent rectangular shape. It is used to
investigate the behavior of headed studs welded through profiled steel sheeting with stiff side
slopes.
To investigate the behavior of headed studs in push-out tests conducted by Kim et ah, [108]
model A was used where as to investigate the behavior of headed studs in push-out tests
conducted by Lloyd and Wright [ 17] model B was used. The circular cross-sectional area of
the reinforcement is simulated by the equivalent rectangular cross-sectional area in the finite
element modelling. It is assumed that the effect of separation of the profiled steel sheeting
from the concrete slab at certain load level has little effect on the concrete slab. Hence, the
nodes of the concrete elements are attached to the nodes of the profiled steel sheeting
elements.
As per the observations made by Jayas and Hosian [109], the separation of the concrete
behind the shear connector occurs at a low load level. Thus, the nodes behind the stud, in the
direction of loading are detached from the surrounding concrete nodes with the other nodes of
the stud connected with the surrounding concrete.
Fig. 11.14 Mesh of ‘Model A’ using 3D Elements
220
Steel beam Profiled steel sheeting
Fig. 11.15 Mesh of ‘Model B' Using 3D Elements
Lam and El-Lobody developed three dimensional finite element model using ABAQUS to
investigate the behaviour of shear connector in composite beams with profiled steel sheeting.
They used three dimensional eight-noded element (C3D8), six-noded (C3D6) solid elements
for meshing. The meshed model is as shown in Figs. 11.14 and 11.15.
Here, to investigate the behaviour of shear connection in composite beams with profiled steel
sheeting the finite element program ANSYS is used. Modelling of shear connection between
steel and concrete requires successful representation of all the components associated with
the connection. The region around the stud is a region of severe and complex stresses. The
shear forces are transferred across the steel-concrete interface by the mechanical action of
shear connectors. The main components affecting the behavior of shear connection in
composite beams with profiled steel sheeting are concrete slab, steel beam, profiled steel
sheeting, reinforcement bars and shear connectors. Assuming that the load is transferred
equally from the steel beam to each shear connector, modelling of only a single stud welded
to each flange of the composite beam is carried out.
Here also Plane 183 element is used for modelling of shear stud, steel beam, concrete slab
and profiled steel sheeting. It has plasticity, hyperelasticity, creep, stress stiffening, large
deflection, and large strain capabilities. The shear capacity obtained is independent of number
of shear connectors used in the investigation and it can be obtained for different stud
221
diameters by adjusting the finite element mesh. Due to symmetry only a quarter of the push-
out test arrangement is modelled.
Finite element mesh for model A and model B using 2D elements is shown in Fig. 11.6 and
Fig. 11.7 respectively. The meshing is carried out which satisfies the limits and aspect ratio
of the elements. The shank of the stud has 8 elements in X-direction and 2 elements in Y-
direction. The head of the stud has 1 element in X-direction and 4 elements in Y-direction.
The steel beam flange and web have 1 and 9 elements in X-direction respectively while they
have 26 elements in Y-direction. The reinforcing bar is meshed as a single element.
■■■■ IIBIIHI
4*8
iimiiiui "
Siha
mm
Fig. 11.16 2D FE Mesh of‘Model A’ Fig. 11.17 2D FE Mesh of‘Model B’
All the nodes of the profile steel sheeting and the concrete slab in the opposite direction of
loading are restricted from moving in the Y- direction to resist the applied compression load.
When the slip becomes significant, the stud is subjected to tensile forces and simultaneously
the stud deformations produce some uplift of the concrete slab in the surroundings of the stud
foot, which may have an effect on the failure mode of the connection. To overcome this
problem while modelling, the shear connection is loaded by applying longitudinal constant
downward displacement to the steel flange so that there is slip between the concrete and the
steel elements but there is no separation.
222

To model the nonlinear behavior of the concrete slab, the equivalent uniaxial representation
for the stress-strain curve of concrete as shown in Fig. 11.18 is used. This stress-strain curve
is linearly elastic up to 30% of the maximum compressive strength. Above this point the
curve increases gradually up to about 70-90% of the maximum compressive strength.
Eventually it reaches the peak value which is the maximum compressive strength ocu.
Immediately after the peak value, this stress-strain curve descends because of material
softening. After the curve descends, crushing failure occurs at an ultimate strain 8CU. A
numerical expression was developed by Hognestad which treats the ascending part as a
parabola and descending part as a straight line. For numerical expressions, see Eqs. (11.3)
and (11.4).
Fig. 11.18 Typical Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete
For, material modelling of headed shear stud here, bilinear stress and strain model, explained
earlier in clause 11.5.2, is used.
The steel beam and profiled steel sheeting are modeled using bilinear stress-strain curve with
yield stresses of 288 MPa and 308 MPa and initial Young’s modulus of 189 GPa and 184
GPa, respectively. The reinforcement bars are also modeled as a bilinear stress-strain curve
with a yield stress of 460 MPa and initial Young’s modulus of 200 GPa.
11.6.3 Verification of Finite Element Model

To verify the developed finite element models push-out test results obtained by Kim et al.
[108] and Lloyd and Wright [17] are used. Table 11.3 summarizes the measured dimensions
and concrete cube strengths of the tested specimens. The load-slip behavior of the headed
223
shear stud and failure modes are investigated along with the shear connection capacity per
stud. Table 11.4 shows a comparison of the capacities of shear connection obtained
experimentally and numerically; a good agreement can be seen.
Table 11.3 Dimensions and Concrete Strength of Push-Out Specimen
Dimensions
Concrete
Stud Slab
Specimen Sheeting Strength rested B\
h B D
Type (MPa)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Kim et at
SP (a) 13 65 450 75 34.5
[108]
SI (b) 19 100 675 115 44.8
S2 (b) 19 100 900 115 35.3
S3 (b) 19 100 1125 115 39.5
S4 (b) 19 100 1350 115 46.3
Lloyd &
S5 (b) 19 100 900 115 43.6
Wright f 17]
S6 (b) 19 100 900 115 43.8
S7 (b) 19 100 900 115 37.3
S8 (b) 19 100 900 115 39.6
S9 (b) 19 100 600 115 39.8
Table 11.4 Comparison of Shear Connection Capacities
Specimen P«(kN) l*H‘. (!' N >

SP1 39.2 40.9
SI 95.3 94.0
S2 81.8 88.1
S3 89.9 93.2
S4 95.8 94.1
S5 102.9 97.3
S6 98.8 94.0
S7 94.9 92.0
S8 87.3 93.2
S9 88.4 93.3
224
The experimental load-slip curve, the numerical curve given by three dimensional modelling
in ABAQUS are compared with the numerical curve obtained by two dimensional modelling
in ANSYS in Fig. 11.19. It shows that the model successfully predicts the shear connection
capacity, stiffness as well as the load-slip behaviour of headed shear stud.
4S
SUP (MM)
Fig. 11.19 Load-Slip Behaviour of Headed Shear Stud in SP1
The failure mode observed experimentally was combination of concrete conical failure and
stud shearing, which is confirmed numerically here. Figures 11.20 and 11.21 show the
contour plots of specimens SP1 and SI.
nodal sourricx ANSYS

JUM 0 2009
mp-i
tVS -4 08:54:10
TIXE-1
UY (AV&)
FSYS-0
DOC -.115472
ZXX --.061967
r»C -.013464
-.061967 wmmmmmm
I---------- -.0452 -.028433
wmmmmmmwmr
-.011667 ------ \
.0051
-.053583 -.036817 -.02005 -.003285 .013464
Fig. 11.20 Displacement Contour for Specimen SP1

225
1
HOT At SO Ltm OH ANSYS
JOT 8 2009
STE?*1
08:50:49
JOT -IS
TIKE-1
VTY (AVG)
PSYS-0
MIX -.693764
SKX --.408783
SHX -.109378
r------
-.40878 3 ■■■■ -.293636 -.178489 -.063342 .051805
-.351209 -.236063 -.120916 -.005769 .109378
Fig. 11.20 Displacement Contour for Specimen SI
The maximum stresses in the concrete are in the regions around the stud forming a conical
shape. The conical concrete failure is also known as concrete pull-out failure since the tensile
force acting on the shear stud forces the slab to move up and leave a cone of concrete around
the stud.
11.6.4 Parametric Study

The proposed finite element model accurately predicted the behavior of the headed shear stud
in composite beam with profiled steel sheeting. Hence, a parametric study is conducted to
study the effects on the capacity and behavior of shear connection by changing the concrete
strength, height of the headed shear stud and the profiled steel sheeting geometry. Eleven
groups (Gl-Gll) having 4 specimens each, having the same dimensions but with different
concrete strengths, are investigated. The different concrete cube strengths considered are 25,
30, 35 and 40 MPa. The width of the concrete slab is taken as 600 mm while the depth of the
concrete slab is equal to the stud height plus 25 mm of concrete cover. The steel beam used in
the push-out specimens is 254 x 254 UC 73 and the reinforcement bar mesh was 10 mm
diameter with 200 mm spacing between two bars. The difference between the stud height (h)
226
and the rib depth (hp) is greater than or equal to 35 mm. The push-out specimens in groups
Gl, G2 and G3 had the profiled steel sheeting dimensions of type (a), shown in Fig. 11.22,
with plate thickness of 0.68 mm, and it is modeled using Model A. The push-out specimens
in the groups G4-G11 has the profiled steel sheeting geometries of type (c), shown in Fig.
11.23, with plate thickness of 0.91 mm and they are modeled using Model B. The push-out
specimens in groups Gl, G2 and G3 have 13x 75, 16x75 and 19x 100 mm headed studs,
respectively. The push-out specimens in groups G4 to G7 have 19 x 127 mm headed studs,
while the push-out specimens in groups G8 to Gl 1 have 19 x 100 mm headed shear studs.
The push-out specimens in groups G4 and G5 have the same average rib width of 224.5 mm
with different rib depths of 76 and 40 mm respectively. Similarly, the push-out specimens in
groups G6 and G7 have the same average width of 143.5 mm with different rib depths of 76
and 40 mm, respectively. The push-out specimens in group G8 have the same dimensions as
those in group G5, except that 19 x 100 mm headed studs are used instead of 19 x 127 mm.
Finally, the push-out tests in groups G9, G10 and Gil have the same headed stud and
dimensions, except with different rib depths of 65, 50 and 40 mm, respectively. Table 11.5
summarizes the dimensions of the push-out specimens and concrete cube strengths
considered for the parametric study.
Type (c)
Fig. 11.22 Definitions of Symbols for Profiled Steel Sheeting

227
Table 11.5 Dimensions and Concrete Strength Considered for Parametric Study
l)uni nsion
Concrete
Strength
Group Xpiiiimji s liu-tiim tul Slab
I'c.
Bo lin 1
UPSMfPSlJsSfti 1) II B (MPa)
i„„-
(mm) (mm) 1! (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
G1 PI (a) 136.5 40 0.68 13 75 600 100 25
P2 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 13 75 600 100 30
P3 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 13 75 600 100 35
P4 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 13 75 600 100 40
G2 P5 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 16 75 600 100 25
P6 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 16 75 600 100 30
P7 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 16 75 600 100 35
P8 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 16 75 600 100 40
G3 P9 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 19 100 600 125 25
P10 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 19 100 600 125 30
Pll (a) 136.5 40 0.68 19 100 600 125 35
P12 (a) 136.5 40 0.68 19 100 600 125 40
G4 P13 (c) 224.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 25
P14 (c) 224.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 30
P15 (c) 224.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 35
P16 (c) 224.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 40
G5 P17 (c) 224.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 25
P18 (c) 224.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 30
P19 (c) 224.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 35
P20 (c) 224.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 40
G6 P21 (C) 143.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 25
P22 (c) 143.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 30
P23 (c) 143.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 35
P24 (c) 143.5 76 0.91 19 127 600 152 40
G7 P25 (c) 143.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 25
P26 (C) 143.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 30
P27 (C) 143.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 35
P28 (C) 143.5 40 0.91 19 127 600 152 40
G8 P29 (C) 224.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 25
P30 (c) 224.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 30
P31 (C) 224.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 35
P32 (c) 224.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 40
G9 P33 (c) 143.5 65 0.91 19 100 600 125 25
P34 (c) 143.5 65 0.91 19 100 600 125 30
P35 (C) 143.5 65 0.91 19 100 600 125 35
P36 (C) 143.5 65 0.91 19 100 600 125 40
G10 P37 (C) 143.5 50 0.91 19 100 600 125 25
P38 (c) 143.5 50 0.91 19 100 600 125 30
P39 (c) 143.5 50 0.91 19 100 600 125 35
P40 (C) 143.5 50 0.91 19 100 600 125 40
Gil P41 (c) 143.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 25
P42 (C) 143.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 30
P43 (c) 143.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 35
P44 (C) 143.5 40 0.91 19 100 600 125 40
228
11.6.5 Comparison of FE Results with Design Strengths

The shear connection capacities of the 44 push-out specimens analyzed in the parametric
study using the two dimensional finite element models are summarized in Table 11.6. The
shear connection capacities obtained from the parametric study are compared with the
nominal unfactored design strengths of headed stud shear connectors predicted by the
American Specification (AISC) [110], British Standard: 5950 [93] and Euro Code 4 [7]. The
AISC equation for the calculation of the design strength of headed stud shear connector
(Paisc) in composite beams with profiled steel sheeting perpendicular to the steel beam is
given by:
P4isc — ri x 0-5 x AsyjfcEc < Asfu (11.5)
and
0.85 (b0
< 1.0 (11.6)
Wvv
where, As = Cross-sectional area of the headed stud shear connector, fc = Compressive
cylinder strength of concrete, Ec = Initial Young’s modulus of concrete, f„ ^Specified
minimum ultimate tensile strength of the stud shear connector, rj = reduction factor, N =
Number of shear connectors in one rib, b0 = Average width of bl and b2, and hp = Depth of
the rib and h is the height of the headed stud.
As per BS 5950 by multiplying the tabulated values in the Standard by a reduction factor,
design strength can be determined.
EC4 [7] and AISC [110] specifications took similar approach for determining the design
strength of the headed stud in composite beam. Pec4 is taken as the lesser value calculated
from Eq. (11.1) and Eq. (11.2) multiplied by a reduction factor (r3) that is calculated using
Eq. (11.5) but replacing the factor 0.85 by 0.7.
It is found that the AISC, BS 5950 and EC4 overestimate the design strength of headed studs
except for EC4 the design strength of specimen PI and P2 in group Gl.
229
Table 11.6 Comparison of Results for Shear Capacities
Croup Specimen Pm lh\) P\*sc (kN) l*us (kN) PrcUkM

G1 PI 38.5 43.0 44.0 37.3
P2 44 49.3 47.0 41.9
P3 46.8 55.4 49.0 46.4
P4 48.5 61.2 52.0 50.7
G2 P5 55 65.2 70.0 56.5
P6 60 74.7 74.0 63.5
P7 65 83.9 78.0 70.3
P8 70 92.7 82.0 76.9
G3 P9 85 91.9 95.0 79.7
P10 87 105.4 100.0 89.6
Pll 92 118.3 104.0 99.1
P12 97 130.8 109.0 108.4
G4 P13 86 91.9 95.0 79.7
P14 93 105.4 100.0 89.6
[15 99 118.3 104.0 99.1
P16 106 130.8 109.0 108.4
G5 P17 93 91.9 95.0 79.7
P18 98 105.4 100.0 89.6
P19 101 118.3 104.0 99.1
P20 107 130.8 109.0 108.4
G6 P21 83 91.9 95.0 70.7
P22 89 105.4 100.0 79.4
P23 95 118.3 104.0 87.9
P24 98 130.8 109.0 96.1
G7 P25 93 91.9 95.0 79.7
P26 99 105.4 100.0 89.6
P27 103 118.3 104.0 99.1
P28 106 130.8 109.0 108.4
G8 P29 85 91.9 95.0 79.7
P30 94 105.4 100.0 89.6
P31 102 118.3 104.0 99.1
P32 100 130.8 109.0 108.4
G9 P33 69 91.9 95.0 66.3
P34 86 105.4 100.0 74.5
P35 93 118.3 104.0 82,5
P36 94 130.8 109.0 90.2
G10 P37 77 91.9 95.0 79.7
P38 88 105.4 100.0 89.6
P39 95 118.3 104.0 99.1
P40 97 130.8 109.0 108.4
Gil P41 80 91.9 95.0 79.7
P42 91 105.4 100.0 89.6
P43 96 118.3 104.0 99.1
P44 104 130.8 109.0 108.4
230
11.6.6 Parameters Affecting The Shear Capacity

11.6.6.1 Effect of concrete strength
From load per stud versus slip relationship for the push-out specimens in group G5, it can be
seen from Fig. 11.23 that the stiffness and capacity of the shear connection increase with the
increase of concrete strength.
140
o
20 2S 30 3S 40 4S SO
Concrete Strength (MPa)
Fig 11.23 Effect of Change in Concrete Strength
11.6.6.2 Effect of change in rib depth on the capacity of shear connection

It can be seen from Fig. 11.24. for 19 x 127 headed stud of group G6 and G7, both AISC and
BS 5950 predictions are unconservative and do not consider the effect of the change in rib
depth from 40 to 76 mm on the strength of shear stud. The EC4 took into consideration the
effect of change in rib depth. EC4 gives conservative design strength for rib depths as 76 and
40 mm.
MO
MO
FE (40)
Load per stud (kN)
100
>f(/61
HO
AISC (40,/fa)
60 RSS9SO (40./fa)
40 • EC 4(40)
20 ECS (/fa)
O
20 JO 40 SO
Concrete itrength (MPa)
Fig. 11.24 Effect of Change in Rib Depth (hp)
231
11.6.6.3 Effect of change in rib width

Considering the groups G5 and G7, having the rib width 224.5 and 143.5 respectively, it can
be seen from Fig. 11.25 that the change in rib width has negligible effect on the shear
connection capacity for 19 x 127 mm headed stud of groups G5 and G7.
140
-o AISC (143.5,224.5)
o 40
-* -------BS 5950 (143.5, 224.5)
20 -------EC4 (143.5,224.5)
0
20 30 40 50
Concrete Strenght (MPa)
Fig. 11.25 Effect of Change in Rib Width (b0)
11.6.6.4 Effect of change in stud diameter and height

The shear capacities obtained from the FE analysis and the design rules specified in the
AISC, BS 5950 and EC4 specifications increase with the increase in stud diameter as shown
in Fig. 11.25 for 19 mm diameter headed stud of groups G7 and G11.
1-10
NJ
O
Load per stud (kN)
C
O
O
»ffN
C
O
&
S)
O
V
O
O
ro
Fig. 11.26 Effect of Change in Stud Height (h)
232
12. FE Modelling of Composite beam
12.1 Preamble
One of the most common composite systems is the composite beam, in which steel beams
interact with concrete slab at supports by means of shear connectors. The connection system
generally permits a relative slip between the lower fiber of the concrete slab and upper fiber
of the beam. Flexibility of the connection system influences the structural response for each
load level at both ultimate and serviceability limit state. In addition, creep and shrinkage of
concrete affect the structural response under long term loading. To consider this several
numerical algorithm based on either finite difference method or finite element methods have
been proposed by researchers. Many simple and computationally less demanding approaches
based on one dimensional modelling have been described in the literature by Amadio and
Fragiacomo [49], Salari et al. [Ill] and Ayoub and Filippou [112]. All the nonlinear models
take into account the connection flexibility. Current regulations given by Eurocode 4 [7]
permit the use of the both full and partial connection system. The behavior of headed shear
connector in composite beam has been studied by El-Lobody and Lam [76] using FEM.
Study of full and partial connection in composite beams has been carried out by Queiroz et al.
[78] which covers load defection behavior, longitudinal slip at steel-concrete interface,
distribution of stud shear force and failure mode. Three dimensional FE models can cover
many features, including the detection of local aspect of behavior accurately but two
dimensional models could be better option for generation of the result for more complex
structural system due to numerical convergence aspect and processing time.
Here the behavior of a simply supported composite beam is modelled using AN SYS software
under static concentrated and distributed loads. Detailed parametric study is carried using the
finite element method and results are compared with the available experimental results to
confirm the proposed 2D modelling aspects.
233
12. FE Modelling of Composite Beam
12.2 Elements Selected

The element types selected from the ANSYS library for modelling of composite beam shown
in Fig. 12.1 are as follows:
Reinforcing bar Shear Connector Concrete slab C.L.
Fig. 12.1 Finite Element Types used in a General Structural Arrangement
BEAM23 - It is a two-dimensional plastic beam element. Concrete slab and steel beam
are modeled by it.
LINK1 - It is a two dimensional plastic bar element. Reinforcing bars and the steel
connection components are modeled by it.
COMBIN39 - It is a nonlinear spring element which is used to model the shear connectors.
BEAM3 - It is a two dimensional elastic beam element which is used to simulate a rigid
region between the node that defines the shear connector element and the
node that defines the steel beam element, in order to guarantee that the
rotation of the section remains the same over the full composite beam depth.
12.3 Material Properties
12.3.1 Material Model of Concrete

The uniaxial behavior of concrete is assumed which is described by a piece-wise linear total
stress- total strain curve, starting at the origin. It has positive stress and strain values,
considering the concrete compressive strength (fc) corresponding to a compressive strain of
0.2%. To avoid numerical problems due to unrestricted flow, assumption is made that
corresponding to 0.35% concrete strain a total increase of 0.05 N/mm2 in the compressive
strength takes place.
234
For modelling multilinear isotropic hardening, Von Mises yield criterion coupled with
isotropic work hardening is assumed. The actual cylinder strength test value is taken as the
concrete slab compressive strength. The concrete tensile strength and the Poisson’s ratio are
assumed 1/1 Oth of its compressive strength and 0.2 respectively. The elastic modulus is
evaluated as per Eurocode 4 considering yc = 24 kN/m3 in the following formula
Ec = 9500(JC + ^(JC/2A)'2 - (12.1)
The concrete element shear transfer coefficients considered are 0.2 for open crack and 0.6 for
closed crack. For stress relaxation coefficient the default value of 0.6 is used. For improving
the convergence the crushing capability of the concrete element is disabled.
12.3.2 Material Model of Shear Connectors

The shear connectors are represented by the nonlinear spring elements. The load-slip data is
required as input for representing connectors. The data available from the empirical
formulations or curves obtained directly from the available push-off tests can be utilized.
12.3.3 Material Model of Steel Beam

The multilinear work-hardening property using Von Mises criterion with isotropic hardening
is used to model the steel beam. The stress-strain relationship is linearly elastic upto yielding,
perfectly plastic between the elastic limit (sy) and the beginning of strain hardening. For the
strain hardening branch it follows the constitutive law suggested by Gattesco [44],
e-Gi ,
o = fy + Eh (e - eh) 1 ~Eh (12.2)
where fy and fu are the yield and ultimate tensile stresses of the steel component respectively;
Eh and £h are the strain hardening modulus and strain at the strain hardening of the steel
component respectively.
12.3.4 Material Model of Reinforcing Bars

All tensile forces are balanced by the steel in cracked cross-section. In between the adjacent
cracks, tensile forces are transmitted from steel to the surrounding concrete by bond forces.
The tension stiffening effect is taken into account which can be defined as the increase in the
stiffness of the tensile reinforcement due to the contribution of concrete in tension between
cracks. Therefore, the stress-strain relationship for the embedded reinforcement provides a
higher stiffness and a lower overall ductility than for the reinforcement alone.
235
Hanswille [41] proposed a model to take into account the tension-stiffening effect. Figure
12.2 depicts a simplified relationship for embedded reinforcing steel bar. In Fig. 12.2, asri=
first crack stress in the steel, os = stress in reinforcement, fys = yield stress of reinforcement, ft
= tensile strength of reinforcement, Ns = normal force on the cracked reinforced concrete
slab, As = area of reinforcement, (3t = 0.40 for short-term loading, sys = strain of
reinforcement at the yield point, esmu = ultimate strain of embedded reinforcement, esu =
characteristics elongation of bare reinforcement at maximum load and Aesr= increase of steel
strain in the cracking state.
Fig. 12.2 Simplified Stress-Strain Relationship for Embedded Reinforcing Steel
12.4 Failure Criterion

To define the ultimate load for each numerical investigation two limits are established, lower
and upper bound, corresponding to concrete compressive strains of 0.2% and 0.35%
respectively. These two limits define an interval in which the composite beam collapse load
is located. A third limit condition can also be reached when the beam’s most heavily loaded
stud reaches its ultimate load. If the stud failure is located below the lower bound for concrete
failure, the mode is taken as stud failure. If the stud failure point is located beyond the upper
bound of concrete failure, the mode of failure is taken as concrete crushing. In the
intermediate case, where the stud failure point lies between the bounds of concrete failure, the
mode of failure could be either.
236
12.5 Validation of Model - SS Beam Example

Chapman and Balakrishnan [14] investigated the behavior of seventeen solid simply
supported composite T-beams under static concentrated and distributed loading applied on
the axis of the beam. The 1-shaped steel beam spanning 5490 mm was considered by them
with depth as 305 mm and concrete slab of size 152 mm thick x 1220 mm wide. The number
and type of studs as well as steel and concrete strength were varied according to the tested
composite beam. The slab was reinforced with four top and four bottom 8 mm bars. The
transverse reinforcement had top and bottom bars of 12.7 mm @ 152 mm c/c and 12.7 mm @
305 c/c respectively. Figure 12.3 shows the layout of the simply supported beam.
280
A. A
5490/2
! 12.7® 152mm
! stud connectors in pairs

;;i52
1 12sx8aic«fe/fi 8.S.B.
_3_j * *
305
Fig. 12.3 Simply Supported Beam Layout
Table 12.1 gives the detail of the composite beams tested by Chapman and Balakrishnan.
The studs having diameter 12.7 mm, height 50 mm and placed at 121 mm c/c were used in
beam El. The loading pattern considered was midspan concentrated. While in beam U4 stud
having the dimension of diameter as 19 mm and height as 102 mm were considered. The
triangular spacing has been considered along with the uniformly distributed load.
The results obtained using the present 2D model are compared with the experimental data
given by Chapman et al. [14] and the numerical results based on 3D FE analysis given by
Queiroz et al. [78].
237
Table 12.1 Details of Composite Beams Tested by Chapman and Balakrishnan
ini*
Beam Designation \2 A3 A5 A6 Bi <1 IM El U1 U3 1'4
19 V V V V V V V
Stud Diameter \
(mm) 12.7 V V
102 V V V V V V V V
Stud Overall
Length (mm)
76 V
50 V V
100 V V
76 V
68 V
Number Of
Studs V
56 V V
44 V V V
32 V V
121 V V
a
159 V
a
178 V
Spacing in Pairs a
(mm) 216 V V V a
274 V V V a
378 V a
Slab V V V V V V V V
Crushing V V
Mode of Failure
Stud V V
Failure
Load Type Mid Span Concentrated Load UDL
a - Triangular Spacing
The load- midspan deflection curves shown in Figs. 12.4 and 12.5 for the beams U4 and El
respectively show good agreement with the experimental and numerical results. The slip at
the steel-concrete interface along the axis for the cases El and U4 is plotted in Figs. 12.6 and
12.7 respectively. In these figures X indicates section position from the left support, L
represents the total beam length and slip is plotted at ultimate load.
238
Load (kN) 12. FE Modelling of Composite Beam
Fig. 12.4 Load versus Mid Span Deflection for Beam El

Load (kN)
Fig. 12.5 Load versus Mid Span Deflection for Beam U4
239
Slip (mm) 12. FE Modelling of Composite Beam
X/L (X/L = 0.5, plane of symmetry)
Fig. 12.6 Slip Distribution along Span for Beam El

Slip (mm)
X/L (X/L = 0.5, Plane of Symmetry)
Fig. 12.7 Slip Distribution along Span for Beam U4
It is observed that the present model gives upper bound solution compared to the
experimental values. It may be due to the friction between the steel beam-concrete slab
interface. Also there may be small differences between the load-slip behaviour of push-off
tests given by Chapman and Balakrishnan [14] and the one used in the finite element
analysis. Table 12.2 compares the ultimate load for each of the composite beam studied here.
240
Table 12.2 Comparison of Ultimate Load Results
Beam Pkxp. Three Dimensional Model 21) Model

Type (kN) Pi it (kN) Pi n(kN) P, t (kN)
A2 448 429 169 457
A3 449 425 447 438
A4 523 444 470 410
A5 468 462 479 452
A6 430 - 449 453
B1 486 469 468 470
Cl 448 445 474 458
D1 481 457 475 492
El 513 520 548 538
U1 191 171 178 180
U3 185 166 182 190
U4 176 - 179 195
Figures 12.8 and 12.9 show the results of the FE model for the beams A2 and A5
respectively. Increase in the stiffness of the system is observed. The failure mode of the
composite beam changes from slab crushing to slab failure.
600
500
•*fc*25.0
1 400 —tes2S.a
- ■ fe*28.8
—fe=3Q,7
KS - - fe*32iS
•2 300 Lower bound; fc*25.0
Upper bound; fo25.0
Leaver bound: fc=26.9
g 200 Beam A2 Upper bound: fc=28.9
Lower bound: te*28.8
< fc (N/mm2! Upper bound: fc=28.8
Lower bound: fc=30.7
100 Upper bound: 10=30,7
Lower bound: fo*32.8
Upper bound: fc=32.6
0
0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140
Midspan deflection (mm)
Fig. 12.8 P-A for Different Slab Concrete Strengths for Beam A2
241
§
o
ir>
oo
fc-23 1
Applied toad (kN)
(€=24,8
oo
— fc-26.4
jS?*
fc«28.Q
...
S ......
________ fc-23.6
oo
* Lower bound: fc-23,1

/ Beam A5 » Upper bound: fc=23.1
/ fc[N/mm?l A Lower bound: !c=24.8
<M
oo
/ A Lower bound: Sc=26.4

/ €2 Upper bound: f©*26.4
/ Lower bound: fc=28.0
o
O
X Stud failure: fe=28,0

/
[/
ty
*
Lower bound: fc=29.6
Stud failure: tc-29.6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midspan deflection (mm)
Fig. 12.9 P-A for Different Slab Concrete Strengths for Beam AS
12.6 Modelling of Continuous Beam

To verify the FE model in the presence of negative moments, two continuous beams are
studied. The beams experimentally tested by Teraszkiewicz [113] are simulated. The test
consisted of a composite beam with two spans of 3354 mm, an I-shaped steel beam 152 mm
deep and a concrete slab 60 mm thick. The slab was also longitudinally reinforced in the
negative moment region (445 mm2). Stud shear connectors were distributed in pairs at 146
mm pitch along the beam and the structural system was loaded with point loads at mid span.
Fig 12.10 shows the continuous beam. The geometric properties of the beam and the material
properties are given in Tables 12.3 and 12.4 respectively.
1677 1677
Fig. 12.10 Continuous Composite Beam
The results provided by the FE model and the numerical investigation carried out by Gattesco
[44] for the deflected shape and slip along the steel-concrete interface are compared in Figs.
12.11 and 12.12 respectively.
242
Table 12.3 Geometric Properties of Composite Beams
Beam Identification PR!

'* « CTB4
Span Length (mm) 3354 4500

Midspan point Midspan point
Loading Type
load load
Thickness (mm) 60 100
Concrete Slab
Width (mm) 610 800
Section 6”x 3” x 12 lb/ft HEA 200

Steel Beam
Area (mm2) 2276 5380
Kind of stud 9.5 x 50 19x75
Shear Connectors Number of studs 96 84
Pitch of studs (mm) 146 300

Longitudinal Hogg, (mm2) 445 804
Reinforcement
Table 12.4 Material Properties of Composite Beams

§
isiililil
|!| ®
k
/ini
Rrmm I<l<:ntiiir;-iHnn * ■* ^ CTB4
Concrete Strength fc (MPa) 46.7 34.0

V #1
Itftpsiifl
Tensile Strength fct (MPa) 3.89 3.15
Yield Stress (MPa) Flange 301 236

m Web 321 238
J1S11I8 Reinforcement 470 430
Splli
Ultimate Stress (MPa) Flange 470 393
Steel Web 485 401
Reinforcement - 533
Ijjflljjil Strain Hardening at Strain Flange 0.012 0.018
||ji§§§ Web 0.012 0.018
Reinforcement 0.010 0.010
243
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 12.11 Deflected Shape (X/L = 1, Plane of Symmetry)

Slip (mm)
Fig 12.12 Slip Distribution along Span
244
13. Parametric Study of A Composite Building
13.1 General remarks
As mentioned earlier, composite frames commonly used for buildings usually comprise a
bare-steel frame of H-section columns supporting I-section beams, laid out in a rectangular
grid of primary (shortest span) and secondary members, supporting an overlaid composite
floor deck. The composite flooring deck system consists of cold-formed profiled steel sheets
which act not only as the permanent formwork for an in situ cast concrete slab but also to
some extent as tensile reinforcement. Even combination of concrete cores, steel frame and
composite floor construction is the standard system for tall buildings as they are best suited to
resist repeated earthquake loadings, which require a high amount of resistance and ductility.
Now it is rapidly gaining the status as the most preferred type of construction by many
architects, engineers, and developers.
Table 13.1 Composite Beam versus Steel Beam
Composite beam Steel beam without any shear connection
Steel cross section IPE 400 IPE 550 HE 360 B
Construction height [mm] 560 710 520
Load capacity 100% 100% 100%
Steel weight 100% 159% 214%
Construction height 100% 127% 93%
Stiffness 100% 72% 46%
The use of composite action has certain advantages. In particular, a composite beam has
greater stiffness and usually a higher load resistance than its non-composite counterpart. A
number of parameters for composite beam are compared in Table 13.1 with two types of
steel beams having I- and H- cross sections with no shear connection to the concrete slab.
245
13. Parametric Study of A Composite Steel-Concrete Buildings
The load capacity is nearly the same but the difference in stiffness and construction height is
noticeable. Consequently, a smaller steel section is usually required. The result is a saving of
material and depth of construction. In turn, the latter leads to lower storey heights in
buildings.
The use of limit state methods to determine strength is common when dealing with composite
construction. Recently, IS: 800-2007 code for steel structure has also been upgraded as per
limit state method. Analysis and design of some simple non-sway frames under gravity load
can be carried out manually. But, for the detailed analysis of large frame, with high
indeterminacy, a large number of computer software packages (such as STAAD.Pro V8i,
ANSYS, NISA, SAP etc) are available in the market and are increasingly being used by
designers worldwide.
Although composite steel-concrete structures are economic construction but verifications that
are required for analysis and design are tedious. This had led numerous researchers to
develop methods so that engineer can do design immediately and verify the answer with
number of alternatives. Here a parametric study of composite steel-concrete structure and its
analysis and design having different component combinations like composite slabs with
different profiled sheets is carried out utilizing the software STAAD Pro V8i Modelling
covers input of building geometry and loading condition. Using different types of beam
sections, different types of loads, various country codes, orientation of column and a
comparison with light weight concrete to the conventional concrete are some of the important
aspects included in the parametric study.
13.2 Moment-Rotation Curves

Although there are numerous composite beam options available for use in simple
construction, connections have not yet been developed that would allow many of these to be
incorporated in a continuous (or semi-continuous) composite frame. The importance of the
detailing on the connection performance can be appreciated by referring to Fig. 13.1. This
figure shows typical (simplified bi-linear) moment-rotation responses for steel and composite
connections. In addition to a response for a pinned connection, one curve indicates the
performance that could be expected from a standard flush end plate bare steel connection, and
the second curve indicates the performance that could be expected from a composite
connection achieved by simply adding some slab reinforcement in the connection zone
(whilst maintaining the same steelwork detailing). A line of constant moment on the figure
246
indicates the moment resistance of the beam itself. The following information can be
identified from the figure: It can readily be seen that the composite connection is both stiffer
and stronger than the bare steel connection. This can only be achieved when sufficient
reinforcement can be located and anchored in the slab. The use of a steel deck based slab with
in-situ concrete facilitates the incorporation of this reinforcement. Both bare steel and
composite connections may be what is known as partial strength. This means that they have a
lower moment resistance than that of the adjacent beam [2].
Fig. 13.1 Bi-Linear Moment-Rotation Curves for Steel and Composite Connections
The use of connections that provide any reasonable degree of continuity, expressed in terms
of the partial strength of the connection, can be beneficial. The stiffness of the connections is
also beneficial in reducing beam deflections considerably. Clearly, however, the use of
composite connections will allow more substantial reductions in sagging moments than when
weaker bare steel connections are used. One of the great benefits of semi continuous
construction is that the beams and connections can be 'balanced'; savings in beam depth or
weight can be weighed-up against connection costs to achieve an optimum solution.
13.3 Types of Frames
13.3.1 Braced Frames

Braced frames may be grouped into concentrically braced frames (CBFs), and eccentrically
braced frames (EBFs), depending on their geometric characteristics. In CBFs, the axes of all
members i.e., columns, beams, and braces-intersect at a point such that the member forces are
axial as shown in Fig. 13.2. EBFs utilize axis offsets to deliberately introduce flexure and
shear into framing beams as shown in Fig. 13.3. The primary goal is to increase ductility. In
247
addition, concentrically braced frames are subdivided into two categories, namely, ordinary
concentrically braced frames (OCBFs) and special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs).
13.3.2 Unbraced Frames
In frames where lateral stability depends upon the bending stiffness of rigidly connected
beams and columns, the effective length factor K of compression members shall be
determined by structural analysis. Stiffness reduction adjustments due to column inelasticity
are permitted. Analysis of the required strength of unbraced multistory frames shall include
the effect of frame instability and column axial deformation under factored load combination.
13.3.3 Sway-Non Sway Frames

A 'non-sway' frame is one for which the sway deflections are sufficiently small to make
second order forces and moments negligible. Some configurations of bracing allow
significant sway, so that the frame analysis must then consider second order effects; either
explicitly or by using a simplification such as the amplified sway method [93]. When the
global second-order effects are not negligible, the frame is said to be sway frame.
Alternatively, the design of the columns may allow for the second order effects by using
effective lengths in excess of the system lengths.
In non-sway (braced) frames, the column buckle in single curvature and hence their effective
length factor will always be less that unity; whereas the columns in sway frames buckle in
double curvature and hence, their effective length factor will always be greater than unity.
Also, the condition of sway stability imposes that there must not be excessive lateral
deformation under applied loads.
248
13.4 Linear Static Analysis

The ‘lateral force’ method is a simplified version of the modal response method and is a static
analysis which can only be employed for regular structures which respond essentially in
single mode of vibration. This approach defines a series of forces acting on a building to
represent the effect of earthquake motion, typically defined by a seismic design response
spectrum. It assumes that the building responds in its fundamental mode. For this to be true,
the building must be low-rise and must not twist significantly when the ground moves. The
response is read from a design response spectrum, given the natural frequency of the
building. The applicability of this method is extended in many building codes by applying
factors to account for higher buildings with some higher modes, and for low levels of
twisting. To account for effects due to "yielding" of the structure, many codes apply
modification factors that reduce the design forces. Similarly to the ‘equivalent’ force applied
to the mass of the simple cantilever, it is possible to define in multi-storey buildings a set of
‘storey’ forces, which are applied at each storey level and which induce the same deformed
shape as the earthquake.
As per IS 1893:2002 [114], following procedure should be followed to calculate earthquake

generated forces and these forces should be applied at each storey level.
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (VB) along any principal direction
shall be determined by the following expressions:
VB=AhxW ...(13.1)
where, Ah = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value and
W = Seismic weight of the building.
The design horizontal acceleration spectrum value for a structure shall be determined by the
following expression:
ZlSg
A\ ...(13.2)
2 Rg
Provided that for any structure with T < 0.1s, the value of Ah will not be taken less than Z/2
whatever be the value of 1/R.
Here, Z = Zone factor given in Table 13.2, is for the Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) and service life of structure in a zone. The factor 2 in the denominator of Z is used so
as to reduce the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) zone factor to the factor for
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE).
249
Table 13.2 Value of Zone Factor (Z)

<
Seismic Zone in Ik
0#
Seismic Intensity Low Moderate Severe Very Severe
Z 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36
I = Importance factor (Table 13.3), depending upon the functional use of the structures,
characterized by hazardous consequences of its failure, post-earthquake functional needs,
historical value or economic importance.
Table 13.3 Value of Importance Factor (I)
Sr. Importance
Type of Structure r
No. factor
1 Important service and community buildings, such as hospitals; schools;

monumental structures; emergency buildings like telephone exchange,
1.5
television stations, radio stations, railway stations; large community halls
like cinemas, assembly halls and subway stations, power stations.
2 All other buildings 1.0
R = Response reduction factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage performance of

the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations. However, the ratio (I/R) shall
not be greater than 1.0. The values of R for buildings are given in Table 13.4.
Table 13.4 Response Reduction Factor for Building Systems
Sr. No. Building Frame Systems R
1 Ordinary RC moment-resisting frame 3.0
2 Special RC moment-resisting frame 5.0
a) Steel frame with Concentric braces 4.0

3
b) Steel frame with Eccentric braces 5.0
4 Steel moment resisting frame designed as per SP 6 (Part 6) 5.0
Sa / g = Average response acceleration coefficient

For rocky, or hard soil sites
Sa/g = 1 + 15T 0.00 <T< 0.10
= 2.50 0.10 <T< 0.40

= 1.00/T 0.40 <T< 4.00
250
For medium soil sites

Sa/g = 1 + 15T 0.00 <T< 0.10
= 2.50 0.10 < T < 0.55
= 1,36/T 0.55 < T < 4.00
For soft soil sites
Sa/g = I + 15T 0.00 <T< 0.10
= 2.50 0.10 < T < 0.67
= 1,67/T 0.67 < T < 4.00
Where, T = Time period (Time of oscillation) = 0.09h/(d)0 :i for structure with brick infill, h =
FTeight of building in m, and d = Base dimension of the building at the plinth level in m,
along the considered direction of the lateral force.
After finding the base shear Vg for the whole building, its distribution (7, along each of the
storey height of the building can be assumed in many ways. One type of distribution is used
in the inverted triangle. However, IS 1893 assumes the parabolic distribution as indicated by
the following equation and Fig. 13.4.
Roof Qn Q».
7
4 F
—j Q,
n
/ Q:
3 F /
/
/ Q*
2 F /
~i Q-
f
1 F /g: 0
1
Base Shear
TT* /VS
(a) Building (b) Distribution of Forces (c) Distribution of Base Shear
Fig. 13.4 Calculation of Base Shear
Qt = ^ ...(13.3)
ZUWiht2
Where, Qj = Design lateral force of floor i, Wj = Seismic weight of floor i, h, = Height of
floor T measured from base, and n = Number of storeys.
251
For computation of W/, the live load is to be 25% of live load if it is < 3 kN/m2 and 50% if >
3 kN/m2.
The force distribution in any storey is worked out from top as shown in Fig. 13.3(c). It is
given by the equations.
V„ = Q„ at roof level
Vi = V(hij + Qi at each floor level the corresponding force is added to get its shear
force so that at the base the total shear calculated.
13.5 Modelling of buildings

Structural models are idealizations of the prototype and are intended to simulate the response
characteristics of systems. These are summarized below in order of complexity and accuracy.
13.5.1 Substitute (or equivalent SDOF) models

The structure is idealized as an equivalent single-degree of freedom (SDOF) system or
‘substitute system’. Following four parameters are needed to define the substitute system:
effective mass Meir, effective height He^ effective stiffness Kefr and effective damping êff-
The height Heff defines the location of the equivalent or effective mass Merf of the substitute
system. The equivalence used to estimate Keir and ceff assumes that the displacement of the
original structure is the same as that of the substitute structures. For inelastic systems, the
effective stiffness may be assumed as the secant stiffness at some given displacement, while
effective damping, which is utilized to qualify the energy dissipation, is assumed as the
equivalent viscous damping. Substitute models are inadequate to assess local response of
structures, although they are effective for global analyses.
13.5.2 Stick models

These consist of multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) systems in which each element idealizes a
number of members to the prototype structure. In multi-storey building frames, each storey is
modeled by a single line of finite element representing the deformational characteristics of all
columns and their interaction with beams. For 3D models, the stick elements relate the shear
forces along two horizontal orthogonal directions and the storey torque to the corresponding
inter-storey translation and rotation. The lateral stiffness of each equivalent stick element is
the stiffness of the frame comprising columns and connected beams. For dynamic analysis,
the mass of each floor is concentrated at the nodes representing the centroid of the slab.
Lumping both mass and stiffness at a limited number of nodes and pairs of nodes leads to a
252
significant reduction in the size of the problem to be solved. Distributed masses are seldom
employed for stick models. They are used, for example, to simulate the response of structural
walls. Shear beam elements are also utilized as stick elements for multi-storey frames
employing members where shear deformation cannot be ignored. Stick models are suitable
for sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of various parameters, such as beam-to-column
strength ratio and the degree of irregularity along the height.
13.5.3 Detailed models

These include general FE idealization in which structures are discretized into a large number
of elements with section analysis or spatial 2D or 3D. Such a modeling approach allows
representation of details of the geometry of the members, and enables the description of the
history of stresses and strains at fibers along the length or across the section dimensions.
Provided that the problem size remains manageable, detailed models also provide global
response quantities and the relationships between local and global response. In the detailed
modeling approach, beams and columns of frames are represented by flexural elements,
braces by truss elements and shear and core walls by 2D elements, such as plates and shells.
For accurate evaluation of deformation and member forces, 3D modeling may be required. Its
use is essential to study stress concentrations, local damage pattern or interface behavior
between different materials. However, spatial FE models are often cumbersome for large
structures, especially when inelastic dynamic analysis with large displacement is required.
Generic characteristics of the three levels of structural modelling mentioned above are
summarized in Table 13.5. Their comparison is useful for the selection of an appropriate
method of discretization while considering the objectives of the analysis, the accuracy desired
and the computational resources available.
Table 13.5 Comparisons of Structural Models
Model 3D Structure Analysis Complexity/ Computational

Type
T'PC FlfcGs Prototype larget Accuracy Demand
Primarily
Global
Substitute SDOF - regular Low Low
response
structures
All types of Global
Stick MDOF Medium Medium
structure response
Local and
All types of
Detailed MDOF V global High High
structure
response
Substitute and detailed models used to discretize structural system may be described as
macro-and-micro models. Stick models constitute an intermediate group and employ
member-level representation. Hybrid models, e.g. combining detailed and stick elements, can
also be used especially for the seismic analysis of large structures. For example, the upper
deck of multi-span bridges, which is expected to remain elastic, is often discretized using
beam elements, while fine FE meshes are utilized for piers, where inelasticity is expected.
For buildings, detailed models are often used to idealize the frame of the superstructure,
while stick models are used for foundations.
13.6 Parametric Study
In “Handbook on Composite Construction of Multi-Storey Building” by Institute for Steel
Development and Growth, design of a G+3 storied residential building (Figs. 13.5 and 13.6)
using composite construction is given.
The same structure is analyzed here by using STAAD.Pro v8i software considering worst
combination of probable loads, both normal dead and live loads and occasional loads like
earthquake. Earthquake loads compatible to those of Kolkata (zone III) are considered in the
analysis. For earthquake load calculations, IS: 1893 -2002 is followed. As per the stipulations
of National Building Code, maximum wind and maximum earthquake loads are not
considered to act simultaneously. So, here only earthquake load is considered.
The reinforcement steel used conforms to Fe 415 as per IS: 1786 [115] while structural steel
conforms to fy = 250 N/mm2 as per IS: 2062, Grade B (weldable). Concrete used conforms to
Grade M20 as per IS 456: - 2000 satisfying durability requirements in Kolkata.
It has been observed that if the building is regular in plan and vertical bracings are provided
along the cross direction, then the building becomes more cost effective. It is because of the
enhanced structural stiffness and distribution of reactive forces mostly as axial tension or
compression, which always has a advantage over frames without bracings.

254
13.6.1 Design Considerations

Place of construction : Kolkata
Built-up area 80.9 m2 each flat (2 flats on each floor)
Storey height 3.0 m
Safe S.B.C 7.51/m2
Grade of concrete M 25
Dead load Partition walls and other external wall, floor finish
as per IS: 875- 1987 [116]
Imposed load On floors of bedroom, kitchen, dining etc. 2 kN/ m2
On corridor, balcony and staircase 3 kN/ m2
Roof 1.5 kN/m2
Density of Concrete (Dry) 2400 kg/m3
Density of Concrete (Wet) 2500 kg/m3
Concrete design IS: 456-2000
Steel design IS: 800-2007
Composite design IS: 11384-1985
Seismic Analysis IS: 1893-2002
Thickness of Deck 1.0 mm
Trough Spacing 306 mm
Deck slab definition One way floor load
Rib width: 0.18 m and rib height: 0.05 m
13.6.2 General Arrangement and Considerations of Building
> Floor shall be made of reinforced cement concrete with steel deck acting as foim work
and bottom reinforcement, with topping for floor finish.
> All beams, columns and bracings shall be made of steel.

> Beams are connected with columns considering simple connections. The stability of
structural frame has been ensured by providing longitudinal and transverse bracings
acting in unison with composite flooring forming a horizontal diaphragm.
255
-3625- —5125 -5125- -3625--------I

-3500' 1625- -3500-
pci oj
B1 _£J_ -£J_ B1
Bl a Bl « Bl Bl « Bl PQ Bl
5? « (M
pq
r4
pci
«
Bl Bl Bl Bl
_1JL.
PQ pci pci
mNI oa Bl Bl Bl Bl
w
C OJ oj
« $
$«
Bl Bl Bl Bl
C-i
iXi pci PQ
.AH dimensions are in mm.
Fig. 13.5 Typical Floor Plan of a Structure O
Fig. 13.6 A 3-D View of a Building w ith Structural Diagram Information
256
13.6.3 Analysis and Design of a Structure with STAAD.Pro V8i

There are four steps to reach the goal
i. Prepare input file
ii. Send the input file to the analysis/design engine.
iii. Read the results and verify them.
iv. Send the analysis result to either the concrete or steel design engines for designing.
Then read and verify the design results.
=:
F \
2
Final LRFD DESIGN BRACING AS TRUSS(2) Whole Structure

Q§®
| F# Setup
Property
m m
—*
SS
*
iff Geometry
Spec
g
^
Support
G eneral
&
€ + F?
|
[
k- Load & Deflntlon

Ri II
U -, /Vnalysls/Prlnt
r M
fr!
[
[
Design
HI Material
mm m
( |JL|
Fu|
£o Fa
B-
Fig. 13.7 Modelling Mode of STAAD.Pro V8i
Creating input file takes place in the modelling mode. This includes the geometry, the cross-
sections, the material and geometric constants, support conditions, and finally the loading. To
create the above model, steps are as follows:
Step 1: To create the geometry of a structure, the pre-processor of STAAD.Pro which comes
with intelligent, accurate, speedy, error-free, and graphical methods is used. The pre
processor not only generates the geometry as shown in Fig. 13.7 but also displays beam
numbers as shown in Fig. 13.8 and node numbers as shown in Fig. 13.9,
257
813 5?9
532
589 580
590 583 8# 597
‘ 586 ?10 6^618598 «>5#2 581
333 388° 328 317 jjj MA?6 6$0 602
321 332 325 ** mjtgSbfc* ^
257 '5^£
258
232K
193
194,\". 23^-3^ 27f»
166S24422 132 20?41 L 4W4U zfu m
no 1^»j2345,1 Joell^, «MSi «J91 *63 153 119

52®
,M 174J>3113 “A* 166 6i?« 627 123
A
A 528 131 i^1l4« &>5 _ 6-F
A
625 127
105 45“ A 144 135 114
* 512 110 A
106 A
A
Fig. 13.8 Beam Number Display by GUI in Preprocessor

251
252 146
150
262
354
171
1141 ^3%r 253
136 . 160 ...-- £ 263™* . "'ll 4 8
137 193 ,l3? ... 181 93r^«21
125^4 . 255
■\ys? 183
1 =>-+ — ■ 22
127 206
96
224
70
Fig 13.9 Node Number Display by GUI in Preprocessor

258
Step 2 : From Generate toolbar, select Translation Repeat, or from menus select
Geometry/Translation Repeat (Fig. 13.10). The following dialog box will appear.
> Specify the Global Direction: select Y
> Specify the number of Steps.
> Specify Link Steps.
Fig. 13.10 Translational Repeat Screen
Step 3: Define Deck using the menu depicted in Fig. 13.11
New Deck
® Clicking on Nodes
Create New Deck
O Use Selected Beams
Create Direction Update Deck Property
Fig 13.11 Creation of a New Deck

Step 4: After the creation of geometry, the next step is to Assign Properties to each beam and
plate. For this, to use the Built in steel Table,
• Go to General page control
• From the property subpage, select the desired Steel Beam(Fig.l3.12),
• From Data Area at right of the screen, click Section Database.
• Select the type, size and specification.
259
Fig 13.12 Section Profile Table Dialog Box
Step 5: Provide beam member specification as required using the menu depicted in Fig.
13.13
Member Specification
8
Release
Location Release Type

©Start 0 Moment Release ©Release
Partial Momenl Release

Entet 0 lor Ful Momenl Resirant and
MP 1 lor No Momenl Resliant condtions
MPX MPr' MPZ
Release
□ FX DKfX kN/m DMXQKMX kN m/deg

□ fy □kfy kN/m 0MY DKMY
□fz n»z kN/m 0MZ DKMZ
Change Close Help
Fig. 13.13 Beam Member Specifications

260
Step 6 : Provide support from the number of support condition options available.
Step 7: Loading is considered to be the last step in creating the input file before the Analysis
command. A number of options are availablefor defining the load as shown in Fig.13.14.
□ concrete grade M?5 Whole Structure (TfofXj Load B Definition D

I ♦ Q3 Delmittom *
- [f Load Catet Detailt
• E 3 SEISMIC IN X
♦ E 4 SEISMIC IN Z
- E 1 DEAD LOAD
ef SElfWEIGHTY-1
if FY-l5 08LN.nl
e* YRANGE 12G126ONE 3 2XRANGE08
C* YRANGE 1281260NE 32YRANGE115
O* YRANGE36960NE 326>RANGE 0871
O* YRANGE 3(98ONE -328YRANGE 11 5.
& UNI Y 4242 kN/m
eg UNI Y -3 kN/m
♦ E 2 LIVE LOAD
♦ 0 5 15(D4.|
♦ 061 2|D*L»EX)
♦ 0 7 1 210*1 €0
♦ 0 3 1 21DA*E2|
♦ 0 9 1 2ID4.-EZI
♦ 0 10 15(D*£X|
. IW 11 1 wuvi
New
□ T oggie Load
Aiuyment Method
® UieCutor ToAswgn
O A$»gn T o V«w ToEdrlit*
129To132135To138H1 144 147 To 150 153 To 156
1 Atuy | [ Close | | Hetp |
Fig. 13.14 Load and Definition Details of a Model

Step 8: Send the input file to Analysis/Design as shown in the screen shot of Fig. 13.15.
261
13.6.4 Orientation of Deck Rib
Following are the categories of composite beams in the AISC specifications, each with a
differing effective concrete area.
Deck Perpendicular to Beam (Fig. 13.16 (a))
(a) Deck Ribs Perpendicular to Beam (b) Deck Ribs Parallel to Beam
Fig. 13.16 Orientation of Deck Rib with Respect to Beam
i. As illustrated in Fig. 13.16 (a), concrete below the top of steel decking shall be
neglected in computations of section properties and in calculating the number of shear
studs, but the concrete below the top flange of deck may be included for calculating
the effective width.
ii. The maximum spacing of shear connectors shall not exceed 32 in. (813 mm) along the
beam length.
iii. The steel deck shall be anchored to the beam either by welding or by other means at a
spacing not exceeding 16 in. (406 mm).
iv. A reduction factor as given by AISC formula
(13.4)
should be used for reducing the allowable horizontal shear capacity of stud
connectors. In the above formula hf is the nominal rib height in inches; Hs is length of
stud connector after welding in inches. An upper limit of (hf + 3) is placed on the
length of shear connectors used in computations even when longer studs are installed
in metal decks. Nf is the number of studs in one rib; a maximum value of 3 can be
used in computations although more than three studs may be installed and wr is
average width of rib.
262
Deck Ribs Parallel to Beam Fig. 13.16 (b)
1. The major difference between perpendicular and parallel orientation of deck ribs is
that when the deck is parallel to beam, the concrete below the top of the decking can
be included when calculating the number of shear studs, as shown in Fig. 13.16 (b).
2. If steel deck ribs occur on supporting beam flanges, it is permissible to cut high-hat to
form a concrete haunch.
3. When the nominal rib height is 38.1 mm or greater, the minimum average width of
deck flute should not be less than 51 mm for the first stud in the transverse row plus
four stud diameters for each additional stud. This gives maximum average width of
51 mm for one stud, 51 mm plus 4d for two studs, 51 mm plus 8d for three studs etc.,
where d is the diameter of stud. Note that if a metal deck cannot accommodate this
width requirement, the deck can be split over the girder from a haunch.
4. A reduction factor given by A1SC formula
°-6(|)(^-10)£10 -(13'5)
shall be used for reducing the allowable horizontal shear capacity of stud connectors.
13.6.5 Effect Of Change Of Profile Sheets
Profiled steel sheets as sacrificial shuttering is a concept widely accepted in recent times for
fast track construction. Its advantage is not only techno-economical but also highly practical
and utilitarian. Table 13.6 shows analysis results of variation in rib properties of metal deck.
Table 13.6 Analysis Results of Variation in Rib Properties of Metal Deck
Node Displacements
USING INSDAG DATA VULCRAFT 1.5VL VERCO N
Max/Min Horz. Vert. Horz. Horz. Vert. Horz. Horz. Vert. Horz.
X mm Y mm Z mm X mm Y mm Z mm X mm Y mm Z mm
Max X 5.36 -5.00 0.26 5.37 -5.08 0.26 6.16 -5.16 0.33
MinX -5.21 -3.31 0.07 -5.22 -3.36 0.07 -5.99 -3.44 0.10
Max Y 0.02 0.54 1.77 0.02 0.55 1.78 4.01 0.61 0.13
Min Y 0.03 -16.85 0.43 0.03 -17.92 0.44 0.05 -17.87 0.50
Max Z -0.05 -2.63 4.04 -0.05 -2.66 4.07 -0.10 -2.59 4.63
MinZ -0.09 -2.55 -3.36 -0.10 -2.55 -3.39 -0.08 -2.72 -3.80
263
Support Reactions
Max/M in
Horz Vert. Horz. Horz. Vert. Horz. Horz. Vert. Horz.
F Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN
Max Fx 130.07 962.26 -14.33 129.92 962.65 -14.57 151.03 1076.67 -16.67
Min Fx -129.09 965.38 -14.41 -128.95 965.83 -14.66 -150.03 1080.19 -16.80
Max Fy 0.30 1295.84 0.55 0.29 1296.09 0.59 0.44 1476.47 -0.05
Min Fy -30.86 -165.94 -0.25 -30.85 -166.37 -0.24 -36.98 -192.21 -0.32
Max Fz -62.34 953.15 123.33 -62.19 953.84 123.59 -71.18 1057.91 143.05
Min Fz -0.11 998.06 -107.64 -0.11 999.64 -107.92 -0.15 1121.84 -122.67
Support Moments
Max/Min.
M Mx My Mz Mx My Mz Mx My Mz
kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm
Max Mx 27.88 0.00 -0.03 28.04 0.00 -0.03 33.85 0.00 -0.02
Min Mx -27.20 0.00 0.03 -27.38 0.00 0.03 -32.27 0.00 0.03
Max My 0.40 0.00 -24.34 0.43 0.00 -24.34 -0.12 0.00 -29.03
Min My 0.40 0.00 24.65 0.43 0.00 24.65 -0.12 0.00 29.36
Max Mz 0.40 0.00 24.65 0.43 0.00 24.65 -0.12 0.00 29.36
Min Mz 0.40 0.00 -24.34 0.43 0.00 -24.34 -0.12 0.00 -29.03
Beam End Forces
Max/Min USING INSDAG DATA VULCRAFTl. 5VL VERCO N

Max Fx 1295.84 -0.30 0.55 1296.09 -0.29 0.59 1476.47 -0.44 -0.05
Min Fx -140.55 -0.25 -0.13 -140.98 -0.24 -0.13 -161.78 -0.32 -0.16
Max Fy 0.00 126.06 0.00 0.00 126.32 0.00 0.00 127.20 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -143.35 0.00 0.00 -143.45 0.00 0.00 -144.25 0.00
Max Fz 839.12 0.21 2.11 839.52 0.22 2.18 890.22 0.21 1.28
Min Fz 214.09 0.01 -1.80 214.13 0.00 -1.84 213.91 0.08 -1.90
Beam End Moments
USING INSDAG DATA VULCRAFT 1.5VL VERCON
Max/Min
M Mx My Mz Mx My Mz Mx My Mz
Max Mx 39.07 0.00 0.00 38.83 0.00 0.00 36.61 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -39.17 0.00 0.00 -38.91 0.00 0.00 -36.54 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 2.90 -0.39 0.00 2.99 -0.39 0.00 1.86 0.13
Min My 0.00 -3.01 0.25 0.00 -3.10 0.27 0.00 -1.76 0.20
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 149.15 -0.01 0.00 149.44 0.07 0.00 152.88
Min Mz -15.20 0.00 -143.20 -15.24 0.00 -143.26 -14.04 0.00 -143.56
264
Here, the only change between above models is the definition of rib properties. In the
software one can only provide Rib Height and Rib Width. The thickness of metal sheet
cannot be defined which is one of the drawbacks of this software. And, this is the one
drawback of this software. It is clear from the Table 13.6 that there is not much variation in
values of Nodal Displacements, Support Reactions, Support Moments, Beam End forces and
Beam End moments.
13.6.6 Design Parameters of Different Country Codes
13.6.6.1 Design Parameters of Indian Code (IS: 800-2007 LSD)
Table 13.7 Design Parameters According to IS: 800-2007 LSD
Parameter
Default Value Description
Name
FYLD 250 MPa Yield strength of steel in current units.
FU 420 MPa Ultimate tensile strength of steel in current units.
KY 1.0 K value in local Y-axis. Usually, the Minor Axis.
KZ 1.0 K value in local Z-axis. Usually, the Major Axis.
Member Length to calculate Slenderness Ratio for buckling about
LY
Length local Y axis.
Member
LZ Same as above except in Z-axis (Major).
Length
Allowable Slenderness Limit for compression member (as
MAIN 180
per Section 3.8)
Allowable Slenderness Limit for tension member (as per
TMAIN 400
Section 3.8)
Net Section Factor for tension member. A factor, based on
NSF 1.0 the end-connection type, controlling the rupture strength of
the net section
0.6 = For one or two bolts
0.7 = For three bolts
ALFA 0.8
0.8 = For four or more bolts
(as per Section 6.3.3)
Check for design against block shear -
0.0 = Design against block shear will not be performed.
DBS 0.0
1.0 = Design against block shear will be performed.
If DBS = 1.0, Non-Zero positive values of AVG, AVN,
265
ATG and ATN must be supplied to calculate block shear

strength Tdb.
None
Minimum gross area in shear along bolt line parallel to
(Mandatory
AVG external force. This parameter is applicable only when
for block shear
DBS = 1.0 (as per Section 6.4.1).
check)
None
Minimum Net Area in shear along bolt line parallel to
(Mandatory
AVN external force. This parameter is applicable only when
for Block
DBS = 1.0 (as per Section 6.4.1).
Shear check)
Minimum gross area in tension from the bolt hole to the toe
None
of the angle, end bolt line, perpendicular to the line of the
(Mandatory force.
ATG
for block shear
This parameter is applicable only when DBS = 1.0 (as per
check)
Section 6.4.1).
None Minimum net area in tension from the bolt hole to the toe
(Mandatory of the angle, end bolt line, perpendicular to the line of the
ATN
for Block force. This parameter is applicable only when DBS =1.0
Shear check) (as per Section 6.4.1).
Effective length factor for lateral torsional buckling (as per
KX 1.0
Table-15, Section 8.3.1)
Member Effective length for lateral torsional buckling (as per Table-
LX
Length 15, Section 8.3.1)
Beam Type, (as per section 8.2.1.2)
CAN 1.0 0.0 = Cantilever beam
1.0 = Non-Cantilever beam
Ratio of the moments at the ends of the laterally
unsupported length of the beam
= 0.8 : where factored applied moment and tension can
PSI 1.0
vary independently
= 1.0 : For any other case.
(as per Section 9.3.2.1)
CMY
CM value in local Y and Z axes
CMZ 0.9
(as per Section 9.3.2.2)
CMX
Equivalent uniform moment factor for lateral torsional
LAT 0.0 buckling (as per Table 18, section 9.3.2.2)
0.0 = Beam is laterally unsupported
266
1.0 = Beam is laterally supported

(as per Section 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 respectively)
Controls the levels of detail to which results are reported.

0 = Minimum detail.
TRACK 0
1 = Intermediate detail level.
2 = Maximum detail.
RATIO 1.0 Permissible ratio of the actual to allowable stresses.
None
(Mandatory
DFF "Deflection Length" / Maximum allowable local deflection.
for deflection
check)
Start joint of Joint No. denoting starting point for calculation of
DJI
member "Deflection Length".
End joint of Joint No. denoting end point for calculation of
DJ2
member "Deflection Length".
13.6.6.2 Design Parameters of American Code (A1SC LRFD) [110]

The user can control the design through specification of proper parameters. The PROFILE
parameter is available for only a limited number of codes like the AISC ASD and AISC
LRFD. The user can specify up to three profiles (al, a2 and a3). Profile is the first three
letters of a section name from its steel table, like, W8X, W12, CIO, L20 etc. The PROFILE
parameter-name is used only for member selection where members are selected from each of
those profile names. The PROFILE for a T-section is the corresponding W-shape. Also, the
shape specified under PROFILE has to be the same as that specified initially under member
properties.
The types of construction recognized by AISC specification have not changed, except that
both "simple framing" (formerly Type 2) and "semi-rigid framing" (formerly Type 3) have
been combined into the same category, Type PR (partially restrained). "Rigid Framing"
(formerly Type 1) is now Type FR (fully restrained). Type FR construction is permitted
unconditionally. Type PR construction may necessitate some inelastic, but self-limiting,
deformation of a structural steel element. Thus, when specifying Type PR construction, the
designer should take into consideration the effects of partial restraint on the stability of the
structure, lateral deflections and second order bending moments. As stated in Section Cl of
267
the LRFD specification, an analysis of second order effects is required. Thus, when using
LRFD code for steel design, the user must use the P-Delta analysis feature of STAAD.
The interaction of flexure and axial forces in singly and doubly symmetric shapes is governed
by interaction formulas which cover the general case of biaxial bending combined with axial
force. They are also valid for uniaxial bending and axial force.
Shear strength as calculated in LRFD is governed by the following limit states: by yielding of
the web; by inelastic buckling of the web and by elastic buckling of the web. Shear in wide
flanges and channel sections are resisted by the area of the web, which is taken as the overall
depth times the web thickness.
13.6.6.3 Design Parameters of Eurocode [7]
Table 13.8 Design Parameters According to EURO CODE
Parameter Delimit
■ r -m Description
Name \ alue
KY 1.0 K factor in local y axis.
KZ 1.0 K factor in local z axis.

Member Compression length in local y axis, Slenderness ratio =
LY
Length (KY) * (LY)/(Ryy)
Member Compression length in local z axis, Slenderness ratio =
LZ
Length (KZ)*(LZ)/(Rzz)
Member Unrestraint length of member used in calculating the lateral-
UNL
Length torsional resistance moment of the member.
NSF 1.0 Net tension factor for tension capacity calculation.
Indicates if the section is rolled or built-up.

SBLT 0.0
0.0 = Rolled 1.0 = Built-up
Indicates type of loading on member.
CMM 1.0
Can take a value from 1 to 8.
Indicates the level of End-Restraint.
1.0 = No fixity
CMN 1.0
0.5 = Full fixity
0.7 = One end free and other end fixed
268
DMAX 100.0 cm Maximum allowable depth for the member.
DM1N 0 Minimum required depth for the member.
RATIO 1 Permissible ratio of loading to capacity.

Member will be considered as a cantilever type member for
deflection checks.
CAN 0
0 - member will not be treated as a cantilever member
1 - the member will be treated as a cantilever member
GMO 1.1 Corresponds to the Tmo factor in EN 1993-1 -1:2005
GM1 1.1 Corresponds to the Fmi factor in EN 1993-1-1:2005
GM2 1.1 Corresponds to the Tm2 factor in EN 1993-1 -1:2005
Steel grade as in table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-1:2005

0.0 - indicates S 235 grade steel
SGR 0
Specifies a reduction factor for vectoral effects to be used in
ZIV 0.8 axial tension checks [Cl 5.5.3(2) of DD ENV 1993-1-

1:1992] "
Corresponds to the Cl factor to be used to calculate Elastic
Cl 0
critical moment Mcr as per Clause 6.3.2.2
Corresponds to the C2 factor to be used to calculate Elastic
C2 0
Corresponds to the C3 factor to be used to calculate Elastic
C3 0
MU 0 To be used with CMM values of 7 and 8.
Distance of transverse load from shear Centre. Used to

+Section
ZG
Depth/2 calculate Mcr.
Corresponds to the correction factor as per Table 6.6 of EN
KC 1.0 1993-1-1:2005. Program will calculate ‘kc’ automatically if

this parameter is set to 0.
269
Load Combinations
Load Combinations for IS 800:2007
1.5(DL+L L) > 1.5(DL+EX) > 0.9DL-I.5EX
1.2(DL+LL+EX) > 1.5(DL-EX) > 0.9DL+1.5EZ
1.2(DL+L1-EX) > 1.5(DL+EZ) > 0.9DL-1.5EZ
1.2(DL+LL+EZ) > 1 5(DL-EZ)
1.2(DL+LL-EZ) > 0.9DL+1.5EX
Load Combinations for Eurocode
> 1.35DL+ 1.5LL-0.7EX > 0.925DL+1.5LL-0.7EX
> 1.35DL+ 1.5LL+0.7EX > 0.925DL+ 1.5LL+0.7EX
> 1.35DL+ 1.5LL-0.7EZ > 0.925DL+ 1.5LL-0.7EZ
> 1.35DL+ 1.5LL+0.7EZ > 0.925DL+ 1.5LL+0.7EZ
Load Combinations for AISC LRFD

> I.0DL > 1.0DL+0.75LL-0.525EZ
> l.ODL+LOLL > 0.6DL
> 1.0DL+0.75LL > 0.6DL+0.7EX
> 1.0DL+0.7EX > 0.6DL+0.7EZ
> 1.0DL-0.7EX > 0.6DL-0.7EX
> 1.0DL+0.7EZ > 0.6DL-0.7EZ
> 1.0DL-0.7EZ > 1.4DL
> 1.0DL+0.75LL+0.525EX > 1.2DL+1.6LL+0.5EX
> 1.0DL+0.75LL+0.525EZ 1.2DL+1.6LL+0.5EX
> 1.0DL+0.75LL-0.525EX
Table 13.9 Results obtained using Various Country Codes
Node Displacement
Max/ IS 800 LSD AISC LRFD EllROCODE
Min Horz. Vert. Horz. Horz. Vert. Horz. Horz. Vert. Horz.
D X mm Y mm Z mm X mm Y mm Z mm X mm Y mm Z mm
Max X 5.36 -5.00 0.26 4.65 -0.59 -0.12 4.66 -0.67 -0.13
MinX -5.21 -3.31 0.07 -3.24 -2.28 0.01 -3.31 -5.23 0.03
Max Y 0.02 0.54 1.77 4.47 0.65 0.32 0.15 0.72 3.18
Min Y 0.03 -16.85 0.43 1.43 -16.25 0.20 1.85 -18.97 -0.19
Max Z -0.05 -2.63 4.04 0.06 0.40 2.98 0.13 0.50 3.18
MinZ -0.09 -2.55 -3.36 -0.02 -1.77 -1.99 -0.05 -3.87 -2.14
270
Support Reactions
Max/
IS 800 LSD AISC LRFD ELIROCODE
Min
Max Fx 130.07 962.26 -14.33 78.56 649.01 -9.53 99.07 709.76 -1.28
Min Fx -129.09 965.38 -14.41 -77.65 651.82 -9.58 -98.06 712.96 -1.29
Max Fy 0.30 1295.84 0.55 1.86 1072.12 0.25 0.03 1177.00 -2.28
Min Fy -30.86 -165.94 -0.25 -31.84 -163.83 -0.34 -34.05 -161.85 -0.04
Max Fz -62.34 953.15 123.33 -33.63 589.45 64.75 0.07 771.08 77.70
Min Fz -0.11 998.06 -107.64 0.05 866.19 -59.18 0.00 707.92 -83.52
Support Moments
Max/
IS 800 LSD AISC LRFD EUROCODE
Min
Mx My Mz Mx My Mz Mx My Mz
M
Max Mx 27.88 0.00 -0.03 15.23 0.00 -0.01 11.17 0.00 0.04
Min Mx -27.20 0.00 0.03 -12.65 0.00 0.00 -13.87 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.40 0.00 -24.34 -0.30 0.00 -0.20 -1.68 0.00 -0.40
Min My 0.40 0.00 24.65 0.43 0.00 0.28 -1.77 0.00 0.41
Max Mz 0.40 0.00 24.65 -0.06 0.00 10.77 -0.04 0.00 9.87
Min Mz 0.40 0.00 -24.34 0.19 0.00 -7.62 0.09 0.00 -7.02
Beam End Forces
Max/
Min
Max Fx 1295.84 -0.30 0.55 1072.12 -1.86 0.25 1177.00 -2.28 0.03
Min Fx -140.55 -0.25 -0.13 -137.66 -0.34 -0.16 -134.95 1.50 -0.04
Max Fy 0.00 126.06 0.00 0.00 105.74 0.00 0.00 110.60 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -143.35 0.00 0.00 -120.84 0.00 0.00 -129.52 0.00
Max Fz 839.12 0.21 2.11 554.10 0.19 0.66 556.81 0.01 4.61
Min Fz 214.09 0.01 -1.80 0.68 0.04 -0.72 420.17 0.07 -2.93
Beam End Moments
Max/
Min
Mx My Mz Mx My Mz Mx My Mz
M
Max Mx 39.07 0.00 0.00 36.17 0.00 0.00 40.09 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -39.17 0.00 0.00 -36.25 0.00 0.00 -40.00 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 2.90 -0.39 0.00 0.98 -0.30 0.00 6.92 -0.07
Min My 0.00 -3.01 0.25 0.00 -1.07 0.28 0.00 -6.91 -0.03
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 149.15 0.00 0.00 126.66 0.00 0.00 135.78
Min Mz -15.20 0.00 -143.20 -7.05 0.00 -116.40 -0.93 0.00 -132.86
271
In the above comparison the design criteria for composite beam remains same as in the
software we have the facility to design composite beam with AISC is given. While, other
criteria like load combination, design for column, deflection check etc. can be considered
according to the respective code. One has a facility for primary and secondary analysis in the
software, but, to maintain the harmony, ‘perform analysis’ command is used in all the above
cases.
The comparison of results obtained for nodal displacement, support reactions, support
moments, beam end forces and beam end moments, different codes, is given in Table 13.9.
13.6.7 LSD Versus ASD Method

A comparison of results obtained using with new IS:800-2007 code (Limit State Design) with
the old code (Allowable Stress Design) having gravity and seismic loading is given here in
Table 13.10
Table 13.10 Analysis Results using IS: 800 (LSD) and IS: 800 (ASD) with EQ Load
Node Displacements
IS 800 LSD IS 800 ASD
Max./Min.
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
D X mm Y mm Z mm X mm Y mm Z mm
Max X 5.36 -5.00 0.26 3.95 -4.04 -0.22
MinX -5.21 -3.31 0.07 -3.84 -2.68 -0.21
Max Y 0.02 0.54 1.77 0.02 0.48 1.28
Min Y 0.03 -16.85 0.43 0.05 -15.67 0.06
Max Z -0.05 -2.63 4.04 0.03 -3.08 2.79
MinZ -0.09 -2.55 -3.36 -0.14 -3.09 -2.81
Support Reactions
Max/Min F Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN
Max Fx 130.07 962.26 -14.33 143.37 1083.92 -18.39
Min Fx -129.09 965.38 -14.41 -142.53 1088.13 -18.53
Max Fy 0.30 1295.84 0.55 -0.05 1482.02 0.01
Min Fy -30.86 -165.94 -0.25 -35.19 -193.90 -0.25
Max Fz -62.34 953.15 123.33 -66.37 1092.12 144.87
Min Fz -0.11 998.06 -107.64 -0.17 1121.68 -116.61
272
Support Moments

Max/Min M
Mx kNm My kNm Mz kNm Mx kNm My kNm Mz kNm
Max Mx 27.88 0.00 -0.03 43.44 0.00 -0.10
Min Mx -27.20 0.00 0.03 -39.34 0.00 -0.04
Max My 0.40 0.00 -24.34 2.41 0.00 -0.90
Min My 0.40 0.00 24.65 2.53 0.00 0.90
Max Mz 0.40 0.00 24.65 0.00 0.00 32.73
Min Mz 0.40 0.00 -24.34 0.01 0.00 -32.33
Beam End Forces

Max/Min F
Max Fx 1295.84 -0.30 0.55 1482.02 0.05 0.01

Min Fx -140.55 -0.25 -0.13 -165.04 -0.25 -0.28
Max Fy 0.00 126.06 0.00 0.00 129.43 0.00

Min Fy 0.00 -143.35 0.00 0.00 -144.17 0.00
Max Fz 839.12 0.21 2.11 896.61 -0.74 1.41
Min Fz 214.09 0.01 -1.80 213.98 0.04 -1.67
Beam End Moments

Max/Min M
Max Mx 39.07 0.00 0.00 35.42 0.00 0.00

Min Mx -39.17 0.00 0.00 -35.52 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 2.90 -0.39 0.00 2.55 -0.19
Min My 0.00 -3.01 0.25 0.00 -2.38 1.01
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 149.15 -0.20 0.00 149.34
Min Mz -15.20 0.00 -143.20 -14.24 0.00 -144.26
13.6.8 Gravity Load (G.L.) Versus Gravity Load And Earthquake Load (E.L.)
Load combinations considered are such as to produce maximum forces and effects and
consequently maximum stress and deformations. Also, from the codal provision, it is known
that wind load and earthquake load shall not be assumed to act simultaneously. So, only
earthquake load is considered while making comparison in Tables 13.11 and 13.12.
273 v
Table 13.11 Analysis Results of AISC LRFD with G.L. and G.L.+ E.L.
Node Displacements
AISC LRFD ONLY GRAVITY LOAD AISC LRFD (G.L.+E.L.)
Max/Min D
Max X 0.20 -3.53 0.76 4.65 -0.59 -0.12
MinX -0.13 -3.62 0.69 -3.24 -2.28 0.01
Max Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.47 0.65 0.32
Min Y 0.10 -17.85 0.51 1.43 -16.25 0.20
Max Z 0.11 -5.52 1.05 0.06 0.40 2.98
MinZ 0.00 -0.93 -0.11 -0.02 -1.77 -1.99
Support Reactions
AISC LRFD ONLY GRAV ITY LOAD AISC LRFD (G.L.+E.L.)

Max Fx 63.97 467.51 -6.66 78.56 649.01 -9.53
Min Fx -62.88 469.69 -6.70 -77.65 651.82 -9.58
Max Fy -0.05 854.51 0.19 1.86 1072.12 0.25
Min Fy 0.00 18.02 1.86 -31.84 -163.83 -0.34
Max Fz -44.91 593.29 67.07 -33.63 589.45 64.75
Min Fz -0.02 461.02 -53.51 0.05 866.19 -59.18
Support Moments
Max/Min M
Max Mx 8.66 0.00 -0.01 15.23 0.00 -0.01
Min Mx -6.51 0.00 0.00 -12.65 0.00 0.00
Max My -0.09 0.00 0.18 -0.30 0.00 -0.20
Min My -0.09 0.00 -0.16 0.43 0.00 0.28
Max Mz -0.09 0.00 0.18 -0.06 0.00 10.77
Min Mz -0.09 0.00 -0.16 0.19 0.00 -7.62
Beam End Forces

Max/Min F
Max Fx 854.51 0.05 0.19 1072.12 -1.86 0.25
Min Fx -14.46 -0.21 0.21 -137.66 -0.34 -0.16
Max Fy 0.00 82.41 0.00 0.00 105.74 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -94.48 0.00 0.00 -120.84 0.00
Max Fz 554.53 0.18 0.41 554.10 0.19 0.66
Min Fz 164.94 -0.01 -0.30 0.68 0.04 -0.72
274
Beam End Moments

Max/Min M
Max Mx 29.90 0.00 0.00 36.17 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -29.90 0.00 0.00 -36.25 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 0.62 -0.24 0.00 0.98 -0.30
Min My 0.00 -0.60 0.29 0.00 -1.07 0.28
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 98.75 0.00 0.00 126.66
Min Mz -10.92 0.00 -96.19 -7.05 0.00 -116.40
Table 13.12 Analysis Results of IS: 800-2007 Code with G.L. and G.L. + E.L.
Node Displacements
IS 800 LSD with G.L. + E.L. IS 800 LSD with G.L.

Max/Min
Max X 5.36 -5.00 0.26 0.11 -4.20 0.43
Min X -5.21 -3.31 0.07 -0.04 -3.65 0.70
Max Y 0.02 0.54 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
Min Y 0.03 -16.85 0.43 0.03 -16.85 0.43
Max Z -0.05 -2.63 4.04 0.05 -4.61 1.01
MinZ -0.09 -2.55 -3.36 0.01 -0.75 -0.10
Support Reactions

Max Fx 130.07 962.26 -14.33 89.89 763.72 -14.88
Min Fx -129.09 965.38 -14.41 -88.31 766.43 -14.98
Max Fy 0.30 1295.84 0.55 0.30 1295.84 0.55
Min Fy -30.86 -165.94 -0.25 0.00 22.17 2.09
Max Fz -62.34 953.15 123.33 -65.41 860.04 83.95
Min Fz -0.11 998.06 -107.64 0.13 952.66 -69.13
Support Moments

Max/Min M
Max Mx 27.88 0.00 -0.03 13.38 0.00 0.01
Min Mx -27.20 0.00 0.03 -13.80 0.00 0.02
Max My 0.40 0.00 -24.34 0.54 0.00 -0.42
Min My 0.40 0.00 24.65 0.54 0.00 0.69
Max Mz 0.40 0.00 24.65 0.51 0.00 0.72
Min Mz 0.40 0.00 -24.34 0.51 0.00 -0.45
275
Beam End Forces

Max/M in F
Max Fx 1295.84 -0.30 0.55 1295.84 -0.30 0.55
Min Fx -140.55 -0.25 -0.13 -31.19 -0.46 0.46
Max Fy 0.00 126.06 0.00 0.00 126.06 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -143.35 0.00 0.00 -143.35 0.00
Max Fz 839.12 0.21 2.11 842.19 0.18 1.20
Min Fz 214.09 0.01 -1.80 251.20 -0.10 -0.87
Beam End Moments
Max/Min M
Max Mx 39.07 0.00 0.00 37.36 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -39.17 0.00 0.00 -37.38 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 2.90 -0.39 0.00 1.84 -0.39
Min My 0.00 -3.01 0.25 0.00 -1.77 0.14
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 149.15 0.00 0.00 149.15
Min Mz -15.20 0.00 -143.20 -15.20 0.00 -143.20
13.6.9 Effect Of Orientation of Column
The columns in a building usually carry axial compressive loads. Thus, compression
members are subjected to loads that tend to decrease their lengths. Except in pin-jointed
trusses, such members, under external loads experience bending moments and shear forces. If
the net moments are zero, the compression member is required to resist the load acting
concentric to the original longitudinal axis of the member and is termed as axially loaded
column. If the net end moments are not zero, the members will be subjected to an axial load
and bending moments along its length.
Buckling phenomenon is associated with the stiffness of member. A member with low
stiffness will buckle early than one with high stiffness. Increasing member length will cause
reduction in stiffness. The stiffness of member is strongly influenced by the amount and
distribution of the material in the cross-section of column; the value of r reflects the way in
which the material is distributed. Also, note that any member will tend to buckle about the
weak axis. Figure 13.17 shows the orientation of column parallel to x- and z- axes.
276
Fig. 13.17 Orientation of Column
Table 13.13 Comparison of Design of Beam No. 376
CODE FOR DESIGN AISC LRFD AISC LRFD

Loading criteria Gravity + Seismic Gravity + Seismic
Orientation of column Parallel to X-Axis Parallel to Z-Axis
Section CM ISMB 150 CM ISMB 175
Stress ratio 0.586 0.431
Status Pass Pass
Section location 2.56 m 2.56 m
Load combination 1.0DL+1.0LL 1.0DL+1.0LL
Moment - 60.096 kN-m - 60.242 kN-m
Nominal moment capacity 102.47 kN-m 139.76 kN-m
Maximum shear force 46.950 kN 47.064 kN
No. of shear connector 14 14
Dia. of shear connector 19 mm 19 mm
Total steel weight of structure 36785.41 kg 31484.73 kg
I-sections are often used as columns in buildings. Though the r values of I-sections about the
two axes are not same, they are better than those of channels. Since I-sections have thick
flanges (which avoid the problem of local bucking) and are amenable for easy connections,
they are often used as compression members in buildings.
277
Table 13.14 Analysis Results for Two Different Orientations of Column
Node Displacements
COLUMN PARALLEL TO X-AXIS COLUMN PARALLEL TO Z-AXIS
Max/Min
Max X 3.56 -0.21 -0.20 5.35 -0.55 -0.36
MinX -2.47 -5.00 1.49 -3.71 -3.14 1.52
Max Y 0.05 0.70 2.59 -0.06 1.13 2.96
Min Y 0.00 -13.76 1.81 0.08 -14.88 1.51
Max Z -0.16 -6.31 5.16 0.01 -2.93 4.91

MinZ 0.00 -0.33 -1.82 -0.13 -1.83 -1.61
Support Reactions
Max/Min COLUMN PARALLEL TO X-AXIS COLUMN PARALLEL TO Z-AXIS
F Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN Fx kN Fy kN Fz kN
Max Fx 46.66 448.71 3.45 76.41 530.02 2.09
Min Fx -46.35 451.27 3.42 -75.76 531.95 2.06
Max Fy -0.15 875.43 -50.28 0.01 806.27 -67.11
Min Fy -28.05 -155.49 -0.02 -34.48 -171.68 -0.09
Max Fz -21.40 501.66 40.56 -38.36 555.18 67.42

Min Fz -0.18 822.02 -54.45 0.01 756.09 -69.58
Support Moments
M Mx kNm My kNm Mz kNm Mx kNm My kNm Mz kNm
Max Mx 16.38 0.00 -0.33 17.88 0.00 0.01
Min Mx -12.12 0.00 -1.51 -17.14 0.00 -0.01
Max My 14.45 0.00 -21.45 -12.65 0.00 -0.19
Min My 14.42 0.00 21.74 -0.21 0.00 0.27
Max Mz -0.10 0.00 30.07 -0.57 0.00 0.47

Min Mz 15.34 0.00 -21.54 12.88 0.00 -0.35
Beam End Forces

Max Fx 842.67 0.15 -0.18 786.20 14.99 0.01
Min Fx -137.34 8.40 0.02 -144.15 0.04 -0.15
Max Fy 0.00 81.18 0.00 0.00 81.18 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -77.73 0.00 0.00 -78.86 0.00
Max Fz 155.48 -0.33 30.97 129.42 27.96 0.64

Min Fz 90.89 0.03 -24.23 0.24 0.54 -0.88
278
Beam End Moments

Max Mx 33.79 0.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -33.99 0.00 0.00 -37.82 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 45.86 -0.88 0.00 0.85 0.75
Min My 0.00 -48.21 -0.89 0.00 -0.63 43.41
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 99.43 0.00 0.00 98.99
Min Mz -0.12 0.00 -135.02 0.03 0.00 -130.19
Here, in the above comparison given in Table 13.14, instead of analysis and design criteria
(like in the rest of comparison models), change is in the general criteria like specification. To
change the orientation of column, ‘beta angle’ 90 degrees is used. To find out the difference
in design of a particular beam, comparison of design for beam no. 376, which is critical, is
given here in Table 13.13.
13.6.10 Effect of Change of Grade of Concrete
Different strength of concrete can be achieved by using different proportions of ingredients of
concrete. One of the disadvantages of conventional concrete is the high self weight. Density
of the normal concrete is of the order of 2200 kg/m3 to 2600 kg/m3. This heavy self weight
will make it to some extent an uneconomical structural material. In light weight concrete,
density varies from 300 kg/m3 to 1850 kg/m3. There are many advantages of having low
density. It helps in reduction of dead load, increases the progress of building, and lowers
haulage and handling cost. In framed structures, the beams and columns have to carry load of
floors and walls. If floors and walls are made up of light weight concrete it will result in
considerable economy. Another most important characteristic of light weight concrete is the
relatively low thermal conductivity, a property which improves with low density. A concrete
which is light in weight and sufficiently strong when used in conjunction with steel
reinforcement will be a material which is more economical than the conventional concrete.
Normal weight concrete results are compared with light weight concrete results in Table
13.15.
279
Table 13.15 Analysis Results of Normal Weight Concrete Versus Light Weight Concrete
Node Displacements
Normal Weight Concrete (25 kN/m3) Light Weight Concrete (15 kN/m3)
Max/Min
D
X mm Y mm Z mm X mm Y mm Z mm
Max X 5.36 -5.00 0.26 4.66 -4.45 -0.10
MinX 5.21
- -3.31 0.07 4.58
- -1.64 0.28
Max Y 0.02 0.54 1.77 0.03 0.53 1.62
Min Y 0.03 - 16.85 0.43 0.04 - 17.94 0.30
Max Z -0.05 -2.63 4.04 0.04 -3.56 3.56
MinZ -0.09 -2.55 - 3.36 -0.09 -2.37 - 3.26
Support Reactions

Max Fx 130.07 962.26 -14.33 104.13 753.06 -11.58
Min Fx -129.09 965.38 -14.41 -103.90 757.67 -11.64
Max Fy 0.30 1295.84 0.55 -0.25 1130.34 1.09
Min Fy -30.86 -165.94 -0.25 -28.41 -143.36 -0.16
Max Fz -62.34 953.15 123.33 -60.40 810.81 109.75
Support Moments
Max/Min Normal Weight Concrete (25 kN/m3) Light Weight Concrete (15 kN/m3)
M Mz kNm Mx kNm My kNm Mz kNm
Mx kNm My kNm
Max Mx 27.88 0.00 -0.03 27.90 0.00 - 0.01
Min Mx -27.20 0.00 0.03 - 19.29 0.00 0.01

Max My 0.40 0.00 -24.34 5.96 0.00 -0.74
Min My 0.40 0.00 24.65 6.17 0.00 0.75
Max Mz 0.40 0.00 24.65 1.20 0.00 20.80
Min Mz 0.40 0.00 -24.34 1.20 0.00 20.69

-
Beam End Forces

Max/Min
Max Fx 1295.84 -0.30 0.55 1130.34 0.25 1.09
Min Fx -140.55 -0.25 -0.13 -119.95 -0.16 -0.08
Max Fy 0.00 126.06 0.00 0.00 110.93 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -143.35 0.00 0.00 - 122.83 0.00
Max Fz 839.12 0.21 2.11 717.40 -0.41 3.05
Min Fz 214.09 0.01 -1.80 172.79 0.04 - 1.26
280
Beam End Moments

Max/Min
Max Mx 39.07 0.00 0.00 44.04 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -39.17 0.00 0.00 -44.03 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 2.90 -0.39 0.00 4.32 0.48
Min My 0.00 -3.01 0.25 0.00 -4.39 -0.74
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 149.15 0.00 0.00 137.89
Min Mz -15.20 0.00 -143.20 -15.48 0.00 -121.10
13.6.11 RCC Structure versus Composite Structure

In many situations, lighter steel structures are invariably preferred to the heavier alternatives
such as reinforced concrete or prestressed concrete. Steel also plays an important role in
composite construction in conjunction with reinforced and prestressed concrete structures.
Results obtained for a RCC structure are compared with those obtained using composite
construction in Table 13.16.
Table 13.16 Comparison of Analysis Results - RCC versus Composite Structure
Node Displacements
Composite Design With IS 800 LSD Concrete Design with IS 13920
Max/Min
Horizontal Vertical Florizontal Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Max X 5.36 -5.00 0.26 13.82 -4.73 1.30
MinX -5.21 -3.31 0.07 -13.73 -4.83 1.21
Max Y 0.02 0.54 1.77 0.04 1.24 4.83
Min Y 0.03 -16.85 0.43 0.03 -8.92 12.98
Max Z -0.05 -2.63 4.04 0.22 -1.67 16.43
MinZ -0.09 -2.55 -3.36 -0.06 -1.29 -13.70
Support Reactions
Composite Design With IS 800 LSD Concrete Design with IS 13920
Max/Min
F
Max Fx 130.07 962.26 -14.33 53.91 1453.91 -17.74
Min Fx -129.09 965.38 -14.41 -57.07 1471.07 -17.73
Max Fy 0.30 1295.84 0.55 -4.35 1735.79 18.84
Min Fy -30.86 -165.94 -0.25 -16.25 -65.35 1.55
Max Fz -62.34 953.15 123.33 -2.69 1479.79 56.81
Min Fz -0.11 998.06 -107.64 -13.41 1203.21 -57.51
281
Support Moments
Max/M in Composite Design With IS 800 LSD Concrete Design with IS 13920
Max Mx 27.88 0.00 -0.03 142.04 -0.02 -9.48
Min Mx -27.20 0.00 0.03 -155.14 0.20 -14.87
Max My 0.40 0.00 -24.34 -7.70 0.33 63.32
Min My 0.40 0.00 24.65 -8.63 -0.35 -64.89
Max Mz 0.40 0.00 24.65 -23.60 0.31 106.10
Min Mz 0.40 0.00 -24.34 -23.69 -0.33 -102.82
Beam End Forces

Max/Min Composite Design With IS 800 LSD Concrete Design with IS 13920
Max Fx 1295.84 -0.30 0.55 1735.79 4.35 18.84
Min Fx -140.55 -0.25 -0.13 -76.30 4.41 0.08
Max Fy 0.00 126.06 0.00 0.00 170.47 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -143.35 0.00 0.00 -134.33 0.00
Max Fz 839.12 0.21 2.11 1081.11 -7.88 73.09
Min Fz 214.09 0.01 -1.80 1044.00 22.23 -68.96
Beam End Moments

Max/Min Composite Design With IS 800 LSD Concrete Design with IS 13920
Max Mx 39.07 0.00 0.00 21.52 0.00 52.49
Min Mx -39.17 0.00 0.00 -22.01 0.00 -54.23
Max My 0.00 2.90 -0.39 0.20 155.14 -14.87
Min My 0.00 -3.01 0.25 -0.02 -142.04 -9.48
Max Mz 0.00 0.00 149.15 -1.90 0.00 212.91
Min Mz -15.20 0.00 -143.20 -0.57 13.47 -107.48
A comparison of weight under different types of construction is reported here in Table 13.17.
Table 13.17 Total Weight of a Typical Structure
Type of Structure Total Weight Kg.

Total weight of steel structure of normal weight concrete 37617
Total weight of steel structure of light weight concrete 32971
Total volume of concrete of reinforced concrete structure 173880
Bar Weight used in reinforced concrete structure 5555
Total weight of composite structure designed by Eurocode 32770
Total weight of composite structure designed by A1SC LRFD 33439
Total weight of composite structure designed by IS:800-2007 37617
282
14. Seismic Behaviour of A Composite Building
14.1 Structure’s Important Dynamic Properties
The principal dynamic properties of importance to structural earthquake response are the
structure’s modal properties and its damping. The simplest type of structure is the so-called
single degree of freedom (SDOF) structure. A classical model of a SDOF structure consists
of a single concentrated mass, M, on top of a cantilevered column. Figure 14.1 represents
such a model. If, as shown in the figure, a force, F, is statically applied to the mass, the
column will deform laterally, allowing the mass to displace in the direction of the applied
force. If the column has stiffness, K, it will deflect to a displacement x, given by Eq. (14.1).
x = F/K ...(14.1)
7&r
Fig. 14.1 Mathematical Model of SDOF Structure
If the mass is maintained in equilibrium, the column will experience a shear force equal and
opposite to the applied external force, F. If this force is suddenly removed, the structure will
continue to exert a force F, on the mass, a back-and-forth vibration, with maximum
amplitudes +x and -x at a unique natural frequency given by Eq. (14.2).
1
...(14.2)
2n
283
14. Seismic Behaviour of a Composite Building
In this equation, W is the weight of mass M, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and the
frequency, f, has units of cycles/second.
In earthquake engineering, it is common to use the inverse of the frequency, termed the
period, which is the time, in seconds, it would take the structure to undergo one complete
cycle of free vibration from +x to -x to +x. This period, which is usually represented by the
symbol T, is given by the Eq. (14.3).
T = 2n w (14.3)
K*g
y
Multi-storey structures must be treated as multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) structures. The
earthquake response of such structures can be calculated using a stick model with the mass in
each story lumped at a single point, and the stiffness of the seismic load resisting system in
each story can be represented by a single translational spring, as illustrated in Fig. 14.2 for a
three-story structure [118].
MDOF structures will have one natural mode of vibration, i, for each degree of freedom, j.
Each mode of vibration will have a unique period, Ti, and a unique deformed shape, <!>;, at
which it will undergo free vibration. These deformed shapes are called mode shapes. Fig.
14.3 illustrates the three mode shapes for the three-storey structure as shown in Fig. 14.2.
7777T
Fig. 14.2 Model Structure Fig. 14.3 Modal Shapes for a Structure with 3DOF
In any natural mode shape for MDOF structure some of the masses move more than others.
As a result, only a portion of the structure’s mass is effectively mobilized during vibration in
a particular mode. The effective or modal mass M,- for mode i is given by Eq. 14.4.
284
M =(5>Aif .. (14.4)
In this equation, Mj is the lumped mass at degree of freedom j and (]>;, j is the relative
deformed shape displacement for mode i at degree of freedom j. The sum of the modal
masses for all structure’s modes is equal to the structure’s total mass.
When performing linear or elastic analysis of a building’s response to earthquake shaking, it

is common to assume that it inherently has 5% of the critical damping. In actuality, most steel
structures have somewhat less damping than this when behaving elastically. The amount of
damping that can actually be mobilized depends on many factors, including the amplitude of
vibration and the amount of damage, if any, that occurs.
14.2 Procedures For Seismic Analysis

Structural analysis methods can be divided into the following four categories.
1) Linear Static Analysis (Equivalent Static Analysis)
2) Linear Dynamic Analysis (Response Spectrum Analysis)
3) Non-linear Static Analysis (Push Over Analysis)
4) Non-linear Dynamic Analysis (Time History Analysis)
14.2.1 Linear Static Analysis

As linear static analysis is already discussed in Chapter 13 in detail, it is not repeated here.
14.2.2 Linear Dynamic Analysis

The standard method used in design is the modal response using a design spectrum. This is a
linear method in which the inelastic behaviour is considered in the definition of the design
spectrum, through the use of a behaviour factor. This method is applicable to all types of
buildings, be they regular or irregular in plan and/or elevation. This approach permits the
multiple modes of response of a building to be taken into account. For each mode, a response
is read from the design spectrum, based on the modal frequency and the modal mass, and
they are then combined to provide an estimate of the total response of the structure.
There are computational advantages in using the response spectrum method of seismic
analysis for prediction of displacements and member forces in structuructure. The method
involves the calculation of only the maximum values of the displacements and member forces
in each mode using design spectra that are the average of several earthquake motions.
285
The response spectrum is the “design acceleration spectrum”, which refers to the average
smoothened plot of maximum acceleration called spectral acceleration coefficient, as a
function of the frequency of the structure for a specified damping ratio for earthquake
excitations at the base for a single degree freedom system.
For three dimensional seismic motions, the typical modal equation is written as
y(f)n T 2£nO)ny(t)n "F y(f)n — Pnx&(t') gx ~F Pny&(t)gy "F Pm^-OOgz (14.8)
Where the three Mode Participation Factors are defined by Pm = - <t>nT M, in which i is equal to
x, y or z. For input in one direction only, Eq. (4.8) is written as
y(On -F 2£nft>ny(t)n + 0)n y(t)n Pnfi(.^)g — (14-9)
Given a specified ground motion u(t)g, damping value and assuming p„j = -1.0 it is possible
to solve Eq.(14.9) at various values of co and plot a curve of the maximum peak response
y(w)MAx- For this acceleration input, the curve is by definition the displacement response
spectrum for the earthquake motion. A different curve will exist for each different value of
damping. A plot of (oy(o)MAX is defined as the pseudo-velocity spectrum and a plot of
<a2y(co)MAX is defined as the pseudo-acceleration spectrum.
14.2.2.1 Calculation of Modal Response

The maximum modal displacement, for a structural model, can now be calculated for a
typical mode n with period T„ and corresponding spectrum response value S(®>„). The
maximum modal response associated with period T„ is given by
, _ s(o)n)
y (Til) max = "771“ ...(14.10)
The maximum modal displacement response of the structural model is calculated from
un — y(Tn) MAX — (14.11)
The corresponding internal modal forces are calculated from standard matrix analysis using
the same equations as required in static analysis.
14.2.2.2 The CQC Method of Modal Combination

The most conservative method that is used to estimate a peak value of displacement or force
within a structure is to use the sum of the absolute of the modal response values. This
approach assumes that the maximum modal values, for all modes, occur at the same point in
time. Another very common approach is to use the Square Root of the Sum of the Squares,
SRSS, on the maximum modal values in order to estimate the values of displacement or
286
forces. The SRSS method assumes that all of the maximum modal values are statistically
independent. For 3D structures, in which a large number of frequencies are almost identical,
this assumption is not justified.
The relatively new method of modal combination is the Complete Quadratic Combination,
CQC, method that was first published in 1981. It is based on random vibration theories and
has found wide acceptance by most engineers and has been incorporated as an option in most
modem computer programs for seismic analysis.
The peak value of a typical force can now be estimated, from the maximum modal values, by
the CQC method with the application of the following double summation equation:
F= Y^LfnPnmfm
y n m ...(14.12)
Where, f„ is the modal force associated with mode n. The double summation is conducted
over all modes. Similar equations can be applied to node displacements, relative
displacements and base shears and overturning moments.
The cross-modal coefficients, pm„, for the CQC method with constant damping are
8<2(1 + r)r3/2
Pnm = (1 - r2)2 + 4{V(1 + r)2 (14.13)
where r = con i com and must be equal to or less than 1.0. It is important to note that the cross-
modal coefficient array is symmetric and all terms are positive.
14.2.2.3 Responce Spectra

According to IS1893:2002, high rise and irregular building must be analysed by the response
spectrum method. Response spectrum analysis is performed using mode superposition, where
free vibration modes are computed using eigen value analysis. The design acceleration
spectrum which is recommended by IS 1893:2002 [114] is shown in Fig. 14.5 are for 5%
damping factor. Damping is the effect of internal friction, slipping, sliding, etc. in reducing
the amplitude of vibration and is expressed as a function of critical damping.
The damping recommended for different types of buildings are as follows:
a) Steel and timber structures: 2 to 5% critical (2% is usually adopted)

b) Concrete and brick structures: 5 to 10% critical (5% is usually adopted)
c) Earth structures: 10 - 30% critical
287
ed
o
Spectral Acceleration Coefficient (S a/g)
u>
ol
oi
o
if)
r-‘
o
oiq
0.00.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period(s)
Fig. 14.5 Response Spectra for 5% Damping
14.2.3 Non-linear Static Analysis
This approach is also known as "pushover" analysis. A pattern of forces is applied to a

structural model that includes non-linear properties (such as steel yield), and the total force is
plotted against a reference displacement to define a capacity curve. This can then be
combined with a demand curve (typically in the form of an acceleration-displacement
response spectrum (ADRS)). This essentially reduces the problem to a SDOF system. The
‘Pushover’ analysis is a non-linear static analysis carried out under constant gravity loads and
monotonically increasing horizontal loads. It is applied essentially:
• To verify or revise the over strength ratio values.

• To estimate the expected plastic mechanisms and the distribution of damage.
• To assess the structural performance of existing or retrofitted buildings.
14.2.4 Non-linear Dynamic Analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes the combination of ground motion records with a detailed
structural model, therefore is capable of producing results with relatively low uncertainty. In
nonlinear dynamic analyses, the detailed structural model subjected to a ground-motion
record produces estimates of component deformations for each DOF in the model and the
modal responses are combined using schemes such as the square-root-sum-of-squares. In
288
non-linear dynamic analysis, the non-linear properties of the structure are considered as part
of a time domain analysis. This approach is the most rigorous, and is required by some
building codes for buildings of unusual configuration or of special importance. However, the
calculated response can be very sensitive to the characteristics of the individual ground
motion used as seismic input; therefore, several analyses are required using different ground
motion records.
143 Comparison of Seismic Analysis Methods

During earthquakes, buildings are generally subjected to large inertia forces, which cause
members of buildings to behave in a nonlinear manner, i.e. stress does not remain
proportional to strain in addition to nonlinearity associated with large deformations.
Earthquake shaking of the structure is a nonlinear dynamic problem and structural analysis
should be able to incorporate the nonlinear behavior of members for evaluating the actual
response of structures. Nonlinear analysis requires a lot of input data related to material and
properties and loads, which are generally difficult to obtain accurately. Experimental data are
not available in sufficient quantity to develop accurate analytical models for analysis
procedures to characterize nonlinear dynamic force-deformation behavior of members.
Further, the interpretation of analysis results requires a great deal of expertise and in-depth
understanding of the nonlinear behavior of structures.
Therefore, the national codes of a few countries recommend nonlinear analysis only for
highly irregular and important structures. In comparison, linear dynamic analysis is simpler
and adequately captures dynamic behavior in elastic range and therefore is a better indicator
of structural performance than ESMA. However, it fails to capture the capacity-related
information of structural members, which is only possible with nonlinear dynamic or static
procedures. A simple nonlinear static (push over) analysis is being used now-a-days for
certain projects, especially those related to seismic strengthening and rehabilitation.
The main purpose of linear dynamic analysis is to evaluate the time variation of stresses and
deformations in structures caused by arbitrary dynamic loads. As in any dynamic system,
vibrational properties of building can be estimated by solving Eigen value problem given by:
[k - o>n2m]0n = 0, where (on = 2rr / Tn ... (14.14)

Where k and m are the stiffness and mass matrices of buildings respectively, and oon, 0n and
T„ are the natural frequency, mode shape and natural period of buildings respectively, for the
nh mode.
289
Buildings can vibrate in different mode shapes, as shown in Fig. 14.3. There can be as many
mode shapes possible as number of dynamic degrees of freedom in the building. Dynamic
degrees of freedom in a structure are the number of independent coordinates in which the
structure can undergo motion under dynamic forces. Depending upon the building type, only
the first few mode shapes may govern the response of the building. Lateral displacement, u at
any point on buildings during earthquakes can be expressed as a linear combination of all the
mode shapes of buildings as given below:
i
... (14.15)
where q„ are the nth modal coordinates and N is the total number of modes.
Shear forces on the buildings can be estimated as stiffness times the lateral displacement.
Therefore, mode shapes of buildings play an important role in estimating the design base
shear for buildings.
The basic assumption in equivalent static method of analysis is that only the first mode of
vibration of building governs the dynamics and the effects of higher modes are not
significant; therefore, higher modes are not considered in the analysis. Thus, irrespective of
whether the building is regular or irregular, ESMA cannot adequately capture the true
behavior of multistory building; the design forces for the members may be grossly
underestimated. However, several uncertainties and approximations are involved in dynamic
analysis in describing the true dynamic loads, estimating the actual material and sectional
properties etc. Therefore, dynamic analysis must be used with great caution.
IS : 1893-2002 [114] has divided India into four seismic zones depending upon the seismic
hazard associated with different regions and recommends different analysis methods
depending upon height, location (zone) and configuration of buildings. ESMA is permitted
for regular buildings of height up to 90 m (~ 30 storeys) in lower seismic zones (zones II and
III), and of height up to 40 m (~ 13 storeys) in higher zones (zones IV and V). On the other
hand, for irregular buildings, ESMA can be used up to height of 40 m (~ 13 storeys) and 12 m
(~ 4 storeys) in lower and higher zones respectively. Linear dynamic analysis is required for
buildings not covered under the above restrictions.
290
14.4 Seismic Design Provisions for Composite Structures

Seismic design provisions for composite steel-concrete building construction have recently
been introduced in the United States and other countries. Similar to the seismic provisions for
other types of construction, the new seismic provisions for composite construction are forced-
based provisions, in which the structure is designed to resist reduced lateral forces. The
lateral forces used in design are often significantly smaller than those required to maintain the
structure elastic. The reduced lateral forces are computed using an equivalent static procedure
or a modal spectral analysis often referred to as dynamic procedure. In both procedures the
reduced lateral forces result from the use of linear design spectra and response modification
factors. Maximum lateral displacements are typically checked near the end of the design
process for serviceability requirements, by comparing the computed displacements to an
allowable upper limit on the maximum interstory drift. Lateral displacements are computed
as the displacements computed with a linear elastic analysis of the structure when subjected
to code-specified (reduced) lateral forces multiplied by a displacement amplification factor
that is intended to account for the inelastic deformation expected in the structure during
severe earthquake ground motions.
The design of buildings in seismic regions is often controlled by lateral stiffness required to
limit the maximum interstorey drifts below the maximum allowed by the code. Hence it is
particularly important to examine, how lateral deformation demands are estimated in seismic
provisions. The basic procedure consists on conducting a linear elastic structural analysis,
using a reduced set of forces. The displacements computed with the reduced set of forces are
significantly smaller than those that can actually occur in a structure, hence there is a need to
amplify them to take into account the inelastic behavior in the structure. In current seismic
design provisions the amplification of displacements is done thru the use of displacement
modification factor, which in the seismic provisions are commonly referred to as Cd- Hence
an adequate estimation of lateral displacement demands relies on an adequate estimation of
the ratio of the force modification factor, that reduces the lateral forces and the displacement
modification factor that amplifies the reduced displacements.
The 1997 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Regulation of
New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 1997a) and the recently presented 2000
International Building Code edition (BSSC, 2000) have similar criteria to compute the
maximum displacement demand. In the 1997 NEHRP provisions and IBC2000 the equation
291
to estimate ultimate lateral deflections, 8X, is given by
Sx=YSxe ...(14,16)
Where 5xe is the lateral deflection determined by an elastic analysis using equivalent lateral
forces (reduced forces), Cd is the deflection amplification factor, and I is the occupancy
importance factor. The elastic analysis of the seismic-force-resisting system is made using the
prescribed seismic base shear distributed along the height of the structure. If an equivalent
static lateral force procedure is used the seismic base shear, V, in any direction is computed
according to the following equation
V = CSW (14.17)
Where Cs is a period-dependent reduced seismic response coefficient that reflects the seismic
hazard in a specific region, and W is the weight of the structure. In these documents the
seismic response coefficient is defined as
Sps < Spi

Cc = (14.18)
R/I ~ T(R/I)
in which Sds is the design spectral response acceleration in the short period range, Sdi is the
design response acceleration at a period of 1.0 s., and R is a period-independent response
modification factor, that varies from 1.5 to 8 according to the structural material and
structural system. Response modification factors, R and deflection amplification factor Cd to
be used for different seismic force resisting systems are shown in Table 14.1. It can be seen
that response modification factors vary from 3.0 for moderately ductile resisting systems such
as ordinary composite moment frames to 8.0 for ductile resisting systems such as special
composite moment frame buildings or composite eccentrically braced systems. Deflection
amplification factors vary from 2.5 for moderately ductile resisting systems such as ordinary
composite moment frames to 5.5 for ductile resisting systems such as special composite
moment frame buildings.
292
Table 14.1 Force and Deflection Modification Factors
Basic Seismic Force Resisting Systems R Cd R/£20 OVR
Building Frame Systems
Composite eccentrically braced frame 8 2 4 4 0.5
Composite concentrically braced frame 5 2 4.5 2.5 0.9
Ordinary composite braced frame 3 2 3 1.5 1
Composite steel plate shear walls 6.5 2.5 5.5 2.6 0.85
Special composite RC shear walls with steel
6 2.5 5 2.4 0.83
elements
Ordinary composite RC shear walls with
5 2.5 4.5 2 0.9
steel elements
Moment Resisting Frame Systems
Special composite moment frame 8 3 5.5 2.7 0.69
Intermediate composite moment frame 5 3 4.5 1.7 0.9
Composite partially restrained frame 6 3 5.5 2 0.92
Ordinary composite moment frame 3 3 2.5 1 0,83
Dual Systems with Special Moment Frames Capable of Resisting at least 25%
of the Prescribed Seismic Forces
Composite eccentrically braced frame 8 2.5 4 3.2 0.5
Composite concentrically braced frame 6 2.5 5- 2.4 0.83
Composite steel plate shear walls 8 2.5 6.5 3.2 0.81

Special composite RC shear walls with steel
8 2.5 6.5 3.2 0.81
elements
Ordinary composite RC shear walls with
7 2.5 6 2.8 0.86
steel elements
Dual Systems with Intermediate Moment Frames Capable of Resisting at least
25% of the Prescribed Seismic Forces
Composite concentrically braced frame 5 2.5 4.5 2 0.9
Ordinary composite braced frame 4 2.5 3 1.6 0.75

Ordinary composite reinforced concrete
5.5 2.5 4.5 2.2 0.82
shear walls with steel elements
293
14.5 Design Example
14.5.1 The Problem

An example of 3D commercial composite frame building (G+l0-storey) is taken here. The
architectural plan and the structural layout of the composite frame building are shown in Fig.
14.6(a) and Fig. 14.6(b) respectively. A 3D view of the Composite frame building is also
shown in Fig. 14.7. In this problem only slabs and beams are composite while columns are
built up of steel. Brick masonry is used as outer periphery throughout the building; outer wall
is 230 mm thick. Here internal walls are considered as moving partition walls and their loads
are transferred to the subsequent members. Building is analyzed as bare frame and the weight
of brick masonry is added in beam elements. The building is analyzed and designed for
medium class soil, for various earthquake zones, using Equivalent Static Method ofAnalysis
and Response Spectrum Method of Analysis, The same building is also analyzed and
designed with concrete members. Designs are based as per the present Indian standard codal
provisions. Limit state method described in IS 800:2007 is adopted for the design. Eurocodes,
American codes and British codes are referred wherever the Indian code is silent. The
building is modeled, analyzed and designed with the help of STAAD.Pro V8i software. Here,
for the comparison of the results, best possible economical and efficient section sizes have
been selected, from optimization process and trial-error methods using advantages of post
processor mode of STAAD.Pro, for both concrete as well as composite structure.
{ All dimensions are in mm )
Figure 14.6(a) Typical Floor Plan of Composite Framed Building
294
14.5.2 Problem Statistics

Geometrical Data
Type of building Commercial
Location of building Vadodara (Gujarat)
Height of building from GL 38.5 m
Typical storey height 3.5 m
Width (B) of building 15.00 m (in X - direction)
Depth (D) of building 42.00 m (in Y — direction)
Material Data
Grade of concrete M 25
Yield strength of steel section 250 N/mm2
Yield strength of reinforcement 415 N/mm2
Unit weight of concrete 25 kN/m3
Unit weight of brick masonry 20 kN/m3
Loading Data
Dead Load (DL) at any typical floor level
Moving Partitions 1.50kN/m2
Floor Finishes 1.20 kN/m2
Weight of Metal Deck 0.15 kN/m2
Weight of Duct & Plastering 0.80 kN/m2
Dead Load (DL) at roof level

Weight of Metal Deck 0.15 kN/m2
False Ceiling; Ducts etc. 1.00 kN/m2
Screened concrete 50 mm thk 1.20 kN/m2
Live Load (LL) at any floor level 4.00 kN/m2

Earthquake Load (EL)
Zone factor As per Table 14.3
Importance factor 1.0
Response reduction factor 4.0 (Concentric braced frame)
(For composite building)
5.0 (SMRF) (For concrete building)
296
Table 14.3 Zone Factor
/nnc ill * * e
Zone Factor 0.36 0.24 0.16 0.1
Load factors
For dead load : : 1.50
1.50
For live load : : 1.50
1.50
Material Safety factors

For structural steel : 1.15
For reinforcement : 1.15
For concrete : 1.50
Load combinations
1) 1.5(DL + LL)
2) 1.2(DL + LL + EL in X)
3) 1.2(DL + LL - EL in X)
4) 1,2(DL + LL + EL in Z)
5) 1.2(DL + LL - EL in Z)
6) 1,5(DL + EL in X)
7) 1,5(DL - EL in X)
8) 1.5(DL + EL in Z)
9) 1.5(DL - EL in Z)
10) 0.9DL+ l.SELinX
11) 0.9DL -1.5EL in X
12) 0.9DL- l.SELinZ
13) 0.9DL - 1.5EL in Z
14) 1.2DL + 0.5LL + 2.5EL in X
15) 1.2DL + 0.5LL - 2.5EL in X
16) 1.2DL + 0.5LL + 2.5EL in Z
17) 1.2DL + 0.5LL - 2.5EL in Z
18) 0.9DL + 2.5EL in X
19) 0.9DL - 2.5EL in X
20) 0.9DL + 2.5EL in Z
21) 0.9DL - 2.5EL in Z
297
Note: It should be noted that, as per clause 12.2.3 ofIS 800-2007 [100], load combinations
from Sr. No. 14 to 21 are usedfor the design of bracings in case of composite structure.
The earthquake load as per IS 1893:2002 (Part-1) is defined for earthquake in horizontal
direction X (EQ-X) and Z (EQ-Z) in software and the required parameters for that are
defined.
14.5.3 Assumptions Made

Following are the assumptions made for arrangement of building, analysis and design:
> Floor,is made of reinforced cement concrete with steel deck acting as form work and
bottom reinforcement, with topping for floor finish.
> All beams, columns and bracings are made of steel.
> Stair stringers are made of channel sections (ISMC) with steps and landings of
chequered plates. Width of flight shall be 1000 mm. Stair well shall be open on sides
with 1.0 m high steel handrails with R.C.C. roof.
> Beams of topmost decks will be sloped (say 1:100) towards external sides for
drainage. It can be followed for intermediate decks also.
> Propped method of construction has been considered in this design.
> Steel concrete composite structure is designed by the limit state method using partial
safety factors for loads and material strengths as specified in IS 456:2000
> All beams are simply supported in longitudinal as well as lateral directions and the
concrete floor has been considered as diaphragm to transfer the horizontal loads to
the braced frames on rows and axes.
> Composite beam design is made as per AISC LRFD.
> The effective width of beam is taken as span/4 for T-beams and span/8 for L-beams
as per codal provisions.
> Stud shear connector is used and capacity is taken from IS 11384:1985.
> In absence of Indian code for composite slab with profiled deck, British code BS:
5950 - Part 4 is used for the design of composite slab.
14.5.4 Manual design of Composite Slab

Since there is no Indian code at present for composite slab design, British standard BS-5950-
Part 4 : Structural use of Steel Work in Building — code of practice for design of composite
slabs with profiled steel sheeting [93] and Eurocode 4 [7] are followed.
298
Effective span : 3.00 m

Total depth of slab : 125 mm
Live load on the floor : 4.0 kN/m2
Grade of concrete : M25
Density of concrete (Dry) : 24 kN/m3
Density of concrete (Wet) : 25 kN/m
Fig. 14.20 Composite Deck Slab Details
Slab is designed as a composite slab with 125 mm deep, spanning 3.00 m using metal deck
profile of thickness 1.20 mm considering Yield strength of steel, fyy = 345 N/mm2with
other dimensions as:

a = 27 mm; b = 48 mm; c = 30 mm; d = 50 mm;
e = 56.82 mm; f = 48 mm; h = 75mm
Trough Spacing = 126+ 180 = 306 mm
Thickness of sheet tp = 1.2 mm
Load Data
Dead Load
At any floor level:
Load from slab = 0.125 x 25 = 2.50 kN/m2
Total dead load =6.15 kN/m2 (including S/W of slab, partitions, floor finish, duct,
plastering &self-weight of profiled deck)
299
At roof level:
Total dead load = 5.00 x 1.50 = 7.50 kN/m2 (including S/W of slab, screed concrete, false
ceiling ducts etc. & self-weight of profiled deck)
Imposed load = 4.00 kN/m2 i.e. 4.00 x 1.50 = 6.00 kN/m2
Construction load = 1.50 kN/m2 i.e. 1.50 x 1.50 = 2.25 kN/m2
At construction stage
Total self weight = 2.50 + 0.15 = 2.65 kN/m2
Ultimate design moment at construction stage = 1.4*(1.5+2.65)*32/8 = 6.54 kN-m
Assuming simply supported deck slab, the moment is due to the positive (sagging) elastic
moment resistance of the section.
b 560
Check if
' 4%
560 560
Here, 30.15
Jfy t/345
48
t~ L2~ 40
b 560
-> -=
1
8281 181t
b„ 40.46 < b = 48.0
JT, i>4Ty
b = 48 mm in adopted
According to BS 5950: Part 4 - The stiffener area is not considered in the calculation of
compressive resistance of the plate
Neutral axis position
(48 * 2 + 65.8) * 60
27.46mm
(126 + 2 * 65.80 + 2 * 48)
Moment of inertia
I = 1.20* [48*2*(58.8-27.46)2 +126*27.462 +2*65.8*-^+2*65.8*(29.4- 27.46)2]
I = 275.13 * 103 mm4 / Trough

= 899.12 *103 mm4/m width
Depth of web in compression = (58.8 — 27.46) mm = 31.35 mm
300
14. Seismic Behaviour of a CornposU^jJuilding
d 31.35
26.12 . It is not necessary to check for local Bucki
t 1.20
Elastic section modulus Zc = 899.12 * 103/(59.4 — 27.46) = 28.15 * mm3/m
Elastic moment resistance of section (Sagging moment)
Me = (Ze * 0.93 * fy) = {(28.15* 10^*0.93 *(345*1 O’6)} = 9.03 kN-m >MU
After Construction
Bending moment on deck after construction = ^2.65 *^)= 2.98 kNm.
Equivalent stress in compression plate, o = 2.98/9.711 * 345 = 100.93 N/mnr

Using this stress,
b 48
-= ----= 40
t 1.2
560
= 56.74 (Here.fy = 5 )
y[Jy
b 560
7> 7S
b = 48 mm is adopted
828t 1811
1 - = 53.46 > b
£S JTy V bJTy.
b = 48 mm is adopted
X = 27.46 mm
I = 899.12*103 mm4/m width
Deflection of soffit of simply supported slab

2.65 * (3000)4
6= = 14.5 mm < (w) - 67 mm
384 205 * 103 * 899.12 * 103 ...... V 180
Since, the deflection is less than (span/180), the effects of ponding of concrete at greater
deflections are not being considered.
Composite Condition
Moment resistance of the composite section as a reinforced concrete slab, (using full shear
connection),
Area of deck, Ap = (126+65.8)*2*1 = 460.32 mm2/Trough
= 1504.31 mm2 / m
Tensile resistance = (0.93*348* 1504.31 * 10‘3) = 482.66 kN
Neutral axis depth into concrete,
301
482.66 * 103 482.66 * 103

*c ———------ — —————— — 48.27 mm
0-4 * fck * 103 0.4 * 25 * 103
Plastic moment resistance of composite section,

Mp = 482.66 * (125-48-48.27/2)*! 0~3 = 25.52 kN m
Applied moment in composite condition,

M„ = [1.6(4.0) +1.4(6.15)*(3.0)2/8] = 16.89 kN m
Check for shear-bond capacity
Bsds mrAP
Vu ' “f fck
1.254 -BSLV
Where, = Bsdd - Ac= (65+60/2)* 1000 = 95000 mm2, de= 95 mm, Ap = 1504.31 mm2 and
U= 3000/4 = 750 mm.

Typical values of empirical constants are
Mr = 130, kr= 0.004 and Vu = 28.45 kN
Applied ultimate shear force,
4Mu 4 * 16.89
V= = 22.52 < vu
L TO
Shear stress on concrete Vc = 22.52 * 103/95 * 103= 0.237 N/mm2.
This value is nominal as per BS 8110. Hence, the slab section is safe under shear stress on
concrete.
Check for deflection of composite slab

Properties of cracked section:
Neutral axis depth below upper surface on slab
Xe = de[V(«ep)2 + 2ffep - CCep]
ae =Modular Ration = 13
Ap 1504.31
P~ Tc ~ 95000 0.01584
aep =(0.01584*13) = 0.206

Xe= 95[tJ(0.206)2 + 2 * (0.206) - 0.206 ] = 23.60 mm
Moment of inertia of cracked section
(23.6)3
jc _ + 0.01584 * 95 * (95 - 23.6)2 + 899.12
3 * 13
= 8907.55 mm4/mm width (in steel units)
Service load on composite slab
Ws = 4.0 kN/m2
302
Deflection under service load

5 4.0 * (3000)2 * 10~3
------- * -------------------------------------------------- = 2.311 mm <
384 205 * 103 * 8907.5
Hence, OK.
Mesh reinforcement provided = 0.1% of cross-sectional area of concrete
This reinforcement is provided for crack control and fire resistance requirements. All primary
and secondary beams are designed as composite beam sections, as per BS 5950: Part 3 [93];
modified to suit IS code provisions.
As per the above provisions,

Pi
ae = Effective modular ratio and it is given by = as +----------
Where,
as= Short term modular ratio = 6 for normal weight concrete, as = Long term modular ratio =
18 for normal weight concrete and pt= Proportion of total loading which is ling term.
In this case,
Long tern load
= 1
Total load
ae = 6 + 1.0 (18 - 6) = 18 .
14.6 Structural Modelling in STAAD.Pro Environment

STAAD.Pro V8i is the most popular structural engineering software product for 3D model
generation, analysis and multi-material design. It has an intuitive, user-friendly GUI,
visualization tools, powerful analysis and design facilities and seamless integration to several
other modeling and design software products.
For static or dynamic analysis of bridges, containment structures, embedded structures

(tunnels and culverts), pipe racks, steel, concrete, aluminum or timber buildings, transmission
towers, stadiums or any other simple or complex structure, STAAD.Pro has been the choice
of design professionals around the world for their specific analysis needs. In the present
work, a Basement + Ground + 9 storeys, commercial building has been modeled, analyzed
and designed with the graphical environment of STAAD.Pro V8i, version 20.07.07.23.
303
14.6.1 Steps for Modelling a Composite Structure in STAAD.Pro

$ STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTteries 1) • ESMA Z_2
File Edit View Tools Select Geometry Commands Analyte Mode Window Help
liataiH p> l * j b :: * «& e® a*a 3 n »; tl M 51 ?

nv f
H 3. seismic in x
't ** m ffi u <} @ m cJs 0\ 4 G, »: F’t -f, @ 9 <* <• S
P^lodelio^ Post]
tto s in, Steel Design Concrete De
-a setup
II B
PI
Geometry
* ®Su
if |
fa General
So.
' SJ
‘ j
,
"P a r
Analysis/Prirt
N H F L [,
' 3| Com
U,
| Uh Design
■«
JPhy
For Help press F l Modeling Mo Load J : SEISMIC IN X Input Units: LN-m
Fig. 14.21 Model Generation in STAAD.Pro Software
> Create beams for one floor with the help of Geometry option as shown in Fig. 14.21,
> Translate created floor in Y-direction as shown in Fig. 14.22.
2 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 1) - ESMA Z_2
File Edit View Tools Select Geometry Commands Analyze Mode Window Help
.If ? nw £
□ &,a'-■* n*
At Q. & C* Q £ 3: SEISMIC INX
@ ? 4 « *
3 $SS ^
B...
.a setup
*
| I
PI...
f i f Geometry
■M Su .
fc
fa ‘ General
* +£
liJ So
» Par...
Analysis/Print
1H H P
T| Con
U, Design
J Phy...
Ai [
For Help press FlModeling Mo Load 3 SEISMIC IN XInput Units: LN-m
Fig. 14.22 Translation of Created Floor
304
P Define deck with the help of composite deck command as depicted in Fig. 14.23.
£ STAAD.Pro V8i 'SELECTseries 1) - ESMA Z_2 i ©
■ Composite Deck
£ & ad- h * e, y - s - • «st b :: * m a a * a m a n & a ^ Composite Deck
J®
-&■
S
P
P
<t>
a
a
a
n
*
a
<?
a
p
a
a
E Y _ROOF
a+
“*» Beam No 1051
™ Beam No. 1046
™> Beam No. 1045
k ™» Beam No. 1041
Beam No 1040
““ Beam No. 1036
New Deck
® Clicking on Nodes
Create New Deck
Use Selected Beams
Create Direction Update Deck Property
Concrete Properties
Concrete thickness above flutes : 0.125 m
Unit Wt. of Concrete : 25 kNAn3
Concrete Grade 25000 kN/m2
Rib Properties (m)
Use Database: None ▼
Rib Width 018 Rib Height 0 075
Stud Diameter Stud Length: 0.1
Custom w Shored
Shored
o Unshored
lo Load 3 : SEISfvlIC IW X Input Units kN-m
Fig. 14.23 Composite Deck Definition

> Select section from the section data base and attach to the structural elements with the
help of Property tab as shown in the screen shot given in Fig. 14.24.
i*i c# »i w *■>-' ci i# a a » a <s a ?k/< nw r b

Q Gtft^^SlcQIB'seQb la seismic wx »] ?
*k a 6*. a •: © a ' • ; ®r > 1 % -r
ostprores sing Steel Design Concrete Design RAM Connection ijm.iw Advanced
ns
Slab Design
0 ESMA 2 1 - Whol« Structure LsJL® IhaJ n ESMAZ_2-B*»n« o HHl3~l

M Property
•* Setup
llode A | Mod* B | Pi operty Refn. | M

I ESMA 2 2 - Beam B«an.
965 475 476 1 STB
Geometry Piopetty Loadng Composte Property Shear Bendng Deflection 965 476 477 7 STS
Geometry
987 475 478 5 STB

Spec
Beam no * 985 Section ISM8250 966 476 479 6 STB

969 477 480 8 STB
8
99C 478 479 1 STB’

f
I-Support
0225
G eneral
• Properties - Whole Structure

0 013
Section Beta Angle
Length -75
|
Ret Section Material

h- Load & Detrtron
llode | X-Coord | Y-Coord | Z-Coord | UNIT m

11- AnalysK/Prinl
1 ISMB250 STEEL
2 ISMB350 STEEL
3 ISME300 STEEL
4 ISLB300 STEEL
5 ISM6250 STEEL
6 ISHB350H STEEL
Releases 7 ISHB350 STEEL
Design
8 ISHB400 STEEL
Material
E eta Angle 0 Start MY MZ

Member J Hightght Assigned Geometry
End MYMZ
A
Ed* Delete
N
|
Fre Proofing
|
Change Releases At Start

Radn-s o> CurvaUe ___Values. Section Database Detne
Gamma Angie Change Releases At End
Materials Thickness
Assgnmert Method
» UseCusot To Assign
Assgn To Ed* List Assign To View
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LU.IUU. U.U mKtll) WUnh IH-m
Fig. 14.24 Attach Support Condition, Material and Sectional Properties
305
In STAAD.Pro, one can define the sectional properties from available database or one can
define his own desired sectional properties with the help of Create User Table command
(Fig. 14.25). These created user table with simple GUI can be loaded and attached to the
elements from Property tab.
Fig. 14.25 User Table Definition

Following 9 types of sections can be defined and attached to the geometry using Create User
Table command.
1. Wide Flange sections 4. Double Angle sections 7. Tube sections
2. Channel Sections 5. Tee Sections 8. I sections
3. Angle Sections 6. Pipe Sections 9. Prismatic sections
> Define end conditions for beams using Release command from specification menu.
> Define bracings as Truss/Tension members using specification menu.
> Define Master Slave command from specification menu as composite deck will act as
rigid diaphragm.
> Create basic loads as DL, LL, and EQ loads and make different load combinations (Fig.
14.26).
> Define seismic load in load definition with the help of Load & Definition menu.
> Under seismic load, define command for seismic weight calculation of the structure.
> Create basic load cases for dead load, live load and earthquake under Load cases details.
> For response spectrum analysis define Response spectrum load in basic Load cases.
> Also define load combinations under Load cases details.
306
STAAD.Pro V8t (SElfCTsenes 1) IDA 12

ii) a a B -1 cl e :: > s
Response
\ ** n ffj a .j @ a jjs @\ ■# g *
^ ^Modeling |Pi
Steel Design Concrete Des Combnation Method CSM
Load fit Definition l_S
It 0 IDA Z.2 - Whole Structure
(j> Definibons
* |£ Load Cases Details
a ♦ B 3 SEISMIC IN X
a ♦
♦ B
B 4 SEISMIC IN Z
1 DEAD LOAD
Interpolation Type t B 2 LIVE LOAD
t B 5 EQINX
- B 6 EQINZ
♦ C® SPECTRUM CSM 1893 Z 0.0125 ACC SCAl
e\ Dampng Type ♦ 0 11 1 5(D*L)

♦ 0 12 1 2(D«L*EX)
Darrpng
t 0 13 1 2JD+L-EX)
t 0 14 1 2)D+L+EZ|
• CDAMP t 0 15 1 2ID4.-EZ)
MDAMP ♦ 0 IS 1 5|D+£X)
Dependhg i4»n ♦ 0 17 15JD-EX)
1) Tmepenod
♦ 0 18 1.5(D*EZ)
2) Types ol sci
3) Dampeig ♦ 0 19 15JD-EZ)
T- * Other:
“ avefage response acceleration ♦ 0 20 030>1 5EX
Ef coelfiaentlSa/g). wJ oe calculated. Scale 1 7064 ♦ 0 21 0 90 1 5EX
— t! 0 22 090*1 5EZ
--
m | ♦ 0 23 09O-1.5EZ
• ! > ♦ 0 101 12D*0.5L*25EX
♦ 0 102 1 20*0 5L-25EX
♦ 0 103 1 2D*05L*25EZ
t5
t5 _ Toggle Load
Assignment Method
V
For Help press Fl TM.Imn W
Fig. 14.26 Response Spectrum Load Definition
14.6.2 Analysis and Design Using STAAD.Pro

After following all the above steps, select Analysis/Print command as shown in Fig. 14.27.
Fig. 14.27 Analysis/Print Command
307
With defining Analysis/print command, software will analyze the structure according to
defined type of analysis (Fig. 14.28). Print option will give results in output file in
accordance with selected option.
After defining Analysis/print command, run analysis and check output file for warnings and
errors if any. If any discrepancy is found, one has to apply corrections and run the analysis
again until all the errors are removed. After removing all the errors, define design parameters
and design commands.
For designing this building here I used design parameter given in IS 1893:2002 code are used
(Fig. 14.29) and various load combination should be given in Fig. 14.30.
STAAD-Pro V& (StlECTsenes 1) - [IDA 17 Rendered View]

3 File Edit View Tods Select Geometry Command; Anahce Mode Window Help
!ilH a e*: *:» i ii > «# *? >1 nv f b *

§1 (K $ $ C, ? Q H d 2 i IrsEiSMiciNX 13 !
A
X ai ft 35 @ S iS A r > ) B0
kS etu p
P re -P rin t
J STAAD Aralysis and Design

fee
1-
d t G e o m e try
++ Calculating Section Forces

-
A n a ly s is
1" v
++ Perforung Steel Design

++ Start Steel Design 12:27:56
++ Finished Design 11.120 sec
H

++ Start Steel Design 12 28 9
-*•*-»
G e n e ra l
++ Finished Design 1 380 sec

P o s t-P rin t

++ Start Steel Design 12 28 9
++ LRFD neater 1054 790 of 792
++ Finished Design 1 200 sec
«
/P r in t
++ Creating Displacenent File (DSP) 12:28:10

I
|
lAinta ly s islull
++ Creating Reaction File (REA) 12 28 11

++ Creating Mode Shape File (MSH)
++ Calculating Section Forces
++ Creating Section Force File (BMD) 12 28 14
++ SECT DISP aeiber 1180 1180 of 1188
++ Creating Section Displace File (SCN)
M
12 28 19
D e sig n | U
++ Creating Design intonation File (DGN)

++ Done 12 28:20
*
0 Error(s). 3 Uarnmg(s)
4
« End STAAD Pro Run Elapsed Tiae s 47 Secs

** Output Written to File
LDA Z_2 anl
f View Output Fie

C Gc to Post Processing Mode
<• Stay ri Modeling Mode Dene
Modeling Mo Input Units Hl-m
Fig. 14.28 Analysis of Structure in STAAD.Pro
308
mBmi a
ft IS; 1893 Seismic Pjrameterc
Define IS 1693 2002 Inpul ISeismic Psrimettrr ■■
ZoneFac
1#* 1$ 1833 - 2002 incWe Acc«S(rtal Load
Choc* Zone * 2* 01
GeneUe
Response Reduction Pei antelm Value | Unit
Steel Frame wth Concentre Braces i Zcr* 01

RrpofB* rrtjcton feels iW) 4
H«c*1ence recto* (1) 1
Importance Ft
rd :or -.it led* (SS) 2
Ai General Btidng 10 ' Type ot tmAn 2
C>»rnnjf*>(t*iri 3
' Penod nXC*ect«n<PX) tfCCfdl
Other Parami
' Period n l Ceecten (PZ) seccndt
Rock7SoiType M«tunSoi
PumoHOLrrKonrOT) 2 *
StaxhieT** Steel FraneBiiing
Dant^Rarc j * Fo(AlabwDeplh
Zer* Facia
Z PenodnX(seel I PenodrZ|sec)
Generate Cancel
Owe H«|p
Fig. 14.29 Seismic Parameters Definition
loed & Definition i a
1C loed Ceies Driaili

Edit ■ CombanMion Loed • E 3 SEISMIC IN X
C* 1833LOADX1
Define Comblnationt * E 4 SEISMIC IN 2
- E 1 DEAD LOAD
Load No '' Name 1 OT-C) bP SELFWEIGHT Y -1
O’
B* UNI GY 4 kN/m
Type
UNI GY 12 7 kN/m I
9 Normal Gcneial Format «.’A UNI GY •«7 kN/m
SRSS YRANGE 382382ONE 25YRAHGE07'
Fecrca GO
YRANGE 0 34 7 ONE -3 65 YRANGE 0 7 5
A8S dm«ji g7| YRANGE 33 3 38 2 ONE 2 S YRANGE 7 5
YRANGE 0 34 7 ONE 3 85 YRANGE 75 IE
ALoad Ca:a: Load Corrfcruton DefrtAon [SJ • SRSS E 2 LIVE ICAO
2 SEISMIC IN X ( Factor | E 5 EQINX
L o<d C m«
4 SEISMIC IN 2 E 8 EO IN 2
5 EQINX Load Cata 1 a, = 1 5 83 11 1 5iD*C|
6 EO IN 2 > Load Cata 2 a, = 1 5 B |15l»Lo*d1
» B |1 51 x Loed 2
E 12 1 3D»C*EX)
B 13 1 aO*LEX|
B 14 1 aO»L»E21
«
E 15 iaD.LEZI
<
Edr Defer*
Toggte Load
Aiugnmerrf Metforj
Close Hee>
On* h*>
L
Fig. 14.30 Definition of Load Cases and Load Combinations
309
14, Seismic Behaviour of a Composite Building
Here, a G+10 storied commercial building is designed as steel-concrete composite structure

as well as concrete structure to facilitate a comparison. In case of composite structure, beams
are designed as per AISC LRFD 3rd edition and columns are designed as per the
specifications of IS 800: 2007 [100]. While in case of concrete structure, all beams and
columns have been designed as per IS 456: 2000 and IS 13920: 1993 [119]. The parameters
defined for the above standards are as follows:
14.63 Composite beam design as per AISC-LRFD
The design of composite beams as per the 3rd edition of the American LRFD code has been
implemented.
Table 14.4 Composite Beam Design Parameters for AISC-LRFD
Name Default value Description
RBH 0.0 inches Rib Height

EFFW Value used in analysis Effective width of slab
FPC Value used in analysis Ultimate compressive strength of concrete
14.6.4 Steel design as per IS 800:2007
The design process follows the following design checks.
Slenderness
The slenderness ratio (KL/r) of compression members shall not exceed 180, and the
slenderness ratio (L/r) of tension members shall not exceed 400. The user can edit the default
values through MAIN and TMAIN parameters, as defined in the Design Parameter list.
Section Classification
The IS 800: 2007 specification allows inelastic deformation of section elements. Thus local
buckling becomes an important criterion. Steel sections are classified as Plastic, Compact,
Semi-Compact or Slender element sections depending upon their local buckling
characteristics. This classification is a function of the geometric properties of the section as
well as nature of the load the member is withstanding. The design procedures are different
depending on the section class. STAAD is capable of determining the section classification
for the standard shapes and design the section for the critical load case accordingly.
310
Tension
The criteria governing the capacity of Tension members are based on:
• Design Strength due to Yielding in Gross Section.
• Design Strength due to Rupture of Critical Section.
• Design Strength due to Block Shear.
The limit state of yielding in the gross section is intended to prevent excessive elongation of
the member, and the corresponding check is done as per Section 6.2 of the code. The Design
strength, involving rupture at the section with the net effective area, is evaluated as per
section 6.3 of the code. Here, number of bolts in the connection may be specified by the user
through the use of the design parameter ALPHA. The Design strength, involving block shear
at an end connection, is evaluated as per section 6.4 of the code. This criteria is made optional
by the parameter DBS. If the value of DBS is specified as 1, additional design parameters
AVG, AVN, ATG and ATN must be supplied to the program for that member. STAAD
calculates the tension capacity of a given member based on these three limit states.The Net
Section Area may be specified by the user through the use of the parameter NSF.
Compression
The design capacity of the section against Compressive Force, the guiding phenomenon is the
flexural buckling. The buckling strength of the member is affected by residual stress, initial
bow and accidental eccentricities of load.
To account for all these factors, the strength of the members subjected to axial compression is
defined by buckling class a, b, c or d as per Section 7.1.2.2 and Table 7 of the code.
Imperfection factor, obtained from buckling class, and Euler’s Buckling Stress ultimately
govern compressive force capacity of the section as per Section 7.1.2.
Shear
The design capacities of the section against Shear Force in major- and minor-axis directions
are evaluated as per Section 8.4 of the code, taking care of the following phenomena:
• Nominal Plastic Shear Resistance
• Resistance to Shear Buckling
311
Shear area of the sections are calculated as per Sec. 8.4.1.1. Nominal plastic shear resistance
is calculated as per Sec. 8.4.1.Among shear buckling design methods, Simple post-critical
method is adopted as per sec. 8.4.2.2(a).
Bending
The design bending moment capacity of a section is primarily dependent on whether the
member is laterally supported or unsupported.
If the member is laterally supported, then the design strength is calculated as per the
provisions of the Section 8.2.1 of the code, based on the following factors:
• Whether section with webs susceptible to shear buckling before yielding.
• Shear Force to Design Shear Strength Ratio.
• Section Classification.
If the member is laterally unsupported, then the design strength is calculated as per the
provisions of the Section 8.2.2 of the code, based on the following factors:
• Lateral Torsional Buckling.
• Section Classification.
Combined Interaction Check

Members subjected to various forces - axial, shear, moment, torsion - are checked against
combined interaction check. This interaction check is done taking care of two aspects -
• Section Strength and
• Overall Member Strength
Section Strength interaction ratio is calculated as per Sec. 9.3.1 of the code. Overall Member
Strength interaction ratio is calculated as per Sec. 9.3.2, taking care of the design parameters
PSI, CMX, CMY and CMZ.
14.6.5 STAAD.Pro Design Parameters as per IS 800:2007

The program contains a large number of parameter names which are required to perform
design and code checks. These parameter names, with their default values, are already listed
in the Table 13.7 of the previous chapter.
14.6.6 STAAD.Pro Concrete Design Parameters as per IS 13920:1993

Earthquake motion often induces force large enough to cause inelastic deformations in the
structure. If the structure is brittle, sudden failure could occur. But if the structure is made to
312
behave ductile, it will be able to sustain the earthquake effects better with some deflection
larger than the yield deflection by absorption of energy. Therefore ductility is also required as
an essential element for safety from sudden collapse during severe shocks. STAAD has the
capabilities of performing concrete design as per IS: 13920. While designing it satisfies all
provisions of IS: 456 - 2000 and IS: 13920 for beams and columns.
The program contains a number of parameters that are needed to perform design as per IS
13920. It accepts all parameters that are needed to perform design as per IS: 456. Over and
above it has some other parameters that are required only when designed is performed as per
IS: 13920. Default parameter values have been selected such that they are frequently used
numbers for conventional design requirements. These values may be changed to suit the
particular design being performed. Table 14.5 contains a complete list of the available
parameters and their default values. These design parameter presented in Fig. 14.30. It is
necessary to declare length and force units as Millimeter and Newton before performing the
concrete design.
Table 14.5 IS 13920:1993 Concrete Design Parameters
Parameter Default
Description
Nanie Value
FYMAIN 415 N/mm2 Yield stress for main reinforcing steel.
FYSEC 415 N/mm2 Yield stress for secondary reinforcing steel.
FC 30 N/mm2 Concrete yield stress.
25 mm For beam members.
CLEAR
40 mm For column members.
MINMAIN 10 mm Minimum main reinforcement bar size.
MAXMAIN 60 mm Maximum main reinforcement bar size.
MINSEC 8 mm Minimum secondary reinforcement bar size.
BEAM DESIGN
A value of 1.0 means the effect of axial force will be taken
into account for beam design.
BRACING 0.0 COLUMN DESIGN
1.0 means the column is unbraced about major axis.
2.0 means the column is unbraced about minor axis.
3.0 means the column is unbraced about both axis.
RATIO 4.0 Maximum % of longitudinal reinforcement in columns.
A value of 4.0 means longitudinal reinforcement in column
RFACE 4.0 is arranged equally along 4 faces.
A value of 2.0 for 2 faced distributions about major axis.
313
A value of 3.0 for 2 faced distributions about minor axis.
Ratio of effective length to actual length of column about

ELZ 1.0
major axis.
Ratio of effective length/actual length of column about
ELY 1.0
minor axis.
Tied column.
REINF 0.0
A value of 1.0 will mean spiral reinforcement.
BEAM DESIGN:
For TRACK = 0.0, output consists of reinforcement details
at START, MIDDLE and END.
For TRACK = 1.0, critical moments are printed in addition
to TRACK 0.0 output.
For TRACK = 2.0, required steel for intermediate sections
defined by N SECTION are printed in addition to TRACK
TRACK 0.0 1.0 output.
COLUMN DESIGN:
With TRACK = 0.0, reinforcement details are printed.
With TRACK = 1.0, column interaction analysis results are
printed in addition to TRACK 0.0 output.
With TRACK = 2.0, a schematic interaction diagram and
intermediate interaction values are printed in addition to
TRACK 1.0 output.
Minimum clear distance between main reinforcing bars in
SPSMAIN 25 mm beam and column. For column centre to centre distance
between main bars cannot exceed 300 mm.
Face of support location at start of beam. It is used to check
against shear at the face of the support in beam design. The
SFACE 0.0
parameter can also be used to check against shear at any
point from the start of the member.
Face of support location at end of beam. The parameter can
EFACE 0.0 also be used to check against shear at any point from the end
of the member.
Perform shear check against enhanced shear strength as per
Cl. 40.5 of IS: 456-2000.
ENSH = 1.0 means ordinary shear check to be performed
(no enhancement of shear strength at sections close to
ENSH 0.0 support) For ENSH = a positive value (say x), shear strength
will be enhanced up to a distance x from the start of the
member. This is used only when a span of a beam is
subdivided into two or more parts.
For ENSH = a negative value (say -y), shear strength will
314
14, Seismic Behaviour of a Composite Building
be enhanced up to a distance y from the end of the member.

If default value (0.0) is used the program will calculate
Length to Overall Depth ratio. If this ratio is greater than
2.5, shear strength will be enhanced at sections (< 2d) close
to support otherwise ordinary shear check will be
performed.
Distance of the start or end point of the member from its
RENSH 0.0 nearest support. This parameter is used only when a span of
a beam is subdivided into two or more parts.
Equivalent U.D.L on span of the beam. This load value must
be the unfactored load on span. During design the load value
is multiplied by a factor 1.2. If no UDL is defined, factored
EUDL None
shear force due to gravity load on span will be taken as zero.
No elastic or plastic moment will be calculated. Shear
design will be performed based on analysis result.
Gravity load number to be considered for calculating
GLD None equivalent UDL on span of the beam, in case no EUDL is
mentioned in the input.
Default value calculates elastic/plastic hogging and sagging
moments of resistance of beam at its ends.
A value of 1.0 means calculation of elastic/plastic hogging
and sagging moments of resistance of beam to be ignored at
start node of beam. This implies no support exists at start
node.
A value of -1.0 means calculation of elastic/plastic hogging
and sagging moments of resistance of beam to be considered
IPLM 0.0 at start node of beam. . This implies support exists at start
node.
A value of 2.0 means calculation of elastic/plastic hogging
and sagging moments of resistance of beam to be ignored at
end node of beam. This implies no support exists at end
node.
A value of -2.0 means calculation of elastic/plastic hogging
and sagging moments of resistance of beam to be considered
at end node of beam.This implies support exists at end node.
Default value means there will be no member combination.
A value of 1.0 means there will be no printout of sectional
force and critical load for combined member in the output.
COMBINE 0.0 A value of 2.0 means there will be printout of sectional
force for combined member in the output.
A value of 3.0 means there will be printout of both sectional
force and critical load for combined member in the output.
315
K.
'■
<8
*■
□
•
1
»
I
41
!
m
m
©
a
E3
B
y
^| |^*
Edrthqudke
Steel Design - Whole Structure
2J IDA Z.2 - Whole Structure
"* Sehfi
Cerent Code [aiSCLRFD

Design Parameters TT
Genmelry
j EFFV/1DTH V CHECK CODE

:F
Thk. ol corcrele slab «tb*. C 12$

General
ot core slab above the form

steel deckfTHKl
•V*
Length n current ints

yinalysis/Prlnl
I
_J PARAMETER 3
r
^ CHECK CODE
K K
lj.
Design
•*
J Hghight AsayedGeometiy
Toggle Assign
|i,
-I
I
A
3A
Assign T o View
» Use Ci**a To Assign
togntoEdlba I
Lead 1
t.to<l-lin
Fig. 14.30 Definition of Design Parameters

Here, the building has been designed for various earthquake zones using Equivalent Statie
Method of Analysis (ESMA) and Linear Dynamic Analysis (LDA) i.e. Response Spectrum
Method of Analysis. Results obtained using STAAD.PRO software are presented in Tables
14.6 to 14.36. While designing the structure, following parameters are compared:
1. Nodal displacements, support reactions, support moments, beam end forces and beam
end moments for two methods of earthquake analysis in case of composite structure.
Also above values have been compared for various earthquake zones.
2. Values obtained for composite structure are also compared with those obtained for
concrete structure in case of earthquake zone III.

3. Base shear, time period and frequency are compared in case of Response Spectrum
Method of Analysis for various earthquake zones.
4. Three basic mode shapes for various earthquake zones are compared in case of
composite structure.
5. In case of composite structure, in different earthquake zones, weight of the structure is
compared for Response Spectrum Method of Analysis and ESMA.
316
6. Base shear, time period and frequency are compared in case of Response Spectrum
Method of Analysis for composite and concrete structures in earthquake zone III.
Table 14.6 Nodal Displacement in EQ Zone II for Composite Structure

ESMA LDA
Max X 58.78 -10.59 3.53 50.75 -10.29 10.80
MinX -60.26 -23.89 -0.11 -50.76 -24.66 -8.31
Max Y 0.40 2.02 23.83 28.49 4.16 5.63
Min Y -1.51 -45.74 1.88 0.70 -46.24 0.87
Max Z -7.80 -16.03 53.79 4.13 -13.37 45.86
MinZ -11.75 -11.48 -53.60 -11.15 -11.49 -45.87
Table 14.7 Nodal Displacement in EQ Zone III for Composite Structure

ESMA LDA
Max X 81.81 -9.74 2.92 57.08 -8.04 5.00
MinX -83.95 -25.39 -0.47 -57.09 -22.34 -3.22
Max Y 0.11 3.05 37.30 36.39 4.38 2.74
Min Y -1.06 -45.47 1.31 0.00 -44.20 0.00
Max Z -6.92 -13.96 75.98 1.25 -9.41 54.91
MinZ -11.75 -11.03 -75.83 -6.26 -9.22 -54.92
Table 14.8 Nodal Displacement in EQ Zone IV for Composite Structure

ESMA LDA
Max X 97.14 -8.27 2.55 74.14 -7.07 4.54
MinX -99.70 -26.39 -0.21 -74.14 -24.52 -3.06
Max Y -0.06 4.16 53.23 2.30 6.52 52.37
Min Y 0.00 -45.17 -1.33 0.00 -44.70 0.00
Max Z -5.94 -11.20 102.51 1.37 -7.25 79.30
MinZ -11.56 -10.20 -102.30 -5.55 -8.89 -79.31
It is clear, from Tables 14.6 - 14.8, that the values obtained for nodal displacements by
Linear Dynamic Analysis are less compared to those obtained by Equivalent Static Method of
Analysis (ESMA), for all the three earthquake zones.
317
Table 14.9 Support Reactions in EQ Zone II for Composite Structure

ESMA LDA
Max Fx 124.32 1277.99 0.01 449.64 5192.98 208.77
Min Fx -117.37 1304.15 0.01 -449.63 1517.77 -208.75
Max Fy 0.22 8420.58 0.00 0.08 8423.48 0.00
Min Fy 14.04 -589.64 -89.69 -0.02 -608.85 -52.25
Max Fz 0.65 2184.30 123.58 199.78 4622.09 337.32
Min Fz -1.04 2183.45 -123.64 -199.76 2088.73 -337.29
■
Table 14.10 Support Reactions in EQ Zone III for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
209.69 808.76 -0.002 517.14 5843.48 202.19
Min Fx -198.8 850.53 0.055 -517.13 1285.22 -202.18
Max Fy 0.08 8421.10 0.00 0.00 8423.32 0.00
Min Fy 20.59 -921.47 -134.30 -0.09 -964.63 -84.33
Max Fz 0.08 1686.46 191.79 8.71 6832.42 455.79
Min Fz -0.69 1684.19 -191.95 -8.71 2459.55 -455.79
e 14.11 Support Reactions in EQ Zone IV for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
298.81 253.62 0.05 808.00 7413.04 304.34
Min Fx -286.14 -89.69 0.10 -808.00 366.34 -304.32
Max Fy -0.24 8425.10 0.00 0.14 8420.28 0.00
Min Fy -0.23 -1364.58 -201.90 -0.23 -1457.03 -135.33
Max Fz -0.25 986.63 289.00 1.52 7318.92 684.94
Min Fz -0.74 983.22 -289.19 -1.53 885.019 -684.95
From Tables 14.9 - 14.11, it can be seen that the support forces reactions in two orthogonal
directions are higher for LDA compared to ESMA. This is due to the reason that in LDA
effect of infill walls are not considered in analysis. It can also be seen from the tables that the
force in Y direction which is the force governing for the foundation design are very close to
each other in both the cases, i.e. ESMA and LDA.
318
Table 14.12 Support Moments in EQ Zone II for Composite Structure

ESMA LDA
Max Mx 98.15 0.00 -13.62 83.82 0.00 40.15
Min Mx -98.15 0.00 -9.24 -83.82 0.00 -43.86
Max My -0.53 0.00 180.12 0.00 0.00 2.60
Min My -90.32 0.00 -11.64 -16.68 0.00 -272.49
Max Mz -0.57 0.00 208.00 16.68 0.00 272.49
Min Mz 0.461 0.00 -210.89 -16.68 0.00 -272.49
Table 14.13 Support Moments in EQ Zone III for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
140.82 0.00 -14.89 110.90 0.00 36.66
Min Mx -140.82 0.00 -8.90 -110.90 0.00 -35.99
Max My -1.68 0.00 258.12 0.00 0.00 4.19
Min My -140.82 0.00 -8.90 -34.94 0.00 -0.32
Max Mz -1.28 0.00 303.92 16.70 0.00 277.36
Min Mz 1.00 0.00 -300.58 -16.70 0.00 -277.37
Table 14.14 Support Moments in EQ Zone IV for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
Max Mx 219.74 -0.001 -16.655 185.63 0.00 1.814
Min Mx -219.75 -0.002 -6.776 -185.63 0.00 -1.82
Max My -1.721 0.001 377.151 -0.012 0.00 0.193
Min My -219.75 -0.002 -6.776 -7.785 0.00 -524.335
Max Mz -1.31 0.00 448.75 7.789 0.00 524.34
Min Mz 0.909 -0.001 -456.59 -7.785 0.00 -524.33
It is clear from Tables 14.12 - 14.14, that the support moments in global X direction
comparatively low by LDA compared to ESMA. While for Z direction values of moments are
nearly same for both the methods of earthquake analysis. Thus, from Tables 14.9 to 14.14,
one can say that, the LDA will lead to lower size of foundations compared to ESMA.
319
Table 14.15 Beam End Forces in EQ Zone II for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
Max Fx 8420.58 -0.222 0.00 8423.48 -0.088 0.00
Min Fx -539.50 0.112 -11.906 -584.66 0.025 -6.901
Max Fy 0.00 198.37 0.00 0.00 198.93 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -199.97 0 0.00 -199.99 0.00
Max Fz 4270.20 -1.252 28.64 6344.96 9.439 26.25
Min Fz 5984.87 -1.688 -28.64 1621.44 -10.48 -26.25
Table 14.16 Beam End Forces in EQ Zone III for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
8421.10 -0.08 0.00 8423.32 -0.006 0.00
Min Fx -848.56 0.169 -19.618 -924.86 0.093 -9.76
Max Fy 0.00 198.23 0.00 0.00 202.02 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -199.97 0.00 0.00 -202.04 0.00
Max Fz 3797.92 -0.351 39.527 6634.19 8.717 34.27
Min Fz 6477.75 -1.123 -39.527 655.46 -8.864 -34.27
Table 14.17 Beam End Forces in EQ zone IV for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
Max Fx 8425.1 0.249 0.00 8420.28 -0.142 0.00
Min Fx -1274.66 0.239 -33.301 -1390.22 0.23 -10.06
Max Fy 0.00 198.02 0.00 0.00 201.87 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -199.96 0.00 0.00 -201.89 0.00
Max Fz 3126.83 0.04 59.46 6904.19 -15.591 57.21
Min Fz 7129.59 -0.858 -59.46 913.67 15.591 -57.21
It can be seen from Tables 14.15 - 14.17, that maximum values of Beam End Forces for all
i.e. Fx, Fy and Fz are almost same by both the methods of analysis for all the three
earthquake zones.
320
Table 14.18 Beam End Moments in EQ Zone II for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
Max Mx 23.81 0.00 0.00 28.98 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -23.87 0.00 0.00 -31.62 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 98.15 -9.24 0.00 83.82 41.08
Min My 0.00 -98.15 -13.62 0.00 -83.82 -44.79
Max Mz 0.00 0.573 208.00 0.00 16.685 272.49

Min Mz 0.475 0.00 -579.35 -0.335 0.00 -579.40
Table 14.19 Beam End Moments in EQ Zone III for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
Max Mx 30.37 0.00 0.00 34.68 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -30.88 0.00 0.00 -40.52 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 140.82 -8.908 0.00 110.90 36.50
Min My 0.00 -140.82 -14.892 0.00 -110.90 -35.825
Max Mz 0.001 1.283 303.92 0.00 16.70 277.36

Min Mz 0.32 0 -579.32 -2.98 0 -585.54
Table 14.20 Beam End Moments in EQ Zone IV for Composite Structure
ESMA LDA
Max Mx 37.34 0.00 0.00 51.18 0.00 0.00
Min Mx -39.28 0.00 0.00 -53.34 0.00 0.00
Max My 0.00 219.75 -6.77 0.00 185.63 33.83
Min My 0.00 -219.74 -16.65 0.00 -185.63 -33.84
Max Mz 0.00 1.31 448.75 0.00 7.827 524.34

Min Mz 0.296 0.00 -579.29 -3.151 0.00 -585.08
For all the three earthquake zones, Tables 14.18 - 14.20 show that the values of beam end
moments are nearly same with difference of about 5% in all the three global directions by
both the methods of analysis.
321
Table 14.21 Nodal Displacements in EQ Zone III by ESMA

Composite Structure Concrete Structure
82.38 -15.73 3.56 40.46 -12.29 -0.70
MinX -82.38 -27.81 -2.04 -40.46 -8.44 0.70
Max Y 0.73 3.48 47.83 -0.25 0.53 19.74
Min Y 0.40 -45.85 -0.67 0.00 -24.9 0.00
Max Z -3.53 -15.34 93.66 -0.37 -6.975 29.97
MinZ -7.81 -16.21 -93.66 0.38 -13.75 -29.98
Table 14.22 Nodal Displacements in EQ Zone III by LDA

59.66 -13.63 3.43 53.054 -9.58 0.034
MinX -59.66 -25.69 -2.38 -53.05 -14.77 0.027
Max Y 1.83 5.44 42.56 0.00 0.89 26.37
Min Y -0.63 -45.51 -1.05 0.02 -25.06 -0.003
Max Z 1.64 -11.04 64.36 -0.06 -12.31 39.59
MinZ -3.85 -14.16 -64.36 -0.07 -12.03 -39.6
In Tables 14.21 and 14.22, nodal displacements are compared in earthquake zone III for
composite and concrete structure. Here, displacement values for composite structure are
higher compared to concrete structure in both the methods. This is because of the end
conditions of the beams. In case of composite structure end conditions of the beams are
considered as flexible, while for concrete structure rigid end conditions are considered.
Table 14.23 Support Reactions in EQ Zone III by ESMA

Max Fx 237.28 1554.64 0.00 173.40 6240 5.44
Min Fx -237.28 1554.64 0.00 -173.69 10400 9.07
Max Fy 0.00 11205.21 0.00 -0.07 14689 0.00
Min Fy 16.12 -1263.33 -167.12 0.62 -285 -32.49
Max Fz -0.28 2415.17 254.77 -1.67 10439 181.68
Min Fz 0.28 2415.17 -254.77 -1.31 10438 -181.73
322
Tabic 14.24 Support Reactions in EQ Zone III by LDA

637.29 7860.64 -167.55 346.91 11213.52 -7.19
Min Fx -637.29 2968.92 167.55 346.91 11214.51 7.12
Max Fy 0.12 11208.80 0.00 -0.07 15467.52 0.00
Min Fy 27.34 -1349.68 -120.41 0.62 -308.66 -35.34
Max Fz 6.94 9829.58 627.41 -0.48 11305.73 355.17
Min Fz -6.94 3876.44 -627.41 0.48 11122.31 -355.24
Table 14.25 Support Moments in EQ Zone III by ESMA

262.96 0.00 -8.83 775.93 0.35 5.58
Min Mx -262.96 0.00 -3.47 -775.89 -0.49 6.78
Max My -142.66 0.00 2.65 5.35 1.61 773.88
Min My 226.55 0.00 -14.40 8.91 -1.7 -774.83
Max Mz -1.90 0.00 549.68 5.35 1.61 773.88
Min Mz 1.90 0.00 -549.68 8.91 -1.73 -774.83
Table 14.26 Support Moments in EQ Zone III by LDA

Max Mx 241.24 0.00 26.58 1366.88 -0.07 -0.19
Min Mx -241.24 0.00 -39.20 -1366.85 -0.07 0.19
Max My 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.90 462.46
Min My 11.92 0.00 869.44 -458.57 -0.23 -3.51
Max Mz 11.92 0.00 882.07 -6.87 -0.07 1332.36
Min Mz -11.92 0.00 -882.07 6.914 -0.07 -1332.36
In Table 14.23 to 14.26, Support reactions and moments obtained for composite and concrete
structure in EQ zone 111 are compared the reaction in downward direction (Fy) are much less
for composite structure. But, forces in the two orthogonal directions are higher compared to
those for concrete structure. Also the moments in two orthogonal horizontal directions for
composite structure are least. In short, one can say that the area required for the foundations
in case of composite structure will be less compared to that for concrete structure as values of
reactions in Y direction and moments in X and Z directions are less for composite structure.
323
Table 14.27 Beam End Forces in EQ Zone III by ESMA
Max Fx 11205.21 0.00 0.00 14689.2 0.07 0.00
Min Fx -1180.96 0.30 -22.53 -284.87 -0.62 -32.49
Max Fy 0.00 260.94 0.00 0.00 334.70 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -260.94 0.00 0.00 -335 0.00
Max Fz 5339.34 0.22 67.16 10438.67 1.67 181.68
Min Fz 8907.70 0.35 -67.16 10437.82 1.31 -181.73
Table 14.28 Beam End Forces in EQ Zone III by LDA
Max Fx 11208.80 0.126 0 15467.5 0.07 0.008
Min Fx -1286.88 0.205 -20.42 -308.66 -0.62 -35.34
Max Fy 0.00 262.16 0.00 0.00 369.19 0.00
Min Fy 0.00 -262.16 0.00 0.00 -369.18 0.00
Max Fz 9569.92 6.94 72.82 11305.73 0.551 355.17
Min Fz 3897.62 -8.67 -72.82 11122.31 -0.551 -355.24
Table 14.29 Beam End Moments in EQ Zone III by ESMA

Max Mx 33.33 0.00 0.00 6.66 0.00 216.47
Min Mx -62.27 0.00 0.00 -6.14 0.00 263.61
Max My 0.00 262.96 -3.47 -0.49 775.90 6.78
Min My 0.00 -262.96 -8.83 0.35 -776 5.58
Max Mz 0.00 1.90 549.68 1.61 -5.35 773.88
Min Mz 0.295 0.00 -762.06 -1.73 -8.91 -774.83
324
Table 14.30 Beam End Moments in EQ Zone III by LDA

Max Mx 47.87 0 0 17.29 0 217.24
Min Mx -89.67 0 0 -8.94 0 156.41
Max My 0.00 241.24 26.58 -0.07 1366.84 0.43
Min My 0.00 -241.24 -39.20 -0.07 -1366.8 -0.43
Max Mz 0.00 11.92 882.07 -0.07 7.16 1332.36
Min Mz 0.00 -11.92 -882.07 -0.07 -7.20 -1332.36
Beam end forces and moments for composite and concrete structures have been compared for
earthquake zone III in Table 14.27 to 14.30. Here, values of reactions as well as moments are
very less in all the directions for composite structure compared to concrete structure. Because
of lower values of forces and moments in case of composite structure, it is possible to have
lighter overall weight of the structure and thus reduction in seismic forces and base shear.
Table 14.31 Frequency and Time Period for Composite Structure
ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV
Time Time Time

MODE Frequency Frequency Frequency
Period Period Period
Cycles/ Second Cycles/ Second Cycles/ Second
Second Second Second
1 0.443 2.259 0.484 2.064 0.493 2.028

2 0.473 2.112 0.516 1.939 0.544 1.837
3 0.804 1.244 0.875 1.143 0.92 1.087
4 1.538 0.65 1.661 0.601 1.787 0.559
5 1.635 0.611 1.817 0.55 1.894 0.528
6 2.48 0.403 2.677 0.373 2.867 0.348
In Table 14.31, for various earthquake zones, frequencies and time period for first six mode
shapes have been compared. In each EQ zone, frequency increases with decrease in time
period.
Maximum shear force at each storey level for different earthquake zones is shown in Table
14.32. Here, shear in both principle directions are same but increases with increase of
earthquake zone.
325
Table 14.32 Storey Shear for Different EQ Zones for Composite Structure
STOREY Peak Storey Shear In kN

NO. ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV
X X X
11 191.53 195.98 384.12 394.43 573.59 596.40
10 431.31 419.54 741.00 717.79 1098.89 1078.27
9 573.28 533.54 940.43 858.67 1393.44 1283.09
8 634.96 563.27 1020.89 873.79 1514.02 1301.82
7 666.48 565.1 1 1069.56 875.58 1577.40 1307.82
6 714.94 603.39 1157.37 964.49 1699.41 1451.52
5 803.7 707.65 1309.45 1158.42 1927.73 1750.93
4 918.84 851.14 1495.58 1395.41 2216.32 2108.21
3 1027.84 988.92 1664.78 1608.40 2483.20 2424.19
2 1102.84 1087.89 1776.52 1754.92 2662.78 2638.99
1 1130.71 1130.71 1816.75 1816.75 2729.56 2729.56
Table 14.33 shows self weight of the composite frame for different methods of dynamic
analysis under different seismic zones. Here, increase in weight with increase of zone is only
about 8%, while corresponding increase in base shear (Table 14.32) is about 35%. Also
maximum difference in weight by different methods is 11.60%.
Table 14.33 Self Weight of Composite Frame for Different EQ Zones
Weight in kN Weight in Kg
ZONE Difference In %
ESMA LDA ESMA LDA
11 3377.41 3524.65 344376 359389 4.18
HI 3400.19 3846.21 346699 392177 11.60
IV 3512.35 3966.13 358135 404405 11.44
Frequencies and time period between composite and concrete structure for different mode
shapes have been compared in Table 14.34. for earthquake zone III. Basic mode shapes of
eleven-storey composite building for first three basic modes of vibration are depicted in Fig.
14.31 followed by results for frequency and time period for different zones and different
modes in Table 14.35 and 14.36.
326
Table 14.34 Frequency and Time Period for EQ Zone III

MODE Frequency Time Period Frequency Time Period
Cycles/Second Second Cycles/Second Second
1 0.484 2.064 0.516 1.940
2 0.516 1.939 0.576 1.736
3 0.875 1.143 0.582 1.718
4 1.661 0.601 1.331 0.752
5 1.817 0.55 1.494 0.670
6 2.677 0.373 1.594 0.627
Fig. 14.31 Basic Mode Shapes of an Eleven-Storey Composite Building

Table 14.35 Frequency and Time Period for Three Basic Mode Shapes
Is* MODE 2nd MODE 3rd MODE
ZONE Time Time Time

Frequency Frequency Frequency
Period
Cycles/Second Cycles/Second Cycles/Second
Second Second Second
II 0.443 2.259 1.635 0.611 2.48 0.403
III 0.484 2.064 1.817 0.55 2.677 0.373
IV 0.493 2.028 1.894 0.528 2.867 0.348
Table 14.36 Frequency and Time Period for Basic Mode Shapes

MODE Frequency Time Period Frequency Time Period
Cycles/Second Second Cycles/Second Second
1st 0.484 2.064 0.582 1.718

Q.
3
1.817 0.55 1.494 0.670

3rd 2.677 0.373 1.594 0.627
327
15. Conclusions and Future Scope
15.1 Summary
A great deal of experimental research has been conducted and reported in the literature to
improve the understanding of the general behaviour of steel-concrete composite slab, beam
and column. An essential component of composite beam is shear connection between steel
section and concrete or deck slab. This connection is provided by mechanical shear
connectors, which allow the transfer of forces in the concrete to steel and vice-versa and also
resist vertical uplift force at the steel-concrete interface. A steel-concrete composite column
is comprising of either a concrete encased hot-rolled steel section or a concrete filled tubular
section of hot-rolled steel and is generally used as a load bearing member in a composite
framed structure. With the use of composite column along with composite decking and
composite beams, it is possible to erect high-rise structure in an extremely efficient manner.
Complications in the analysis and design of composite structural elements have led numerous
researchers to develop simplified methods so as to eliminate a number of large scale tests
needed for the design. In the present work also, where possible, a simplified approach was
proposed for the design of composite slabs, beams and columns. The calculation of the limit
state of different types of composite structural elements was considered. Based on the
proposed approach, programs were developed in Visual Basic.NET environment with pre-
and post- processing facilities. Steel table was also interfaced. The use of each developed
program was illustrated with the help of screen shots of different menus and forms created for
supply of data and display of results for a variety of problems.
Genetic Algorithm based programs for the size optimization of various composite structural
components were developed and augmented to deal with configuration optimization of
composite trusses. An attempt was made, for the first time, to explore Genetic Algorithm for
the cost optimization of the composite structures.
328
The foil scale push out test, which is costly and time consuming, is generally used to
determine the capacity of shear connection and load-slip behaviour of the shear connector.
Hence analytical or mathematical models are required for the analysis. Due to the complexity
of the 3D stress-strain state, however, there is a limited success in the 3D modelling of push-
off test. In the present work, therefore, a 2D finite element modelling of push out test was
carried out using commercially available ‘ANSYS’ software package. The results obtained
from the 2D finite element analysis were verified against experimental results and
“ABAQUS” 3D model. A parametric study was also carried out to study the effects on the
capacity and behavior of shear connection by changing the profiled steel sheeting geometries,
the diameter and height of the headed stud, as well as the strength of concrete. The capacities
of shear connection obtained from the finite element analysis were finally compared with the
design strengths calculated using the British, American and European Codes. The behaviour
of simply supported composite beam was also modelled under the static concentrated and
distributed loading applied on the axis of the beam, under foil and partial shear connection
with different types of slabs. Detailed parametric study was carried using the finite element
method and results were compared with the available experimental results to confirm the
proposed modelling aspects.
Further, a parametric study of G+3 storied residential composite steel-concrete building was
carried out utilizing features of STAAD.Pro software with parameters as different types of
beam section, various country codes, orientation of column and type of concrete. Also,
earthquake analysis and design of a G+10 storied commercial building was carried out using
equivalent static method and response spectrum method. Best efficient and economical
section sizes were chosen through optimization process and results obtained were compared
to comment on the behaviour of the structure under different seismic zones.
15.2 Conclusions
1. The programming environment VB.NET selected in the present work, is found quite user
friendly due to its windows base menu driven facilities, easy syntax, powerful graphical
features, free threading, drag-and-drop design and availability of number of inbuilt
functions and object oriented concepts which has helped considerably in the faster
development of a number of programs. It also allows easy linking to database created in
Microsoft Access and SQL server to facilitate design with appropriate sections.
329
2. The program developed for composite slabs facilitates the design calculation by
considering the three phases of the M-4 behavior observed in composite critical cross-
sections. It requires knowledge of the geometric dimensions of the slab, the material
propertie„s and the characteristic behavior of the steel-concrete connection.
3. Composite steel-concrete section is relatively a new design concept in the Indian context
and no appropriate updated codes are available for the design of the same. A number of
programs developed in the present work, not only eliminates the costly experimentation
required for the design purpose but also facilitates design with multiple options for the
steel sections and shear connectors with adequacy checks.
4. A number of forms developed, as part of pre- and post- processors, to facilitate design of
different types of composite structural elements not only make the software very user
friendly and versatile but also makes the application of the software quite attractive.
5. The proposed computational method, for a number of composite columns with a variety
of steel sections encased in concrete and various concrete filled sections, is found to
provide very accurate results.
6. Genetic algorithm based methodology is found simple, elegant and mathematically less
complex, which can work even without the exact knowledge of the problem domain. In
terms of performance, it can be concluded that it is one of the most promising methods in
the field of optimization.
7. The GA based composite beam optimization program not only suggests optimum section
for given beam spacing but also gives optimum beam spacing and beam section which
helps in reducing the overall cost of the building.
8. From the results obtained from GA based optimization for column problems, it is found
that the software selects the concrete filled tubular section as an optimum. This confirms
the results reported in the literature of the concrete filled tubular column to have more
bearing capacity.
9. In conventional GA based truss configuration optimization, coordinates of joints are
considered as variables where number of variables depends on number ofjoints. For truss
having large number of joints, large number of variables will slow down the optimization
process. In the present study, only two design variables i.e. depth of truss and number of
panels define large number of possible configurations without joint coordinates. This
helps in finding optimum configuration for truss having large number of joints with
greater computational efficiency.
330
10. In warren truss problem percentage reduction in weight varies from 1 % to 7 % whereas
for pratt truss this percentage varies from 2% to 19%. For truss spans 18 m and above,
warren truss with vierendeel panel is found to be more efficient.
11. A two-dimensional model of push out test is developed to simulate the load-slip
characteristic of headed stud in solid reinforced concrete slab and deck slab. The model
takes into account the linear and non-linear material properties of concrete and shear stud.
2D finite element results are found in good agreement with the results available of
experimental push-out test and the specified data in the codes.
12. Through sensitivity analysis, focused on the assessment of the influence of small
variation in input parameters, it is possible to arrive at optimum section using the
developed software.
13. Parametric study of push out specimens with different size headed studs and concrete
strengths is successfully carried out using 2D finite element model. The results are found
within 5 % of those mentioned in Indian and Euro code.
14. The concrete strength is found to have a remarkable effect on the shear stud capacity and
load-slip behavior which is evident from the various graphs plotted in the present work.
15. A two-dimensional finite element model of composite beam developed in the present
work using the ANSYS software is found to provide the result of mid span deflection of
beam subjected to concentrated or uniformly distributed loads and longitudinal slip at the
steel-concrete interface in very close agreement with that of available experimental and
3D analysis results.
16. Despite the fact that the 3D models are able to accurately provide solution for wide range
of problems, a 2D or ID model could be the solution for some complex structural systems
due to numerical convergence aspect and processing time. It is clearly seen in the present
work that the proposed simplified 2D idealization takes almost one tenth of the computer
time taken by the 3D idealization of push-out test set-up.
17. In the composite plane frame optimization, all the design variable are discrete which are
stored in database form in the software. Moreover separate database are used to store the
sections for beams and columns. This helped the GA based software to arrive at optimum
solution quickly.
18. Keeping span and loading unaltered, smaller structural steel sections are required in
composite construction compared to non-composite construction. This reduction in over
all weight of the composite structure compared to a RCC structure results in less cost of
structure and foundation.
331
19. Not much variation in values of nodal displacements, support reactions, support moments,
beam end forces and beam end moments is found with the variation of deck profile.
However, it should be noted that in the software one can specify only rib height and rib
width; it does not consider effect of friction, thickness and other properties of material in
the calculations.
20. It is clear from Table 13.9 that the values of nodal displacements, support reactions and
support moments calculated by IS 800 are quite higher than those calculated by American
Code and Eurocode. Nodal displacements obtained using Indian code are about 15%
more than the other country codes. While support reactions are about 65% higher than the
AISC LRFD and 30% more than the Eurocode. This may be due to the combination
factor applied by the Indian Code; factor of safety is comparatively high. Thus, one can
say that the Eurocode and American code give more economical design compared to the
Indian code.
21. In the limit state design, the structure shall be designed to withstand safely all loads likely
to act on it throughout its life which gives values of nodal displacements about 35% to
40% more in LSD. Whereas in ASD, in load combinations involving seismic load, the
values of support reactions and support moments are about 12% to 17% more in all the
three directions.
22. From the results given in Table 13.13, for critical beam number 376, it is clear that the
section for the same beam of a column parallel to x - axis is lower (which is safe for
construction) than the column parallel to z-axis.
23. One of the disadvantages of the conventional concrete is the higher self weight compare
to the light weight concrete. The difference becomes larger if number of storey increases,
Due to the above reason, nodal displacements and support reactions are higher in case of
conventional concrete structure compare to the light weight concrete structure.
24. From the results given in Table 13.15, it is clear that by using light weight concrete
instead of conventional concrete, one can make the structure 15% lighter which will result
in the further saving due to the lighter foundation. While composite structure designed by
Eurocode and AISC LRFD gives almost the same weight of structure, the Indian limit
state design code gives about 12% higher value.
25.In G + 10 storied building, displacements obtained of the joints of the structure are less by
Linear Dynamic analysis (LDA) compared to those by Equivalent Static Method of
Analysis (ESMA). Though LDA gives somewhat higher support reactions than ESMA,
332
moments in case of LDA are less. Which makes the design of foundations by LDA
economical compared to ESMA.
26. Comparing the behavior of composite structure with concrete structure, it is clear from
the result, that the composite structure gives higher displacement of nodes as connections
are being considered as flexible against the concrete structure where joints are considered
as rigid. Also, a composite structure gives lesser size of substructure as support forces and
moments are less compared to concrete structure.
27. For medium class soil, base shear increases by about 35% for different earthquake zones
with increase in self weight by about 5-11%.
28. For steel structures, IS: 800 - 2007 specifies that only in zones II and III concentric
braced frames should be used. For higher zones it suggests the use of eccentric braced
frame. However, from the results obtained in case of composite structure it is clear that
the concentric braced frames may suffice the purpose in zone IV also.
29. From the analysis results it is quite clear that the composite construction is more suitable
to resist the earthquake forces compared to a R.C.C. construction.
30. The aforementioned advantages strongly advocate for the use of composite beams in
multistoried buildings. They are more significant, however, for medium to long spans
than for short spans.
31. In case of use of ISMB sections in conjunction with IS: 800-2007 provisions, for G+10
storey commercial building, the initial cost of steel concrete composite construction may
be 10-15% higher than the corresponding R.C.C. structure. But if one considers the
indirect cost also then the composite steel-concrete structure may prove cheaper.
32. Initial cost of R.C.C. construction is cheaper compare to steel or steel-concrete composite
construction. But steel-concrete composite structure is more efficient. It is cost effective
in almost all the cases provided the cost benefit analysis is carried out based on the life
cycle of structure.
33. Steel frames are ductile in behaviour under horizontal forces and concrete frames provide
stiffness to resist excessive displacement at the top of the structure. If used in
combination, steel-concrete composite frames provide strength, stiffness and ductility.
Such frames provide effective solution to the problems of design of high rise structures
and offer more resistance against the earthquake loads compared to RCC construction.
333
15.3 Future Scope

❖ A further research for development of new technologies in composite construction such
as slim-floor slabs with semi continuous connections to the columns, new steel sheets or
systems to minimize the time of erection and assembly is desirable.
❖ The idealizing assumption of beam-to-column connections as hinged or fully rigid due to
lack of more realistic guidance in view of modeling advocates for further research on
non-linear response of joints considering rotational stiffness, moment of resistance and
rotational capacity. Preparation of guidelines for modeling different type of connections
may also prove very helpful.
❖ Preparation of miniature specimens for testing may be thought of to avoid costly
experimentation generally carried out on full size models to known the exact behavior of
steel-concrete composite structural elements. A numerical analysis of the same will also
be highly desirable to correlate the data and result.
❖ Recent development in composite construction technology, which have successfully
transformed the market place in other countries, providing added value to the customers
and rapid return on the invested capital. These, if adopted in India for residential and
commercial building, could be very beneficial to the Indian community. In this regard,
development of suitable design aids may be very fruitful.
❖ The use of precast concrete and even the prestressed concrete component in certain
composite structure applications may prove fruitful as it has potential due to the economy
that can be achieved by these components in terms of time, labour and money.
❖ More complicated type of truss geometries can be tried. The through type of composite
truss can be attempted with a few modifications in analysis and design procedure.
❖ Some of the GA operators like inversion dominance segregation, deletion, duplication,
etc. which could not be implemented in the present work may be considered.
❖ In the present study the total cost of RCC slab and steel truss were included in the
objective function. However, the cost of the structure can be calculated precisely by
including labour cost, connection cost, stud connection cost and cost of reinforcement in
the objective function which will through light on the effect of each in cost minimization.
♦> Hybridization of different soft computing tools such as Artifical Neural Network, Genetic
Algorithms and Fuzzy Logic may be tried. The use of hybrid methods like Neuro-
Genetic, Fuzzy-Genetic, Neuro-Fuzzy-Genetic, etc. may prove fruitful in optimization of
composite construction.
334
❖ Due to the iterative nature of the algorithm, a large number of mathematical calculations
are required to be performed in GA based optimization which makes it computationally
inefficient. This problem can be avoided by using parallel/distributed processing
environment.
❖ The GA based composite frame program provides facility to select composite sections
from design tables of only two countries i.e. India and UK. Attempt may be made to add
design tables of other countries.
❖ GA based optimum design of composite space frame can be tried. However, large number
of design variables will slow down the optimization process considereably.
❖ Finite element analysis of composite slabs and beams with slip theory including non
linearity of material and geometry will be an useful extension of the present work.
❖ Different types of composite columns can be simulated under various loading conditions
using FEM and a database may be created for its practical use.
❖ Research in the field of fire resistance of composite structure is desirable to maximize
their potential use and to clearly understand how steel and concrete progressively lose
strength and stiffness at elevated temperatures.
❖ The use of fiber reinforced concrete, high strength concrete, self compacting concrete etc.
instead of the conventional concrete may be explored in steel-concrete composite
construction.
❖ Evaluation the performance of members, connections and connectors (e.g., shear
connectors) under severe cyclic and dynamic loading including shakedown behavior is
another field which may be of interest to the researchers.
❖ A hypothetical model or a program can be developed for design and analysis of
composite column that can be run as an external program in the STAAD.Pro software.
❖ The earthquake response of steel and composite building structures is a subject of much
interest; therefore there is much scope for research on the use of composite structures in
seismic areas. The use of fully and partially encased steel sections in reinforced concrete
is particularly beneficial for earthquake-resistant design. A further study on the suitability
of other types of composite structural systems for earthquake-resistant design is highly
recommended.
❖ The wind analysis of multi-storied composite structure can be carried out and charts can
be prepared for various wind pressure.
❖ Non-linear dynamic analysis can be carried out of various types of composite structure.
335
❖ Composite moment frame, consisting of steel beam and reinforced concrete column is
one type of hybrid system. Detailed parametric study of such systems under different
types of loadings is highly desirable.
❖ Seismic analysis and design of a composite G+30 storey or higher may throw some more
light on the cost effectiveness and efficiency of such structures.
❖ Detailed study of various types of composite bridges is another area which requires
immediate attention.
❖ A detailed study on beam with web opening, cellular and castellated beam, stub girder,
tapered fabricated beams, hauched beam in composite construction and comment on their
suitability under various conditions will be certainly helpful to the people involved in the
building industry.
❖ Design rules for composite construction have been developed gradually over the years
and have been undergoing improvements and updating till today. These progressive
changes resulted in more efficient uses of the constituent materials and led to better, less
expensive structures. There is no doubt that the search for further improvements in this
field will be certainly beneficial because it has very wide scope for further development.
336
References
1. IS 11384: “Code of Practice for Composite Construction in Structural Steel and

Concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1985.
2. Nethercoat D. A.: “Composite Construction”, Spon Press of the Taylor & Francis Group,
London, 2004.
3. Knowles P. R.: “Composite Steel and Concrete Construction”, Butterworth and Co.
Publishers, 1973.
4. Newmark N. M., Siess C. P. and Viest I. M.: “Test and Analysis of Composite Beams
with Incomplete Interaction”, Proc. Soc. Experimental Stress Analysis, Vol. 9, pp. 75-92,
1951.
5. Slutter R. G. and Driscoll G. C.: “Flexural Strength of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams”,
Journal of Structural Engineering”, ASCE, Vol. 91, pp. 71-99,1965.
6. Narayanan R., Kalyanaraman V., Santhakumar A. R., Seetharaman S., Satishkumar S. R.,
Arul S. and Senthil R.: “Teaching Resource of Structural Steel Design”, Vol. 2, Institute
for Steel Development and Growth (INSDAG), Kolkata, 2001.
7. EN 1994 Eurocode 4: “Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structure”, European
Committee, 2004.
8. EN 1993 Eurocode 3: “Design of Steel Structures”, European Committee, 2003.
9. Goldberg D. E.: “Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning”,
Pearson Education Asia Limited, 2000.
10. Deb K.: “Optimization for Engineering Design-Algorithm and Examples”, Prentice Hall
of India Private Limited, New Delhi, 1998.
11. Bandyopadhyay T. K.: “Current Trend and Future Scope of Steel Concrete Composite
Construction in India”, Journal of Steel in Construction, INSDAG, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 17-
32, January 2001.
12. Templeman J. and Vitter D.: “Visual Studio .NET”, The .NET Framework Black Book,
The Coriolis Group Publication, USA, 2005.
337
References
13. Rajeev S. and Krishnamoorthy C. S.: “Discrete Optimization of Structures using Genetic
Algorithms”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No.5, pp. 1233-1250,
May 1992.
14. Koumousis V. K. and Georgiou P. G.: “Genetic Algorithms in Discrete Optimization of

Steel Truss Roofs”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 8, No.3, pp.
309-325, July 1994.
15. Yang J. and Sob C. K.: “Structural Optimization by Genetic Algorithms with Tournament
Selection”, Journal of Computing in Civil engineering, ASCE, Vol. 11, No.3, pp. 195-
200, July 1997.
16. Kanwalpreet and Ramkrishnan C. V.: “Topology and Discrete Optimal Design of Trusses
using Genetic Algorithm and Object Oriented Methodology”, Proceedings of Structural
Engineering Convention, IIT- Bombay, pp. 535-544, 2000.
17. Krishnamoorthy C. S., Venkatesh P. P. and Sudarshan R.: “Object-Oriented Framework

for Genetic Algorithms with Application to Space Truss Optimization”, Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 66-75, January 2002.
18. Patodi S, C., Solanki N. K. and Panchal D. N.: “Optimum Design of RCC Structures via
Genetic Algorithm”, Proceedings of National Symposium on Futuristics of Concrete
Technology and Optimal Design of RCC Structures, Coimbatore, pp. 197-203, 2002.
19. Sabhahit N. and Hegde C.: “GA based Optimum Design of Prestressed Concrete Beam”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 31, No.3, pp. 167-174,2004.
20. Balling R. J., Briggs R. R. and Gillman K.: “Multiple Optimum Size/Shape/Topology
Designs for Skeletal Structures using a Genetic Algorithm”, Journal of Structural
engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No.7, pp. 1158-1165, 2006.
21. Chapman J. C.: “Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete- The Behaviour of
Composite Beams”, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 115-125, 1964.
22. Chapman J. C. and Balakrishnan S.: “Experiments on Composite Beams”, The Structural
Engineer, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 369-383, 1964.
23. Vallenilla C. R. and Bjorhovde R.: “Effective Width Criteria for Composite Beams”,
Journal of American Institute of Steel Construction, Fourth Quarter, pp. 169-175, 1985.
338
References
24. Leon R. T., Ammerman D., Lin J. and Robert D. M.: “Semi-rigid Composite Steel
Frames”, Journal of American Institute of Steel Construction, Fourth Quarter, pp. 147-
155,1987.
25. Vinnakota S., Foley C. M. and. Vinnakota M. R.: “Design of Partially or Fully Composite
Beams with Ribbed Metal Deck, using LRFD Specifications”, Journal of American
Institute of Steel Construction, Second Quarter, pp. 60-78,1988.
26. Razaqpur A. G. and Nofal M.: “A Finite Element for Modelling the Nonlinear Behaviour
of Shear Connectors in Composite Structures”, International Journal of Computers &
Structures, Vol. 32, No.l. pp. 169-174, 1989.
27. Lloyd R. M. and Wright H. D.: “Shear Connection between Composite Slabs and Steel
Beams”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 15, pp. 255-285,1990.
28. Hillman J. R. and Murrey T. M.: “Innovative floor systems” Proceedings of National
Steel Construction Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, American Institute of Steel
Constructions, pp. 1-12, 1990.
29. Chien E. Y. and Ritchie J. K.: “Composite Floor Systems - A Mature Design Option”,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 25, pp. 107-139,1993.
30. Daniels B. J. and Crisinel M.: “Composite Slab Behaviour and Strength Analysis. Part I
Calculation Procedure”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 1, Paper No.
2293,1993.
31. Daniels B. J. and Crisinel M.: “Composite Slab Behaviour and Strength Analysis. Part II:
Comparisons with Test Results and Parametric Analysis”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 1, Paper No. 4112, 1993.
32. Xiao Y., Choo B. S. and Nethercot D. A.: “Composite Connections in Steel and Concrete
- Experimental Behaviour of Composite Beam - Column Connections”, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 31, pp. 3-30, 1994.
33. Krige G. J. and Mahachi J.: “Dynamic Behaviour of Composite Floors”, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 34, Issues 2-3, pp. 249-269, 1995.
34. Hanswille G.: “Cracking of Concrete Mechanical Models of the Design Rules in
Eurocode 4”, Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete III, pp. 420-433, 1996.
339
References
35. Wang Y. C.: “Deflection of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams with Partial Shear
Interaction”, Journal of Structural Engg., Vol. 124, Issue 10, pp. 1159-1165, 3998.
36. Chung K. F. and Narayanan R.: “Composite Column Design to Eurocode 4”, Steel
Construction Institute, 2004.
37. Dissanayake U. I., Davison J. B. and Burgess I. W.: “Composite Beam Behaviour in
Braced Frames”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 49, pp. 271-289, 1999.
38. Gattesco N.: “Analytical Modeling of Nonlinear Behaviour of Composite Beams with
Deformable Connection”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 52, pp. 195-218,
1999.
39. Jasim N.: “Deflections of Partially Composite Beams with Linear Connector Density”,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 49, pp. 241-254, 1999.
40. Dissanayake U. I., Burgess I. W. and Davison J. B.: “Modelling of Plane Composite
Frames in Unpropped Construction”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, pp. 287-303, 2000.
41. Galambos T. V.: “Recent Research and Design Developments in Steel and Composite
Steel-Concrete Structures in USA”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 55,
pp. 289-303, 2000.
42. Chiew S. P., Lie S. T. and Dai C. W.: “Moment Resistance of Steel I-Beam to CFT
Column Connections”, Journal of Structural Engineering, pp. 1164-1172, October 2001.
43. -Fabbrocino G., Manffedi G. and Cosenza E.: “Ductility of Composite Beams under
Negative Bending: An Equivalence Index for Reinforcing Steel Classification”, Journal
of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 57, pp. 185-202, 2001.
44. Liew J. Y., Chen H. and Shanmugam N. E.: “Inelastic Analysis of Steel Frames with
Composite Beams”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 2, pp. 194-202,
February, 2001.
45. Tryland T., Hopperstad O. S. and Langseth M.: “Finite-Element Modeling of Beams
under Concentrated Loading”, Journal of Structural Engineering, pp. 176-185, February
2001.
46. Amadio C. and Fragiacomo M.: “Effective Width Evaluation for Steel-Concrete
Composite Beams”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 58, pp. 378-388,
2002.
340
References
47. Campione G. and Scibilia N.: “Beam-Column Behaviour of Concrete Filled Steel Tubes”,
Steel and Composite Structure, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 259-276,2002.
48. Hajjar J. F.: “Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Systems for Seismic Engineering”,
49. Mediratta S.: “Design of Composite Truss for Building”, Institute for Steel Development
and Growth (INSDAG), Kolkata, 2002.
50. Foutch D. A. and Yun S. Y.: “Modeling of Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Loads”,
51. Chen S.: “Load Carrying Capacity of Composite Slabs with Various End Constraints”,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research”, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 385-403, March 2003.
52. Miranda E. and Ruiz-Garcia J.: “Seismic Design Criteria for Composite Steel-Concrete
Building Structures”, NASCC Proceedings, Baltimore, 2003.
53. Sabelli R., Mahin S. and Chang C.: “Seismic Demands on Steel Braced Frame Buildings
with Buckling-Restrained Braces”, EERC Library, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research centerm, University of California, Berkerly.
54. Viest I. M. and Ivan M.: “Development of Design Rules for Composite Construction”,
Engineering Journal, Fourth Quarter, pp. 181-188, 2003.
55. Amadio C., Fedrigo C., Fragiacomo M. and Macorini L.: “Experimental Evaluation of
Effective Width in Steel-Concrete Composite Beams”, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 60, pp. 199-220, 2004.
56. Gopal S. R. and Manoharan P. D.: “Tests on Fiber Reinforced Concrete Filled Steel
Tubular Columns”, Journal of Steel and Composite Structures, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 37-48,
2004.
57. Liang Q. Q., Uy B., Bradford M. A. and Ronagh H. R.: “Strength Analysis of Steel-
Concrete Composite Beams in Combined Bending and Shear”, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 60, pp. 1109-1128, 2004.
58. Loh H.Y., Uy B. and Bradford M.A.: “The Effects of Partial Shear Connection in the
Hogging Moment Regions of Composite Beams Part II—Analytical Study”, Journal of
59. Neal S. and Johnson R.: “Design of Composite Truss”, The Steel Construction Institute,
Silwood Park, Ascot, Vol. 83, 2004.
341
References
60. Nie J., Fan J. and Cai C. S.: “Stiffness and Deflection of Steel-Concrete Composite
Beams under Negative Bending”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130,
No. 1842, 2004.
61. Sapountzakis E.J.: “Dynamic Analysis of Composite Steel-Concrete Structures with
Deformable Connection”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 82, pp. 717-729, 2004.
62. Spacone E. and El-Tawil S.: “Nonlinear Analysis of Steel-Concrete Composite

Structures”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 130, No. 2, pp. 159-168, 2004.
63. Thermou G. E., Elnashai A. S., Plumierc A. and Doneux C.: “Seismic Design and
Performance of Composite Frames”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 60,
pp.31-57, 2004.
64. Cheng C. T. and Chen C. C.: “Seismic Behaviour of Steel Beam and Reinforced Concrete
Column Connections”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 61, pp. 587-606,
2005.
65. Castro J. M., Elghazouli A. Y. and Izzuddin B. A.: “Modeling of the Panel Zone in Steel
and Composite Moment Frames”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 129-144, 2005.
66. El-Dardiry E. and Ji T.: “Modelling of the Dynamic Behaviour of Profiled Composite
Floors”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, pp. 567-579, 2006.
67. Han L. H., Yao G., Chen Z. and Yu Q.: “Experimental Behaviour of Steel Tube Confined
Concrete Columns”, Steel and Composite structures, Vol. 5, pp. 459-484, 2005.
68. Jurkiewiez B. and Hottier J. M.: “Static Behaviour of a Steel-Concrete Composite Beam
with an Innovative Horizontal Connection”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, pp.
1286-1300, 2005.
69. Lam D. and El-Lobody E.: “Behaviour of Headed Stud Shear Connectors in Composite
Beam”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 7, pp. 96-107, 2005.
70. Lee P. G., Shim C. S. and Chang S. P.: “Static and Fatigue Behaviour of Large Stud
Shear Connectors for Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges”, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, pp. 1270-1285, September 2005.
71. Vesey D. G., Kwan K. K. and Xu L.: “Case Studies in Steel and Composite Design”,
Steel and Composite Structures, Vol. 5, No. 2-3, pp. 247-258,2005.
342
References
72. Yao L. H., Chen Z. and Yu Q.: “Experimental Behaviours of Steel Tube Confined
Concrete Columns”, Journal Steel and Composite Structures, Vol. 5, No. 6, 2005.
73. Zeghichea J. and Chaouib K.: “An Experimental Behaviour, of Concrete-Filled Steel
Tubular Columns”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 61, pp. 53-66, 2005.
74. El-lobody E. and Young B.: “Performance of Shear Connection in Composite Beams with
Profiled Steel Sheeting”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp.
682-694, 2006.
75. Marciukaitis G., Jonaitis B. and Valivonis J.: “Analysis of Deflections of Composite
Slabs with Profiled Sheeting up to the Ultimate Moment”, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 62, pp. 820-830,2006.
76. Ranzi G., Gara F. and Ansourian P.: “General Method of Analysis for Composite Beams
with Longitudinal and Transverse Partial Interaction”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 84,
Issue 31-32, pp. 2373-2384, 2006.
77. Ranzi G., Gara F., Leoni G. and Bradford M. A.: “Analysis of Composite Beams with
Partial Shear Interaction using Available Modelling Techniques: A Comparative Study”,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 84, pp. 930-941, May 2006.
78. Vellasco S., Andrade S. A., Silva J. G., Lima L. R. and Brito O.: “A Parametric Analysis
of Steel and Composite Portal Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 28, pp. 543-556, March 2006.
79. Marimuthu V., Seetharaman S., Aral Jayachandran S., Chellappan A., Bandyopadhyay T.
K. and Datta D.: “Experimental Studies on Composite Deck Slabs to Determine the Hear-
Bond Characteristic (m-k) Values of the Embossed Profiled Sheet”, Journal of
80. Queiroz F. D., Vellasco P. C. and Nethercot D. A.: “Finite Element Modelling of
Composite Beams with Full and Partial Shear Connection”, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 505-521, 2007.
81. Yu Z., Ding F. and Cai C. S.: “Experimental Behaviour of Circular Concrete-Filled Steel
Tube Stub Columns”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 63, pp. 165-174,
2007.
343
References
82. Yahya S. and Kasim A.: “Effects of Concrete Nonlinear Modelling on the Analysis of
Push-out Test by Finite Element Method”, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.
743-747,2007.
83. Yassin A. Y. and Nethercot D. A.: “Cross-Sectional Properties of Complex Composite

Beams”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, pp. 195-212, 2007.
84. Wang J. F. and Li G. Q.: “A Practical Design Method for Semi-Rigid Composite Frames
under Vertical Loads”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 64, pp. 176-189,
2008.
85. Cheng L. and Chan C.: “Optimal Lateral Stiffness Design of Composite Steel and
Concrete Tall Frameworks”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, pp. 523-533, 2009.
86. Ernst S., Bridge R. Q. and Wheeler A.: “Push-Out Tests and a New Approach for the
Design of Secondary Composite Beam Shear Connections”, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 65, pp. 44-53, 2009.
87. Fan H., Lia Q. S., Tuanc A. Y. and Lihua X.: “Seismic Analysis of the World's Tallest
Building”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 65, pp. 1206-1215, 2009.
88. Jia Z. and Zhou X.: “Experimental Study on Vibration Behaviour of Cold-Form Steel
Concrete Composite Floor”, Journal of Computational Structural Engineering, pp. 715-
724, 2009.
89. Vasdravellis G., Valente M. and Castiglioni C.A.: “Dynamic Response of Composite
Frames with Different Shear Connection Degree”, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 65, pp. 2050-2061,2009.
90. Johnson R. P.: “Composite Structure of Steel and Concrete”, Blackwell Scientific
Publication (Third Edition), U.K., 2004.
91. Porter M. L. and Ekberg C. E,: “Design Recommendations for Steel Deck Floor Slabs”,
Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No.
STll,pp. 2121-2136, 1976.
92. EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Basis of Design and Actions on Structures, Part 1.1: Actions on
Structures - Densities, Self-weight and Imposed Loads, European Committee, 2002.
93. BS 5950: Structural Use of Steel work in Building, British Standards Institution, London,
2000.
344
References
94. EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings, European Committee, 2004.
95. Oehlers D. J. and Braford M. A.: “Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Members
Fundamental Behaviour”, Oxford Pergamon Press, 1995.
96. IS: 456: “Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 2000.
97. ETABS, Integrated Building Design Software - Users Guide, Computers and
Structures Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, 2005.
98. Nakasone Y. and Yoshimoto S. (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann Pub.): “Engineering

Analysis with ANSYS Software”, Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
99. Bourg D. M.: “Excel Scientific and Engineering Cookbook”, O'Reilly Publishers, pp.
442, 2006.
100. IS: 800: “Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel”, Limit State Method (LSM),
Bureau of Indian Standards New Delhi, 2007.
101. SP 6: Part I: Handbook for Structural Engineers - Structural Steel Sections, Bureau of
Indian Standards New Delhi, 1964.
102. Aral M. S. and Shoba A.: “Load and Resistance Factor Design [LFRD] Format for the
Design of Steel Structures for Indian Conditions”, Journal of Steel in Construction,
Kolkata, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2004.
103. Woldegiorgis B. and Kennedy L.: “Some Behavioural Aspects of Composite Trusses”,
Alberta, Canada, 1994.
104. Li A. and Krister C.: “Push-out Tests on Studs in High Strength and Normal Strength
Concrete.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 15-29, January
1996.
105. Lam D., Elliot K. S. and Nethercot D. A.: “Push-off Tests on Studs with Hollow-cored
Floor Slabs”, Journal of Structural Engineer, Vol. 76, No. 9, pp. 167-174, 1998.
106. Krishnamoorthy C. S.: “Finite Element Analysis: Theory and Programming”, Tata
McGraw-Hill, 1995.
107. _____ ANSYS Manual 10 and Theory Reference, 10th Edition, Swanson Analysis
Systems inc., Johnson Rd, Houston, Pennsylvania, 1996.
345
References
108. Kim B., Wright H. D. and Caims R.: “The Behaviour of Through-Deck Welded Shear
Connectors: An Experimental and Numerical Study”, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 57, pp. 1359-1380, 2001.
109. Jayas B. S. and Hosian M. U.: “Behaviour of Headed Studs in Composite Beams: Full-
size Tests”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, pp. 712-724,1989.
110. AISC 325-05: Steel Construction Manual-13, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, 2001.
111. Salari M., Spacone E., ASCE A. M., Benson P. S. and Frangopol D. M.: “Nonlinear FE
Analysis of Composite Beams with Deformable Shear Connectors”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 10, pp. 1148-1158,1998.
112. Ayoub A. and Filippou F.: “Mixed Formulation of Nonlinear Steel-Concrete Composite
Beam Element”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 371-381, March
2000.
113. Teraskiewicz J. S.: “Static and Fatigue Loading Behaviour of Simply Supported and
Continuous Composite Beams of Steel and Concrete”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
London, 1967.
114. IS: 1893 Part I: “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures - General
Provisions and Buildings”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
115. IS: 1786: High Strength Deformed Steel Bars and Wires for Concrete Reinforcement-
Specification, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2008.
116. IS: 875 Part I: Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings
and Structures, Dead Loads - Unit Weights of Building Material and Stored Materials,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1987.
117. _____“Handbook on Composite Construction of Multi-Storey Building- Design of A G+3

Storied Residential Building”, Institute for Steel Development and Growth (INSDAG)
Publication, Kolkata.
118. Ronald O. H. “Facts for Steel Buildings - Earthquakes and Seismic Design”, American
Institute of Steel Construction, 2009.
119. IS: 13920: “Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic
Forces”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1993.
346
Appendix -I List of Papers Published
1. Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “A Simplified Method for the Design of Composite
Slabs”, Proceedings of an International Conference on Recent Developments in Structural
Engineering (RDSE 2007), Manipal, pp. 1194-1200, Sept. 2007.
2. Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “Design of Composite Steel-Concrete Beams with
Processing in VB.NET5, Proceedings of a National Conference on Currents Trends in
Technology (NUCONE 2007), Nirma Institute of Technology, Ahmedabad, pp. 492-496,
Nov. 2007.
3. Panchal D. R., Patel H. H. and Patodi S. C.: “Design of Steel-Concrete Composite
Columns with Menu Driven Processing in VB.NET”, Proceedings of a National Seminar
on Recent Trends in Geotechnical and Structural Engineering (RTGSE 2007), Malaviya
National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, pp. 193-199, Dec. 2007.
4. Panchal D. R., Patel N. J. and Patodi S. C.: “A Software based on a Simplified Method of
Design of Composite Slabs and Beams55, Proceedings of an International Conference on
Challenges and Applications of Mathematical Modeling Techniques in Building Science
and Technology (CAM2TBST 2008), Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, Vol.
I, pp. 220-229, Feb. 2008.
5. Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “A Simplified Approach for the Analysis of Steel-
Concrete Composite Frame”, Proceedings of the National Conference on Currents Trends
in Technology (NUCONE 2008), Nirma Institute of Technology, Ahmedabad, pp. 405-
409, Nov. 2008.
6. Patel P. D., Panchal D. R., Solanki N. K. and Patodi S. C.: “Optimum Design of Steel-
Concrete Composite Columns using Genetic Algorithm”, Proceedings of the National
Conference on Currents Trends in Technology (NUCONE 2008), Nirma Institute of
Technology, Ahmedabad, pp.414-419, Nov. 2008.
7. Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “A Simplified Approach for the Design of Composite
Steel-Concrete Structural Elements”, Proceedings of the 6th Structural Engineering
347
List of Papers Published
Convention (SEC 2008), Structural Engineering Research Center, IIT Madras, Chennai,
pp. 29 -36, Dec. 2008.
8. Patel P. D., Solanki N. K., Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “Optimum Design of Steel-
Concrete Composite Beams Using Genetic Algorithm”, Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Vol. 21, pp. 25-31, Dec. 2008.
9. Solanki N. K., Patel R. H., Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “Limit State Design of
Composite Truss with Processing in VB.NET Environment”, Proceedings of the 6th
Structural Engineering Convention (SEC 2008), Structural Engineering Research Center,
IIT Madras, Chennai, pp. 497-506, Dec. 2008.
10. Solanki N. K., Patel R. H., Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “Design of Composite Trusses
Using Genetic Algorithm with Display of Configuration Optimization Process”,
Proceedings of an International conference on Advance in Concrete, Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering (ACSGE 2009), Birla Institute of Technology and Science,
Pilani, pp. 160, Oct. 2009.
11. Panchal D. R, Tamhane P. M. and Patodi S. C.: “Finite Element Modeling of Shear
Connection for Steel-Concrete Composite Slab and Beam”, Proceedings of an
International conference on Advance in Concrete, Structural and Geotechnical
Engineering (ACSGE 2009), Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, pp. 110,
Oct. 2009.
12. Patel R. H., Solanki N. K., Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “Configuration Optimization
of Composite Trusses Using Genetic Algorithm”, Proceedings of the National Conference
on Currents Trends in Technology (NUCONE 2009), Nirma Institute of Technology,
Ahmedabad, pp. 1 -6, Nov. 2009.
13. Panchal D. R, Tamhane P. M. and Patodi S. C.: “2D Finite Element Analysis with
Parametric Study of Shear Connection in Composite Beam with Profiled Steel Deck”,
Proceedings of a 3rd International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation
(ICCMS 2009), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, 151-154, Dec. 2009.
14. Patodi S. C. and Panchal D. R.: “State-of-the-art of Analysis and Design of Composite
Steel-Concrete Structures”, Structural Engineering Digest, Official Publication of the
Indian Association of Structural Engineers (lAStructE), New Delhi, pp. 20 - 25, March-
April 2009.
15. Panchal D. R., Tamhane P. M. and Patodi S. C., “Finite Element Modeling of Steel-
Concrete Composite Beam”, Proceedings of the National Conference on Emerging Vistas
348
List of Papers Published
of Technology in 21st Century (NCEVT 2009), Parul Institute of Technology, Vadodara,

pp. 51 - 55, Sept. 2009.
16. Panchal D. R., Pandya S. N. and Patodi S. C.: “Modeling and Parametric Study of A
Typical Building using Steel-Concrete Composite Option”, National Conference on
Current Trends of Research & Development in Civil & Environmental Engineering: An
Indian Perspective (CRDCE 2010) SVIT, Vasad, Gujarat, pp. 20, Jan. 2010,
17. Panchal D. R, Tamhane P. M. and Patodi S. C.: “Simplified Analysis with 2D Finite
Element Modeling of Composite Structures”, Proceeding of the International Conference
on Materials Mechanics and Management (IMMM 2010), College of Engineering
Trivandrum, Kerala, Vol. 2, 758-767, Jan. 2010.
18. Panchal D. R, Solanki N. K., Prajapati S. L. and Patodi S. C.: “Optimum Design of steel-
concrete Composite Frame Using Genetic Algoritham”, Journal of Steel in Construction,
Institute for Steel Development & Growth, Kolkata, pp. 1-12, Jan. 2010.
19. Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “Response of A Steel-Concrete Composite Building Vis-
A-Vis A R.C.C. Building Under Seisimic Forces”, Journal of New Building Materials and
Construction World, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 186-199, August 2010.
20. Panchal D. R. and Patodi S. C.: “Parametric Study of G+3 Storied Composite Steel-
Concrete Building”, 1st International Conference on Current Trends in Technology
(NUiCONE 2010), Nirma Institute of Technology, Ahmedabad, Dec. 2010 (Paper Under
Communication).
349
Contribution
A number of user friendly software developed in the present work withVre- and post-
\ " ' ' /
processing capabilities coupled with section database availability at the back *ew,d for tlj^’
analysis and design of a variety of composite elements such as slab, beam and column based
on the latest available codes may promote the use of such steel-concrete composite elements
in the construction industry; which has not become so common yet, particularly in India.
Although composite construction leads to an economical solution with high durability, rapid
erection and superior seismic performance characteristics, it can be further economized by
using the GA based optimum design software. Thus, a paradigm shift has been achieved in
the current work through the introduction of GA based optimization methodology in the
design of composite structures. The effectiveness of the suggested methodology has been
successfully demonstrated in the thesis by including a variety of examples of optimum design
of slabs, beams, columns, frames and trusses. It may be considered as the most significant
contribution of the present work.
There is a growing need to switch from experimental study to numerical modeling of push-
out test which is generally canned out to find the capacity of shear connector and the amount
of slip at the interface between steel beam and slab. In the present work, a simplified 2D
finite element model was proposed to simulate the push-out test using “ANSYS’' software.
The results of this FE model were validated by comparing with those of various country
codes and “ABAQUS” 3D models; results were found quite encouraging. Hence user, sitting
on a PC, can take as many re-runs with different size headed studs and concrete strength to
ensure proper composite action in steel-concrete composite beams and can thus avoid the
costly experimentation.
The evaluation of seismic resistance of composite structures has been attempted by some of
the researchers but to a limited extend. In the present work, the seismic performance of G+3
and G+10 storied composite steel-concrete buildings was evaluated with detailed parametric
study using STAAD.Pro software via limit state method, considering new IS: 800, AISC and
BS codes. Moreover, the behavior of a steel-concrete composite building vis-a-vis a R.C.C.
building under seismic forces was critically examined. The results of this parametric and
comparative study may serve as a valuable guide line to practicing engineers in selecting the
appropriate composite section and methodology to achieve the best.

Augmented Analysis and Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Augmented Analysis and Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Augmented Analysis and Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What challenges does the author address?

What challenges does the author address?

AUGMENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF y

COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Applied Mechanics Department

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

For the Degree of

Applied Mechanics Department

materials, environmental impact etc. have greatly influenced the people

involved in the research, teaching, design, fabrication and construction. In

construction. Use of composite or hybrid material is of particular interest,

due to its significant potential in improving the overall performance through

rather modest changes in manufacturing and constructional technologies.

In steel-concrete composite construction, structural steel work is typically

frame may perform as a composite assemblage. The use of composite

depths and faster construction and earthquake resistance. However, in India,

For the size optimization of steel-concrete composite beams, composite

A parametric study of G+3 storied residential composite building is carried

This is to certify that the thesis entitfecf AUGMENTED ANALYSIS AND

Dr. 1.1. Pandya

I feel immensely pleased to reveal my deep and genuine gratitude to my respected

1 am specially indebted to Dr. N. K. Solanki. Assistant Professor, Applied

October 2010 D. R.Panchal

2. Genetic Algorithm - An Overview

4. Development of Program for Composite Slabs

6. Development of Program for Composite Columns 104-129

7. Simplified Analysis and Design of Composite Frames 130-138

8. GA Based Optimization of Composite Elements 139-162

9. GA Based Optimum Design of Composite Frames 163-182

10. GA Based Optimization of Composite Trusses 183-207

11. FE Modeling of Shear Connection 208-232

12.2 Elements Selected

13. Parametric Study of A Composite Steel-Concrete Building 245-282

14. Seismic Behaviour of A Composite Building 283-327

15. Conclusions and Future Scope 328-336

1.1 Introduction to Composite Construction

In composite construction, composite slab is defined as a slab system comprising normal

1.2 Advantages of Composite Construction

Composite construction offers following advantages [6] over non-composite construction:

• Effective utilisation of material: In composite construction, RCC slab is in

1.3 Limit State Method for Composite Construction

The important serviceability limit states to be considered are:

1.3.2 Structural Analysis

1.4 GA As An Optimization Technique

1.5 Scope And Objectives of The Present Work

The growing body of experimental research is increasingly providing engineers with

1.6 Organization of The Thesis

Chapter 3 is devoted to detailed review of literature based on the experimental, numerical

Chapter 6 is devoted to tire design of composite columns where a program is developed

In Chapter 9, GA based optimization module is augmented to tackle problems of moment

In Chapter 13, a 3D model of G+3 storey buildings is developed in STAAD.Pro software

Chapter 14 is devoted to highlight the significant advantages of use of multi-storey

The technical terms related to GA are as follows:

2.2 Working of Genetic Algorithm

Fig 2.1 Schematic Diagram of GA Based Optimization

2.3 Coding of Design Variables

Offspring! =a Parentl + (l-a) Parent2