Computers & SlrwturesVol. II,pp.

233-237
Pergamon Press Ltd., 1980. Printed in Great Britain

THE ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE BEAMS USING

STANDARD FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAMS

M. J. S. HIRST and M. F. YEO

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000

(Received 18 December 1978;received for publication 30 January 1979)

Abstract-The paper describes how a model using only standard finite elements can be made equivalent to a
connecting system in composite construction. Using standard elements and not special slip elements enables
composite construction to be analysed by the standard finite element packages now widely available. The method is
applied to both the elastic analysis and ultimate load analysis of composite beams and gives results in close
agreement to either experimental or other established analytical results.

INTRODUCTION can then be represented by a grid of standard elements in

Composite beams of steel and concrete have been used plane stress or strain as shown in Fig. l(b). Although any
in buildings and bridges for many years and during this standard plane element could be used the results in this
time many research programmes, both experimental and paper were obtained using an eight noded curved
analytical, have led to an understanding of their parabolic isoparametric element in plane stress.
behaviour. This, in turn, has led to simple design rules Differences in the width of beam flange or web can be
and Codes of Practice. While such design rules are incorporated by varying element properties. Again if the
adequate for many situations, on occasions a more concrete slab is very wide, an effective width can still be
detailed method of analysis is required which takes ac- used on the same basis as the standard beam idealisa-
count of all the principal parameters. Such a procedure is tions.
the finite element method which is already widely used Such a mesh yields two separate element arrays
for research into the behaviour of composite representative of both steel beam and concrete slab.
construction [ 1,2].
Finite element analysis is also finding increasing use in
the design office with the advent of standard computer ,R.C. Slab
I-A Stud connectors 7
programs and a widening expertise is now available for
the analysis of continuous structures using finite element
techniques. However, analysis of composite construction
is complicated by a structural discontinuity with slip
between steel and concrete components on their com-
mon interface. Finite element representation of this in-
terfaciai slip is usually achieved by using special slip or Section A _ A
LA
boundary elements. While such a representation presents (a)
little problem to the researcher with a wide array of special Steel/Concrete Interface
elements at his disposal, it cannot be used by a designer
limited to the standard elements available with most
Fwte Elements for concrete slab, 7
common packages.
This paper shows how it is possible to modify the
material properties of standard finite elements to make
them equivalent to a connecting system in composite
construction. The method thus permits the use of stan-
dard computer programs for analysis in the elastic range Finite Elements for steel beam /
and also to predict the full load deflection characteristics
(b)
of a composite beam up to ultimate load.

FINITEELEMENTREPRESENTATION
For design the composite system comprising steel
beam, concrete slab, and stud connectors, as shown in
Fig. l(a), is usually considered as a beam (wide flanges
being taken into account by the use of effective widths Nodes f -1, separate
when calculating section properties). Such an idealisation
(d)
yields satisfactory results for design and so for this paper
the finite element representation is limited to two Fig. 1. (a). Typical steel/concrete composite beam. (b). Typical
dimensional analysis, accounting for the beam’s finite finite element idealisation. (c). Diagrammatic cross section
depth but not considering full three dimensional inter- through connecting elements. (d). Separation of adjacent connec-
action of beam and slab. Both steel beam and concrete ting elements along the span.

233
234 M. J. S. HIRSTand M. F.
They must now be connected together in some way to
model the stud connectors across the real interface. This
can be done quite simply by connecting the row of nodes
(c) shown in Fig. l(b) on the concrete to a row of
independent nodes (f) using standard quadrilateral ele-
ments and then similarly connecting nodes (f) to nodes
(s) on the steel beam. The section in Fig. l(c) shows this
arrangement with all elements in separate planes for
illustration whereas for analysis nodes (c), (s) and (f) are
regarded by the computer as being in the same plane.
The location of the row of independent nodes (f) and
the thickness of the connecting elements is irrelevant as
far as the analysis is concerned since the material pro-
perties of these elements are adjusted to made them
equivalent in both strength and stiffness to the actual
stud connectors. However to avoid the numerical prob-
lems often associated with high aspect ratio elements it is
beneficial to position nodes (f) such that the equivalent
connecting elements are approximately square.
The real interface connection is a set of discrete studs
which primarily transfer only shear across the
steel/concrete interface. However, unlike the studs the
two dimensional connecting elements can carry both
shear and direct forces. The finite element model there-
fore must be modified if it is to effectively represent only
the shear carrying studs. Transfer of longitudinal forces
by direct stress in the elements can be minimised by
separating each pair of elements longitudinally as shown
in Fig. l(d). Transfer of direct stress across the interface
by the elements can be prevented by adding pin jointed
bar elements of effective infinite stifInesst between
nodes (c) and (s). This arrangement fixes the relative
vertical positions of nodes (c) and (s). Any tension
cracking along the interface which may occur in practice
is thus prevented and this represents a restriction of the
present finite element model. However, subsequent ap-
plication shows that although this finite element model is
not truly representative it yields results of comparable
accuracy to other methods while still using an arrange-
ment of standard elements. If cracking is considered
significant it could be represented by a refined model
which’permits failure of these bar elements.
PROPERTIES
OF THECONNWTLNG
ELEMRNTS
Research into stud behaviour using both composite
beams and standard push out tests shows that the load
slip characteristics of steel connectors are essentially
non-linear[31 as shown in Fig. 2. However, at least within
the range of design loads, linear behaviour can be
assumed for analysis. For non-linear analysis the ulti-
mate capacity of studs is also tabulated in research
papers with representative values given in National
Codes [4].
The stiffness of the connector is usually expressed as
K, a load/unit slip which must be modelled by the two
connecting elements shown in Fig. 3. Interface slip
deforms the connecting elements in shear and bending
and hence from simple beam theory their stiffness is
given by
(1)
The value of the effective infinite stiffness will depend on the
computer program’s abiity to handle large values but in general
the bar elements should be several orders of magnitude stiffer
than all other elements.
YEO
L
INTERFACE SLIP 6
Fig. 2. Typical load slip characteristic of stud connector.
Once the dimensions of the connecting elements, h, b,
t, have been chosen to suit the finite element mesh the
Young’s Modulus, E, of the connecting elements can be
calculated from eqn (1) so that they have a stiffness
equivalent to K, the stiffness of the connector. With a
square connecting element (h/b = 1) the shear defor-
mation term predominates and accounts for ap-
proximately 75% of total stiffness. If shallower elements
are used the bending term could be neglected as a first
approximation.
With the finite element model adopted at the interface
the connecting elements are assumed to carry no direct
stress and hence the element will fail when the applied
shear stress reaches a limiting value given by
(2)
where P. is the ultimate shear capacity of a stud. Sub-
sequent application shows that for the composite beams
analysed direct stresses induced in the elements are at
least an order of magnitude smaller than applied shear
stress and hence this assumption does not introduce
significant error.
Equations (1) and (2) assume a one for one cor-
respondence between a stud and a pair of connecting
elements. However, in practice with closely spaced studs
there maybe more than one stud within the domain
represented by a pair of connecting elements. A cor-
responding adjustment must then be made to the ele-
ments to account for multiple studs. An example of the
simple calculations required to establish connecting
element properties is given in Appendix A.
APPLICATION
The finite element model is used to analyse a number
of beams previously studied by others both in the elastic
range and to predict ultimate loads. In particular the
effects of partial shear connection are investigated. Par-
tial interaction in composite beams can offer practical
design benefits and yet is an area where simple rules[5]
have only recently been formulated for application in the
design office. Using the finite element representation,
partial interaction can readily be investigated by reducing
the stiffness and capacity of the connecting elements.
_, SLip 6,
,P _L,P,l
Fig. 3. Connecting elements and principal notation.
 The analysis of composite beams using standard finite element programs 235

Table 1. Comparison of results for rectangular beam-elastic analysis

Maximum slip Centre line deflection

(mm) (mm)
Stiffnessof Modulusof
connectors connecting elements Finite Beam Finite Beam
N/mm/mm length MPa elements theory elements theory

4.34x 1o-3 13.86 13.34 144.0 144.0

4.34 x lo-2 :; 12.% 13.13
4.34 x 10-l ld 8.21 8.82
4.34x loo 104 1.77 2.12
4.34x 10’ id 0.18 0.26 33.0 36.0
Young’s Modulus of Parts A and B = 200,000MPa.

300 mm A

300 mm B
El

Fig. 4. Cross section of simplerectangularcompositebeam.

All the analyses reported in the paper were carried out

using a standard non-linear finite element program avail-
able at the University of Adelaide. The program uses the
tangential stifiness method and successive load incre-
ments for material non-linearity following the solution
scheme given in Zienkiewicz[6].

(1) Elastic analysis

In the elastic range the finite element method is used to
analyse the example problems given in the text by
Johnson[7]. Results are compared with solutions to the
one dimensional beam equation incorporating linear slip
between beam components given in Appendix A of
Johnson’s book.
(a) Rectangular beam. The simply supported rectan-
gular beam shown in section in Fig. 4 carries a uniformly
distributed load of 35 kN/m over a 10 m span. The beam
is in two identical parts A and B joined by a set of
connectors having linear slip/shear characteristics. Using
20 elements in the half span and 16 elements through the
full 600mm depth a series of analyses were carried out
varying the stiffness of the 250 mm x 300 mm connecting
elements to represent cases from full to no interaction.
Maximum slip at the simply supported ends calculated
by both finite elements and the composite beam equation
is given in Table 1, which also lists the elastic constants
used for each analysis.
The results are in general agreement and show the
ability of the finite element mesh to represent linear slip
in very simple composite beams. A modulus of 10MPa
in the connecting elements is in effect no interaction and
as the modulus approaches the stiffness of the parts
joined the beam slip is very small implying effective full
interaction. True full interaction obviously requires
infinite connector stiffness.
Vertical deflection on the beam centre line iS ids0
given in Table 1 for the effective zero and full interaction
cases. As expected closer agreement is obtained in this
global parameter than in the slips which are influenced
by the assumption used to determine the elastic con-
stants of the connecting elements.
(b) Composite steel Z-beam and concrete slab. The
composite steel and concrete beam shown in Fig. 5(a)
(b)
Fig. 5. (a). Cross sectionof steel concrete composite beam used for
elastic analysis. (b). Finite element mesh used for analysis of
composite steel concrete beam.
was analysed in a similar manner. Young’s Modulus for
the concrete was taken as 26.7 x l@ MPa and for the
steel 200x lti MPa giving a modular ratio of 7.5. The
beam is simply supported and carries a vertical uni-
formly distributed load of 10 kN/m over a span of 9m.
The finite element mesh used is shown in Fig. S(b) with
10 elements in the half span. The connecting element
dimensions were then taken as 450mm long by 212 mm
deep. By varying the stiffness of these connecting ele-
ments a series of cases were analysed again from
effective zero to full interaction.
Maximum slip and central deflections calculated both
by finite elements and from the governing differential
equation are given in Table 2.
Within the elastic range the finite element represen-
tation of slip yields results that are comparable with
those calculated by linear composite beam theory over
the full range of component interaction. However, design
rules[7] suggest that 50% partial interaction should be
taken as the limit in actual structures. The stiffness of the
connecting elements is determined on the assumption
that they deform essentially in shear and bending. This
assumption is verified by the results. However to verify
correct modelling of connector strength the analysis
must be continued to ultimate load.
236 M. J. S. HIRSTand M. F. YEO

Table 2. Comparison of results for composite steel concrete beam-elastic analysis

Maximum slip Centre line deflection

(mm) (mm)
StiiTnessof Modulus of
connectors connecting elements Finite Beam Finite Beam
N/mm/mm length MPa elements theory elements theory

9.81 x lo-’ loo 0.140 0.140 14.2 13.9

9.81x lO-3
9.81 x IO-* % 0.135
0.104 0.137
0.109
9.81 x IO-’ ld 0.032 0.037
9.81 x ld lo’ 0.004 0.005 5.2 5.0

Tabk 3. Material properties for test beam of Yam and Chapman 50I I2 studs
1219mm /
c Y
Young’s Modulus of steel = 205,000MPa
Yield strelqth of steel = 265MPa
Strain hardening modulus = 45OOMPa
Cube strength of concrete = 50 MPa B.S.B. Steel bum
Equivalentcylinderstrength of concrete
= 40 MPa
Tensilestrengthof concrete(assumed) = 4 MPa
Load capacity of 12mmx SOmm studs = 59 kN
(Calculation of connecting element properties is given in Ap-
Fig. 6. Cross section of composite beam tested by Yam and
pendixA)
Chapman.

(2) Non-linear analysis
The full load ddlection ‘profile can theoretically be
determined using finite element incrementalanalysis and
it was decided to test the validity of the finite element
representation to predict ultimate loads.
Yam and Chapman[l] had previously carried out a
comprehensive analytical and experimental study into
the inelastic behaviour of composite beams and one of
their test beams was analysed using the finite element
model. Test beam El1 shown in section in Fig. 6 was
analysed using a finite element mesh of the same layout
as that shown in Fig. 5(b) but with the appropriate
dimensions.The beam spans 5.44m and is loaded by a
central point load. All material properties were taken as
given for the test beam and are listed in Table 3 for
reference. On test the beam failed at a load of 52OkN
and thus a load increment of 1OkN was taken for the
analysis to minimise the growth of residuals as the
non-linear analysis proceeds. For this analysis material
yield was assessed using the Von Mises criterion and in
addition tensile cracking was included for the concrete
elements.
Loaddeflection curves are shown in Fig. 7, both the
experimental curve and that obtained by the finite ele-
ment model. The mode1predicts loads to within 5% of
experimental values over the full range for this beam
where the number of connecting studs is such that full
interaction occurs.
Finite element itnalyseswere then carried out for the
same beam but with 75, 50 and 25% of the number of
studs required for full interaction. These load deflection
curves are also shown on Fig. 7. For practical designit is
suggestedt’ll that no less than 50% of the number of
studs be used to prevent large displacements under
designloads. The loadde5ection curves clearly illustrate
why this design limit is imposed.The 25%stud beam not
only fails to reach more than 60% of its potential load
with full composite action but also has a much reduced

600 k
_F.E. full Interaction

~~~~~

A
1,
-$a A
100 -:.

I I I 1 I I I 1
0 t
0 20 LO 60 60
DEFLECTION 6 (mm1

Fig. 7. Load-deflection curves for beam shown in Fig. 6.

 The analysis of composite beams using standard linite element programs 237

stiffness. Above the 50%limit Johnson[‘l] gives empirical

design formula to determine ultimate moment capacity
M. for partial interaction in composite beams, namely,

where Mp is the plastic moment capacity of the steel

beam alone and M, is the ultimate moment capacity
assuming full interaction. The ratio N/N, is the ratio of
the number of studs actually provided to those required
for full interaction. The values predicted by this design
rule are also shown in Fig. 7 and are are seen to give
conservative results at least for the beam analysed.
CONCLXJSloNS
It has been shown how the shear connection in com-
posite construction can be represented by a simple model
using equivalent standard two dimensional finite ele-
ments. Using this model anyone with access to a stan-
dard finite element package can analyse composite con-
struction without recourse to special slip or boundary
elements and without specialistfinite element knowledge.
Applicationof the model both in the elastic range and
to predict ultimate loads gives results that are in close
agreement with either accepted analytical methods or
experimentalresults.
Althoughthe method was initially developed to study
full composite interaction it can readily model partial
interaction with equal accuracy and simplicity of ap-
plication.
I
1.20
0.33
STUD SLIP (mm I
Fi. Al. Load slip characteristics for studs as used in Yam and
Chapman’s test.
8. L. C. P. Yam and J. C. Chapman, The inelastic behaviour of
simply supported composite beams of steel and concrete.
Pm. Inst. Ciu. Engrs 41 (1%8).
APPENDIX
A
CalculaGon of section properties of connecting elements
The numerical values are those of the beam tested by Yam and
Chapman[l] which is analysed in the paper and whose material
properties are given in Table 3.
The composite beam 5.48m long incorporates one hundred
12mm xSOmm headed stud shear connectors which are shown
experimentally to have an ultimate shear capacity of 59 kN per
s&d. The actual load slip characteristic of a single stud is shown
in Pii. Al together with the idealised curve used for analysis.
These studs are modelled by connecting elements which are
274mm long (span/20) by l5Omm deep and 1 mm thick with a
Poissons ratio of 0.28. It then follows that: the initial stiffness of
a stud K = 4110.33= 124kN/mm; and since the number of studs
per connecting element = 100/20= 5 then the Equivalent shear
capacity per 274mm of span

REFERENCES PU=5x59=295kN
1. P. Ansourian, An application
of the method of finite elements
to the analysis of composite floor systems. Pm. Inst. Ciu. and the Equivalent stiffness per 274mm of span
Ellgrs 59 (1975).
2. K. R. Moffat and P. J. Dowling, The longitudinal bending K = 5 x 124= 620kN/mm.
behaviour of composite box girder bridges having incomplete
interaction. Struck fingr 56B (1978). Usingeqn (1) the Young’s Modulus, E, of the connecting ele-
3. J. B. Menzies. CP-117 and shear connectors in steel-concrete ments is then given by
composite be’&s made with normal-density or lightweight
concrete. strucl. Eflgr 49 (1971).
4. British Standards Institution, Composite Construction in
Stmc~uml Steel and Concrete. CP-117 British Standards In-
stitution. = 2.29x 106MPa
5. R. P. Johnson and I. M. May, Partial-interaction design of
composite beams. ‘Qrucf.Engr 53 (1975). and the shear stress, ry, in the connecting element at ultimate
6. 0. C. Zienkiewicz, me Finite Element Method in Engineering load is given by eqn (2)
Science. McGraw-Hill, New York (1971).
7. R. P. Johnson, Composite structures of steel. and concrete.
_._-_. 295x loo0
Q = ___774 = 1076MPa.
Volume 1 Buildings. Crosby Lockwood, London (lW5). LIT