Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Stiffness matrix for the analysis and design of partial-interaction

composite beams
Jian-Ping Lin a, Guannan Wang b,⇑, Guangjian Bao c, Rongqiao Xu d
a
College of Civil Engineering, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, Fujian Province 361021, China
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
c
Transportation Bureau, Tonglu County, Hangzhou 311500, China
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310058, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Stiffness matrix is derived for partial-interaction Timoshenko composite beam.

Explicit expressions will benefit structural calculations and designs.

Explicitly expressed stiffness matrix has easy connection with commercial packages.

The stiffness matrix is validated through numerical results.

Particle swarm optimization is adopted for shear connector distribution.

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

Article history: Compared to the classical Rayleigh-Ritz method and other analytical solutions, finite element (FE)
Received 15 March 2017 method is more efficient and capable in calculating the deformations and stress states of partial-
Received in revised form 18 July 2017 interaction composite beams, as well as manipulating the material and geometrical parameters for better
Accepted 29 August 2017
engineering designs. Stiffness matrix of composite beams considering the interlayer slips is derived based
on the kinematic assumptions of the Timoshenko’s beam theory by taking into account of the transverse
shear deformations. A detailed derivation is elaborated to obtain the local stiffness matrix for a composite
Keywords:
beam element, while the higher-order interpolation functions are adopted for the displacement fields
Composite beam
Partial interaction
(deflection, rotation, and interlayer slip). Then a finite element program is developed by assembling
Finite element analysis the local stiffness matrices and applying corresponding equivalent nodal stresses. Several numerical
Explicitly-expressed stiffness matrix results are presented and compared against the analytical solutions available in the literature to demon-
Interfacial slip strate the accuracy of the proposed FE stiffness matrix. Finally, a design procedure by connecting particle
Shear deformation swarm optimization technique with the present FE analysis is created to reduce the deformations of sim-
Particle swarm optimization ply supported composite beams while the quantity of shear connectors remains the same, to prove the
superior simulation capacity and efficiency of the derived FE stiffness matrix with other techniques.
Compared to the analytical methods, the proposed finite element is more convenient and applicable in
the analysis of partial-interaction composite beams under more complicated loading and boundary con-
ditions. In the meantime, the explicitly expressed local stiffness matrix can be easily implemented into
other commercial software packages as a subroutine for both professional and personal engineering
designs and calculations.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction can be fully utilized. Experimental studies [1] show that interfacial
slip between the concrete slab and the steel girder occurs even at
Steel-concrete composites combine the best attributes of their low-level load, due to the finite rigidity of shear connectors. This
component materials. In this case, the high tensile strength and phenomenon is called ‘‘partial interaction”. Analytical studies have
shear efficiency of steel and the compressive strength of concrete been carried out to investigate the static and dynamic behavior of
composite beams with partial interactions based on Euler-
⇑ Corresponding author. Bernoulli beam theory coupled with interlayer slips [2–7]. In order
E-mail address: guannan.wang@ttu.edu (G. Wang). to take into account of the effects of shear deformations, Xu and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.154
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
762 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772

Wu [8] used Timoshenko’s beam theory together with considera- techniques (mainly FE method) are more applicable in broader
tion of interlayer slip to investigate the static, dynamic, and buck- engineering problems by involving efficient matrix implementa-
ling behavior of partial interaction composite beams. Then Xu and tions and avoiding tedious derivations.
Wang [9] formulated the minimum potential and complementary Considered as an extension of the work by Xu and Wang [9], the
energy principles for composite beams, as well as the variational current research employs Timoshenko’s beam theory together with
principles for the free vibration and buckling phenomenon, and the consideration of the interlayer slip to derive the stiffness
proposed approximate solutions under different boundary condi- matrix of partial interaction composite beams. The present deriva-
tions. Schnabl et al. [10] also gave the analytical solutions of a tion distinguishes itself from other work in that it provides explicit
two-layer beam by taking into account of shear deformation. In expressions of the stiffness matrix of composite beams, which has
addition, Xu and Wang [11] derived the relations of solutions of not likely been provided previously. The stiffness matrix presented
partial-interaction composite beams between Timoshenko and benefits not only professionals but also inexperienced designers or
Euler-Bernoulli theories based on the constitutive equations. engineers for both qualitative learning and quantitative designs,
Numerical methods, mainly based on the finite element without going through the process of physical inspirations and
method, have also been developed to investigate the partial- mathematical derivations. In addition, the explicit expressions
interaction composite beams [12–15]. What is more important, can also be easily implemented into ABAQUS or ANSYS user subrou-
Thompson et al. [16] developed a finite element method for the tines as composite beam elements for more sophisticated struc-
analysis of layered wood systems. Ayoub and Filippou [17] derived tural analysis instead of building the elements from scratch.
an inelastic beam element from a two-field mixed formulation Finally, the explicit expressions can significantly improve the com-
with independent approximation of internal forces and transverse putational efficiency of the simulations, especially when it involves
displacements, and the partial interaction was accounted for by an large-scale calculations or optimizations.
interface model with distributed force transfer characteristics. The organization of this work follows as: Section 2 provides the
Faella et al. [18] presented a displacement-based finite element basic assumptions and formulations for the partial-interaction
model in which the stiffness matrix and the fixed-end nodal force composite structures. The stiffness matrix is derived following
vector are directly derived from the ‘‘exact” solution of Newmark’s the standard procedure based on the principle of minimum poten-
differential equation. Dall’Asta and Zona [19] proposed a three field tial energy. The higher-order interpolation functions for the dis-
mixed finite element for the non-linear analysis of composite beam placements are assumed. Detailed derivation of the stiffness
with deformable shear connection. Čas et al. [20] presented a new matrix is provided in Section 3, and explicit expressions of stiffness
finite element formulation by employing a modified principle of matrix elements are presented in the Appendix A. A finite element
virtual work for the non-linear analysis of two-layer composite program is then implemented based on the derivations. In Sec-
planar frames with an interlayer slip. In the finite element formu- tion 4, numerical results are also presented to illustrate the accu-
lation the unknown functions are axial extensional strains of each racy and efficiency of the proposed finite element method in the
layer and the pseudocurvature of the reference axis of the compos- analysis of partial-interaction composite beams under complicated
ite beam. Ranzi et al. [21] proposed an alternate formulation based loading and boundary conditions. A new design procedure is intro-
on a direct stiffness approach that utilizes an internal solution for duced in Section 5 by employing particle swarm optimization tech-
the slip in the same way as in Newmark et al.’s work [6]. Ranzi and nique connected with the FE program, aiming at reducing the
Bradford [22] presented a stiffness formulation which is based on deformations of composite beams and showing the advantage of
the direct stiffness method for the analysis of composite steel–con- the present FE stiffness matrix. Section 6 concludes this work.
crete beam-columns with partial shear interaction. Ranzi and Zona
[23] proposed an analytical model which was obtained by coupling
the Euler–Bernoulli assumption for the reinforced concrete slab to 2. Structural model formulation
the Timoshenko theory for the steel girder, for the analysis of
steel–concrete composite beams with partial interaction including 2.1. Basic description and assumptions
the shear deformability of the steel component. Valipour and Brad-
ford [24] derived a flexibility-based element in the framework of The partial-interaction composite beam is composed of two
the total secant approach for one dimensional composite elements sub-structures with different materials (steel-concrete) in the x-z
with partial shear interaction. Jiang et al. [25] developed a two-
node linear composite beam element for the steel–concrete com-
posite beam with discrete shear connection. The element is derived
by using the total potential energy method based on the
Timoshenko beam theory and the linear Lagrangian interpolation
function. Nguyen et al. [26] derived the exact stiffness matrix for
a two-layer Timoshenko beam element with partial interaction
basically inspired by the direct stiffness method. Martinelli et al.
[27] presented closed-form analytical formulation of the stiffness
matrix and the vector of equivalent nodal forces for analyzing
shear-flexible steel-concrete composite beams in partial interac-
tion. Brighenti and Bottoli [28] presented a finite element for the
analysis of composite cross-section beams. The stiffness matrix of
the finite element was obtained by using the direct stiffness
method based on the theoretical solution of the problem provided
in the literature. Taig and Ranzi [29] proposed a partial interaction
formulation based on the generalized beam theory to study the
partial shear interaction behavior of composite steel–concrete
members. Other methods for the simulations of the partial interac-
tion were using the interface elements to model the interfacial
slips [30–32]. According to the authors’ experience, numerical Fig. 1. Composite members and coordinate system: (a) elevation; (b) cross section.
 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772 763

plane, as shown in Fig. 1. The x axis is constructed coinciding with dM

¼Q þm ð2Þ
the centroid of the whole cross-section. It can be noticed that the dx
Ei , Gi , Ii , Ai , and qi ði ¼ 1; 2Þ stand for Young’s modulus, shear mod-
ulus, moment of inertia, cross-sectional area and the mass density dQ
¼ q ð3Þ
of the sub-structures, respectively, while L and H denote the length dx
and height of the composite beam. h1 and h2 are the distances of In addition, in accordance with the equilibrium of forces in the
centroids between each sub-structure and the whole section, and x-direction, it can be obtained that
here is the relation h = h1 + h2.
Several assumptions need to be established to keep the consis-
N1 þ N2 ¼ 0 ð4Þ
tency of this work for partial-interaction composite beams with
dN1 dN2
small deformations, as already been repeated several times in the Qs ¼  ¼ ð5Þ
literature [8,9]: dx dx
Also, the bending moment of the whole element can be
(1) All of the constitutive materials considered have linear expressed as
behavior and small deformations;
M ¼ M1 þ M2  N1 h ð6Þ
(2) The shear connection is continuous along the x directions;
(3) The longitudinal shear force between upper and lower sub- in which N i and Mi ði ¼ 1; 2Þ are the axial forces and bending
structures is proportional to the interlayer slip [33,34]; moments of sub-structures.
(4) No transverse separation (opening) happens on the interface Constitutive relationship: As assumed in Section 2.1, the inter-
between sub-structures, which means the curvature is same layer distributing force has a linear relationship with the rigidity of
at any cross-sections [35,36]; the shear connectors:
(5) Timoshenko’s beam theory is employed for the composite
Q s ¼ ks us ð7Þ
beams, which means that the transverse shear deformations
of the cross section are allowed and are identical in the two Based on Timoshenko’s beam theory, the relationship between
sub-structures. the stress resultants and deformations are
dw dw
2.2. Theoretical framework M1 ¼ E1 I1 ; M 2 ¼ E2 I2 ð8Þ
dx dx


The kinematical relationship, equilibrium equations and consti- dw
tutive relationship have already been presented in details by Xu Q ¼C w ð9Þ
dx
and Wang [9] based on Timoshenko’s beam theory assumption,
which are not totally repeated in this section. Only the necessary where C is the shear rigidity of the composite beam, and
equations are borrowed here to clarify the model establishment. C ¼ j1 G1 A1 þ j2 G2 A2 ð10Þ
Readers can refer to Xu and Wang [9] for a detailed description.
Kinematical relationship: the relationship between interlayer in which j1 and j2 are the shear correctors, whose values depend
slip us and rotation angle ðwÞ of the cross section is on the shape of the cross section of the sub-structures according
to the Timoshenko’s beam theory.
us ¼ u2  u1 þ wh ð1Þ The axial forces of each sub-structure can be expressed as the
in which u1 and u2 are the longitudinal displacement of the upper function of the corresponding axial displacements
and lower sub-structures, respectively, as shown in Fig. 2. du1 du2
Fig. 3 shows a free-body diagram of an infinitesimal element N 1 ¼ E 1 A1 ; N 2 ¼ E 2 A2 ð11Þ
dx dx
with the length of dx, M, Q denote the bending moment and shear
force, while q and m indicate distributed load and bending
2.3. Principle of minimum potential energy
moment. Thus, according to the equilibrium in the z-direction,
we have
The potential energy of a partial-interaction composite beam
can be expressed as
p ¼ p1 þ p2 þ p3  W q ð12Þ
which includes four components:

Fig. 2. Geometrical relationship of us , w and u. Fig. 3. An infinitesimal element of the composite beam.
764 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772

Z L
2 Z L
2 Z L
2 1 1
1 dw 1 du1 1 du2 a ¼ ðxj  xÞ; b ¼ ðx  xj Þ ð20Þ
p1 ¼ EI0 dx þ E 1 A1 dx þ E2 A2 dx l l
0 2 dx 0 2 dx 0 2 dx
ð13Þ The potential energy of the eth element can be obtained from
Eqs (12)–(17) from Section 2.3:
Z L
2 Z  
1 dw xj
p2 ¼ C  w dx ð14Þ pe ¼
1 1
EI0 ðu0 Þ þ Cðw0  uÞ  qw  mu dx
2 2
0 2 dx 2 2
xi
Z Z
Z 1 xj 1 xj
EAðus  u0 hÞ dx þ
L 0 2
1 þ ks u2s dx ð21Þ
p3 ¼ ks u2s dx ð15Þ 2 xi 2 xi
0 2
Z As is well known, the following expression can be derived after
L
Wq ¼
 Mw
ðqw þ mwÞdx þ ðQw
N

1 us ÞjL ð16Þ the integration of Eq. (21), no matter which type of interpolation
0
0 function is adopted in the calculation.

Q
in which EI0 ¼ E1 I1 þ E2 I2 , and M,
and N

1 are the external forces 1
pe ¼ uTe K e ue  F eT ue ð22Þ
applied on the boundaries. 2
The four components in Eqs. (13)–(16) indicate strain energy of
where ue ¼ ½wi ; ui ; usi ; wj ; uj ; usj T , and K e , F e are usually called as
bending ðp1 Þ, the strain energy of shearing ðp2 Þ, the strain energy
stiffness matrix, generalized load vector. What should be noticed
of shear connection ðp3 Þ, and the work done by external forces
is that the accuracy and stability of stiffness matrix directly depends
ðW q Þ, respectively.
on the forms of the interpolation functions for the displacement
Substituting the kinematical relationship Eq. (1), equilibrium
fields. Higher-order functions for the displacements are then
equation Eq. (4), as well as constitutive relationship Eq. (11) into
assumed:
Eq. (13), the strain energy of bending can be expressed in a simpler
pattern: wðxÞ ¼ wi a þ wj b þ n1 ab þ n2 ða2 b  ab2 Þ
Z
2 Z L  2
L
1 dw 1 d uðxÞ ¼ ui a þ uj b þ g1 ab ð23Þ
p1 ¼ EI0 dx þ EA ðus  whÞ dx ð17Þ
0 2 dx 0 2 dx us ðxÞ ¼ usi a þ usj b þ g2 ab
where EA ¼ EE11 AA11 E2 A2
þE2 A2
. The simplification makes the finite element As seen above, a three-order interpolation is employed for
analysis more easily, and benefits the following derivations. deflection, while two-order functions are used for the rotary dis-
placement and interlayer slip. However, four new unknown coeffi-
3. Finite element analysis of composite beams cients n1 ; n2 ; g1 ; g2 are also introduced in the function. These
coefficients, however, just affect the deformation of the local ele-
Compared to the classical Rayleigh-Ritz method and other ment rather than the external nodes or other elements, leading
approximate analytical solutions [7,9], finite element method is a to their notations as ‘‘internal degrees of freedom (dofs)”. The val-
more accurate and efficient technique in calculating deflections, ues of the internal dofs n1 ; n2 ; g1 ; g2 should also be determined
rotary displacements, and interlayer slips of partial-interaction using the principle of minimum potential energy in the local ele-
composite beams. ment. Thus, Eq. (21) for local element can be further simplified
First of all, the composite beam can be divided into several as follows to calculate the internal dofs:
small elements, each of them is indicated as 1, 2, 3,. . ., N, respec- Z  xj 
1 1
tively. Fig. 4 shows the eth element, in which the coordinates of p0e ¼ EI0 ðu0 Þ þ Cðw0  uÞ dx
2 2

xi 2 2
the starting point and the ending point are xi and xj in x- Z Z
direction. Thus the length of the element can be expressed as 1 xj 1 xj
EAðus  u0 hÞ dx þ
0 2
þ ks u2s dx ð24Þ
2 xi 2 xi
l e ¼ xj  x i ð18Þ
Substituting Eq. (23) into the new energy expression Eq. (24)
Here we assume x can be the coordinate of any point within the
makes
element, leading to the non-dimensionalized coordinate as !
1 Ke LT
1
ae ¼ ðxj  xÞ;
1
be ¼ ðx  xj Þ ð19Þ p0e ¼ ðu0e ÞT u0e ð25Þ
le le 2 L H
which can also be called the shape function of the local element.
Then the subscript e can be ignored for the simplification of the in which u0e ¼ ½wi ; ui ; usi ; wj ; uj ; usj ; ni ; gi ; nj ; gj T ð26Þ
notations: e
In addition, the stiffness matrix K and the other two compo-
nents L, H of the matrix are
0 1
C
l
C
2
0  Cl C
2
0
B     C
B C D
1 þ 1  EAh


 C2 Dl 1 þ 61c EAh C
B 2 l 3c 1 C
B l 1 l
C
B    C
B C
B 0  EAh EA
1 þ 31c 0 EAh EA
1 þ 6c C
1
B l l 2 l l 2 C
Ke ¼ B C
B C 2 C
0 C
 C2 0 C
B l l C
B     C
B C D

C
B 2 l 1 þ 61c EAh
 C2 Dl 1 þ 31c  EAh C
B 1 l 1 l C
@     A
0 EAh
l
EA
l
1 þ 61c 0  EAh
l
EA
l
1 þ 3c
1
2 2

ð27Þ
Fig. 4. The coordinates of the eth element.
 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772 765

0 1
0  C6 0 0 C
6
0 The explicit expressions of the symmetric local stiffness matrix
BC C elements can be refereed in the Appendix A. The generalized load
B 6 12
Cl
0  C6 Cl
0C
L¼B
B0 0
12 C ð28Þ
0C
corresponds to the linear terms in the potential energy expression
@ 0 0 0 A in Eq. (21), namely
ks l ks l
0 0 12
0 0 12 Z xj
ðqw þ muÞdx
T
0C 1 ðF e Þ ue ¼ ð35Þ
3l
0 0 0 xi
B C
B0 1þ10r1
Cl C
 EAh C Submitting the new interpolation functions Eq. (33) into Eq.
H¼B
B0
30 30 3l C
C ð29Þ
@
C C
0 A (35), the generalized load F e can also be obtained.
30 5l
1þ10c2 The global stiffness matrix and global load vector of the com-
0  EAh
3l
0 30
kl posite beams can be organized as following


where D ¼ EI0 þ h EA, c1 ¼ ClD2 , and c2 ¼ kEAl2 .
2
X
N X
N
s
K¼ Ke; F¼ Fe ð36Þ
As already discussed earlier, the internal dofs n1 ; n2 ; g1 ; g2
e¼1 e¼1
should minimize the potential energy p0e in local element, thus
which leads to the total potential energy as
@ p0e @ p0e @ p0e @ p0e
¼ 0; ¼ 0; ¼ 0; ¼0 ð30Þ
@n1 @n2 @ g1 @ g2 1
p ¼ uT Ku  F T u ð37Þ
2
which can be re-expressed as
The new equations between node displacements and stresses
L½wi ; ui ; usi ; wj ; uj ; usj T þ H½n1 ; g1 ; n2 ; g2 T ¼ 0 ð31Þ can be obtained by still employing the principle of minimum
potential energy:
from which the relationship between internal dofs and the displace-
ments on the nodes of the local element is obtained as Ku¼F ð38Þ
ui ¼ H1 L  ue
0 1 in which u ¼ ½w1 ; u1 ; us1 ; . . . ; wNþ1 ; uNþ1 ; usðNþ1Þ  ,
T
and
ð1lÞl
0 0 0  ð12lÞl 0 T
B ð1þ10c Þl
2
C F ¼ ½Q 1 ; M 1 ; N 1ð1Þ ; . . . ; Q Nþ1 ; M Nþ1 ; N 1ðNþ1Þ  .
B 2 ð1þ10c2 Þl 2
1
 ð1þ10 c2 Þl ð1þ10c2 Þl 2
1 C
B 20c2 c3 h2 40c2 c3 h2 4c2 h 20c2 c3 h2 40c2 c3 h2 4c2 h C
1 B C
¼ 1l B ð1þ10c Þl2 c 3
c 2
c 3 C  ue
B ð1þ10 Þl ð1þ10 Þl ð1þ10 Þl C 4. Validation and applications
B 120c2 c3 h2  240c2 c3 h2  24c2 h 120c2 c3 h2  240c2 c3 h2  24c2 h C
2 2 l 2 2 l

@ A
2 ð1þ12c1 Þl2 2 ð1þ12c1 Þl 2
l
2c h
l
4c h 48c c h2
 2cl h l
4c h 48c c h2 Based on the stiffness matrix derived above, a finite element
3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3

ð32Þ program was implemented using MATLAB. Partial interaction com-

posite beams with different shape of cross sections are analyzed
c1 Þð1þ10c2 Þl 2
where ui ¼ ½n1 ; g1 ; n2 ; g2 T , and c3 ¼ EA
C
, l ¼ ð1þ12120 c c h2
. under different types of boundary conditions. The FE simulation
2 3

Then the assumed displacement expressions in Eq. (23) can be results are validated against the corresponding analytical formu-
modified using the relationship Eq. (32) as lae, and further examples are employed to prove the capabilities
of the present technique.
l
wðxÞ ¼ ½a  mabða  bÞwi þ ½ab  mabða  bÞ wi
2 4.1. Specimen of Girhammar and Gopu [4]
 pabða  bÞusi þ ½b þ mabða  bÞwj
l First of all, a single-span composite beam with the length of
þ ½ab  mabða  bÞ wj  pabða  bÞusj wðxÞ
2 L = 4 m is investigated under different boundary conditions. The
wi usi wj cross-section of the beam shown in Fig. 5 is the same as that of
¼ 6mab þ ða þ 3mabÞwi þ 6pab  6mab
l l l Girhammar and Gopu [4], and the main properties are
usj 12c2 E1 = 12 GPa, E2 = 8 GPa, ks = 50 MPa, h1 = 0.05 m, h2 = 0.15 m and
þ ða þ 3mabÞwj þ 6pab us ðxÞ ¼ pabwi
l c3 Poisson’s ratios are supposed to be m1 ¼ 0:2 and m2 ¼ 0:3, respec-
12c2 l 12c2 tively. In addition, the width of the slab and girder are
þ pab wi þ ða þ nabÞusi  pabwj
c3 2 c3 b1 = 0.30 m, b2 = 0.05 m. An uniformly distributed load is applied
12c2 l at the top side of the concrete slab with the magnitude of
þ pab wj þ ða þ nabÞusj ð33Þ q0 = 1 kN/m. Not only the simply-supported (SS) boundary condi-
c3 2
tion, but also clamped-free (CF), clamped-simply supported (CS),
ð1þ10c2 Þl2 ð1þ12c1 Þl2 and clamped-clamped (CC) boundary conditions are analyzed.
and m ¼ 11l 120c2 c3 h2
, n ¼ 11l 48c2 c3 h2
, p ¼ 11l l
24c2 h
, q ¼ 11l l
2r 3 h
.
The deflection is one of the most significant factors needed to be
The new interpolation functions for displacement fields are the considered in the engineering calculations and designs. It is crucial
exact solutions without any internal loading, from which the inter- in evaluating the capacity of the beam structure. The analytical
nal stresses satisfy the equilibrium equations. Finally, the new expressions of deflections for a Timoshenko’s beam under uni-
functions Eq. (33) can be taken back to the potential energy in formly distributed loading with different boundary conditions
Eq. (21) to give the corresponding local stiffness matrix: can be referred to [8].
0 1
k11 k12 k13 k14 k15 k16 Fig. 6(a)–(d) shows deflections of composite beams using both
Bk k22 k23 k24 k25 k26 C present FE analysis and analytical results [8] under four different
B 12 C
B C boundary conditions: SS, CF, CS, CC. The deflections show different
B k13 k23 k33 k34 k35 k36 C
K¼B
Bk
C ð34Þ patterns under different boundary conditions, and good agree-
B 14 k24 k34 k44 k45 k46 C
C ments are always satisfied. Different number of elements have
B C
@ k15 k25 k35 k45 k55 k56 A been adopted to test the convergence of the present method by
k16 k26 k36 k46 k56 k66 validating the mid-span deflections against analytical results. It
can be seen from Table 1 that about 50 elements are good enough
766 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772

Table 1
The mid-span deflections of the single-span composite beam under uniformly
distributed load.

SS (mm) CF (mm) CS (mm) CC (mm)

Analytical solution 7.59 23.62 3.88 2.35
FE analysis (N = 5) 8.88 27.50 4.93 2.99
FE analysis (N = 10) 8.05 24.67 4.31 2.62
FE analysis (N = 20) 7.70 23.89 4.03 2.42
FE analysis (N = 50) 7.60 23.66 3.95 2.36
FE analysis (N = 100) 7.59 23.62 3.94 2.35
FE analysis (N = 200) 7.59 23.62 3.94 2.35

direction are shown in Fig. 7(a)–(d). Similar to the comparisons of

deflections, the FE simulation results again agree well with the
analytical results, which demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed
FE method. For the second time, the convergence of the new solu-
tion is tested by calculating the 1/4 span (x = 1 m in Fig. 7(a)–(d))
interlayer slips, and 50 elements are enough to generate converged
results with three decimal places (Table 2).

4.2. Specimen of Chapman and Balakrishnan [37]

The second scenario is to analyze a simply supported composite

Fig. 5. A simply supported composite beam of concrete and wood. beam with the length of 6.05 m subjected to a concentrated force
loaded at the mid-span, Fig. 8. The cross section is the same as
the specimen Beam E1 tested by Chapman and Balakrishnan at
to generate converged results with three decimal places, and it Imperial College London [37], the thickness and width of the con-
takes about 0.08 s (Intel Core i5-4200 M CPU @ 2.50 GHz) for the crete slab is 0.152 m and 1.22 m, respectively, and the type of steel
execution of the program, due to the explicit stiffness matrix girder is 1200  600  44 lb/ft B.S.B. The Young’s moduli of concrete
expressions. The quick execution of the present programs also and steel are 30.5 GPa and 205 GPa, respectively, while the Pois-
facilitates the other use of FE analysis, such as optimization and son’s ratios are 0.2 and 0.3. The concentrated loading is P =
design. 60 kN. The analytical expressions of deflections and interlayer slip
The interlayer slip is then evaluated under the same four of a simply supported Euler-Bernoulli beam with a concentrated
boundary conditions, under which the analytical expressions can force at the mid-span were obtained by [3,5], which are not
be further referred to [3,4]. The interfacial slips along longitudinal repeated here.

8 70
7 60 FE analysis
Deflection (mm) .

Deflection (mm) .

6 Analytical result
50
5
40
4
3 30
FE analysis
2 20
Analytical result
1 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
x (m) x (m)
(a) Simply-Supported (SS) (b) Clamped-Free (CF)

5 2.5
Deflection (mm).

Deflection (mm).

4 2.0

3 1.5

2 1.0
FE analysis FE analysis
1 Analytical result 0.5 Analytical result

0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
x (m) x (m)
(c) Clamped-Simply supported (CS) (d) Clamped - Clamped (CC)

Fig. 6. Deflections along longitudinal direction under four boundary conditions.

 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772 767

0.3 0.4
FE analysis
0.2 0.3
Analytical result

Slip (mm).

Slip (mm).
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
-0.1 FE analysis
0.0 Analytical result
-0.2
-0.3 -0.1
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
x (m) x (m)
(a) Simply-Supported (SS) (b) Clamped-Free (CF)

0.3 0.15

0.2 0.10

Slip (mm)
Slip (mm).

0.05
0.1
0.00
0.0
FE analysis - 0.05 FE analysis
-0.1 Analytical result Analytical result
-0.10
-0.2 -0.15
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
x (m) x (m)
(c) Clamped-Simply supported (CS) (d) Clamped-Clamped (CC)

Fig. 7. Interlayer slips along longitudinal direction under four boundary conditions.

Table 2 Fig. 9(a) shows the comparison of deflections between the pre-
The interfacial slips at 1/4 span of the single-span composite beam under point load. sent numerical results and analytical solutions when the shear
connector stiffness equals to 100 MPa. It should noted that the
SS (mm) CF (mm) CS (mm) CC (mm)
shear connector stiffness depends on several aspects, such as
Analytical solution 0.142 0.377 0.181 0.114 dimension and shape of the connectors, and the spacing of their
FE analysis (N = 5) 0.202 0.524 0.237 0.154
FE analysis (N = 10) 0.157 0.414 0.191 0.124
distributions, etc. . ., according to Eurocode 4 [38]. As the analytical
FE analysis (N = 20) 0.146 0.388 0.181 0.117 results based on Euler-Bernoulli beam theory neglect the shear
FE analysis (N = 50) 0.142 0.379 0.176 0.115 deformation, its values are slightly lower than the present numer-
FE analysis (N = 100) 0.142 0.378 0.176 0.114 ical results which include the shear deformation. Comparison
FE analysis (N = 200) 0.142 0.377 0.176 0.114
between the present numerical results and analytical solutions of
interfacial slip distributions is illustrated in Fig. 9(b), which shows
no difference between the two results even if they are under differ-
ent beam assumptions.
In order to learn the influence of the transverse shear assump-
tion on the deformations of composite beams, which has been
ignored by many literature, Table 3 lists the maximum deflections
with different height-to-length ratios (H/L) from 0.05 to 0.25, and
fixed-valued (100 MPa) shear connector stiffness. It shows that
the influence of the shear deformation becomes more evident with
the increase of the height to-length ratios. For this simulation case,
the maximum deflection without shear deformation is 6.40 per-
cent smaller than its value including shear deformation when H/L
equals to 0.25, which means significant underestimates could hap-
pen to high H/L ratio beams if shear deformation is neglected, and
might lead to dangerous real practice design.
Fig. 10 shows the calculated results of the maximum deflections
at the middle point of a simply supported steel-concrete composite
beam as the shear connector stiffness varies, while other material
properties and geometrical characteristics are the same as shown
in Fig. 8. When the shear connector stiffness is small the maximum
deflection can reach 5.5 mm, while its value approaches to almost
2.0 mm when the shear connector stiffness approaches infinite.
Results demonstrate that, when the shear stiffness is smaller than
1 MPa, the value of deflection will not increase as the shear stiff-
Fig. 8. Geometrical characteristics of a simply supported steel-concrete composite ness decreases, while its value will not decrease when the shear
beam.
768 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772

5 stiffness is larger than 10 GPa. The shear connector stiffness has a

sensitivity range between 1 MPa and 10 GPa, within which the
maximum deflection at the middle point of span dramatically var-
4
ies from 5.5 mm to 2.0 mm.
Deflection (mm) .

Fig. 11 shows the variations of maximum interfacial slip at the

3 ends of beam versus the shear connector stiffness. Similar pattern
of curve is illustrated as before. Within the sensitivity range of
2 1 MPa–10 GPa, the maximum interfacial slip rapidly varies from
FE analysis 0.68 mm to zero. From Figs. 10 and 11, it should be learnt that
when the shear connector stiffness is below 1 MPa, largest deflec-
1 Analytical result
tion and interlayer slip are obtained, which means minimum shear
interaction between sub-elements is achieved, even though they
0 are still attached according to the basic assumptions. In the mean-
0 1 2 3 4 5
time, when shear connector stiffness is above 10GPa, almost per-
x (m)
fect connection is gained between sub-elements, which can be
(a) Deflections proved by the fact that zero interlayer slips appear within this
range. This phenomenon described not only provides guidance of
0.6
engineering calculations but also inspires us to reconsider the
FE analysis designs of the shear connectors by changing their distributions
0.4
Analytical result along the spans of beams, as is shown in Section 5.

0.2
Slip (mm)

4.3. Continuous composite beam with box section

0.0
A two span continuous steel-concrete composite beam shown
in Fig. 12 is analyzed. The length and width of concrete slab is
-0.2
0.8
-0.4
0.6
-0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip (mm) .

x (m) 0.4
(b) Interlayer slips FE analysis

Fig. 9. Deflections (a) and interlayer slips (b) along longitudinal direction of I shape 0.2 Analytical result
girder-concrete slab composite beam.

0.0

Table 3 -0.2
The influence of shear deformation on the maximum deflection. 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09 1.E+11 1.E+13
H/L Including shear Without shear Relative Shear connector stiffness ks (Pa)
deformation (mm) deformation (mm) error (%)
Fig. 11. Maximum interfacial slip versus rigidity of shear connectors.
0.05 14.956 14.852 0.70
0.10 2.564 2.525 1.51
0.15 0.857 0.834 2.74
0.20 0.385 0.368 4.38
0.25 0.206 0.193 6.40

t=6mm
6 t=5mm
t=4mm
t=8mm
5
Deflection (mm)

4
FE analysis
q0=10 kN/m
3 Analytical result

1
1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09 1.E+11 1.E+13 L=9000 L=9000
Shear connector stiffness ks (Pa)
Fig. 12. Geometrical characteristics of the continuous steel-concrete composite
Fig. 10. Maximum deflection versus rigidity of shear connectors. beam (Unit: mm).
 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772 769

18 m and 1.400 m, respectively. The thickness of concrete slab that Both Examples in Section 4.2 and 4.3 indicate that the shear defor-
is close to the steel web is 100 mm, while its value is 80 mm at the mation assumption has little effect on the interlayer slips. In this
flange and middle part of concrete slab. The thicknesses of the bot- case, the proposed finite element analysis is more efficient than
tom plate, steel web, stiffener, and top flange of steel girder are analytical methods in calculating the structural response of
8 mm, 4 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. The Young’s moduli partial-interaction composite beams under more complicated
of concrete and steel are 30.5 GPa and 205 GPa, respectively. Pois- boundary and loading conditions, by avoiding complicated struc-
son’s ratios are supposed to be 0.2 and 0.3 for concrete and steel. tural analysis and tedious mathematical derivations.
The uniformly distributed loading is q0 = 10 kN/m.
When the shear stiffness is chosen as 100 MPa, comparisons of 5. A new design of shear connectors for simply supported
deflections and interfacial slips are illustrated in Fig. 13(a)–(b) composite beams with particle swarm optimization
between the present numerical results and analytical solutions
based on Euler-Bernoulli beam theory [3]. It is not surprised to During the engineering design and construction, the shear con-
observe that analytical results of deflection are lower than the pre- nectors are always uniformly distributed along the longitudinal
sent numerical results (with a small magnitude), which takes the direction of composite beam for convenience. This kind of simpli-
shear deformation into account. However, the interlayer slips fications will inevitably cause that the shear connectors to be over
between sub-structures are well matched between the two results. distributed at certain positions while not adequate at some others.
The uniform distribution of shear connectors without considering
3.0 boundary conditions will not only be a waste of construction mate-
FE analysis rials, but also prevent the normal service life of structures. Jasim
2.5 Chen (2012) [39] has developed the differential equations governing the behav-
ior of composite beams, in which the distribution of connectors
Deflection (mm) .

2.0 along the span is double triangular shaped under simply supported
(SS) boundary condition while keeping the same quantity as uni-
1.5 form distribution, Fig. 14(a)–(b), based on the fact that the inter-
layer slip becomes largest at both end points and turn to zero in
1.0 the middle locations. The exact solution of the deflections derived
demonstrated superiority of the new design which effectively
decreased the deflections and interlayer slips and utilized the dis-
0.5
tributions of shear connectors.
The shear connector stiffness k~dt with double triangular distri-
0.0 s
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 butions along the length of beam can be expressed as:
x (m) 
~dt ¼ 2ks ð1  2x=LÞ 0 6 x 6 L=2
(a) Deflections k s ð39Þ
2ks ð2x=L  1Þ L=2 6 x 6 L
0.3 where L denotes the span of beam.
FE analysis
The influence of the new design with double triangular distribu-
0.2 Chen (2012) tion of shear connectors on the interfacial slip can be easily ana-
lyzed with the FE technique. However, in addition to the uniform
Slip (mm) .

0.1 and double triangular patterns, the shear connectors can be effi-
ciently designed by adopting a more sophisticated design process
0.0 that is achieved by connecting the present stiffness matrix with
optimization technique, helping to obtain converged optimized
-0.1 parameters that minimize the target function. The target function
for a simply supported composite beam in this section is to mini-
-0.2 mize the interlayer slip at the end points where largest deforma-
tion usually appears:
-0.3 Obj ¼ minimize ½us ðx ¼ 0 or LÞ ð40Þ
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
x (m) with the constraint condition of keeping the total quantity of shear
(b) Interlayer slips connectors unchanged with a new quadratic functions defined as
(
~opt ¼ að1  2x=LÞ2 þ bð1  2x=LÞ þ c 0 6 x 6 L=2
Fig. 13. Deflections (a) and interlayer slips (b) along longitudinal direction of k s ð41Þ
continuous beam. að2x=L  1Þ2 þ bð2x=L  1Þ þ c L=2 6 x 6 L

Fig. 14. Shear connectors with (a) uniform, (b) double-triangular, and (c) quadratic distributions along the length of composite beam.
770 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772

with the shape of Fig. 14(c), and the area of shadow regions always
keeps same.
Here we adopt particle swarm optimization (PSO) which was
developed by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995 [40] to imitate the
intelligence and movement of swarms of birds or fish. The tech-
nique has been extensively used in different types of problems,
such as [41–42], proving its stability and efficiency in structural
and material design process.
A brief explanation of the PSO algorithm based on the present
FE calculation is illustrated in Fig. 15, while the details can be
referred to Wang and Pindera [42]. First, the positions of a swarm
of particles (unknown coefficients in Eq. (41)) are considered
within the considered range, aiming at keeping the quantity of
shear connectors same. The position of ith particle is denoted as
X i ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xD Þi , where D stands for the dimension of variables,
(a) Deflections
which is also the designated parameters that need to be optimized.
The velocity of the same particle is V i ¼ ðv 1 ; v 2 ; . . . ; v D Þi . pBest and
gBest indicate the best experience of ith particle and other parti-
cles, respectively, used to update the positions continuously. The
updating algorithms are expressed as

v kþ1
id ¼ v½xv kid þ a1 rand1 ðÞðpBestkid  xkid Þ þ a2 rand2 ðÞðgBestkid  xkid Þ
k k

kþ1
xid ¼ xkid þ v kþ1
id
ð42Þ

k
in which superscript k and k þ 1 are the iteration numbers. rand1 ðÞ
k
and rand2 ðÞare random numbers with uniform distributions in the
interval [0,1], and a1 ; a2 are acceleration constants. The parameter x
is the inertia weight parameter, and the parameter v introduced to
ensure convergence is called constriction factor.
(b) Interlayer slips
To demonstrate the efficiency of the new design, comparisons Fig. 16. Deflections (a) and interlayer slips (b) along longitudinal direction of the
are carried out when the shear connector stiffness is uniformly, simply supported beam for uniform, double-triangular, optimized quadratic shear
double-triangularly and optimized quadratic distributed. The connector distributions.
dimensions and material properties (except shear connector stiff-
ness) here are the same as that of Girhammar and Gopu [4] which In real engineering practice, based on the analysis of the safety
have already been provided in Section 4.1. The uniformly dis- state of structure, the shear connectors of the partial-interaction
tributed load on the simply supported beam is q0 = 1 kN/m. It composite beam could be properly increased or reduced to realize
should be mentioned that 50 elements are employed to generate the balance between economy and safe capacity, depending on the
the accurate results, where the values of shear connector stiffness boundary conditions. More complicated situations can be designed
are assigned as instructed in Eqs. (39) or (41). 15 particles and 15 through the similar procedure, which will be explained in future
maximum iterations are designated for the optimization. After research work.
15.3 s execution, the converged parameters are generated after
5th iteration (Intel Core i5-4200 M CPU @ 2.50 GHz). The final opti-
mized parameters are a ¼ 3ks , b ¼ 0, c ¼ 0 in Eq. (41). 6. Conclusions
Fig. 16(a)–(b) show the calculated results of deflections and
interlayer slips before and after the design. Results show that the In this work, the local stiffness matrix of composite beams con-
double triangular distribution of shear connecters can significantly sidering the interfacial slips is derived based on the kinematic
decrease the interfacial slips of partial-interaction composite assumptions of Timoshenko’s beam theory. Higher-order interpo-
beam, while the optimized parameters provide even smaller inter- lation functions are adopted for the displacements in order to
layer slips for quadratic distributions. obtain accurate results, and explicit expressions of the stiffness

Fig. 15. PSO algorithm based on FE analysis.

 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772 771



matrix elements are provided in this paper. A finite element pro- 6EI0 C EA h h EAh
gram is developed based on the derivations. The accuracy of pre-
k23 ¼ 2
mp þ ð1 þ mÞp þ q  6m n  6p þ
l 2 6 l l l
sent numerical method are demonstrated with several numerical 2 2
ks l ks l
examples, for both single-span and double-span beam structures þ qn þ q
with different boundary conditions. The explicitly expressed stiff- 60 24
ness matrix elements derived in this paper can also be easily
2 2
6EI0 C EA h ks l 2
implemented into commercial software such as ABAQUS, ANSYS k24 ¼  2
m2  ð1 þ mÞ2  q  6m  q
or for other scientific and engineering designs. The finite element l 2 6 l 60
program is then connected to a particle swarm optimization tech-
2 2
nique to create a sophisticated design procedure for the shear con- 3EI0 2 EI0 Cl EAl h EAh
k25 ¼ m  þ ð1 þ mÞ2 þ q  6m 
nector distributions, in order to reduce both the interlayer slips l l 4 12 l l
and deflections of composite beams under simply supported 3
ks l 2
boundary condition, trying to balance the economical practice þ q
120
and service capacities. The proposed explicitly expressed finite ele-
ment model is convenient and applicable in the analysis and


6EI0 C EA h h EAh
design of partial-interaction composite beams for both profession- k26 ¼ 2
mp þ ð1 þ mÞp þ q  6m n  6p 
l 2 6 l l l
als and non-professionals alike, as well as provides another stan-
2 2
dard against other analytical and numerical techniques. ks l ks l
þ qn þ q
60 24
Acknowledgements

2
12EI0 C 2 EA h EA ks l 2 ks l ks l
k33 ¼ p2 þ p þ n  6p þ þ n þ þ n
The first author gratefully acknowledge the support by the l
3 l 3l l l 30 3 6
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51608211),
the Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (No.


12EI0 C EA h h
2017J05083), and the Scientific Research Funds of Huaqiao Univer- k34 ¼  3
mp  ð1 þ mÞp  q  6m n  6p
l l 3l l l
sity (No. 16BS403). The fourth author is supported by the National
ks l ks l
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51478422 and No.  qn  q
11172266). 30 12



6EI0 C EA h h EAh
Appendix A k35 ¼ 2
mp þ ð1 þ mÞp þ q  6m n  6p 
l 2 6 l l l
2 2
The stiffness matrix elements of partial-interaction composite ks l ks l
þ qn þ q
beams: 60 24

2
2
12EI0 C EA h ks l 2 12EI0 C 2 EA h EA ks l 2 ks l ks l
k11 ¼ 3
m2 þ ð1 þ mÞ2 þ q  6m þ q k36 ¼ p2 þ p þ n  6p  þ n þ nþ
l l 3l l 30 3 l 3l l l 30 6 6
l

2 2
2
6EI0 C EA h ks l 2 12EI0 C EA h ks l 2
k12 ¼ 2 m2 þ ð1 þ mÞ2 þ q  6m þ q k44 ¼ m2 þ ð1 þ mÞ2 þ q  6m þ q
l 2 6 l 60 3 l 3l l 30
l



2
12EI0 C EA h h ks l 6EI0 C EA h
2
ks l 2
k13 ¼ 3
mp þ ð1 þ mÞp þ q  6m n  6p þ qn k45 ¼  m2  ð1 þ mÞ2  q  6m  q
l l 3l l l 30 2 2 6 l 60
l
ks l
þ q


12 12EI0 C EA h h
k46 ¼  3
mp  ð1 þ mÞp  q  6m n  6p
l l 3l l l

2
12EI0 C EA h ks l 2 ks l ks l
k14 ¼  3
m2  ð1 þ mÞ2  q  6m  q  qn  q
l l 3l l 30 30 12

2 2
2 2
6EI0 C EA h ks l 2 3EI0 2 EI0 Cl EAl h EAh
k15 ¼ m2 þ ð1 þ mÞ2 þ q  6m þ q k55 ¼ m þ þ ð1 þ mÞ2 þ q  6m þ
l
2 2 6 l 60 l l 4 12 l l
3


 ks l 2
12EI0 C EA h h ks l þ q
k16 ¼ mp þ ð1 þ mÞp þ q  6m n  6p þ qn 120
3 l 3l l l 30
l


ks l 6EI0 C EA h h EAh
þ q k56 ¼ 2
mp þ ð1 þ mÞp þ q  6m n  6p þ
12 l 2 6 l l l
2 2
ks l ks l

2 2 þ qn þ q
3EI0 2 EI0 Cl EAl h EAh 60 24
k22 ¼ m þ þ ð1 þ mÞ2 þ q  6m þ
l l 4 12 l l
2
3 12EI0 C 2 EA h EA ks l 2 ks l ks l
ks l 2 k66 ¼ p2 þ p þ n  6p þ þ n þ nþ
þ q l
3 l 3l l l 30 6 3
120
772 J.-P. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 761–772

References [23] G. Ranzi, A. Zona, A steel–concrete composite beam model with partial
interaction including the shear deformability of the steel component, Eng.
Struct. 29 (11) (2007) 3026–3041.
[1] E. Ellobody, B. Young, Performance of shear connection in composite beams
[24] H.R. Valipour, M.A. Bradford, A steel-concrete composite beam element with
with profiled steel sheeting, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (7) (2006) 682–694.
material nonlinearities and partial shear interaction, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 45
[2] Y.F. Wu, D.J. Oehlers, M.C. Griffith, Partial-interaction analysis of composite
(2009) 966–972.
beam/column members, Mech. Struct. Mach. 30 (3) (2002) 309–332.
[25] S.F. Jiang, X. Zeng, D. Zhou, Novel two-node linear composite beam element
[3] D. Chen, Variational Principles of Partial-Interaction Composite Beams and
with both interface slip and shear deformation into consideration:
Modified Reduced Stiffness Method for Calculating its Deflection Master
Formulation and validation, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 85 (8) (2014) 110–119.
Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 2012.
[26] Q. Nguyen, E. Martinelli, M. Hjiaj, Derivation of the exact stiffness matrix for a
[4] U.A. Girhammar, V.K. Gopu, Composite beam-columns with interlayer slip-
two-layer Timoshenko beam element with partial interaction, Eng. Struct. 2
exact analysis, J. Struct. Eng. 119 (4) (1993) 1265–1282.
(33) (2011) 298–307.
[5] U.A. Girhammar, D.H. Pan, Exact static analysis of partially composite beams
[27] E. Martinelli, C. Faella, G.D. Palma, Shear-flexible steel-concrete composite
and beam-columns, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 49 (2) (2007) 239–255.
beams in partial interaction: closed-form ‘‘exact” expression of the stiffness
[6] N. Newmark, C. Siess, I. Viest, Test and analysis of composite beams with
matrix, J. Eng. Mech. 138 (2) (2012) 151–163.
incomplete interaction, P. Soc. Exp. Stress Anal. 9 (1) (1951) 75–92.
[28] R. Brighenti, S. Bottoli, A novel finite element formulation for beams with
[7] R. Xu, D. Chen, Variational principles of partial-interaction composite beams, J.
composite cross-section, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 89 (2014) 112–122.
Eng. Mech. 138 (5) (2011) 542–551.
[29] G. Taig, G. Ranzi, Generalised beam theory (GBT) for composite beams with
[8] R. Xu, Y. Wu, Static, dynamic, and buckling analysis of partial interaction
partial shear interaction, Eng. Struct. 99 (2015) 582–602.
composite members using Timoshenko’s beam theory, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 49 (10)
[30] J.P. Lin, J.F. Wang, R.Q. Xu, Cohesive zone model based numerical analysis of
(2007) 1139–1155.
steel-concrete composite structure push-out tests, Math. Probl. Eng. 2014
[9] R. Xu, G. Wang, Variational principle of partial-interaction composite beams
(2014) 1–12.
using Timoshenko’s beam theory, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 60 (1) (2012) 72–83.
[31] J.B.M. Sousa, A.R. Da Silva, Nonlinear analysis of partially connected composite
[10] S. Schnabl, M. Saje, G. Turk, I. Planinc, Analytical solution of two-layer beam
beams using interface elements, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 43 (2007) 954–964.
taking into account interlayer slip and shear deformation, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (6)
[32] A.R. Da Silva, J.B.M. Sousa Jr., A family of interface elements for the analysis of
(2007) 886–894.
composite beams with interlayer slip, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 45 (2009) 305–
[11] R. Xu, G. Wang, Bending solutions of the Timoshenko partial-interaction
314.
composite beams using Euler-Bernoulli solutions, J. Eng. Mech. 139 (12)
[33] Composite construction in structural steel and concrete: British standard code
(2013) 1881–1885.
of practice CP 117: Part I. The Council for Codes of Practice British Standards
[12] Y. Wu, M.C. Griffith, D.J. Oehlers, Numerical simulation of steel plated RC
Institution, 1965.
columns, Comput. Struct. 82 (2004) 359–371.
[34] J.B. Menzies, CP 117 and shear connectors in steel-concrete composite made
[13] Q. Nguyen, M. Hjiaj, S. Guezouli, Exact finite element model for shear-
with normal-density or lightweight concrete, The Struct. Engineer 49 (3)
deformable two-layer beams with discrete shear connection, Finite Elem. Anal.
(1971) 137–154.
Des. 47 (2011) 718–727.
[35] K. Abel-Aziz, J.M. Aribert, Calcul des poutres mixtes jusqu’à l’état ultime avec
[14] M.R. Salari, E. Spacone, Finite element formulations of one-dimensional
un effet de soulèvement à l’interface acier-béto, Constr. Métallique 4 (1985)
elements with bond-slip, Eng. Struct. 23 (7) (2001) 815–826.
(in French).
[15] Z. Shen, H. Zhong, Static and vibrational analysis of partially composite beams
[36] H. Robinson, K.S. Naraine, Slip and uplift effects in composite beams, in:
using the weak-form quadrature element method, Math. Probl. Eng. 2012
Proceedings of the Engineering Foundation Conference on Composite
(2012) 1–23.
construction (ASCE) (1988) 487-497.
[16] E. Thompson, J. Goodman, M. Vanderbilt, Finite element analysis of layered
[37] J.C. Chapman, S. Balakrishnan, Experiments on composite beams, The
wood systems, J. Struct. Div. – ASCE 101 (12) (1975) 2659–2672.
Structural Engineer 42 (11) (1964) 369–383.
[17] A. Ayoub, F.C. Filippou, Mixed formulation of nonlinear steel-concrete
[38] R.P. Johnson, Designers’ guide to eurocode 4: design of composite steel and
composite beam element, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (3) (2000) 371–381.
concrete structures (2nd Edition), London: ICE (Designers’ guides to the
[18] C. Faella, E. Martinelli, E. Nigro, Steel and concrete composite beams with
Eurocodes), 2012.
flexible shear connection: ‘‘exact” analytical expression of the stiffness matrix
[39] N.A. Jasim, Deflections of partially composite beams with linear connector
and applications, Comput. Struct. 80 (2002) 1001–1009.
density, J. Constr. Steel Res. 49 (1999) 241–254.
[19] A. Dall’Asta, A. Zona, Three-field mixed formulation for the non-linear analysis
[40] J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, Proceedings IEEE
of composite beams with deformable shear connection, Finite Elem. Anal. Des.
International Conference on Neural Networks (1995) 1942–1948.
40 (2004) 425–448.
[41] W. Tu, M.-J. Pindera, Targeting the finite-deformation response of wavy
[20] B. Čas, M. Saje, I. Planinc, Non-linear finite element analysis of composite
biological tissues with bio-inspired material architectures, J. Mech. Behav.
planar frames with an interlayer slip, Comput. Struct. 82 (2004) 1901–1912.
Biomed. Mater. 28 (2013) 291–308.
[21] G. Ranzi, M.A. Bradford, B. Uy, A direct stiffness analysis of a composite beam
[42] G. Wang, M.-J. Pindera, Elasticity-based microstructural optimization: an
with partial interaction, Int. J Numer. Meth. Eng. 61 (5) (2004) 657–672.
integrated multiscale framework, Mater. Des. 132 (2017) 337–348.
[22] G. Ranzi, M.A. Bradford, Direct stiffness analysis of a composite beam-column
element with partial interaction, Comput. Struct. 85 (2007) 1206–1214.