A Computer Method For Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis of 3D Composite Steel-Concrete Frame Structures

Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D composite

steelconcrete frame structures
C.G. Chiorean
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 15 C. Daicoviciu Str., RO-400020 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 March 2013
Revised 12 September 2013
Accepted 16 September 2013
Available online 18 October 2013
Keywords:
Distributed plasticity
Large deection
Tangent exural rigidity
Residual stresses
3D frameworks
Advanced inelastic analysis
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents an efcient computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of three-dimensional
composite steelconcrete frameworks. The proposed formulation is intended to model the geometrically
nonlinear inelastic behaviour of composite frame elements using only one element per physical member.
The behaviour model accounts for material inelasticity due to combined bi-axial bending and axial force,
gradual yielding is described through basic equilibrium, compatibility and material nonlinear constitutive equations. In this way, the states of strain, stress and yield stress are monitored explicitly during each
step of the analysis, the arbitrary cross-sectional shape, various stressstrain relationships for concrete
and steel and the effect of material imperfections such as residual stresses are accurately included in
the analysis. Tangent exural rigidity of cross-section is derived and then using the exibility approach
the elasto-plastic tangent stiffness matrix and equivalent nodal loads vector of 3-D beam-column element is developed. The method ensures also that the ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section is
nowhere exceeded once a full plastied section develops. The proposed nonlinear analysis formulation
has been implemented in a general nonlinear static purpose computer program. Several computational
examples are given to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method and the reliability of the code
to approach large-scale spatial frame structures.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent years, have witnessed signicant advances in nonlinear inelastic analysis methods for steel and composite steelconcrete framed structures and integrate them into the new and
more rational advanced analysis and design procedures [1,2]. Reliable nonlinear analysis tools are, for instance, essential in performance-based earthquake engineering, and advanced analysis
methodologies, that involves accurate predictions of inelastic limit
states up or beyond to structural collapse. A number of approaches
have been proposed in the last years to model the nonlinear response of composite steelconcrete elements [324]. A detailed
discussion about this issue can be found in [3,4].
There currently exist several methods and computer programs
concerning the nonlinear inelastic analysis that calculate strength
limit states of steel and composite steelconcrete frame structures.
At one extreme, two-and three dimensional nite elements enhanced with advanced material constitutive laws [14,15,17] were
used to investigate the nonlinear response of steel and composite
steelconcrete frame members. Currently the available tools for
such analysis are general purpose FE programs that require very
Tel./fax: +40 264 594967.

E-mail address: cosmin.chiorean@mecon.utcluj.ro
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.09.025
ne-grained modelling that is often impractical to the structural

engineer. At the other extreme, the line elements approach in conjunction with either distributed or concentrated plasticity models,
have been devoted to the development of nonlinear analysis tools
for frames that provide a desirable balance between accuracy and
computational efciency [513,1631].
In the concentrated plasticity approach [16,1820] which is
usually based on the plastic hinge concept, the effect of material
yielding is lumped into a dimensionless plastic hinge. Regions
in the beam-column elements other than at the plastic hinges
are assumed to behave elastically. In the plastic hinge locations if
the cross-section forces are less than cross-section plastic capacity,
either elastic behaviour or gradual transition (rened plastic hinge)
from elastic to plastic behaviour is assumed. The plastic hinge approach could eliminate the integration process on the cross section
and permits the use of fewer elements for each member, and hence
greatly reduces the computing effort. Unfortunately, as plastication in the member is assumed to be concentrated at the member
ends, the plastic hinge model is usually less accurate in formulating the member stiffness, requires calibration procedures, but
make possible to use only one element per physical member to
simulate geometric and material nonlinearities in composite building frameworks [16,20]. In the distributed plasticity models gradual yielding and spread of plasticity is allowed throughout
126
C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152
cross-section and along the member length [514,17,2232]. There

are two main approaches that have been used to model the gradual
plastication of members in a second-order inelastic analysis, one
based on the displacement method or nite element approach
[17,25] and the other based on the force or exibility method [5
14,2224,2632]. Because displacement based elements implicitly
assumed linear curvatures along the element length, accuracy in
this approach when material nonlinearity is taken into account
can be obtained only using several elements in a single structural
member, thus the computational effort is greatly enhanced and
the method becomes prohibited computational in the case of large
scale frame structures. On the other hand in the exibility based
approach only one element per physical member can be used to
simulate the gradual spread of yielding throughout the volume of
the members but the complexity of these methods derives from
their implementation in a nite element analysis program and
the inclusion of the element geometrical effects [26]. Mixed nite
element approaches have been developed also to model composite
beams with bond slip [3,5,6,8,22]. However in order to allow the
concrete and steel to have independent displacements all these
methods include additional degrees of freedom at the element
ends. When modelling the semi-rigid composite frameworks some
difculties may arise enforcing the compatibility conditions at the
semi-rigid composite connections [23].
In the efforts to develop an intermediate solution that has the
computational efciency of plastic hinge methods and the accuracy of distributed plasticity methods several researchers developed quasi-plastic hinge [23,3032] or stress-resultant constitutive
models [21]. Although subject to some limitations of required calibration these methods have been shown to make distributed plasticity analyses practical for large scale 3D steel [30,31] and
composite steelconcrete frameworks [21,23], usually only one
element per member is necessary to analyze.
In spite of the availability of such nonlinear inelastic algorithms
and powerful computer programs, the advanced nonlinear inelastic analysis of real large-scale composite steelconcrete frame
structures still posses huge demands on the most powerful of
available computers and still represents unpractical tasks to most
designers.
The present work attempts to develop accurate yet computational efcient tools for the nonlinear inelastic analysis of real
large-scale 3D composite steelconcrete frameworks fullling the
practical and advanced analysis requirements. Essentially, nonlinear inelastic analysis employed herein uses the accuracy of the bre elements approach for inelastic frame analysis and address its
efciency and modelling shortcomings both to element level,
through the use of only one element to model each physical member of the frame, and to cross-sectional level through the use of
path integral approach to numerical integration of the cross-sectional nonlinear characteristics. This is an essential requirement
to approach real large spatial frame structures, combining modelling benets, computational efciency and reasonable accuracy.
Recent studies show that the slip effect between the steel and
concrete interface has negligible inuence on the global behaviour
of multi-storey and high-rise fully connected steelconcrete composite frames [14]. In the proposed approach perfect bond between
steel beam and concrete slab is assumed.
Within the framework of exibility based formulation a 3D
frame element with 12 DOF able to take into account the distributed plasticity and element second order effects is developed.
Comparing the proposed method with the related methods developed in [2629] the present approach has several features that
make the proposed element more practical in the context of implementation in nite element analysis program and posses accuracy
comparable to that of bre-exibility or bre-displacement nite
elements.
As will be briey described in the following sections, the element incremental stiffness matrix and the equivalent nodal loads
are derived directly from energetic principles. In this way the elements of the stiffness matrix and equivalent nodal loads can be obtained analytically and readily evaluated by computing the
correction coefcients that affect the elastic exibility coefcients
and equivalent loads. In this way numerical integrations are required only to evaluate these correction coefcients and not the
entirely exibility or stiffness matrix elements as in [2629]. Besides, the effect of the transverse shear deformation can be readily
included in the element formulation, both in stiffness matrix and
equivalent nodal loads. The resulting exibility matrix of the element may have both elastic and plastic contributions. During the
loading process unsymmetrical distribution of plastic zone
throughout the cross-section may occur and consequently there
are coupling between axial force and bending moments in elastoplastic domain. The present formulation does not consider the
plastic interaction terms relating the axial and bending terms in
the exibility/stiffness matrix of the element. However the neglected terms in exibility matrix have only plastic contributions
and may be ignored. This is obviously a simplication of the proposed approach whose acceptance must be justied by verication
studies, but the resulting stiffness matrix does not incurring the
expense of a detailed exibility based methods [2629]. In its nal
computerized implementation the proposed method is very similar to quasi-plastic hinge approaches [32]. Moreover, in the proposed approach, the effects of the discontinuity and/or discrete
loading along element can be efciently taken into account by
writing a single moment equation in such a way that it becomes
continuous for entire length of the element in spite of the discontinuity of loading. Thus the separate moment equation for each
change of loading point is not required.
The element stiffness matrix are evaluated in [2629] by an
iterative procedure carried out at the element level, nested in the
iterative procedure adopted to solve the nonlinear global structural
response [33]. Thus approximations in the strain distribution along
the element length, in the control sections, are required in the
force-based frame elements. This fact makes these methods to be
more complicated in implementation in nite element analysis
framework. On the other hand, in the proposed approach the element force elds are described by the second order transfer matrix
as function of the nodal and applied element forces and the inelastic response of the cross-sections (control points) is rigorously
evaluated by enforcing the equilibrium between external and
internal forces for each cross-section by a global convergence iterative procedure. In this way gradual yielding throughout the crosssection subjected to combined action of axial force and bi-axial
bending moments is described through basic equilibrium, compatibility and material nonlinear constitutive equations, the states of
strain, stress and yield stress are monitored explicitly during each
step of the analysis, the arbitrary cross-sectional shape and the effect of material imperfections such as residual stresses are accurately included in the analysis. Tangent exural and axial rigidity
of the cross-sections are explicitly derived and the inelastic response at the element level is determined by integrating the variable section exural EIy and EIz and axial EA rigidity along the
member length, depending on the bending moments and axial
force level, cross-sectional shape and nonlinear constitutive
relationships.
Comparing the proposed formulation with those described in
[23,2529] another difference of the proposed approach refers to
how the element geometrical effects are taken into account. In displacement-based formulations [23,25], the deformed shape of the
element is obtained directly based on the nodal displacement values and the adopted shape functions. Thus the implementation of
the element second-order effects are straightforward, but the accu-
racy is dependent by the number of the nite elements involved.

On the other hand in exibility based element there are no deformation shape functions to relate the deformation eld inside the
element to the nodal displacements hence more elaborate and
more time consuming procedures are required. For instance, in order to capture the element geometrical effects in [27] is developed
a curvature-based displacement interpolation (CBDI) function
whereas in [29] Simpson integration scheme along with piecewise
interpolation of the curvature is applied. In the proposed approach
because the method requires tangent exural rigidities to be computed along the element length, the stability stiffness functions can
be easily applied as corrections of the element elasto-plastic tangent stiffness matrix, and updating at each load increment the
length, axial force and the exural rigidity about of each principal
axes of the element. This method minimizes the modelling and
solution time and generally only one element are needed per member in order to simulate the second order effects. Although subjected to some limitations of required calibration this approach
has been shown to make inelastic second-order analyses practical
for large building frames [30,31].
Recent studies [3437] show that one of the most critical element that affects both the accuracy and speed of the inelastic section response and consequently the inelastic element analysis
procedure is the stress integration scheme. Most of the existing
methods implemented in exibility based or displacement based
bre elements for the inelastic analysis of cross-sections rely on
the numerical integration of stress resultants using the well known
bre decomposition method where the cross section is decomposed in laments and the section response is computed by composing the uniaxial behaviour of each lament. These techniques
are not numerically efcient due to large amount of information
needed to characterize the section and the high number of operations required by stress integration with an allowable error level. A
further complication is represented by the nonlinear constitutive
laws that are usually assumed for concrete in compression and
tension. These laws are dened by piecewise functions and there
is no continuity in the derivative and the classical integration
methods can produce important integration errors [35,36]. As will
be briey described in this paper in the proposed approach an improved adaptive GaussLobatto numerical integration scheme on a
Green path integral is applied demonstrating fast execution and
accuracy for stress integration throughout the cross-sections. This
approach is extremely rapid because stress integrals need only be
evaluated at a small number of points on the section boundary and
rapid convergence is assured by the inclusion of exactly determined tangent stiffnesses. A closely related issue to the aforementioned stress integration represents the incorporation and
evaluation of the residual stress effects for encased steel section
on the carrying capacity and inelastic behaviour during the loading
process of the composite steelconcrete sections. Only a few studies available in the literature [38,39] have addressed this effect and
detailed nite element studies are rather scarce in the open
literature.
During the loading process the equilibrium condition may be
violated as the applied bending moments at the section are greater
than the moment capacities, which is not acceptable for maximum
strength analysis of members. An important feature of the present
approach is represented by the capacity to determine directly the
ultimate bending moments in order to check that they full the
ultimate limit state condition. Such a procedure is absolutely necessary in order to ensures that the ultimate strength capacity of the
cross-section is nowhere exceeded once a full plastied section
develops and to enforce the member equilibrium forces.
Using an updated Lagrangian formulation, the global geometrical effects are considered updating the geometry of the structure at
each load increment. The combined effects of material and
127
geometrical nonlinearity sources are simulated into a computer

program automatically. In order to verify the efciency and the
accuracy of the proposed procedure and the developed code, this
computer program was used to study the nonlinear behaviour of
several composite steelconcrete frame structures that has been
studied previously by other researchers. Several examples including simply column, simply-supported beams, continuous beams,
plane frames and large scale 3D frames were analysed and compared with available experimental and numerical results. The
examples run and the comparisons made prove the effectiveness
of the proposed numerical procedure. The proposed software is
presented as an efcient, reliable tool ready to be implemented
into design practice for advanced analysis and seismic performance evaluation of spatial composite frame structures.
2. Formulation of the proposed analysis method
The following assumptions are adopted in the formulation of
analytical model: (1) plane section remain plane after exural
deformation; no slip occurs at the steelconcrete interface, full
composite action is considered (2) warping and cross-section distortion are not considered; (3) torsional buckling do not occur;
and (4) small strain but arbitrarily large displacements and rotations are considered.
The proposed approach is based on the most rened type of second order inelastic analysis, distributed plasticity model, where
elasto-plastic behaviour is modelled accounting for spread-of plasticity effect in sections and along the element and employs modelling of structures with only one line element per member, which
reduces the number of degree of freedom involved and the computational time. The above assumptions allow the formulation details
to be considered on two distinct levels, namely, the cross-sectional
level and the member longitudinal axis level. Thus the nonlinear
inelastic response of a beam-column element can be computed
as a weighted sum of the inelastic response of a discrete number
of cross-sections (i.e. stations) that are located at the numerical
integration scheme points.
Although the present study concerns mainly on frames with rigid joints and the effect of the oor slab action is ignored, in the
proposed approach can be easily implemented the effects of the
nonlinear behaviour of semi-rigid connections, with proper nonlinear moment-relative rotation models for composite connections,
and the oor slab action. For instance the mathematical model described in [31] can be useful to include the effects of the semirigidity and the penalty element method can be used, as described
in [31], to include the effect of the rigid oor diaphragm action.
Alternatively, the oor slab may be modelled as at shell elements
(with 6 degrees of freedom per node) and coupled in this way with
the beam-column element developed in this paper. Usually it is assumed that the oor slab remain elastic until the collapse of the
frame, consequently only one at shell element is required to model the stiffness of the slab. However, under extreme loadings which
may cause severe damage in buildings, tensile membrane action of
composite slab, which may signicantly affect the capacity and response of the frame, is not taken into account in the proposed
approach.
2.1. Elasto-plastic cross section analysis
The elasto-plastic cross-section stiffness may be modelled by
explicit integration of stresses and strains over the cross-section
area (e.g., as micro model formulation) or through calibrated parametric equations that represent force-generalized strain curvature
response (e.g. macro model formulation). In the macro model approach the gradual plastication through the cross-section sub-
128
jected to combined action of axial force and biaxial bending moments may be described by momentcurvature-thrust (MUN),
and moment-axial deformation-thrust (MeN) analytical type
curves that are calibrated either by numerical or experimental
tests. Due to the fact that the inelastic behaviour of composite
cross-sections is inuenced by a various effects such as the shape
of stressstrain relationship for concrete and steel, the geometrical
shape of the cross-section, and material imperfections, rigorous
analytical relationships are difcult to develop. In the micro model
formulation, as proposed in the present paper, gradual plastication through the cross-section subjected to combined action of axial force and bi-axial bending moments is described through basic
equilibrium, compatibility and material nonlinear constitutive
equations. In this way, the states of strain, stress and yield stress
are monitored explicitly during each step of the analysis, the arbitrary cross-sectional shape and the effect of material imperfections
such as residual stresses are accurately included in the analysis.
2.1.1. Basic assumptions and constitutive material models
Consider the cross-section subjected to the action of the external bending moments about both global axes and axial force as
shown in Fig. 1. The cross-section may assume any shape with
multiple polygonal or circular openings. It is assumed that plane
section remains plane after deformation. This implies a perfect
bond between the steel and concrete components of a composite
concrete-steel cross section. Shear and torsional interaction effects
are not accounted for in the steel and concrete constitutive models.
2.1.1.1. Behaviour of concrete in compression. The constitutive relation for concrete under compression is represented by a combination of a second-degree parabola (for ascending part) and a straight
line (for descending part), Eq. (1), as depicted in Fig. 2:
8

2
>
< fc 2 ee ee2 ; e 6 e0
c0
fco

c0
>
: fc 1 c eec0
; e0 < e
ecu ec0
Fig. 2. Stressstrain relationship for concrete in compression.
where fc represents the prism compressive strength and c represents the degree of strain-softening in the concrete and allows for
the modelling of strain-softening effect and creep in the concrete
by simply varying the crushing strain ec0, ultimate compressive
strain ecu and c respectively. The prism compressive strength fc is taken as 0.76fcu, where fcu represents the cubic compressive strength
and can be approximately evaluated as 1:25fc0 where fc0 represents
the cylinder compressive strength.
2.1.1.2. Behaviour of concrete in tension. Neglecting tension strength
of concrete could lead to a loss in the smoothness of momentcurvature curves due to the sudden drop in stress from the cracking
strength to zero at the onset cracking. In addition, tension strength
of concrete results in a small change in peak strength, but this is
usually negligible. The model to account for tension strength,
developed by Vecchio and Collins [40] is taken into account in
the present investigation. The model of concrete in tension can
be given in the following analytical form (Fig. 3):
Fig. 1. Arbitrary composite steelconcrete cross-section.
129
Residual stresses may be incorporated in the analysis. The magnitude and distribution of residual stresses in hot-rolled members
depend on the type of cross-section and manufacturing processes
and different patterns are proposed. In the US, the residual stress
is considered constant in the web although when the depth of a
wide ange section is large, it varies more or less parabolically
(Fig. 5b). Another possible residual stress pattern in the web is
the one simplied by a linear variation as used in European calibration frames (Fig. 5a).
Fig. 3. Stressstrain relationships for concrete in tension.
(
ft
Et e;
e 6 ecr
p f ;
e > ecr
1 500e cr
a1 a22
where Et denotes the modulus of elasticity of concrete in tension; fcr

represents the tensile strength of concrete; ecr is the concrete cracking strain; a1 is a factor that takes into account the bounding characteristics of the reinforcement and a2 represents a factor that takes
into account the effects of load duration and cyclic loads. The tensile
strength of concrete fcr is obtained as 1.4 (fc/10)2/3 and the tensile
elastic modulus before cracking Et is assumed the same as compressive elastic modulus. As illustrated in Fig. 3 a slow rate of tension
softening is assumed for the concrete in tension.
2.1.1.3. Behaviour of structural steel. A multi-linear elasticplastic
stressstrain relationship, both in tension and in compression, is
assumed for the structural steel. In this way the strain-hardening
effect may be included in analysis. The analytical model can be given in the following form (Fig. 4):
8
>
< Es e; jej 6 jesy1 j

fs sgnefsy1 Esh1 e sgne esy1 ; esy1 < jej 6 esy2

>
:
sgnefsy2 Esh2 e sgne esy2 ; esy2 < jej 6 esu
where Es is the Young modulus, fsyi denotes the yield stresses, esyi
represents the yield strains, esu the ultimate steel strain and Eshi represents the slopes of the yielding branch, and sgn() represents the
signum function, returns 1 for negative values and +1 for positive
values.
2.1.1.4. Behaviour of reinforcing bars. When the steel bar is subjected to tension, the crack in concrete will lead to the inhomogeneous distribution of stress of the steel bar along the longitudinal
direction. Based on experimental results and theoretical analysis
in [41] has been proposed a method for considering the inhomogeneous distribution of stress and smeared crack model. The stress
strain relationship of the steel bar in tension concrete region could
be calculated as (Fig. 6):
(
fr
Es e;

fyr 0:91 2B 0:02 0:25Be=eyr ;
e 6 enr
e > enr
1:5
fcr =fyr
where the parameter B
, q = longitudinal reinforcement
q
steel ratio (limited to a minimum of 0.25%), the modied yield
strain of the steel bar is enr = eyr(0.93 - 2B)/(1 - 0.25B), the modied
yield stress is fnr = Esenr, and the ultimate average strain is eur = eyr(0.07 + 2B)/(0.25B). The hardening effect is not considered when
the steel bar bearings compression load, therefore, a perfect elasto-plastic model for compression is assumed.
2.1.2. Elasto-plastic exural rigidity of cross-section
Considering the cross-section subjected to the action of the
external bending moments (My, Mz) about each global axes and axial force (N) as shown in Fig. 1. The origin of the reference axis is
usually considered in the geometric centroid of the cross-section.
Under the above assumptions the resultant strain distribution corresponding to the curvatures about global axes U bUy Uz c and
the axial strain e0 can be expressed in point r y z in a linear
form as:
e e0 Uy z Uz y er e0 UrT er
where er represents the initial deformation produced by residual

stresses, and is taken into account in above equation only for the
structural steel. The equilibrium is satised when the external
Fig. 4. Stressstrain relationship for steel.
130
computed. According to the Newton iterative method, the iterative

changes of unknowns vector X can be written as:
1
Xk1 Xk F0 Xk FXk ;
k0
where F represents the Jacobian (or tangent cross-section stiffness

matrix) of the nonlinear system (6) and can be expressed as:
2
F0
@N int
6 @ e0
6 @Mint
@F
y
6
6 @ e0
@X
4 int
@M z
@ e0
@Nint
@/y
@Nint
@/z
@Mint
y
@/y
@Mint
y
@/z
@Mint
z
@Mz
@/z
@/y
7
7
7
7
5
int
Explicitly the expressions of the Jacobians coefcients are given in

Eq. (10).
k11
Fig. 5. Residual stress patterns.
FX f
int
f
ext
6
T
where X e0 /y /z , the external and internal loading vectors

can then be represented by:
2
f
ext
6
7
4 M y 5;
Mz
3
f
int
3
ree0 ; /y ; /z dAcs
Acs
6 int R
7
7
6
4 My Acs ree0 ; /y ; /z zdAcs 5
R
M int
z Acs ree0 ; /y ; /z ydAcs
Nint
in which e0, /y, /z represent the unknowns and the surface integral
is extended over concrete and structural steel areas (Acs). The above
system can be solved numerically using, for instance, the load-controlled Newton method and taking into account the fact that the
stresses are implicit functions of the axial strain and curvatures
through the resultant strain distribution given by Eq. (5). Eq. (6)
are solved numerically using the NewtonRaphson method, and results in three recurrence relationships to obtain the unknowns
e0, /y, /z and then exural EI and axial EA rigidity modulus can be
ree0 ; /y ; /z dAcs
Acs
Z
Acs
@N int
@
@/y @/y
ree0 ; /y ; /z dAcs
@r @e
dAs
@ e @ e0
ET dAcs
Acs
Z
@r @e
dAcs
ET zdAcs
@
e
@/
Acs
Acs
Acs
y

Z
Z
Z
@N int
@
@r @e
k13
ree0 ; /y ;/z dAcs

dAs
ET ydAcs
@/z @/z Acs
Acs @ e @/z
Acs
Z
Z
Z
int
@M y
@
@r @e
k21
ree0 ;/y ; /z zdAcs

zdAs
ET zdAcs
@ e0 Acs
@ e0
Acs @ e @ e0
Acs
Z
Z
Z
int
@M y
@
@r @e
k22
ree0 ;/y ; /z zdAcs

zdAs
ET z2 dAcs
@/y Acs
@/y
Acs @ e @/y
Acs
Z
Z
Z
@M int
@
@r @e
y
k23
ree0 ; /y ; /z zdAcs
zdAcs
ET yzdAcs
@/z Acs
@/z
Acs @ e @/z
Acs

Z
Z
Z
@M int
@
@r @e
z
k31
ree0 ;/y ; /z ydAcs

ydAcs
ET ydAcs
@ e0 Acs
@ e0
@
e
@
e
0
Acs
Acs
Z
Z
Z
int
@M z
@
@r @e
k32
ree0 ;/y ; /z ydAcs

ydAcs
ET yzdAcs
@/y Acs
@/y
Acs @ e @/y
Acs
Z
Z
Z
int
@M z
@
@r @e
k33
ree0 ; /y ; /z ydAcs
ydAcs
ET y2 dAcs
@/z Acs
@/z
Acs @ e @/z
Acs
k12
forces (N, My, Mz) are equal to the internal ones. These conditions
can be represented mathematically in terms of the following nonlinear system of equations as:
@N int
@
@ e0
@ e0
10
These coefcients are expressed in terms of the tangent modulus of elasticity Et = dr/de. The iterative procedures starts with the
all unknowns e0, /y, /z set to zero and the solutions will be computed in just a few iterations by applying the rapid locally convergent Newton iterative procedure given by Eq. (8) enhanced with a
line search algorithm such that global convergence can be
achieved. By a globally convergence algorithm we mean that for
Fig. 6. Stressstrain relationship for reinforcing bars.
131
any initial iterate the iteration either converges to a solution or

fails to do so in one way. When iteration fails to converge, within
a prescribed number of iterations, this means that the external
loads exceeded ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section. In
this case ultimate strength capacity procedure is applied as will
be described in the next sections. The convergence criterion is expressed as a ratio of the norm of the out-of-balance force vector to
the norm of the total applied load. So the solution is assumed to
have converged if:
p
FT F
p 6 TOL
ext T ext
f f
11
where TOL is the specied computational tolerance, usually taken as

1E 5.
In this way, for given bending moments and axial force we can
obtain the strain and stress distribution throughout the cross-section and then the axial and exural rigidity of the cross-section can
be computed, as will be briey described below.
The tangent stiffness matrix for the cross section relates small
changes in the deformations to small changes in the actions sustained. The incremental relationships between incremental efforts
and incremental deformations can be expressed as:
k11
6
4 k21
k31
k12
k22
k32
3 2
3
De0
DN
7 6
7 6
7
k23 5 4 D/y 5 4 DM y 5
D/z
DM z
k33
k13
3 2
12
13
where kt represents the tangent stiffness matrix of cross-section,

DF represents the incremental forces (axial force and bending moments about each principal axes of cross-section) and Du represents the incremental deformations (axial deformation and
curvatures). The coefcients of the tangent stiffness matrix kij are
given by Eq. (10) and are evaluated considering the strains and
stresses at equilibrium for given external actions. Inverting the relationship (13) gives:
f t DF Du
DN 0;
DM z 0
DN 0;
DM y 0
15
Considering the system (14) with the unknown DF the exural

rigidity about y axis is determined solving the system with the following imposed restrictions:
DN 0
DM z 0
16
The incremental forces DF can be expressed, in this case, as:
2 3
0

^ 4 1 5 DM y
DF TDF
0
17
Substituting Eq. (17) for DF into Eq. (14) gives:
^ Du
f t TDF
18
^ we
Multiply both members of Eq. (18) with T and solving for DF
obtain:
T
1
^ TT f t T TT Du
DF
19
Eqs. (17) and (19) can now be combined by realizing that the basic
forcedeformation relationship is given by:
1
DF TTT f t T TT Du
20
or in explicitly matrix form:
or in a condensed matrix form:
kt Du DF
DM y
;
D/y
DM z
EItz
;
D/z
EIty
14
3 2
DN
0 0
6
7 6
4 DMy 5 4 0 EIty
0 0
DM z
3
De0
7 6
7
0 5 4 D/y 5
0
D/z
0
3 2
where EIty represents the tangent exural rigidity about x axis of

cross-section and is given by the following relation:
2
EIty
k11 k22 k33 k11 k23 k33 k12 2k12 k13 k23 k22 k13
k11 k33
2
k13
22
Applying a similar approach the tangent exural rigidity about z

axis and tangent axial rigidity can be obtained as:
2
1
where f t kt represents the tangent exibility matrix of crosssection.

We dene the tangent exural rigidity about one axis of crosssection as a ratio between incremental bending moment and incremental curvature about that axis while keeping constant the axial
force and bending moment about the other axis (Fig. 7):
21
EItz
k11 k22 k33 k11 k23 k33 k12 2k12 k13 k23 k22 k13
k11 k22
2
k12
k12 k21 k12 k23 k31 k22 k32 k21

k22
k22 k33 k22 k32 k23
k31 k22 k32 k21
k13
k33 k22 k32 k23
23
EAt k11
24
It is important to note that, despite the fact that the position of

the reference axis is kept xed in evaluation of the elasto-plastic
cross-section rigidities, the effect of unsymmetrical development
of the plastic zones throughout the cross-section is efciently taken into account by Eqs. (22)(24). For instance, in the case of uniaxial bending for symmetric cross-sections (considering the
bending about z axis) it can be readily derived from Eq. (23) that
the tangent exural rigidity of the cross section can be computed
using the following relationship:
EItz
Z
Acs
R
Et y2 dAcs
Acs
Et ydAcs
Acs
Et dAcs
2
25
Now it can be easily observed that the tangent exural rigidity can
be further expressed as:
EItz
Acs
Fig. 7. Tangent exural rigidity denition.
where
Et y yp 2 dAcs
26
132
Fig. 8. Composite beam with full composite action.
yp RAcs
Et ydAcs
27
E dAcs
Acs t
and represents the coordinate of the plastic centroid of the crosssection computed about the xed reference axis. The above relationships can be applied even for evaluation of the elastic bending
stiffness (about z axis) of the composite cross-section, as shown in
Fig. 8. Indeed, considering the origin of the reference axis in the geometric centre of the steel beam, when apply Eq. (25) the expression
of the bending stiffness can be reduced at the following
relationship:
EI0 Ec Ic Es Is
E c Ac E s As 2
r
Ec Ac Es As
28
which represents the elastic exural rigidity of the composite beam

with full composite action and where EsAs, EcAc represents the axial
stiffness of the steel and concrete components respectively and EsIs,
EcIc are exural rigidity of steel and concrete components respectively computed about their own reference axis.
2.1.3. Ultimate strength capacity evaluation
A particularly important feature of the present approach is represented by the capacity to determine directly the ultimate bending moments for a given value of axial force and bending moment
ratio in order to check that they full the ultimate limit state condition (Fig. 9). Such a procedure is absolutely necessary in order to
ensures that the ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section is
nowhere exceeded once a full plastied section develops and to
enforce the member forces to move on the plastic surface during

the loading steps.
The cross-section subjected to bi-axial bending moments and
axial force, reaches its failure limit state when the strain in the extreme bre, attains the ultimate value. Consequently, at ultimate
strength capacity the equilibrium is satised when the external
forces are equal to the internal ones and in the most compressed
concrete or tensioned steel bre the ultimate strain is attained.
These conditions can be represented mathematically in terms of
the following nonlinear system of equations as:

8R
r ee0 ; /y ; /z dAcs N 0
>
Acs
>
>

>R
<
r ee0 ; /y ; /z ydAcs Mz 0
Acs

R
>
r ee0 ; /y ; /z zdAcs u My 0
>
>
Acs
>
:
e0 /y zc /y ; /z /z yc /y ; /z ecu 0
29
in which N, My, Mz, e0, /y, /z represent the unknowns, the surface
integral is extended over concrete and steel area (Acs). In Eqs. (29)
the rst three relations represent the basic equations of equilibrium
for the axial load N and the biaxial bending moments My, Mz respectively, given in terms of the stress resultants. The last equation represents the ultimate strength capacity condition in which yc(/y, /z)
and zc(/y, /z) represent the coordinates of the point in which this
condition is imposed (Fig. 1). The coordinates of the constrained
point can be always determined for each inclination of the neutral
axis dened by the parameters /y and /z, and ecu represents the ultimate strain. The numerical procedure consists on the solution of the
nonlinear system (29) for the following linear constraint:
Fig. 9. Interaction diagram for given bending moments ratio. The plastic surface requirements.
L1 N; My ; M z N N0 0
L2 N; My ; M z M z tanaM y 0
30
where N0, represents the given axial force and bending moment ratio is given by tan(a). Corresponding to the linear constraint (30) we
can dene a point on the failure surface (Fig. 9) for a (given) xed
axial load (N0) and a given bending moments ratio. For each inclination of the neutral axis dened by the parameters /y and /z the
farthest point on the compressed or tensioned side is determined
(i.e. the point with co-ordinates yc, zc). Assuming that the failure
condition is achieved in this point, the resulting strain distribution
corresponding to the curvatures /y and /z can be expressed in linear
form as:
e/y ; /z ecu /z y yc /y z zc
31
Then, substituting the strain distribution given by Eq. (31) in

the basic equations of equilibrium, the unknown e0 together with
the failure constraint equation can be eliminated from the nonlinear system (29). Thus, the nonlinear system of Eq. (29) is reduced
to an only three basic equations of equilibrium and together with
the linear constraints (Eq. (30)), forms a determined nonlinear system of equations (with only two nonlinear equations), and the
solutions can be obtained iteratively following the procedure described in [34]. This procedure will be used further in the present
formulation (see Section 2.2.3) to determine the plastic bending
moment capacities associated to a given value of axial force.
2.1.4. Evaluation of tangent stiffness and stress resultant
Based on Greens integration formula according to which the
domain integrals appearing in the evaluation of internal resultant
efforts and tangent stiffness matrix coefcients of the section can
be evaluated in terms of boundary integral. This approach is extremely rapid because stress integrals need only be evaluated at a
small number of points on the section boundary and rapid convergence is assured by the inclusion of exactly determined tangent
stiffnesses and, of great importance, it is assure convergence for
any load case. For this purpose, it is necessary to transform the
variables rst, so that the stress eld is uniform in a particular
direction, given by the current position of the neutral axis [34].
This is achieved by rotating the reference axes x, y to n, g oriented
parallel to and perpendicular to the neutral axis, respectively. As
the integration area contour is approximated by a polygon, the
integral over the perimeter L, can be obtained by decomposing this
integral side by side along the perimeter:
hgnp dg
nL Z
X
gi1
hgnp dg
32
gi
i1
where nL is the number of sides that forms the integration area. The
sides are dened by the ng co-ordinates of the end-points as shown
in Fig. 1. When the integration area is a circle with radius R, the
integral over the perimeter L can be obtained by decomposing this
integral as:
I
L
hgnp dg
hgR2 g2
p=2
dg 1p
R
R
p=2
hgR2 g2
dg
33
This leads to a signicant saving in imputing the data to describe the circular shapes, without the need to decompose the circular shapes as a series of straight lines and approximate the
correct solution when circular boundaries are involved and allows
efciently to handle various circular shapes such as llet regions
which dene the exact geometry of the structural steel proles
133
(Fig. 8). In order to perform the integral on a determined side of

the contour (Li), polygonal or circular, of the integration area, an
adaptive interpolatory GaussLobatto method is used [34].
The effect of residual stresses may be included in the analysis
providing that the residual stress can be linearized for individual
zones in the steel section associated to variations of residual stresses throughout the height of cross-section. For instance assuming
the EC3 distribution of residual stresses the cross-section has to
be divided in six regions as depicted in Fig. 10. In this way for each
region the total strain in can be expressed as:
e e0 /y z /z y er
34
where er represents a linear residual strain eld which can be expressed for each particularly region as:
er a1 a2 z a3 y
35
Next, the integration of the stress resultant and stiffness coefcients over the steel cross-section will be transformed into line
integrals along the perimeter of the cross-section as already described, but in this case the reference axes are rotated for each region using the following value for angle h:
tan h
/y a2
/z a3
36
2.2. Second-order inelastic member analysis

2.2.1. Elasto-plastic tangent stiffness matrix and equivalent nodal
loads
Flexibility-based method is used to formulate the distributed
plasticity model of a 3D frame element (12 DOF) under the above
assumptions. An element is represented by several cross sections
(i.e. stations) that are located at the numerical integration scheme
points (Fig. 11). The spread of inelastic zones within an element is
captured considering the variable section exural EIy and EIz and
axial EA rigidity along the member length, depending on the bending moments and axial force level, cross-sectional shape and nonlinear constitutive relationships. The elasto-plastic sectional
rigidities are evaluated based on the iterative procedure already
described at Section 2.1.2. Fig. 12 shows the 3D beam-column element in local system attached to the initially straight centre line,
with the rigid body modes removed.
Nonlinear analysis by the stiffness method requires incremental
loading, i.e. the inelastic behaviour is approximated by a series of
elastic analysis. The element incremental exibility matrix fr which
relates the end displacements to the actions Dsr and the elastoplastic equivalent nodal forces transferred to the nodes, can be derived directly from energetic principles.
The elasto-plastic equivalent nodal forces transferred to the
nodes, from the member loads, will not be constant during the
analysis, and will be dependent on the variable exural rigidity
along the member according with the process of gradual formation
of plastic zones. The equivalent nodal forces will be computed in
order to accommodate member lateral loads and the plastic
strength surface requirements.
Let us consider the element in Fig. 12 subjected to nodal bending moments (DMi, DMj), uniform distributed loads (Dq), the concentrated forces at the a location (DP) and the concentrated
bending moments at the b location and at the j end of the
member (DMpb, DMpj). The concentrated bending moments are
considered here as plastic correction moments, taken into account
only when in the respective cross-section forces get to the full plastic capacity and constraining in this way that the section forces to
move on the plastic surface during the loading process. It is obvious that in this case the loading conditions change along the span
134
Fig. 10. Discretization of the structural steel. Incorporation of residual stresses.
Fig. 11. Beam column element with 12 DOF.
of beam, and consequently there is corresponding change in moment and shear forces equations. This requires that a separate mo-
ment equation be written between each change of load point.

These complications can be avoided by writing single moment
135
DW
L
2
Z
2
DM 2z n
L 1 DM y n
dn
dn
EIz n
2 0 EIy n
0
Z
Z
2
DM2x
L 1 DT y n L 1 DT 2z n
dn
2 0 GAy n 2 0 GAz n
GIt n
DN 2
L
dn
2
EAn
42
Using the second theorem of Castigliano the relationship between incremental deformations and efforts can be readily calculated and partitioned as follows:
@ DW
@ DN
3 2 3
DN
0
6 DM 7 6 d 7
iy 7
iy 7
6
6
# 6
7 6 7
6 DMjy 7 6 djy 7
033
7 6 7
6
6 DM 7 6 d 7
f 233
iz 7
6
6 iz 7
7 6 7
6
4 DM jz 5 4 djz 5
2
6 @ DW 7
6h 7 6
@ DM iy 7
7
6 iy 7 6
6
"
6 7 6 @ DW 7
6 hjy 7 6 @DMjy 7
f 133
7
6 76
6 h 7 6 @ DW 7
7
033
6 iz 7 6 @DMiz 7
6 7 6
4 hjz 5 6 @ DW 7
7
4 @ DMjz 5
hx
@ DW
Fig. 12. Beam column element with rigid body modes removed.
DM x
43
@ DM x
or in a condensed form:
equation in such a way that it becomes continuous for entire
length of the beam in spite of the discontinuity of loading. In this
paper, Macaulays method [42] is applied for cases of discontinuous and/or discrete loading. Macaulay functions represent quantities that begin at a point a. Before point a the function has zero
value, after point a the function has a dened value:
F n x hx ain
0;
when x 6 a
x an
when x > a
37
where n = 0, 1, 2, . . . When the exponent n = 0, we have:
F 0 x hx ai0
0; when x 6 a
1
when x > a
38
Dur f r Dsr dr
44
where fr represents the incremental exibility matrix of the beamcolumn element without rigid body modes, and in which the matrices fi (i = 1, 2) have the following expressions:
2 R1 1
3
L 0 EAn dn
0
0
6
7
R
R
R
R
2
1
1
1
1
6
7
f1 6
0
L 0 n1
dn 1L 0 GAdn
L 0 nn1
dn 1L 0 GAdn
7
EIy n
EIy n
y n
y n 5
4
R 1 nn1
R
R
R
2
1 n
1 1 dn
1 1 dn
0
L 0 EIy n dn L 0 GAy n L 0 EIy n dn L 0 GAy n
2 R1
L
6 R0
6
f 2 6 L 01
4
n12
EIz n
dn 1L
n12
EIz n
dn 1L
R1
dn
0 GAz n
R1
R1
dn
0 GAz n
R1
F n1 x hx ain1
F n xdx
n1
n1
8
n1
> nhx ai ; n P 1
@F n x @hx ain <
0
hx ai ;
n1
>
@x
@x
:
0;
n0
39
40
n12
EIz n
dn 1L
R1
dn
0 GAz n
R1
dn
0 GAz n
0
L
R1
dn
0 GIt n
3
7
7
7 45:b
5
shear
dijyz dbending
ijyz dijyz
46
where
dbending
iyz
Dqyz L2 nn 1
DM yz n DM iyz 1 n DMjyz n
2
h
i
0
DM pbyz n hLn bi DMpjyz n
h
i
DPyz hLn ai1 nL a DT yz n
dshear
ijy
where n = x/L. Assuming elastic behaviour within a load increment, and no coupling of axial and exural responses at the
section level, the increment of the strain energy DW can be
written as follows, including the additional shear and torsional
deformations, Fig. 12:
dn 1L
and dr is a term resulting from loading actions. The equivalent nodal

displacements dr of the beam-column element without rigid body
modes are computed according to Eq. (43) and their elements can
be written as:
With these functions we can determine the element force elds

(bending moments and shear forces) as functions of the nodal
element forces (DMi, DMj), lateral loads and concentrated
bending moments applied along the beam column element. With
positive convention as shown in Fig. 12 the internal forces,
about each principal axis (y or z), are given by the following
expressions:
DMiyz DMjyz Dqyz L2n 1

dM yz n
2
dn
L

1
1
La
DM pbyz DM pjyz DPyz hLn ai0
41
L
L
L
n12
EIz n
These functions can be integrated and differentiated as follows:
45:a
Z
Dqyz L3 1 nn 12
dn DMpbyz
2
EIyz n
0
Z 1
1 nbn hLn bi0 c

dn DM pjyz
EIyz n
0
Z 1
Z 1
n1 n
1 nhLn ai1 nL a

dn DPyz
EIyz n
EIyz n
0
0
Z
Dqyz L 1 1 2n
DMpbyz
dn
GA
n
L
2
yz
0
Z 1
D
M
1
pjyz
dn

L
0 GAyz n
Z 1
Z 1
hLn ai0 La

1
L
dn DP yz
dn

GAyz n
0 GAyz n
0
dbending
jyz
Z 1
n2 n 1
dn DMpbyz
EIyz n
0
0
Z 1
nbn hLn bi0 c
n2

dn DMpjyz
dn
EIyz n
EI
yz n
0
Z 1
nhLn ai1 nL a
DPyz
EIyz n
0
Dqyz L3
2
47
48
49
136
To produce the deformational-stiffness relation, Eq. (44) is inverted,

resulting the following deformational-stiffness equation:
Dsr kr Dur qr
50
where the vector qr is the equivalent load vector, whereas kr represents the instantaneous element stiffness matrix of the beam-column element without rigid body modes, determined by matrix
inversion of the exural matrix fr:
"
1
kr66 f r
1
f1
f2
1
"
k133
033
033
k233
#
51
qr kr dr
The integrals of the exural coefcients and equivalent load vector
are calculated numerically using Eqs. (22)(24) to express exural
and axial rigidity EIy(z), EA. The cross-sections are located at control
points whose number and location depends on the numerical integration scheme. In this work, the GaussLobatto rule for element
quadrature is adopted because it has integration points at each ends
of the element, where the plastic deformations is important, and
hence performs better in detecting yielding. However for members
subjected to transversal loads within the member length important
plastic deformations could be developed inside the element length
where the bending moment has a maximum value. In these situations the integration rule is applied by dividing the interval into
two subintervals, with nodes at the element ends and at the section
with maximum bending moment (at the section where the shear
force has zero value) and use the quadrature rule in each subinterval. In this context the Lobatto integration scheme has another
advantage over the Legendre integration scheme, given by the fact
that the point corresponding to the left end in one interval is the
same as the point corresponding to right end in the next, the cost
of evaluating a Lobatto rule is reduced by about one integrand evaluation compared with Legendre rule.
The resulting element stiffness matrix is a 6 6 matrix. To include rigid body modes, the stiffness matrix is pre-and post multiplied by a transformation matrix to result in the required 12 12
matrix [31].
2.2.2. The second-order effects on element tangent stiffness matrix
The geometrical nonlinear effects for each element are taken
into account in the present analysis, in a beam column approach,
by the use of the stability stiffness functions and updating at each
load increment the length, axial force and the exural rigidity
about of each principal axes of the element. This way minimizes
modelling and solution time, generally only one element is needed
per member [16,30]. The effect of axial force on torsional stiffness
is ignored in the present formulation. The element force elds are
described by the second order transfer matrix as function of the
nodal element forces [30]. The equivalent nodal forces are calculated taking into account the second-order effects in a similar way.
2.2.3. The plastic surface requirements
If the state of forces at any cross-section along the beam column
element equals or exceeds the plastic section capacity (i.e. when
the strain in the extreme bre, attains the ultimate value), the exural stiffness at the respective location approaches zero or becomes negative when the strain-softening effect for the concrete
in compression is taken into account. In order to avoid numerical
instabilities, for this cases, the sectional hardening is activated,
thus a residual value of the tangent exural rigidity of the cross
EIt
section is considered to be EI
0:001. This effect is reected in
0
the element tangent stiffness matrix coefcients given by Eqs.
(45). It is important to highlight that negative values of tangent
exural rigidities are correlated with the strain softening degree
of the concrete in compression and with the magnitude of the
compressive axial force. For steel sections (elasticperfect plastic)

or for composite steelconcrete sections when the strain softening
effect is not taken into account the tangent exural rigidities are always positive at ultimate strength capacity of the cross-section.
For the cross-sections when the ultimate strength capacity is attained it is considered that a plastic hinge is developed. Once a plastic hinge is formed, the internal forces must satisfy the condition of
plastic strength but the combination of internal forces may change.
Once the member forces get to the full plastic surface, the equilibrium condition may be violated as the applied bending moments at
the section are greater than the moment capacities, which is not
acceptable for maximum strength analysis of members. This reects the condition of the force point lying outside the failure surface indicated in Fig. 9 and a procedure has to be applied to bring
back this force point onto the failure surface. Therefore, when the
axial force of a member increases at the following loading step, the
incremental forcedisplacement relationships at the element level
has to be modied such that the loading result in motion along the
interaction surfaces and the plastic strength surface requirement of
the full plastied sections is always satised. This approach derives
from the plastic theory of work hardening (or stable) material as
one in which the work done during incremental loading is positive
and associated ow rule can be applied. An important characteristic of concrete that cannot be adequately treated by the classical
work-or strain hardening theory of plasticity is the full stress
strain behaviour beyond the peak stress called stress-softening effects. Various types of non-associated ow rules have also been
proposed, but the associated ow rule concept is applied here for
practical reasons, since the question of strain softening is highly
controversial [43] and since there is very little experimental evidence reported in the literature on the direction of ow of the plastic-strain-increment vector under two and three dimensional
states of stress. Assuming that at the end of a loading step, at a
cross-section, the forces violates the plastic surface, the bending
moment is adjusted to be reduced, considering the member loaded
by the correction bending moment DMp, where DMp is the change
in the plastic moment capacity at the respective cross section as
axial force changes (Fig. 9).
The correction plastic bending moments are determined as follows. Let us consider that at the current loading step in a specied
location the forces N ; M y ; M z exceed the plastic surface, this
means that for that loads the maximum strain in most compressed
or tensioned bre of the cross-section exceeds the assumed ultimate strain. For given value of axial force (N) the iterative procedure described at Section (2.1.3) is applied in order to determine
the ultimate bending moments M yp ; Mzp for a given bending moMz
ment ratio tan a M
. Next the correction plastic bending moment
y
is determined as:
DM yp M y M yp
DM zp M z M zp
52
The additional incremental moments are applied as loadings on the

element and are considered through equivalent nodal forces as already described in Section (2.2.1). Since the force-point movement
remains on the plastic strength surface of a member, the plastic
strength surface requirement of a section is not violated by the
change of member forces after the full plastic strength of cross-section is reached.
2.2.4. Geometry updating and analysis algorithm
In order to trace the equilibrium path, for proportionally and
non-proportionally applied loads, the proposed model has been
implemented in a simple incremental matrix structural-analysis
program. The simple Euler stepping algorithm is used in conjunction with constant work-load increments and the natural deforma-
137
tion approach. This analysis is simple, reliable and is not sensitive

to convergence failures that can occur in incremental-iterative
schemes, and can also give the full nonlinear load-deformation response including the ultimate load and post-critical response. The
incremental change in the displacements can be written as the
solution of:
tions at each load increment. The natural deformation approach

(NDA) in conjunction with the geometrical rigid body qualied
stiffness matrix [44] is adopted for the element force recovery
and the web plane vector approach is effectively used to update
the frame element coordinates [30].
KiT DUi Dki DFil DFip
3. Computational examples
53
where within a particular load cycle, i, KiT the tangent stiffness matrix; DUi the incremental displacement vector, DFil the incremental
nodal force vector including the member loads; DFip the additional
self-equilibrating nodal force vector. Only those elements that have
moments in excess of the strength capacities will contribute to DFip .
The incremental load factor Dk is computed so as to keep constant
the incremental work DW, performed by the applied external loads,
at each load cycle:
Dki
DW DFip DUi
DFil DUi
54
The accuracy of the solution is controlled via multiple analyses

based on convergence of system response.Using an updated
Lagrangian formulation (UL) the nonlinear geometrical effects are
considered updating the element forces and geometry congura-
Based on the analysis algorithm just described, a computer program, NEFCAD, has been developed to study the combined effects
of material and geometric nonlinear behaviour on the load-versus-deection response for spatial composite steelconcrete
framed structures. It combines the structural analysis routine with
a graphic routine to display the nal results. The computational engine was written in Compaq Visual Fortran. The graphic interface
was created using Microsoft Visual Basic 6. Dynamic Link Libraries
(DLL) are used to communicate between the interface and engine.
The accuracy of the analytic procedure and the computer program
developed here, has been evaluated using several benchmark problems analyzed previously by other researchers using independent
nite element solutions. The selected problems consist of simply
column, proposed here, simply-supported beams [45], continuous
beams [46], plane frames [18,23,47] whose nonlinear response is
dominated by spreading plasticity effects in individual members,
Fig. 13. Composite steelconcrete column.
Fig. 14. Momentcurvature analysis for different values of compressive axial loads with and without residual stress effects: (a) weak axis bending; and (b) strong axis
bending.
138
and two large-scale space frames [18,23] in which both geometric

and material nonlinear effects contributed to the failure. In the
present approach, one element has been used to model each column and beam in all computational examples.
3.1. Example 1: Composite steelconcrete column
Two sets of nonlinear analyses have been conducted for axially
compressed element, proposed in this work, as shown in Fig. 13, to
verify the performance and the efciency of the proposed method
in capturing spread of plasticity, second-order effects and also the
effects of residual stresses over ultimate strength capacity, deformability and exural rigidity of composite steelconcrete
elements.
In the rst set of tests inelastic cross-section analyses have been
conducted. In this respect parametric studies concerning moment
curvature response, moment-tangent exural rigidity evaluation
under condition of constant axial load and ultimate strength capacity evaluation for different loading orientation have been
performed.
The automatic drawing of the moment -curvature diagram and
subsequently the bending moment-tangent exural rigidity
diagram, is accomplished here by applying the iterative procedure

described at Section 2.1.2, scaling the bending moments through
the load factor under constant axial force and then an automatic
step length adaptation scheme, such as arc length strategy, for
the loading factor is applied [34].
The cross-section consists of a concrete core and a symmetrically placed USA wide ange section W12 120 (Fig. 13). Characteristic strength for concrete in compression is fc = 20 MPa and the
stressstrain curve which consists of a parabolic and linear part
was used in the calculation (Eq. (1)), with crushing strain
e0 = 0.002, ultimate strain ecu = 0.0035. The strain softening of concrete is taken into account with c = 0.15. The Young modulus for
encased structural steel and reinforcements is 200 GPa. A bi-linear
elasto-perfect plastic stressstrain relationship for the reinforcement bars and structural steel, both in tension and in compression,
is assumed with the yield strength of fyr = 400 MPa and fys = 300 MPa respectively.
Fig. 14 shows the comparative bending momentcurvature diagrams of cross-section, considering uniaxial bending about X-axis
(strong) and Y-axis (weak) respectively under several compressive
axial loads with and without residual stress effect. The effect of
residual stresses is taken into account considering two types of
Fig. 15. Variation of tangent exural rigidity: (a) weak axis; and (b) strong axis.
Fig. 16. Variation of tangent exural rigidity: biaxial bending-(a) strong axis; and (b) weak axis.
Fig. 17. Interaction diagrams for different values of bending moment s ratio.
Fig. 18. Lateral loaddisplacement curves (a) Minor axis bending; and (b) Major axis bending.
139
140
residual stress patterns for structural steel element, EC3 and AISCLRFD, respectively. The comparison reveals that the inuences of
residual stresses play an important role on both carrying capacity
and inelastic behaviour, during the loading process, on composite
cross section and this effect becomes more effective when EC3 distribution is taken into account and for bending about weak axis.
The moment-tangent exural rigidity curves, for weak and strong
axis bending, under condition of constant axial load, shown in
Fig. 15 demonstrate that the stiffness degradation of composite
section, in presence of residual stresses, is evident and more pronounced especially for weak axis bending, in the case when EC3
distribution for residual stresses is assumed.
This section was also analysed for different compressive axial
loads and with moments applied about an axis at a = 30 to the
strong axis. Tangent exural rigidities for weak and strong axis
bending are shown in Fig. 16. The results indicate similar behaviour as already described in the cases of uniaxial bending. Fig. 17
presents the interaction diagrams for different values of bending

moment ratio (a = 0-strong axis bending, a = 30; a = 60 and
a = 90-weak axis bending) and with and without the presence of
residual stresses. As it can be seen the presence of residual stresses
indicates lower capacity of cross section, even for low compressive
axial load, and this effect is more pronounced when bending take
place about weak axis of the cross-section and in the case of EC3
distribution for residual stresses. Fig. 18 shows the lateral applied
loaddisplacement curves for the column considering uniaxial
bending about either weak or strong axis respectively and for different values of compressive axial load N. The column is subjected
to non-proportional loads. The compressive axial force N is rst applied and kept constant whereas the lateral loads, either Hx (bending on weak axis) or Hy (bending on strong axis) are then applied
and progressively increased. For the encased structural steel EC3
distribution for residual stresses has been considered. As it can
be seen when the residual stresses effect is taken into account
Fig. 19. Simply supported composite beam subjected to two concentrated loads.
Fig. 20. Simply supported composite beam subjected to concentrated load at midspan length.
141
Fig. 21. Two span continuous composite beam.
tion of the column is more pronounced in the presence of the residual stresses especially in the case of bending about weak axis.
One important conclusion from this case study can be drawn
that the inuence of residual stresses, for encased steel section,
on the carrying capacity and inelastic behaviour during the loading
process is important, especially for bending about weak axis, and
neglecting this effect may overestimate the structural stiffness
and ultimate capacity of composite steelconcrete elements.
3.2. Example 2: Simply supported composite beams

Fig. 22. Composite beam frame.
the ultimate load factor is reduced and also the stiffness degrada-
Two simply supported composite beams subject to saging moments, tested by Nie and Cai [45], are presented here, for numerical
verication of the proposed approach. The composite beams have
been also analysed numerically by Nie et al. [14] using an advanced
mixed nite-element approach combining the bred beam and
Fig. 23. Loaddisplacement curves for composite beam frame.
142
Fig. 24. Composite portal frame: (a) the geometry and loading arrangement; and (b) cross-sections details.
Fig. 25. Loaddisplacement curves for composite portal frame.
Fig. 26. Composite steelconcrete portal frame.
layered shell elements. The geometry, material and section properties of the simple composite beams are depicted in Figs. 19 and 20.
The cubic compressive strength of the concrete in compression
is fcu = 27.7 N/mm2, the yield stress of the steel beams is

fsy1 = 310 N/mm2 , Youngs modulus is Es = 20 000 MPa, Esh1 = 0,
esy1 = 2.5% (Fig. 4) and the strain hardening modulus is
143
Fig. 27. Loaddisplacement curves of composite portal frame.
Fig. 28. Tangent exural rigidity (1 EIt/EI0) distribution at ultimate load factor: (a) about weak axis; and (b) about strong axis.
Esh2 = 100 MPa. The behaviour of the reinforced bars, both in

tension and compression, are modelled according with the
model described in Section 2.1.1 with the yield strength
fyr = 290 N/mm2. The tensile strength of the concrete is taken into
account according with the model described in Fig. 3, with a1 = 1

and a2 = 0.75.
According to the present analysis, the midspan deection is
plotted on Figs. 19 and 20 where the experimental results from
144
[45] and bre nite element analyses [14] are also compared. As it
can be seen the behaviour of composite beams predicted by the
present analysis is consistent with that of experimental tests and
is in close agreement with that of mixed-nite element analysis.
It is important to note that when the contribution of the rebars
is neglected the proposed numerical approach gives conservative
predictions compared to the experimental results. This fact has
been also observed by Nie et al. [14] based on their advanced nite
element simulations. However, because in the present model, the
shear slip effect between concrete slab and steel beam is not taken
into account, the load deection curves predicted by the proposed
model indicates a slightly stiffened behaviour of the beams as compared with the experimental tests.
3.3. Example 3. Continous composite beam
The two span continous composite beam with a loading
arrangement as shown in Fig. 21 has been tested by Slutter and
Fig. 29. Orbisons six story rigid space frame: (a) plan view; (b) perspective view; and (c) member cross-sections.
Driscoll [46] and numerically analysed by the Liew et al. [23] and
Nie et al. [14]. The geometry and section properties of the continous composite beam are depicted in Fig. 21. The cylinder compressive strength of the concrete in compression is fc0 16 MPa, the
yield stress of the structural steel is fsy1 = 252.4 MPa, Youngs modulus is Es = 20 000 MPa, Esh1 = 0, esy1 = 2.5% (Fig. 4) and the strain
hardening modulus is Esh2 = 100 MPa. As it can be seen in Fig. 21
the behaviour of continuous composite beam predicted by the
present analysis is in close agreement with that of experimental
test [46] and mixed-nite element analysis [14].
145
3.4. Example 4. Composite beam frame

The fully connected composite frame tested by Bursi and Gramola [47] is depicted in Fig. 22. This frame has been analysed
numerically by Nie et al. [14] using an advanced mixed bre nite-element approach. The geometry, section properties and loading arrangement of the composite frame are depicted in Fig. 22.
The reinforcement in the concrete slab is doubled near the column.
The cylinder compressive strength of the concrete in compression
is fc0 39 MPa, the yield stress of the steel beams is fsy1 = 300 MPa,
Youngs modulus is Es = 20 000 MPa, Esh1 = 0, esy1 = 2.5% (Fig. 4) and
Fig. 30. Loaddeection curves at node A in X and Y directions.
Fig. 31. Tangent exural rigidity (1 EIt/EI0) distribution along the members length at ultimate load factor: (a) composite frame; and (b) pure steel frame.
146
Fig. 32. Details of tangent exural rigidity (1 EIt/EI0) distribution for composite frame: (a) third oor beams (strong axis); and (b) rst level columns (strong and weak axis).
147
Fig. 33. Details of tangent exural rigidity (1 EIt/EI0) distribution for pure steel frame: (a) third oor beams (strong axis); and (b) rst level columns (strong and weak axis).
148
the strain hardening modulus is Esh2 = 100 MPa. The behaviour of

the reinforced bars, both in tension and compression, are modelled
according with the model described in Section 2.1.1 with the yield
strength fyr = 480 MPa. The tensile strength of the concrete is taken
into account according with the model described in Fig. 3, with
a1 = 1 and a2 = 0.75. As it can be seen in Fig. 23 the results obtained
by the present analysis correlate well with that of experimental
test and mixed-nite element analysis. It is important to note that
in absence of the strain hardening for the structural steel components (elasticperfect plastic, Esh1 = 0, Esh2 = 0) the proposed
numerical approach gives conservative predictions compared to
the experimental results (Fig. 23).
3.5. Example 5. Composite portal frame
The steelconcrete portal frame shown in Fig. 24 consists of a
composite steelconcrete beam with full composite action and
two wide ange W12 50 steel proles completely encased in
concrete. This frame has been analysed by Liew et al. [23] considering the steel columns and composite beam and further modied
by Iu et al. [18] in which the columns have been completely encased in concrete as shown in Fig. 24. A rened plastic hinge model
for composite elements was employed in [18]. In this study the
behaviour of a steel frame with or without composite action for
beam and columns is investigated. The geometry, section properties and loading arrangement of the fully composite frame are depicted in Fig. 24. The frame is subjected to both vertical and lateral
loading, proportionally applied. The yield strength of all steel
members is 248.2 MPa and Youngs modulus is E = 20 000 MPa.
The stran hardening effect of the steel is ignored. Characteristic
strength for concrete in compression is fc = 16 MPa and the
stressstrain curve which consists of a parabolic and linear part
was used in the calculation, with crushing strain e0 = 0.002 and
ultimate strain ecu = 0.0035. The tensile strength of the concrete
is ignored in the proposed analysis. The inelastic behaviour represented by the loaddeections curves calculated by the proposed
approach and those given in [18,23] is compared in Fig. 25. As it
can be seen the results agree closely.
(elasticperfect plastic, Esh1 = 0) the ultimate load factor is drastically reduced and a clear plastic mechanism is revealed. For this
case the Ref. [16] does not presents comparative results.
EIt
Fig. 28 shows the variation of the exural rigidities (1 EI
)
0
along the member lengths, at the ultimate load factor. As it can
be seen plastic deformations are concentrated at the midspan
and right-side of the beam and at the columns base. The failure
of the frame is due to progressive yielding of the composite beam
and columns leading to signicant stiffness degradation and sideway deection. Running the present computer program on a laptop
computer with 2 GHz processor, the present analysis was
performed in only 4 s, with over 100 load cycles, whereas the
loaddisplacement curve obtained by Abaqus and reported in
[16] requires almost 48 min running on a similar computer. This
result demonstrates the computational efciency and time saving
of the proposed approach.
3.6. Example 6: Steel portal frame with composite beam

The steelconcrete portal frame shown in Fig. 26 consists of a
composite steelconcrete beam with full composite action and
two wide ange W12 50 steel columns. The geometric conguration and loading arrangement is shown in Fig. 26. This frame has
been analyzed by the Ngo-Huu and Kim [16] using a bre plastic
hinge approach and an advanced ne-grained nite element
numerical model developed in the Abaqus software. The frame is
subjected to the combined action of concentrated load
(P = 150 kN) at midspan of the beam and a lateral load as shown
in Fig. 26. Both loads are considered to be applied proportionally
until the collapse of the structure. The yield strength of all steel
members is 252.4 MPa, Youngs modulus is E = 20 000 MPa and
the strain hardening modulus is Esh1 = 6000 MPa. The beam section
consists of a W12 27 steel section and a concrete slab
102 mm 1219 mm. Characteristic strength for concrete in compression is fc = 16 MPa and the stressstrain curve which consists
of a parabolic and linear part was used in the calculation, with
crushing strain e0 = 0.002 and ultimate strain ecu = 0.00 806. The
strain softening of concrete is not taken into account (c = 0).
Fig. 27 shows the comparative load factor-lateral displacement
curves obtained using the proposed approach, with and without
strain hardening effect, and the results retrieved from [16]. As it
can be seen the proposed model agrees fairly well with references,
when strain hardening effect is taken into account. However in absence of the strain hardening for the structural steel components
Fig. 34. Twenty story composite space frame: (a) plan view; and (b) perspective
view.
3.7. Example 7: Six-story composite space frame

The Orbisons six story rigid space frame, studied previously by
other researchers, has been modied and included in this verication study (Fig. 29ac). In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the numerical procedure developed here, this example converts
the pure steel frame to a composite frame [18]. The steel beams
in the frame rigidly support the concrete oor slab, and the steel
columns are partially encased in the concrete (Fig. 29c) [18]. The
yield strength of all steel members is 250 MPa, Youngs modulus
is E = 20 700 MPa and shear modulus G = 79 293 MPa. The compressive yield stress of concrete is fc = 16 MPa and the stressstrain
curve which consists of a parabolic and linear part was used in
the calculation, with crushing strain e0 = 0.002 and ultimate strain
ecu = 0.0035. The strain softening of concrete is not taken into account (c = 0). The frame is subjected to the combined action of
149
gravity and lateral loads acting in the Y-direction. Uniform oor

pressure is 9.6 kN/m2 (simulated here as uniform distributed loads
on each beam) and the wind loads are simulated by point loads of
53.376 kN in the Y direction at every beam-column joints. The
inelastic behaviour represented by the loaddeections curves at
node A in X and Y directions calculated by the proposed approach
and those given in the literature is compared in Fig. 30. A rened
plastic hinge model for composite elements was employed in
[18], whereas a bre nite element approach for pure steel elements was included in [17]. Good correlation of the numerical results can be observed. However in the case of full composite frame
(beams and columns) the proposed approach indicates the ultimate load factor 1.23 which is slightly higher than ultimate load
factor obtained by Iu et al. (1.17) using a rened plastic hinge approach [18]. Some differences can be observed also over the lateral
stiffness of the frame. In the analysis of frame while considering
Fig. 35. Loaddeection curves at node A.
Fig. 36. Loaddeection curves at node B.
150
the composite beams and columns the ultimate load factor is

slightly higher than in the case of steel frame with composite
beams only, in the last case the ultimate load factor resulting
1.19. As it can be seen the lateral stiffness of the frame slightly increases for full composite case (beams and columns) as compared
with the case in which the composite action is taken into account
only for beams. Fig. 31 shows the variation of exural rigidities
along the member lengths, at the ultimate load factor, for the pure
steel frame and for the composite steelconcrete frame, respectively. Details of the exural rigidity distribution (1 EIt/EI0) for
the columns (both major and minor axes) at the rst level and
for the beams (about major axis) at the third level are depicted
in Fig. 32 (composite frame) and Fig. 33 (pure steel frame), respectively. It can be clearly observed the exural stiffness degradation
for beams and columns in these cases. Running the present computer program on a laptop computer with 2 GHz processor, the
present analysis was performed in almost 20 s, considering 5 integration points along the members length.
the columns (both major and minor axes) at the rst level and
for the beams (about major axis) at the third level are depicted
in Figs. 38 and 39 respectively. It can be clearly observed the exural stiffness degradation for beams and columns in these cases. As
it can be seen in Fig. 39 the stiffness degradation is more accentuated for the beams in the y direction and plastic deformations are
concentrated signicantly toward the end region of the beams. The
same observation has been reported by Liew et al. [23] when a distributed plasticity approach was involved to study the behaviour of
the beams of this frame.
Running the present computer program on a laptop computer
with 2 GHz processor, the present analysis, for the case when composite columns and composite beams is considered, was performed
in almost 2 min, despite the fact that the analysis has been
launched within the graphical user interface. This result proves
the high computational efciency of the proposed approach.
4. Conclusions
3.8. Example 8: Twenty-story composite space frame
Twenty-story steel space frame with dimensions and properties
shown in Fig. 34 has been studied previously by Liew et al. [23],
Jiang et al. [17] and Ngo-Huu et al. [48]. Liew et al. [23] analyzed
also this frame considering composite beams with full shear connection. A50 steel is used for all steel sections, the yield strength
of steel is assumed to be fy = 344.8 N/mm2, Young modulus
E = 2 105 N/mm2 and elasticperfect plastic constitutive relationship is considered. Overall slab depth is assumed to be
127 mm, and the compressive yield stress of concrete is
fc = 27.6 N/mm2. The concrete slab is considered within the range
of effective ange width (1/4 span length for interior beams and
1/8 span length for exterior beams). The frame is analyzed for
the combination of gravity loads = 4.8 kN/m2 (simulated here as
uniform distributed loads on each beam) and wind
loads = 0.96 kN/m2, acting in the y-direction (simulated here as nodal loads). In Liews et al. [23] study, rigid oor diaphragm action is
assumed in the global analysis. Liew employed one plastic-hinge
beam-column element to model each steel column and four elements for each beam. The inelastic behaviour of beams is taken
into account considering MU relationship. The limit load of the
frame is reached at the load ratio of 1.031, for bare steel frame
whereas a load factor of 1.338 is obtained when composite steel
concrete beams are considered. In Ngo-Huus et al. [48] study,
the bre plastic hinge concept has been used to predict the second-order inelastic behaviour of the pure steel frame, and the
inelastic limit point reported is 1.003. In present analysis one element with ve integration points has been used to model each column and beam and the stressstrain curve for concrete in
compression which consists of a parabolic and linear part was used
in the calculation, with crushing strain e0 = 0.002, ultimate strain
ecu = 0.0035. The strain softening of concrete is not taken into account (c = 0). The comparative loaddeection curves of nodes A
and B at the top of the frame calculated by the previous researchers
and the results obtained from the new method are shown in
Figs. 35 and 36. As it can be seen the results obtained by the proposed model agree fairly well with the references. In the analysis of
frame while considering the composite beams and columns the
ultimate load factor is practically the same as in the case of steel
frame with composite beams only, but the lateral stiffness of the
frame is slightly increased for full composite case (beams and columns) as compared with the case in which the composite action is
taken into account only for beams. Fig. 37 shows the variation of
exural rigidities (1 EIt/EI0) along the member lengths, at the
ultimate load factor, for the steelconcrete frame with composite
beams. Details of the exural rigidity distribution (1 EIt/EI0) for
A reliable and robust nonlinear inelastic analysis method for

composite steelconcrete space frames has been developed. The
proposed model is based on the most rened type of second order
inelastic analysis, the plastic zone analysis. Gradual yielding is described through basic equilibrium, compatibility and material non-
Fig. 37. Tangent exural rigidity (1 EIt/EI0) distribution along the members
length at ultimate load factor.
151
Fig. 38. Details of tangent exural rigidity (1 EIt/EI0) distribution for rst level columns (strong and weak axis).
Fig. 39. Details of tangent exural rigidity (1 EIt/EI0) distribution for third oor beams (strong axis).
linear constitutive equations and path integral approach is applied

to numerical integration of the cross-sectional nonlinear
characteristics.
The proposed analysis can practically account for major factors
inuencing nonlinear composite steelconcrete space frame
behaviour: gradual and distributed yielding associated with biaxial
bending and axial force, stressstrain relationships for concrete in

compression and tension, residual stress distribution in encased
steel elements, shear deformations, local and global second order
effects with computational efciency, and the necessary degree
of accuracy, usually only one element per member is necessary
to analyze. Lateral loads acting along the member length can be
152
directly input into the analysis without the need to divide a

member into several elements, leading to a consistency in the
linear and nonlinear structural models.
The model has been implemented in a simple incremental matrix structural analysis program and allows proportionally and
non-proportionally loading, and has been veried by comparing
the predicted results with the established results available from
the literature. The studies show that the proposed analysis compares very well to experimental and nite bre element solution
with much less computational effort. The proposed software is presented as an efcient, reliable tool ready to be implemented into
design practice for advanced analysis and pushover analysis of spatial composite steelconcrete frame structures.
Future work is envisaged, considering the extension of the proposed method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D composite
steelconcrete frameworks with partial shear connection of composite beams and semi-rigid behaviour of composite connections.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support from
Romanian National Authority for Scientic Research (ANCS and
CNCSIS Grant PNII-IDEI No. 193/2008) for this study.
References
[1] Li GQ, Li JJ. Advanced analysis and design of steel frames. Wiley; 2007.
[2] Ziemian RD. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 6th
ed. Wiley; 2010.
[3] Ayoub A. Analysis of composite frame structures with mixed elements-state of
the art. Struct Eng Mech 2012;41:15781.
[4] Spacone E, El-Tawil S. Nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite
structures: state of the art. J Struct Eng ASCE 2004;130:15968.
[5] Nguyen QH, Hjiaj M, Uy B, Guezouli S. Analysis of composite beams in the
hogging moment regions using a mixed nite element formulation. J Constr
Steel Res 2009;65:73748.
[6] Valipour HR, Bradford MA. A steel-concrete composite beam element with
material nonlinearities and partial shear interaction. Finite Elem Anal Des
2009;45:96672.
[7] Hjiaj M, Battini JM, Nguyen QH. Large displacement analysis of shear
deformable composite beams with interlayer slips. Int J Non-Linear Mech
2012;47:895904.
[8] Salari MR, Spacone E. Analysis of steel-concrete composite frames with bondslip. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:124350.
[9] Zona A, Barbato M, Conte JP. Nonlinear seismic response analysis of steelconcrete composite frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 2008;134:98697.
[10] Elghazouli AY, Treadway J. Inelastic behaviour of composite members under
combined bending and axial loading. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:100819.
[11] Pi YL, Bradford B, Uy B. Second order nonlinear analysis of composite steelconcrete members. I: theory. J Struct Eng ASCE 2006;132:75161.
[12] Fang LX, Chan SL, Wong YL. Strength analysis of semi-rigid steel-concrete
composite frames. J Constr Steel Res 1999;52:26991.
[13] Bursi OS, Sun FF, Postal S. Non-linear analysis of steel concrete composite
frames with full and partial shear connection subjected to seismic loads. J
Constr Steel Res 2005;61:6792.
[14] Nie J, Tao M, Cai CS, Chen GE. Modeling and investigation of elasto-plastic
behavior of steel-concrete composite frame systems. J Construct Steel Res
2011;67:197384.
[15] Ellobody E, Young B. Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel
composite columns. J Construct Steel Res 2011;67:21122.
[16] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite
frames using ber-hinge method. J Construct Steel Res 2012;74:907.
[17] Jiang XM, Chen H, Liew JYR. Spread of plasticity analysis of three-dimensional
steel frames. J Construct Steel Res 2002;58:193212.
[18] Iu CK, Bradford MA, Chen WF. Second-order inelastic analysis of composite
framed structures based on the rened plastic hinge method. Eng Struct
2009;31:799813.
[19] Iu CK. Inelastic nite element analysis of composite beams on the basis of the
plastic hinge approach. Eng Struct 2008;30:291222.
[20] Liu SW, Lui YP, Chan SL. Advanced analysis of hybrid steel and concrete frames.
Part I: cross section analysis technique and second-order analysis. J Construct
Steel Res 2012;70:32636.
[21] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonllinear analysis of mixed steel-concrete frames. I:
element formulation. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:64755.
[22] Ashraf A, Filippou FC. Mixed formulation of nonlinear steel-concrete
composite beam element. J Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126:37181.
[23] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE. Inelastic analysis of steel frames with
composite beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:194202.
[24] Nukala PKV, White DW. A mixed nite element for three dimensional
nonlinear analysis of steel frames. Comp Methods Appl Mech Eng
2004;193:250745.
[25] Izzudin BA, Siyam AAFM, Lloyd-Smith D. An efcient beam-column
formulation for 3D RC frames. Comput Struct 2002;80.
[26] Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC. Evaluation of nonlinear frame nite-element
models. J Struct Eng ASCE 1997;123:95866.
[27] Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC. A geometrically nonlinear exibility-based frame
nite element. J Struct Eng ASCE 1998;124:70411.
[28] Sivaselvan MV, Reinhorn AM. Collapse analysis: large inelastic deformations
analysis of planar frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 2002;128:157583.
[29] Valipour HR, Foster SJ. A total secant exibility-based formulation for frame
elements with physical and geometrical nonlinearities. Finite Elem Anal Des
2010;46:28897.
[30] Chiorean CG, Barsan GM. Large deection distributed plasticity analysis of 3D
steel frameworks. Comput Struct 2005;83:155571.
[31] Chiorean CG. A computer program for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D semirigid steel frameworks. Eng Struct 2009;31:301633.
[32] Attala MR, Deierlein GG, McGuire W. Spread of plasticity: quasi-plastic hinge
approach. J Struct Eng ASCE 1994;120:245173.
[33] Marmo F, Rosati L. An improved exibility-based nonlinear frame element
endowed with the ber-free formulation. In: European Congress on
Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS
2012). Viena, Austria; 2012. p. 117.
[34] Chiorean CG. Computerised interaction diagrams and moment capacity
contours for composite steel-concrete cross-sections. Eng Struct
2010;32:373457.
[35] Papanikolau VK. Analysis of arbitrary composite sections in biaxial bending
and axial load. Comput Struct 2012;98-99:3354.
[36] Bonet JL, Romero ML, Miguel PF, Fernandez MA. A fast stress integration
algorithm for reinforced concrete sections with axial loads and biaxial
bending. Comput Struct 2004;82:21325.
[37] Marmo F, Serpieri R, Rosati L. Ultimate strength analysis of prestressed
reinforced concrete sections under axial force and biaxial bending moments.
Comput Struct 2011;89:91108.
[38] Skrabek BW, Mirza SA. Strength reliability of short and slender composite
steel-concrete columns. In: Civil Engineering Report Senes. No. CE-90-1.
Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario; 1990. 323 p.
[39] Virdi KS, Dowling PJ. The ultimate strength of composite columns in biaxial
bending. In: Procedures institution of civil engineers (London), vol. 56(May).
1973. p. 25172.
[40] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modied compression eld theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 1986;83:21931.
[41] Mansour M, Lee JY, Hsu TTC. Cyclic stress-strain curves of concrete and steel
bars in membrane elements. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:140211.
[42] Yavari A, Sarkani S, Moyer ET. On applications of generalized functions to
beam bending problems. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37:5675705.
[43] Zhao XM, Wu YF, Leung AYT. Analyses of plastic hinge regions in reinforced
concrete beams under monotonic loading. Eng Struct 2012;34:46682.
[44] Yang YB, Yau JD, Leu LJ. Recent developments in geometrically nonlinear and
postbuckling analysis of framed structures. Appl. Mech Rev 2003;56:43149.
[45] Nie JG, Cai CS. Steel concrete composite beams considering shear slip effects. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2003;129(4):495506.
[46] Slutter RG, Driscoll GC. Flexural strength of steel-concrete composite beams. J
Struct Div ASCE 1965;91:7199.
[47] Bursi OS, Gramola G. Behavior of composite substructures with full and partial
shear connection under quasi-static cyclic and pseudodynamic displacements.
Mater Struct Paris 2000;33:15463.
[48] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE, Oh JR. Nonlinear analysis of steel frames using ber plastic
hinge concept. Eng Struct 2007;29:64957.

A Computer Method For Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis of 3D Composite Steel-Concrete Frame Structures

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Computer Method For Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis of 3D Composite Steel-Concrete Frame Structures

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

A computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D composite

Tel./fax: +40 264 594967.

ne-grained modelling that is often impractical to the structural

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

cross-section and along the member length [514,17,2232]. There

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

racy is dependent by the number of the nite elements involved.

geometrical nonlinearity sources are simulated into a computer

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

Fig. 2. Stressstrain relationship for concrete in compression.

Fig. 1. Arbitrary composite steelconcrete cross-section.

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

Fig. 3. Stressstrain relationships for concrete in tension.

where Et denotes the modulus of elasticity of concrete in tension; fcr

where er represents the initial deformation produced by residual

Fig. 4. Stressstrain relationship for steel.

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

computed. According to the Newton iterative method, the iterative

where F represents the Jacobian (or tangent cross-section stiffness

Explicitly the expressions of the Jacobians coefcients are given in

where X e0 /y /z , the external and internal loading vectors

ree0 ; /y ;/z dAcs

ree0 ;/y ; /z zdAcs

ree0 ;/y ; /z zdAcs

ree0 ;/y ; /z ydAcs

ree0 ;/y ; /z ydAcs

Fig. 6. Stressstrain relationship for reinforcing bars.

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

any initial iterate the iteration either converges to a solution or

where TOL is the specied computational tolerance, usually taken as

where kt represents the tangent stiffness matrix of cross-section,

Considering the system (14) with the unknown DF the exural

The incremental forces DF can be expressed, in this case, as:

Substituting Eq. (17) for DF into Eq. (14) gives:

or in explicitly matrix form:

or in a condensed matrix form:

where EIty represents the tangent exural rigidity about x axis of

Applying a similar approach the tangent exural rigidity about z

where f t kt represents the tangent exibility matrix of crosssection.

k12 k21 k12 k23 k31 k22 k32 k21

It is important to note that, despite the fact that the position of

Fig. 7. Tangent exural rigidity denition.

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

Fig. 8. Composite beam with full composite action.

which represents the elastic exural rigidity of the composite beam

enforce the member forces to move on the plastic surface during

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

Then, substituting the strain distribution given by Eq. (31) in

(Fig. 8). In order to perform the integral on a determined side of

2.2. Second-order inelastic member analysis

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

Fig. 10. Discretization of the structural steel. Incorporation of residual stresses.

Fig. 11. Beam column element with 12 DOF.

ment equation be written between each change of load point.

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152

where n = 0, 1, 2, . . . When the exponent n = 0, we have:

and dr is a term resulting from loading actions. The equivalent nodal

With these functions we can determine the element force elds

DMiyz DMjyz Dqyz L2n 1

These functions can be integrated and differentiated as follows:

C.G. Chiorean / Engineering Structures 57 (2013) 125152