Lecture 10.4.

1: Continuous Beams I
OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

To describe the behaviour of continuous composite beams; to explain the use of rigid-plastic
analysis to determine internal moments and forces, and to derive plastic resistance moments.

PREREQUISITES

Lecture 7.2: Cross-Section Classification

Lecture 7.3: Local Buckling

Lecture 10.2: The Behaviour of Beams

Lecture 10.3: Single Span Beams

RELATED LECTURES

Lecture 10.4.2: Continuous Beams II

Lectures 10.5: Design for Serviceability

Lectures 10.6: Shear Connection

SUMMARY

The advantages of continuous beams are summarised and failure modes which result from
continuity in composite beams are identified. Plastic methods may be used to determine
internal moments and forces, provided that rotation capacity is sufficient and late ral-torsional
buckling does not occur. The scope for plastic methods is related to classification of cross-
sections in terms of limiting breadth/thickness ratios for structural steel elements in
compression. Other measures needed to ensure adequate rotatio n capacity are also described.
Simple values for effective width of the concrete flange are presented and expressions for the
negative resistance moment of Class 1 and Class 2 sections are given. The application of
rigid-plastic analysis to determine the distribution of bending moments is demonstrated.

1. INTRODUCTION

Continuous beams offer the following advantages over simple construction:

1. greater load resistance.

2. greater stiffness.

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

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

The disadvantages associated with continuous construction are:

1. increased complexity in design.

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

Internal moments in continuous composite beams may be conveniently determined by elastic

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

2. RIGID-PLASTIC GLOBAL ANALYSIS

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

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

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

3. BEHAVIOUR OF CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE BEAMS

The flexural performance of continuous composite beams has been investigated by tests in
which the secondary elements (shear connectors, transverse slab reinforcement) were
conservatively designed in order to preclude forms of failure such as loss of interaction and
longitudinal splitting of the slab. Initially, the behaviour is substantially linear (Figure 3), but
as load increases reduction in flexural stiffness occurs.

In hogging moment regions, fine cracks appear in the concrete at relatively low levels of
load. As loading continues, cracking continues over an increasing length and yielding and
later strain-hardening may occur in the reinforcement and in the lower (compression) part of
the steel section. Redistribution of moment will occur to the mid-span regions. Provided that
collapse of the beam is not triggered by crushing of the midspan concrete, by failure in shear,
or by fracture of the reinforcement, the support section will develop flange buckles,
eventually causing a loss of moment of resistance which initiates collapse (Figure 4).

In mid-span sagging moment regions, yielding occurs in the lower part of the steel section
and crushing occurs in the top of the concrete slab, causing redistribution of moment to the
supports. Typical sagging moment-curvature curves are shown in Figure 5. The moment
achieved can be significantly greater than the theoretical plastic resistance moment (M pl) of
the composite section, mainly on account of strain- hardening of the structural steel. It is
evident from Figure 5, that deformation may continue without drop in moment for a
considerable curvature. However, the rotation is small in composite beams having small slabs
and/or weak concrete, large steel sections and/or high yield stress; in such beams crushing
limits the rotation that will take place before reduction in moment occurs.
4. ROTATION CAPACITY FOR PLASTIC ANALYSIS

The nature of composite beams implies that a large amount of redistribution may be required
before the collapse mechanism is complete.

In the early stages of loading the beam behaves substantially elastically, with the bending
moments at the supports and in the midspan region being unequal. For example, with a
continuous beam of equal spans supporting uniform distributed loading (Figure 6), the
bending moment at the supports is up to twice as large as that at midspan. However, the
plastic resistance moment of midspan regions ranges from being larger than that at the
support, sometimes by a factor as high as three, to being smaller (not usually the case).
Consequently, a large amount of deformation can be required with redistribution being either
from or to the support, the former being the usual case. Figure 7 sho ws as an example a two-
span continuous beam subject to uniform distributed loading. The rotation required on each
side of the support to complete a plastic hinge mechanism clearly increases as the resistance
moment at the support (Mpl) decreases relative to that at midspan (Mpl).
In continuous composite beams therefore, the rotation capacity required at a particular critical
cross-section will depend on:

1. the relative length of each span.

2. the type and position of loading on each span (uniformly distributed, central point
load, loads at quarter-points, etc).
3. the patterns of load on the spans (adjacent spans fully loaded, alternate spans fully
loaded, etc).
4. the relative magnitudes of the hogging and sagging moments of resistance along the
beam.
5. the moment-rotation characteristics of cross-sections along the beam.

The eventual failure mode of a beam is strongly influenced by the strain- hardening and
falling branch parts of the moment-rotation curves in the hogging and sagging regions, for
which there is no simple method of prediction. Requirements for the satisfactory use of rigid-
plastic analysis are therefore based on test results, supplemented by parametric studies
undertaken by computer. The scope for the application of the method is therefore bounded by
that of the parametric studies.

5. RIGID-PLASTIC ANALYSIS IN EUROCODE 4

The requirements proposed in Eurocode 4 [2], Section 4.5.2.2, to achieve sufficient rotation
capacity, permit the scope for rigid-plastic analysis to be given without reference to the
strain- hardening properties of steel, which are not usually known by the designer. The
requirements are:

1. At each plastic hinge location, the cross-section of the structural steel component shall
be symmetrical about the plane of its web.
2. All effective cross-sections at plastic hinge locations are in Class 1; all other effective
cross-sections are in Class 1 or Class 2.
3. Adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than 50% of the shorter span.
4. End spans do not exceed 115% of the length of the adjacent span.
5. In any span in which more than half the total design load is concentrated within a
length of one- fifth of the span, then at any hinge location where the concrete slab is in
compression, not more than 15% of the overall depth of the member should be in
compression (this condition does not apply if the hinge will be the last to form in that
span).
6. The steel compression flange at a plastic hinge location is laterally restrained (this is
usually so, as explained later).

6. CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-SECTIONS

It can be seen from the above requirements that, unlike steel structures, the definition of a
Class 1 section in terms of limiting breadth/thickness ratios is not in itself sufficient to ensure
always that enough rotation capacity will be available for plastic analysis in composite
construction. Provided, however, that the requirements given above concerning relative
lengths of spans and arrangement of loading are satisfied, the limits on breadth/thickness
ratios for a Class 1 composite section can be taken as those for steel sections given in
Eurocode 3 [1]. The limits for Class 1 and Class 2 sections, given in Tables 1(a) and (b) of
this lecture, have been taken from Tables 4.1 and 4.2, respectively, of Eurocode 4 [2].
For Class 2 sections, web encasement may be assumed to contribute to resistance to local
buckling, provided that it is reinforced and mechanically connected to the steel section.

7. PLASTIC RESISTANCE MOMENTS

The plastic resistance of a composite beam in sagging bending has been described in Lecture
10.2. The upper flange of the steel section may be in compression but is restrained laterally
through its connection to the concrete slab.

The negative moment of resistance can be determined as described below. The lower flange
of the steel section is now in compression. However, this flange is usually restrained laterally
by connection to a supporting element, such as a column, which is itself prevented, at beam
level, from moving out-of-plane.

It is assumed that the effect of co-existent vertical shear on the bending resistance can be
neglected. When the shear force exceeds half the plastic shear resistance of the web o f the
steel section, allowance should be made for its effect on the resistance moment, as described
in the previous lecture.

The cross-sections considered are shown in Figure 8(a) (for a solid slab) and Figure 9(a) (for
a slab formed with profiled steel sheeting). As in positive moment regions, an effective width
is used to make allowance for in-plane shear flexibility (shear lag) of the concrete flange.
The ratio of the effective width to the real flange width depends on many factors, including
the type of loading, the support conditions, the cross-section considered and the ratio of beam
spacing to span. In most design recommendations (particularly for buildings), however, very
simple formulae are given for effective width, related to the span(s) of the beam and
expressed in terms of a length lo between points of contraflexure; these should be taken
simply as follows:

End span lo = 0,8L

Internal span lo = 0,7L

where L is the distance between supports for the span concerned, i.e. L1 or L2 in Figure 10,
which has been taken from Figure 4.3 of Eurocode 4 [2]; this also gives a value appropriate
for a span next to a cantilever, i.e. L3 .
Research on shear lag in negative-moment regions has shown that when transverse
reinforcement appropriate to the shear connector spacing is provided, the cracked slab is able
to transfer shear to longitudinal reinforcement at a distance of several slab thicknesses on
either side of the steel member. Over an internal support, Eurocode 4 gives:

lo = 0,25 (L1 + L2 )

where L1 and L2 are the lengths of adjacent spans (Figure 10). Figure 10 also gives a value
appropriate to the support region of a cantilever.

To determine the negative moment of resistance, generally all properly anchored reinforcing
bars within the effective width are assumed to be stressed to their design yield strengths
fsk /s (Figure 8b). If the area of this reinforcement is Ar, then the tensile resistance of the
reinforcement, Rr, within the effective width of the slab under negative moment is given by:

Rr = (fsk /s)Ar
Due to the possibility of fracture caused by lack of ductility, nominal slab reinforcement (i.e.
welded mesh or bars of less than 10mm diameter) should be neglected in calculating Rr. All
bars included when calculating Rrshould be of high ductility (Class H) as defined in Eurocode
2 [3].

At flexural failure, the whole of the concrete slab may be assumed to be cracked, whilst all
the structural steel is at its design yield strength fy /a in tension or compression. The plastic
neutral axis may be in the top flange or in the web. For the latter case, the stresses are shown
in Figure 8(b). The position of the neutral axis is determined by considering longitudinal
equilibrium.

Let Rw be the axial resistance of the web over a depth d between the flanges. Then for a steel
section with equal flanges, the plastic neutral axis will lie in the web if Rr<Rw, whilst if
Rr>Rw, the neutral axis will lie in the steel flange. For each case an expression for the
negative plastic resistance moment Mpl, can be determined by considering the moment of
each rectangular stress block about the neutral axis.

Case 1: Rr < Rw (plastic neutral axis lies in web)

Mpl = Ma + Rr

where Ma is the plastic resistance moment of the steel section alone;

D is the overall depth of the steel section;

Dr is the distance from the top of the steel beam to the centroid of the reinforcement.

Case 2: Rr > Rw (plastic neutral axis lies in steel flange)

Assuming the thickness of the flange is small:

Mpl = Rs + RrDr

where Rs is the tensile resistance of the steel section. For a section of cross-sectional area Aa,

Rs = (fy /a)Aa.

The cross-section shown in Figure 9 shows a slab formed with profiled steel sheeting. The
sheeting component is usually neglected when determining the negative moment of
resistance. For construction with profiled steel sheeting, it is common practice to provide
only a light mesh reinforcement in the slab, which, as mentioned above, is neglected when
calculating Rr. Thus if no further reinforcement is provided (additional to the sheeting and the
mesh), the negative plastic resistance moment is given by Mpl=Ma.
8. DISTRIBUTION OF BENDING MOMENT

To design a suitable cross-section against flexure, it remains to determine the distribution of

bending moments due to the applied load.

Let the ratio of the negative to the positive moments of resistance in a proposed section be .
Therefore:

 = Mpl/Mpl

Consider the end span of a continuous composite beam, subject to a uniformly distributed
design load of wf per unit length. The bending moment diagram at collapse is as shown in
Figure 11.

It can be shown by analysis of the collapse mechanism that:

ß=

and the required value of Mpl is:

Mpl = wfß2 L2

For an internal span with equal support moments (Figure 12) it can similarly be shown that:
Mpl = wfL2 /(8(1+))

For other arrangements of loading and/or resistance moments, the required resistance may be
determined from first principles.

9. CONCLUDING SUMMARY

 Rigid-plastic analysis can be applied to continuous composite beams provided that the
rotation capacity at each plastic hinge location is sufficient to enable the required
hinge rotation to develop and lateral-torsional buckling does not occur.
 For composite beams in buildings, the requirement concerning rotation capacity may
be assumed to be satisfied when all cross-sections at plastic hinge locations are in
Class 1, and restrictions on relative length of adjacent spans and depth of neutral axis
are satisfied.
 The plastic moment of resistance, in a hogging moment region, can be determined by
application of rectangular stress block theory to the structural steel section and ductile
reinforcing steel within the effective cross-section.
 The effective widths of the concrete flange can be determined from approximations of
the sagging and hogging lengths of the beam.
 Distribution of internal moments is dependent on the ratio of the negative ("hogging")
moment of resistance to that in positive ("sagging") bending.

10. REFERENCES

[1] Eurocode 3: "Design of Steel Structures": ENV 1993-1-1: Part 1.1: General rules and
rules for buildings, CEN, 1992.

[2] Eurocode 4: "Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures": ENV1994-1-1: Part
1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, CEN (in press).
[3] Eurocode 2: "Design of Concrete Structures": ENV 1992-1-1: Part 1.1: General rules and
rules for buildings, CEN, 1992.

11. ADDITIONAL READING

1. Johnson R.P., "Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete: Volume 1: Beams,

Columns, Frames and Applications in Building", Granada, 1975.
2. Johnson R.P. and Buckby R.J., "Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete: Volume
2: Bridges", Second edition, Collins, 1986.
3. Brett P.R., Nethercot D.A. and Owens G.W., "Continuous Construction in Steel for
Roofs and Composite Floors", Structural Engineer, Volume 65A, October 1987, pp.
355-368.
4. Johnson R.P. and Hope-Gill M.C., "Tests on Three Three-Span Continuous
Composite Beams", Proc.Inst.Civ.Engrs., Part2, Vol.61, June 1976, pp. 367-381.
5. Johnson R.P. and Hope-Gill M.C., "Applicability of Simple Plastic Theory to
Continuous Composite Beams", Proc.Inst.Civ.Engrs., Part 2, Vol.61, March 1976, pp.
127-143.
6. Ansourian P., "Experiments on Continuous Composite Beams", Proc.Inst.Civ.Engrs.,
Part 2, Vol.71, December 1981, pp. 25-51.

The references given in Lecture 10.1 are also relevant.

 Lecture 10.4.2: Continuous Beams II
OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

To describe the effects of cracking of concrete and yielding of steel on the distribution of
bending moments; to explain methods of elastic structural analysis which allow for these
effects and for local buckling of the structural steel section, and to discuss lateral-torsional
buckling in continuous composite beams.

PREREQUISITES

Lecture 7.2: Cross-section Classification

Lecture 7.3: Local Buckling

Lectures 7.9: Unrestrained Beams

Lecture 10.2: Behaviour of Beams

Lecture 10.3: Single Span Beams

Lecture 10.4.1: Continuous Beams I

RELATED LECTURES

Lectures 10.5: Design for Serviceability

Lectures 10.6: Shear Connection

Lecture 10.10: Composite Bridges

RELATED WORKED EXAMPLES

Worked Example 10.3: Design of a Continuous Composite Beam

SUMMARY

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

For a cross-section in Class 3 or Class 4, stresses should be calculated by elastic theory, using
an effective width for the concrete flange. Account may be taken of creep of concrete in
compression by means of an appropriate modular ratio.

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

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

1. INTRODUCTION

Bending moments in continuous composite beams at the ultimate limit state (ULS) may be
determined by elastic analysis or, subject to certain conditions, rigid-plastic analysis; the
latter method is discussed in the previousLecture 10.4.1. Elastic analysis has the advantage of
more general application, and may also be more convenient to use as this approach is also
required to check the serviceability limit state (see Lectures 10.5.1 and10.5.2).

In composite building structures no consideration of temperature effects is normally

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

The scope of Eurocode 4 [1] does not include members with semi- rigid connections. Thus
this lecture concerns beams in which the steel section is either continuous over simple
supports or is jointed by rigid connections.

In general, elastic analysis requires that the relative stiffnesses of adjacent spans be known.
As the stiffnesses depend on the second moment of area of cross-sections, it is necessary to
know the effective width of the concrete flange and the modulus of elasticity of concrete
relative to that of steel (the modular ratio).

2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

2.1 Effective Width of Concrete Flange

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

In determining the elastic section properties, the concrete is usually assumed to be uncracked
under positive sagging moment. If the slab is formed with profiled steel sheeting whose ribs
are transverse to the steel section, as discussed in Lecture 10.1, the area of concrete within the
profile depth is ignored.
2.2 Modular Ratio

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

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

2.3 Load Arrange ments and Load Cases

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

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

1. Alternate spans loaded.

2. Two adjacent spans loaded.

In both cases, the same value of the partial safety factor, G, for permanent load may be taken
for each span, whether or not such load on a particular span is a favourable or unfavourable
action.

3. DISTRIBUTION OF BENDING MOMENT

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

The redistribution of moments cannot be predicted accurately because the longitudinal tensile
stress in the concrete slab, in negative moment regions, is influenced by the sequence of
casting and the effects of temperature and shrinkage, as well as by the proportions of the
composite member and the dead and imposed loading. A wide variation in flexural rigidity
can occur along a composite beam of uniform cross-section, leading to uncertainty in the
distribution of bending moments and hence the amount of cracking to be expected.

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

1. Cracked section method.

2. Uncracked section method.

Both may be used in conjunction with redistribution of support moments, the degree of
redistribution being dependent on the susceptibility of the steel section to local buckling.

3.1 Cracked Section Analysis

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

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

3.2 Uncracked Section Method

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

3.3 Redistribution of Support Moments for Elastic Analysis

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

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

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

Consider first a Class 4 section, i.e. one in which local buckling may prevent the design
resistance from being attained. If redistribution is less than the designer assumes, the steel
web or the compression flange at the support may buckle prematurely. For safety therefore,
the maximum amount of redistribution to mid-span must be no greater than the minimum
redistribution likely to occur in practice. Redistribution is therefore not permitted if a
"cracked" analysis has been used.

Studies on composite beams with critical sections in Class 3 or Class 4 have shown that
provided at least 10% of the span is cracked, as is likely in practice, the reduction in suppor t
moment due to cracking will exceed 8% (Figure 2). It is reasonable to assume therefore that
in round terms the difference between an 'uncracked' and a 'cracked' analysis with such beams
is equivalent to 10% redistribution of the 'uncracked' support moments, as shown in Table 1
for Class 3 and Class 4 sections.

There is no need to be so cautious for Class 3 ("semi-compact") sections as these can reach
the design resistance, with local buckling only preventing the development of the full plastic
moment. Numerical analysis, using experimental data on the falling branch of moment-
rotation relationships for locally-buckling Class 3 cantilevers, confirms that up to 20%
redistribution can be allowed, as given in Table 1.

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

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

Finally, a Class 1 section is one which can, not only attain the plastic resistance moment, but
also sustain this level of moment whilst rotation occurs. In steel structures, the limits on
flange and web slenderness which define a 'plastic' section are sufficiently restrictive to
permit plastic global analysis without further checks on rotation capacity. This is not true for
composite beams, partly because the degree of redistribution needed to attain a plastic hinge
mechanism will be higher due to the greater relative moment resistance at mid-span. The
conditions required for plastic global analysis have been discussed in the previous lecture.
The redistribution of elastic support moments permitted in Table 1 for Class 1 sections is
based on the recognition that some rotation capacity exists for such sections.

4. CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-SECTIONS OF BEAMS

The limitations on flange slenderness and web slenderness for Class 1 and Class 2 sections
have been given in the previous lecture. For a section in Class 1 or Class 2, the bending
resistance can be calculated by rectangular stress block theory, as described in Lectures
10.3 and 10.4.1. The determination of the plastic resistance moment is not considered further
in this lecture.

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

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

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

Following global analysis at ULS, it is necessary to ensure that the proposed sections possess
adequate resistance to the internal moments and forces.

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

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

 e = Ea/E1 c

where Ea is the elastic modulus of steel.

E1 c is an appropriate elastic modulus for concrete.

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

As elastic theory is being used, calculations are therefore similar to those to be made for all
classes of section when checking serviceability, and reference should be made to Lectures
10.5.1 and 10.5.2 for detailed explanation of the analysis of the transformed section. Account
should be taken of creep of concrete in compression due to permanent loads by use of an
appropriate value for the modular ratio.

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

1. Structural steel in tension or compression fy /a

2. Reinforcing steel in tension fsk /s
3. Concrete in compression 0,85fck /c

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

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

Where unpropped construction is used, stresses due to loads on the structural steelwork alone
need to be added to stresses due to loads on the composite member.

When high vertical shear co-exists with high bending moment, account needs to be taken of
the resulting interaction. The manner in which vertical shear affects the plastic resistance
moment has been described in Lecture 10.3. For sections in Class 3 and Class 4, Section 4.4.3
of Eurocode 4 generally reduces the elastic resistance moment to account for vertical shear.

6. LATERAL-TORSIONAL BUCKLING

In composite beams, the upper flange of the steel section is restrained against lateral buckling
by the concrete slab. However, the typical pattern of bending moments in a continuous beam
(see Figure 6a) results in the lower flange being in compression in the region of internal
supports. The length of the lower flange in compression can be considerable when only dead
load acts on the span under consideration (Figure 6b).
Methods for the design of unrestrained steel beams against lateral-torsional buckling, as
discussed in Lectures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2, are not applicable to negative moment regions of
continuous composite beams because in the former case it is assumed that each cross-section
of the member rotates as a whole, without distortion (see Figure 7a). In the negative moment
region of a composite member, the restraint afforded to the upper flange results in distortion
of the cross-section if the lower (compression) flange is to buckle laterally (Figure 7b). This
restraint is provided by the torsional stiffness of the slab, acting together with adjacent steel
sections as an inverted U- frame (Figure 8). The effectiveness of the restraint is also
dependent on the stiffness of the shear connection.
For composite beams whose steel member is a conventional hot-rolled I-section, inverted U-
frame action may provide full restraint to the lower (compression) flange. The conditions
under which this can be assumed to be achieved are given in Section 4.6.2 of Eurocode 4 [1];
they include some limitation on the depth of the steel member, the restriction beco ming more
severe as the design strength of the steel increases.
The effect of the restraint to the compression flange resulting from the distortional stiffness of
the cross-section, and other components in the U- frame action, can also be accounted for by
reducing the effective slenderness of the beam when calculating the buckling resistance
moment. Despite the possibility of local plastification at the ends of the beam, the
plastification is not considered to affect the elastic mode of instability of the beam (Figure 9)
because of the reducing negative moment over the buckled length. A method for the
calculation of the slenderness is given in Eurocode 4, Annex B [1].

6.1 Lateral Restraint

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

 When elastic analysis is used to determine internal moments and forces (global
analysis), moment may be redistributed from internal supports to allow for cracking
of concrete and yielding of steel.
 The extent of the redistribution is dependent on the classification of the steel section
at each internal support and on the assumptions made concerning flexural rigidity in
the negative moment regions.
 The properties of the uncracked section may be used to determine the flexural rigidity
for every cross-section along the beam ("uncracked section method"). Alternatively, it
may be assumed that over a fixed length, on each side of internal supports, the
properties are those of the cracked section ("cracked section method").
 The ultimate bending resistance of sections in Class 3 and Class 4 are determined by
elastic analysis of the effective cross-section, based on the attainment of limiting
strengths.
 In determining the effective section, account is taken of shear lag, cracking of
concrete in negative moment regions and, for Class 4 sections, the buckling of steel
elements in compression. An appropriate modular ratio is used to allow for creep of
concrete in compression.
 The concrete slab may be assumed to prevent the upper flange of the steel section
from moving laterally. Torsional restraint is provided by inverted U- frame action. In
negative moment regions the tendency of the lower flange to buckle laterally is
partially restrained by the distortional stiffness of the cross-section. These effects
 result in a reduction in the effective slenderness for lateral-torsional buckling, and
may provide full restraint against this form of buckling.
 Discrete lateral restraint may be provided to the compression flange, for example by
bracing or transverse web stiffeners.

8. REFERENCES

[1] Eurocode 4: "Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures": ENV1994-1-1: Part
1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, CEN (in press).

[2] Eurocode 3: "Design of Steel Structures": ENV1993-1-1: Part 1.1: General rules and rules
for buildings, CEN, 1992.

9. ADDITIONAL READING

1. Johnson R.P., "Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete: Volume 1: Beams,

Columns, Frames and Applications in Building", Granada 1975.
2. Johnson R.P. and Buckby R.J., "Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete: Volume
2: Bridges", Second edition, Collins, 1986.
3. Brett P.R., Nethercot D.A. and Owens G.W., "Continuous Construction in Steel for
Roofs and Composite Floors", Structural Engineer, Volume 65A, October 1987, pp.
355-368.
4. Lawson R.M. and Rackham J.W., "Design of Haunched Composite Beams in
Buildings", Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, England 1989.

The references given in Lecture 10.1 are also relevant.

Table 1 Limits to redistribution of moments, per cent of the initial value of the bending
mome nt to be reduced

Class of cross section in hogging

1 2 3 4
moment region

For “uncracked” elastic analysis 40 30 20 10

For “cracked” elastic analysis 25 15 10 0