ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL. 12, NO.

2 (2011)
PAGES 155-178

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL

BEAMS WITH SPATIAL TRUSS REINFORCEMENT ELEMENTS

G. Quarantab, F. Petronea, G.C. Marano*, F. Trentadueb and G. Montia

Department of Structural Engineering and Geotechnics, Sapienza University of Rome, via
A. Gramsci 53, 00197 Roma, Italy
b
Department of Environmental Engineering and Sustainable Development, Technical
University of Bari, viale del Turismo 10, 74100 Taranto, Italy

ABSTRACT
This paper deals with an atypical class of reinforced concrete beams, whose reinforcement
is a steel truss structures. This typology of beams is quite unknown within the engineering
community. Moreover they have been used for three decades in Italy, principally for
industrial or special structures. Differently from traditional reinforced concrete beams, the
steel trusses can bear their own weight and the weight of slabs and fluid concrete without
any provisional support during a first "dry" assembly stage; after that, when concrete
develop its own mechanical characteristics, they can collaborate with the cast in place
concrete. Nowadays, interest for this technology is growing up in Italy, mainly because of
some advantages it provides with respect to the traditional reinforced concrete beams.
Nonetheless, neither in the current Italian nor in the European codes there are specific
regulation for this class of reinforced beams. In order to achieve this goal, the main aim of
this work is to illustrate possible mechanical models and verification principles to be used in
designing these particular reinforced concrete beams when subject to static loads.
Finally some practical design examples, done by using a specifically developed computer
code, are presented to illustrate complete design procedures.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete beam; steel truss structure; structural design, Euro code.

1. INTRODUCTION
During the last decades reinforced concrete structures have satisfied more and more
demanding civil engineering requirements. A large number of applications demonstrated its
versatility from, both, structural and architectonic points of view (about this latter point, the
famous Italian engineer Pier Luigi Nervi stated: the reinforced concrete is the most
beautiful constructive system that the humanity has found till today). Since the first
realizations, reinforced concrete structures were thoroughly examined and, in doing this,
*

E-mail address of the corresponding author: g.c.marano@gmail.com (G.C. Marano)

156

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

both theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out. These studies were done to
better understand microscopic and macroscopic behavior and the underlying mechanisms
which control the mechanical behaviors under static and/or dynamic loads. Additionally,
some notable efforts have been conducted to improve the performances of standard
reinforced concrete structural elements. The greatest contribution in this direction comes
from the introduction of the pre-stressing technologies and, more recently, from the use of
advanced materials, such as fiber reinforced polymers.
The composite truss typology is outlined between the reinforced concrete structures and the
composite steel concrete ones since it has some peculiar characteristics of both of them, Figure 1.
Within this general framework, in this paper we analyze an original class of reinforced
concrete beams in which the reinforcement is provided by special self-carrying (if required)
steel truss structures. The metallic reinforcement is firstly realized in an assembly shop,
Figure 2.

Figure 1. Composite steel truss and concrete beams principal components

Figure 2. Metallic reinforcement realized in an assembly shop (Metal.Ri.)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

157

It does not require advanced facilities because its realization is quite easy and needs
standard metalwork. Once the metallic structure is completed, the truss beam moves toward
the building site and, finally, is placed between two columns (Figure 3).

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. a) Truss beam placed between two columns, b) Beams with circular profile

In these conditions structures behave like steel structures and the mechanical model to
adopt is represented by a beam constrained with simple supports at the ends. These metallic
trusses can bear their own weight and the weight of the slabs without any provisional
support. Therefore the design of such structures should be conducted according to the
requirements of steel construction regulations.
When a given number of beams is installed in the floor under construction, then the
concrete filling is realized: starting from this moment, the structural member is not a
metallic truss structure but, on the contrary, it behaves similarly to a reinforced concrete
beam. However, in this stage some important differences still remain and they will be
analyzed in this paper.
The most significant differences between the truss structure adopted for concrete
reinforcement and usual lattice members is due to the presence of a lower steel plate, which
is the standard technological solution for this special class of reinforced concrete beams. If
the available set of thicknesses for the lower plate is not sufficient to fulfill all the design
requirements, then some steel bars can be welded on it (see Figure 2).
The number of steel bars on the upper side of this steel truss structure defines the
configurations of the transversal sections: two upper bars implies that one diagonal bar is
needed, three and four upper bars requires two and three diagonal bars, respectively.
In order to speed up the realization of the truss structures, all the steel members (upper
bars, lower plate, lower bars, diagonal bars) are constant along the beam span. The spacing
between the diagonal bars over the beam length is constant as well, and it ranges from 20
cm to 60 cm. The truss structure is completed by including two bearing supports (see Figure
4a) located at the two ends of the beam (on the bottom part) and they allow the placement of
the metallic reinforcement over the two columns in a very simple way (Figure 4b).

158

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. a) Bearing supports b) the placement of the metallic reinforcement over the two
columns (Courtesy by Metal.Ri)

Where this special reinforced concrete beam intersects the two columns, additional
reinforcing steel bars are directly mounted over the beam-columns joints, on both upper and
lower sides: these additional reinforcing bars ensure structural continuity during the second
stage, when the concrete develops mechanical skills. The use of these beams is quiet typical
in some zones of Italy in which this technological solution is adopted since 25 years.
During this wide period, Italian structural engineers seem to agree about some benefits
that result from their usage. The advantages can be synthesized in the following way:
the large prefabrication of the steel reinforcement speeds up the construction
activities;
the risks due to the beam reinforcement working in the building site are strongly
reduced. In fact, the truss structure needs to be mounted by using opportune cranes
(see Figure 4b) and only few in situ workmanships are needed;
the steel truss structure is self-carrying (see Figure 4) and therefore it does not require
any type of supports. In this way, a large amount of space is available for construction
activities, such as for depository. The strong reduction of the number of supports
implies the elimination of the most part of obstacles which are one of the most
important source of risks and injuries in building sites. The accessibility of the
building site is much more easy and thus the internal mobility is improved for both
machines and workmen. Typically, all these positive features lead to a sensible
reduction of the management costs and allow a more rational spaces utilization;
in comparison to traditional reinforced concrete structures, this technological solution
can be adopted to carry larger loads as well as to allow superior spans. Moreover, the
steel truss structures can be realized by imposing an opportune pre-camber (hogging)
in order to ensure the fulfillment of the serviceability limit state for deflection control;
this kind of beams permits to satisfy the most typical architectonic solutions thanks to
the high level of prefabrication. However, different geometries are possible, such as
beams with circular profile (see Figure 3b).

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

159

Once again, we remark that this class of reinforced concrete beam does not introduce
special difficulties and does not require special facilities. Similarly, they do not complicate
the realization of concrete filling, floors or beam-column joints (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Cross section of truss beam with two, three and four upper bars respectively

The actual Italian and European technical standards do not incorporate specific chapters
about these special reinforced concrete beams. Without a coherent and fully restrictive
regulation, the only technical support for Italian structural engineers is provided by the
design procedure which has been deposited to obtain the initial technical authorization (the
authorization was obtained from the Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici (Italian
Council for Public Work) in 1982. Technical details (such as fabrication standards) and the
original design procedure (covered by a patent) are 30 years old and so they do not reflect
the actual best state-of-practice for reinforced concrete structures. Therefore, the need exists
to develop elaborate opportune formulas and guidelines for practitioners, fully coherent with
the most part of the actual technical standards. This is the main goal of the present paper.
It is necessary to anticipate that without loss of generality design formulas in this
paper are within the framework provided by European standards, namely (Eurocode 2, [1])
for concrete structures, (Eurocode 3, [2]) for steel structures and (Eurocode 4, [3]) for
composite steel-concrete structures. In doing this, the partial safety factors based method
will be taken into account for design and verification procedures. Therefore, basic variables,
loads and stresses calculation as well as the adopted capacity models are fully coherent with
the European standards. However, we highline that developed formulas can be easily
rearranged within different technical codes (for instance the ACI standards). This operation
is straightforward and omitted for sake of conciseness. The developed design procedure
based on the well known concept of limit states has been adopted for realizing a computer
program suitable for the automatic design of this special reinforced concrete beams. This
software will be also shortly illustrated. Numerical applications and some criticalities
requiring theoretical and experimental investigations will be discussed at the end of the
paper.

160

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

2. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
In this Section we introduce some preliminary aspects of the beams under investigation.
Firstly, important details dealing with the beam geometry as well as with the adopted
materials are discussed. Brief notes about loads and stresses calculation are included as
well.
2.1 Beam geometry
As above stated, the beams that we are analyzing can be realized using an ample number of
configurations for the transversal section and for the geometry of the longitudinal axis.
Throughout the paper, we will make exclusive reference to rectilinear beams in which the
number of upper bars ranges from one to four (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Loads of S1 and S1 (PROVVISORIO!!)

It is necessary to underline that the structural design has been conducted considering the
real spatial disposition of the diagonal bars. For instance, the only diagonal bar (ntr = 1) of
the transversal section with two upper bars (Figure 5a) belongs to the longitudinal plan of
the beam. This is not true for transversal sections with three upper bars (Figure 5b), in which
both diagonal bars (ntr = 2) do not belong to the aforesaid plan of the beam. The spatial
distribution of the transversal sections with three diagonals (ntr = 3) is more articulated
(Figure 5c). In fact, the central diagonal belongs the longitudinal plane of the beam but it
does not happen for the other ones. Without loss of generality, we will make reference to
transversal sections of rectangular shape. Fundamental geometrical data of the transversal
section of the beam are the total height h, the base b, and the lower (bltr) and upper (butr)
distances between the diagonal bars (see Figure 5). The upper bars position has to be
defined in virtue of an appropriate definition of the concrete cover c: within the European
Community, its calculation is fundamentally defined by (EN 206, [4]). Please observe that a
concrete cover does not exist for the lower plate: therefore, to ensure an opportune barrier
against corrosive agents, the lower side of the plate should be protected in a correct way, for
instance by means of antioxidant films. Chemical and physical properties of this film (and
its minimum thickness) have to be decided based on the technical code in force. The
geometrical properties of the transversal section are constant along the beam length, with
the exception of the (eventual) lower bars welded to the plate. Number and size of the upper
bars and thickness of the lower plate are constant. Number and size of the diagonal bars are
constant along the beam length as well the spacing between them.
2.2 Materials
The concrete to be adopted has to satisfy all the requirements for structural applications.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

161

Therefore, designers have to be decided concrete mix based on current technical codes,
standards and guidelines in this field. To be coherent with the European standard,
mechanical data of the concrete (in terms of characteristic and design values) as well as the
adopted stress-strain relation will be carried out from (Eurocode 2, [1]). In this paper, the
classical parabola-rectangle diagram is assumed for concrete under compression. As it
regards the steel of the truss structure, characteristics and design values have to be defined
with reference to (Eurocode 3, [2]). Please observe that surfaces of bars and plates adopted
for the realization of the truss structures are smooth (see Figure 2). On the contrary, the bars
placed into beam-column joints shown the usual surface characteristics which is required to
increase bond with the concrete (Eurocode 2, [1]). The following is a list of the most typical
sizes adopted for bars and plates:

for the diagonal bars, one can use ntr circular sections having diameters dtr from 14
mm to 34 mm with step of 2 mm, and diameters equal to 35 mm, 36 mm, 38 mm, 40
mm and 50 mm;
for the upper bars, one can use nu circular sections having diameters du from 14 mm
to 34 mm with step of 2 mm, and diameters equal to 36 mm, 38 mm, 40 mm, 50
mm and 60 mm. Alternatively, one may adopt nu bars whit square cross sections. In
these circumstances, the lengths of the square sections du vary from 30 mm to 70
mm with step of 5 mm;
thicknesses available for the lower plate sl are 6 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, 15 mm and 20
mm;
the maximum number of the (eventual) additional lower bars nl is three. The
diameter of the circular sections of the length of the square sections dl are the same
adopted for the upper bars;
Cross-sections of the steel members can form a plastic hinge with the rotation capacity
required for plastic analysis and thus, according to (Eurocode 3, [2]) they can be classified
as Class 1 cross-sections. Moreover, nominal values of the yield strength and for the
ultimate strength change when the thickness is less or greater than 40 mm. Diameters for the
bars positioned into column-beam joints are the typical ones adopted for standard concrete
reinforcements. Welded joints have to be designed according to the current technical
standards for steel constructions, for instance (Eurocode 3, [2]).
2.3 Loads and stresses calculation
The first important difference among the class of reinforced concrete beams under
investigation and the ordinary ones deals with the load partitioning. In this sense, static
loads are classified into two categories, depending on two different periods. In detail, the
following two stages can be distinguished:
Stage 1 (S1) The beam is constituted from the self-carrying metallic reinforcement
only. The truss beam is loaded by its self-weight and by dead loads of the floors not
imputable to concrete filling (i.e. clay bricks used for constructing building floors). These
loads (in their design values) are indicated G1SdI and qSdI in Figure 6. In this transitory stage,
the beam is simply supported.
Stage 2 (S2) The beam is filled by concrete and the structural element behaves similar

162

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

to a standard reinforced concrete beam (but not equal to it). In this stage, all remaining loads
have to be considered, such as the dead loads of the floors imputable to concrete filling and
live loads, G1SdII, G2SdII, and qSdII This is a permanent regime and further actions and
environmental influences have to be considered. The stresses calculation needs a complete
structural analysis of the system in which the beam takes place.
Figure 6 shows the adopted system reference for the beam and an overview of the most
important geometrical data. Please observe that G1SdI qSdI, at least in the most general case, so
that a twisting moment is induced in the metallic beam during S1. This twisting moment can be
not equilibrated by a transversal section with only one diagonal bar (Figure 5a). Obviously, the
vice versa is true for the transversal sections with two (Figure 5b) or three (Figure 5c) diagonal
bars. Based on this evidence, the transversal section with only one diagonal bar (Figure 5a) can
be adopted only if G1SdI = qSdI or by ensuring appropriate supports to avoid the loss of the
equilibrium state. Since the existences of these restrictions, the transversal section with one
diagonal bar (Figure 5a) should be considered only for special and not so demanding applications
(i.e. small beam lengths and moderate loads, however without twisting moment in S1). A
graphical representation of S1 and S2 is proposed in Figure 6, with the corresponding loads
classification. Load combinations can be conducted following the classical indications given by
the most part of existing technical codes.

3. BEAM STRUCTURAL DESIGN

The structural design of the beam is conducted under the hypothesis that both b and H are
given a priori. This is the most typical circumstance, because of the existence of some
architectonic constraints. Therefore, the design of the beam requires the definition of the
metallic reinforcement. The steel reinforcement shall be so proportioned that the basic
design requirements for both ultimate and serviceability limit states are satisfied, accounting
for the particular stage (S1 or S2).
In the following part will be shortly presented all the formulations that can be used to
perform strength and deformability verifications according to national and international
codes, paying attention to formulations designed specifically for this structural system.

4. RESISTANCE OF DIAGONAL BARS TO BUCKLING (S1)

This ultimate limit state concerns all bars of the prefabricated steel trusses in S1, subject to
combined bending and axial compression, denoted Mtr,Sd and Ntr,Sd respectively (design
values). These verifications can be conducted according to Eurocode 3, [2] and Decreto
Ministeriale 2008.
4.1 Lateral torsional buckling of the steel reinforcement (S1)
It is well known that structural members loaded by transverse loads and moments in the
plane of greatest stiffness may also deform laterally and twist (so-called lateral-torsional
buckling). Obviously, like for local instabilities phenomena (i.e. buckling of the diagonal

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

163

bars), for this special steel truss structure that provides the metallic reinforcement of the
concrete beam the lateral-torsional instability deals with the S1 only, because this globaltype instability may occur during building construction, more precisely within the time
window that starts when the truss structure is mounted and finishes when the formwork is
filled by concrete. The loss of the equilibrium state due to this type of instability is very
dangerous and a careful attention is needed. The design buckling resistance moment Mb,Rd of
a laterally unrestrained steel beam with Class 1 cross-sections is determined, according to
(Eurocode 3, [2]), by the following expression

Mb,Rd LT
where

fy

M1

min Wu , Wl

(1)

LT LT LT is the lateral torsional buckling reduction factor

Wu u Au h

(2)

Wl Al h

(3)

In (3) Al = bsl (2), Au = nudu2/4 is the total area of the upper bars. Symbol u denotes the
reduction factor for the relevant buckling mode of the upper bars under compression

u u2 u2

u 0.50 1 u 0.20 u2
u

u
2
Es
;
; 1
1
fy
du / 4

(4)

(5)

(6)

in which 2 is the buckling length of the upper bars, du/4 is the radius of gyration of a single
bar, Es is the steel elastic modulus, and = 0.21. According to (Eurocode 3, [2]), in the
above expressions the upper bars cross-sections was classified as Class 1 cross-sections. The
coefficient u is introduced to ensure that the local buckling of the upper bars under
compression does not occur before the global instability of the entire truss structure.
The coefficient LT is determined as follows

LT

1
2
LT LT
LT2

(7)

164

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

where

LT 0.50 1 LT LT 0.20 LT2

LT W

(8)

minWu ,Wl f y
Mcr

(9)

In our cases, the coefficients LT and W are equal to 0.49 and 1, respectively (Eurocode
3, [2]). At this point, the calculation of the design buckling resistance moment Mb,Rd in (1)
requires the definition of the elastic critical moment Mcr (10). To this end, (Trentadue et al.,
2010) provide an analytical closed form solution of the elastic critical moment Mcr based on
some opportune simplifications. This formulation may be useful for designers because it
does not require a numerical assessment of the buckling load based on tri-dimensional finite
element analyses. For sake of completeness, only the final results are given below. For
mathematical details as well as for comparative analyses with a finite element based
calculus, the interested reader is referred to (Trentadue et al. [5]).
For the steel truss structure under investigation, an estimation of the elastic critical
moment Mcr can be obtained as

2 hEs Jtot Es Jtot 4KT0

Mcr

h
E
J

4
KT
s tot
1
2

l2

(10)

2l 2

in which KT0 is the primary stiffness of the truss structure (it depends on the diagonal bars
area as well as on the plate thickness) whereas KT1 is the secondary stiffness of the truss
structure (it depends on the inertia of the upper bars). In both (3) and (10) the eventual
contribution due to additional bars welded on the lower plate are ignored to obtain a more
conservative estimation of the design buckling resistance moment (1) (this hypothesis will
be implicit for all further calculations concerning the lateral torsional buckling of the truss
structure). In (10), l denotes the beam span and hm is

hu2 hl2
h
h

(11)

where

hu

hl

J ly
J ly J eq yu
J uyeq
J ly J eq uy

(12)

(13)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

165

In (13), Jly is the inertia of the lower plate and Juyeq is the (equivalent) inertia values of
the lower bars
s b3
J ly l
(14)
12

KV 12

J uy

; J uyeq

J uy
2
J uy
1

l KV

(15)

in which Juy is the inertia of the upper bars (all inertia terms are referred to the y axis) and Jy
= Jly+ Juyeq.
The primary stiffness of the truss structure KT0 is

KT0

Es
2 1 l
l ,b 2 1
tr

bsl
btr ny A1tr h

(16)

Where ltr 2 h 2 for transversal sections with two diagonal bars (Figure 5b) and
2

1
1
1
ltr h btr d u d tr for transversal sections with three diagonal bars
2
2
2
(Figure 5c). J1u is the inertia of one upper bar and l,b is the torsional stiffness of the lower
plate (rectangular section).
Finally, the secondary stiffness of the truss structure KT1 is given by
2

KT1

Es
J uyeq J ly h 2
J Jy
eq
uy

(17)

This ultimate limit state can be satisfied in transversal section with two or three diagonal
bars (Figure 5b and Figure 5c) and is fulfilled if and only if the bending moment in S1 is
lower than the design buckling resistance moment Mb,Rd in (1).
4.2 Specific ultimate limit states for the lower plate
Punching shear in the lower plate can result from a concentrated load (due to the diagonal
bars) acting on a relatively small area. Since punching shear can originate from both S1 and
S2, this ultimate limit state needs to be fulfilled under two different conditions. An
appropriate verification model for checking punching failure at the ultimate limit state
requires the definition of the basic control perimeter. To this end, we will adopt the basic
control section shown in Figure 7 and the classical Von Mises resistance criterion. To
achieve a conservative estimation, the contribution of the fillet weld on the basic control

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

166

perimeter definition is neglected.

Figure 7. Punching surface

During S1, the punching shear is due to the diagonal axial force Ntr,Sd. Consequently, the
minimum plate thickness sl,Ia is calculated by solving the equation

sl2,Ia 2sl ,Ia dtr

2 3 Ntr , Sd ny
0
fy

(18)

M1
Its solution is

sl ,Ia dtr dtr2

2 3 Ntr ,Sd
n
f y M1 y

(19)

Similarly, during S2 the punching shear is due to the shear force VSdII exceeding the
design shear resistance of the member without shear reinforcement. Under the same
hypotheses, one can found the following equation for the calculation of the minimum plate
thickness sl,II

II
2 3 VSd maxVRd 0 ,VRd 0,min
s 2sl ,IIdtr
0 if VSdII maxVRd0 ,VRd0,min 0

ntr f y M1
2
l ,II

(20)

Its solution is

II

2 3 VSd maxVRd0,VRd0,min
2

if VSdII maxVRd0,VRd0,min0
sl,II dtr dtr

ntr fy M1

sl,II 0 otherwise

(21)

Another specific ultimate limit state of the lower plate deals with the resistance against

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

167

the static loads during S1 - namely G1SdI and qSdI (see Figure 6) and due to realization of
the floors (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Cantilever model for lower plates support surfaces

We indicate sl,Ib as the minimum thickness needs for this ultimate limit state. The model
we want to analyze is represented in Figure 8: it is a cantilever plate with a rectangular
section with size il sl. By hypothesizing a diffusion of the isostatic with an angle equal to
45 one obtains
il min bort bap , iort
(22)
in which bap, bort and iort are indicated in Figure 8. The value of sl,Ib can be found by
considering the scheme in Figure 8 as a cantilever plate. Alternatively, a simplified
formulation for sl,Ib can be found by supposing the scheme in Figure 8 as a cantilever beam.
Because we have to satisfy all these ultimate limit states, it is required that the lower plate
thickness is not inferior to max {sl,Ia,sl,II,sl,Ib}.
4.3 Terminal sections
Terminal sections of the metallic truss structures have to satisfy specific ultimate limit states
as well. Particularly, a delicate ultimate limit state deals with the terminal sections of the
upper bars in transversal sections with one diagonal bar (Figure 4a In fact, the upper bars for
transversal sections with two or three diagonal bars are welded on a very rigid support and
thus the resistance of the joint against shear force and bending moment is typically ensured
(see Figure 4a). On the contrary, transversal sections with one diagonal bars do not present
this rigid support for the upper bars and thus the resistance should be appropriately verified.
Therefore, we introduce a specific ultimate limit state for terminal sections of the upper bars
in transversal sections with one diagonal bar. To achieve this goal, we start by supposing the
mechanical scheme given by Figure 9.

168

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

Figure 9. Static scheme for terminal sections

With reference to this scheme and based on (Eurocode 3, [2]), the following inequalities
has to be fulfilled in S1
I
2VSdI cotg tr VSd 1.5dtr sin tr VSdI

u 1
N plu
M plu
Vpl

(23)

in which VSdI is the acting shear force (design value), whereas Nplu, Mplu and Vplu are

pl 4
f y du 3
Mu nu
3 M 1 2

f y du 2
pl

Nu nu
M 1 2

f
Vupl 4 nu y du

3 M1 3 2

(24)

for circular cross sections and

f y du3
pl
M u nu
M1 4

fy 2
pl
d
Nu nu
M1 u

f d2
Vupl nu y u
M1 3

for square cross sections.

(25)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

169

4.4 Reinforcing bars for beam-column joints

Additional reinforcing bars are placed on the beam-column joints. These reinforcing bars
will be designed according to the common standards for reinforced concrete beams
(Eurocode 2, [1]). Evidently, in doing this designers have to consider S2 only (these
additional bars do not collaborate with the steel truss structures in S1).
4.5 Serviceability limit states
Serviceability limit states deals with S2 only, since the structural configuration in S1 is
transitory. Therefore, common serviceability limit states for reinforced concrete structures
have to be positively verified (Eurocode 2, [1]). Although for the class of reinforced
concrete structures under investigation the interested reader can referred to (Eurocode 2,
[1]), there are some additional comments which originates from the difference between S1
and S2. The following is a list of the most important annotations on this topic.
The compressive stress in the concrete shall be limited in order to avoid longitudinal
cracks, micro-cracks or high levels of creep, where they could result in unacceptable effects
on the function of the structure. Moreover, tensile stresses in the reinforcement shall be
limited in order to avoid inelastic strain, unacceptable cracking or deformation. There are
not special annotations to do on this limit state: nonetheless, it is important to remark that
only bending moment and axial forces due to loads in S2 have to be considered in this check
(MSdII and NSdII).
Cracking shall be limited to an extent that will not impair the proper functioning or
durability of the structure or cause its appearance to be unacceptable. Also in this case,
(Eurocode 2, [1]) provides general rules to limit the crack widths whose calculation is
conducted by taking into account direct loading, restraint or imposed deformations due to
S2. Since the existence of a continuous lower plate protected by means of antioxidant films,
the maximum allowable crack width may be assumed higher than the proposed ones in
(Eurocode 2, [1]) for this zone of the beam only.
The deformation of a reinforced concrete beam shall not be such that it adversely affects
its proper functioning or appearance. Appropriate limiting values of deflection taking into
account the loads, the nature of the structure, of the finishes, partitions and fixings and upon
the function of the structure should be established with reference to S2. In order to reduce
the final maximum static displacement of the reinforced concrete beam, the steel truss
structures can be realized by imposing an opportune pre-camber (hogging). This pre-camber
is calculated for the simply supported spatial steel truss structures subject to permanent
loads due to S1 (this strategy will be adopted in our numerical applications).

5. AUTOMATIC DESIGN
Referring to the previously discussion, in this Section we will shortly present the design
computer code developed for Windows systems for Metal.Ri . This computer program is
also adopted for the numerical applications hereafter discussed. Since this computer
program has been developed for engineering practice, it has an user-friendly graphic and a
control system of the input data to avoid erroneous ingress.

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

170

5.1 Design procedure

The design procedure is based on the equations above presented. For sake of synthesis,
standard topics dealing with structural design of steel structures, reinforced concrete
structures and composite steel-concrete structures (i.e. durability, spacing of bars and so on)
are not included in this paper but have been considered in the adopted design computer
program. More details on these standard topics for structural design can be found in
(Eurocode 2, [1]), (Eurocode 3, [2]) and (Eurocode 4, [3]).
5.2 A short view of the developed computer code
The graphical user interface of the developed computer code calculation is illustrated in
Figure 10 and the various parts composing such a window are detailed in Table 1. The user
has two options for stresses calculation. The stresses may be calculated by an external solver
(i.e. commercial or scientific finite elements based solvers). Alternatively, the user can
assign himself/herself the static loads and thus the developed computer program provided
the stresses values for the structural design. To allow a simple-to-use computer code, an
input control system has been incorporated for highlighting location and type of errors in
input data. Input and results may be opened and saved according to the traditional graphical
interfaces open file and save as in Windows environments (the file format is *.trv). A
list of results is shown in another window whose contents can be saved in the standard
HTML format (the file format is *.html). If the beam design is not completed, then an
opportune report is shown in this window and the motivations of the aborted calculus are
indicated (i.e. if sizes of bars and plates are not sufficient to satisfy all the limit states).
Table 1:
Code

Description

(1)

Software logo

(2)

Beam span

(3)

Base of the transversal section

(4)

Height of the transversal section

(5)

Value of the input parameter bap

(6)

Concrete cover

(7)

Value of the input parameter iort

(8)

Value of the input parameter bort

(9)

Length of the bearing support

(10)

Exposure class

(11)

Value of the input parameter sc0

(12)

Value of the input parameter nr

(13)

Characteristic value of the yield strength for steel

(14)

Characteristic value of the ultimate strength for steel

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

Code

Description

(15)

Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days

(16)

Value of the input load PkI

(17)

Value of the input load QkI

(18)

Switch for considering PkI QkI

(19), (20), (21)

171

Coefficients for loads combination

(22)

Info about the code program (authors, version, contacts)

(23)

Activate the window to insert the stresses calculated by external finite

element solver

(24)

Activate the window to enable the direct load assignment by users

(25)

Display of the stresses imported by external finite element solver

(26)

Save/open file window

(27)

Identification number of the project

(28)

Identification number of the beam

(29)

Input errors messages display

(30)

Check input data

(31)

Open the open file window

(32)

Start beam design

(33)

Open the save as window

6. NUMERICAL APPLICATIONS
Five numerical examples are presented in this Section. First three applications concerns
beams with different final transversal sections. The last two examples concerns the
numerical assessment of the design sensitivity of the beam for two important cases of study.
The following symbolism is adopted for representing the final design
for upper bars, nudu indicates nu circular cross-sections with diameter equal to du.
Alternatively, nu du indicates nu square cross-sections whose length is equal to du.
the thickness of the lower plate is indicated in the corresponding arrow
for (eventual) lower bars, nldl(ll) indicates nl circular cross-sections with diameter
equal to dl. The lengths of these bars is ll and they are intended symmetrically
welded on the lower plate. Alternatively, nl dl(ll) is used for square cross-sections.
for diagonal bars, ntrdtr(2) indicates ntr circular cross-sections with diameter
equal to dtr, 2 is the spacing between two diagonal bars.
Loads in S1 (PSdI and QSdI) are given in terms of characteristic values (PkI and PkII). Loads
I S1 are always permanent. For sake of simplicity, loads in S2 are considered to be
permanent. All static loads are given in terms of characteristic values.

172

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

6.1 Example n.1

The beam under investigation in this first numerical application is presented in Figure 10. Further
data are: c = 20 mm, bap = 50 mm, iort = 500 mm, bort = 120 mm. The span of the beam is modest
and the total load is low. Moreover, the loads in S1 are symmetric (PkI = PkII).

Figure 10. Beam n. 1: data and the geometry of the beam section, mechanical properties of
materials, actions in S1 and S2

Most important results of the beam are illustrated in Figure 11. The final design
maximum displacement is equal to 1.45 mm.

Figure 11. Beam n. 1: design cross-section of the beam in sections J1, J2 and J3 (see Figure)

6.2 Example n.2

The input data for this second applications are presented in Figure 12. Moreover, we have
assumed c = 20 mm, bap = 50 mm, iort = 500 mm, bort = 120 mm.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

173

Figure 12. Beam n. 2: data and geometry of the beam section, mechanical properties of
materials, actions in S1 and S2

The most important results are depicted in Figure 13 (three different sections are shown).
The final design maximum displacement is equal to 8.22 mm.

Figure 13. Beam n. 2: design cross-section of the beam in sections J1, J2 and J3 (see Figure 8)

6.3 Example n.3

The beam layout shown in Figure 13 is studied in this third application (further data are c =
20 mm, bap = 50 mm, iort = 500 mm, bort = 120 mm). In this application, we have PkI PkII.
The final solution of the design procedure is presented in the same Figure 14. The final
design maximum displacement is equal to 6.24 mm.

174

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

Figure 14. Beam n. 3: data and geometry of the beam section, mechanical properties of
materials, actions in S1 and S2 (top) and the final design section (below)

6.4 Example n.4

The discrepancy between the static loads in S1 (PSdI QSdI) originates a twisting moment.
Moreover, we have emphasized the importance of the buckling length of the diagonal bars
and have discussed some strategies adopted in the current state-of-practice. In this
numerical applications we aim at investigating the effects of these topics. To achieve this
goal, we consider the beam depicted in Figure 15 (further data are c = 20 mm, bap = 50 mm,
iort = 500 mm, bort = 120 mm). For this application, we study three different cases:
Case (A) the effects due to PSdI QSdI is neglected
Case (B) the effects due to PSdI QSdI is considered
Case (C) - the effects due to PSdI QSdI is considered and the initial concrete
thickness is sc0 = 100 mm
Case D - the effects due to PSdI QSdI is considered and additional nr steel bars
equally distributed along the height of the beam, with nr = 1.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

175

Figure 15. Beam n. 4: data and geometry of the beam section, mechanical properties of
materials, actions in S1 and S2

Final transversal sections corresponding to these cases are shown in Figure 1 and it is
rather explanatory.

Figure 1. Beam 4: design cross sections in cases (A) (B) (C) and (D)

As it was logical to expect, the principal diameter for the diagonal is found in the case
(B) and is equal to 32 mm. the diameter of the diagonal in Case (A) and Case (C) is smaller
than the one in Case (B) and it is equal to 30 mm. On the other hand, we observe that the
placement of nr additional steel bars equally distributed along the height of the beam
produces the greatest reduction of the diagonal bars diameter, whose final value is equal to
28 mm.
6.5 Example n.5
The mechanical behavior of the beam is strongly influenced by loads partitioning: the
structural design of the beam in S1 depends on limit states typical for steel structures

176

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

whereas the structural design in S2 depends on limit states typical for reinforced concrete
structures or composite steel-concrete structures in which the stresses due to loads in S1
have to be considered appropriately. In this latter numerical applications, we analyze the
consequences of this peculiar load combinations, (see Figure 17).

Figure 2. Beam 5: data and geometry of the beam section, mechanical properties of materials,
actions in S1 and S2 for three different load configurations with the same resulting load
Figure 2 shown three different load combinations for S1 and S2 but all load combinations
have an identical total equivalent load:
Case (A) 90% of the total load for S1 and 10% for S2
Case (B) 50% of the total load for S1 and S2
Case (C) 10% of the total load for S2 and 90% for S2

Further data are c = 20 mm, bap = 50 mm, iort = 500 mm, bort = 120 mm and final results
are illustrated in Figure 18.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONCRETE-STEEL BEAMS...

177

Figure 18. Beam 5: design cross section for the three different load configurations analyzed

The final diameter of the diagonal bars for Case (A) is greater than for Case (B) and Case
(C): it essentially depends on the ultimate limit states for instability phenomena. However,
the plate thickness in Case (A) is higher than for Case (B) and Case (C), because the
ultimate limit states for it depends on the diagonal diameter. This example demonstrates that
load partitioning in S1 and S2 strongly influences the final material cost of the beam and
thus the final total costs in building construction.

7. CONCLUSIONS
This paper deals with the structural design of a special class of reinforced concrete beams in
which the reinforcement is provided by special steel truss structures. Within this framework,
the paper presents a first attempt for the standardization of the structural design procedures
coherent with the European standards for steel structures, reinforced concrete structures and
mixed steel-concrete structures. Most part of the initial problems have been resolved and
several (ultimate and serviceability) limit states can be correctly formalized in all recent
technical standards (not only within the context of the Eurocodes), by including opportune
modifications.
The investigation presented in this paper is a valid support for future studies on this topic
as well as for preparing specific technical codes or guidelines for practitioners. However,
there are some open questions from both theoretical and experimental points-of-view.
The first one deals with the lateral-torsional buckling of the steel structures. (Trentadue
et al. [5]) provide an attractive closed form solution of the elastic critical moment in good
agreement with finite element based calculus. However, a preliminary investigation about
the calculation of the elastic critical moment by means of finite element models shown that
it is subject to sensible fluctuations due to imperfections (like many other instability

178

G. Quaranta, F. Petrone, G.C. Marano, F. Trentadue and G. Monti

phenomena). Another very important topic is the shear capacity model. In fact shear beam
resistance is evaluated on a conventional model, developed using some well assumed
hypothesis; moreover is these authors opinion that an extensive experimental validation
should be done for an opportune calibration of adopted partial safety factor m. A proper
definition of the shear capacity model is an important step toward the full understanding of
the dynamic behavior for this class of the beams. In this context, the paper addressed the
case of static loads only but the need exists to include formula and rules for dynamic-based
structural design. Until now, some experimental researches have been conducted in Italy
about this topic see for instance (Badalamenti et al. [6]) and its references but conclusive
results are not available. Furthermore, the structural design under dynamic loads needs some
prescriptions and rules about construction details, especially for reinforcements in beamcolumn joints. All these criticalities need much more theoretical and experimental efforts.

Acknowledgments: Authors are gratefull for the economic support to MetalRi snc, that
funded the reserach Project "Nuovo Sistema Costruttivo (Mtr) In Elementi Reticolari Misti
Di Acciaio E Calcestruzzo Per Lingegneria Strutturale" Por Puglia 2007-2013 Asse I Linea
1.1 Azione 1.1.2 - Bando Aiuti agli Investimenti in Ricerca per le PMI

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

Eurocode 2, EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures Part 1-1:

General rules and rules for buildings, 2005.
Eurocode 3, EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings, 2005.
Eurocode 4, EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete
structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, 2005.
EN 206-1, Concrete Specification, performance, production and conformity, 2006.
Trentadue F, Quaranta G, Marano GC, and Monti G. Simplified analysis of the lateraltorsional buckling in special steel truss beams for concrete reinforcement, submitted to
ASCE, Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2010.
Badalamenti V, La Mendola L, Colajanni P. Analisi teorico-sperimentale del
comportamento ciclico di sezioni di estremit di travi prefabbricate reticolari miste,
Proocedings of the XIII Conference of the Italian National Association of Earthquake
Engineering, Braga F. and Savoia M. Eds., 28 June 2 July, Bologna (IT) (in Italian),
2009.