Engineering Thesis Giuseppe Di Palma

UNIVERSITDEGLISTUDIDISALERNO
FACOLTDIINGEGNERIA
CORSODILAUREAININGEGNERIACIVILE
TesidiLaurea
in
TecnicadelleCostruzioni
A NEW TIMOSHENKO-BASED ANALYTICAL

MODEL FOR STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAMS
IN PARTIAL INTERACTION
RELATORE
CANDIDATO
Prof.Ing.CiroFaella
CORRELATORE
Matr.163/000542
Dott.Ing.EnzoMartinelli
Anno Accademico 2007/2008
GiuseppeDiPalma
IntheNameofAllah,theMostGracious,theMostMerciful
Read!,IntheNameofyourLordWhohascreated,
Hehascreatedmanfromaclot,
Read!,andyourLordistheMostGenerous,
Whohastaughtbythepen,
Hehastaughtmanthatwhichheknewnot.
TheNobleQuran,SuratXCVI,15
AimieicariGenitori:
senzailorosacrifici,laloropazienzaeilloroincoraggiamento
questaTesinonsarebbestatamaiscritta.
Grazie.
Sommario
1.Introduction
1.1Stateoftheart
1
1
2.ATimoshenkobasedmodelforcompositebeamsinpartialinteraction 7
2.1Keygeometricandmechanicalpropertiesofthecompositecrosssection
2.2Modelequations
2.2.1
Equilibriumequations
2.2.2
Constitutivelaws
11
2.2.3
Globalequilibriumequation
13
2.2.4
Compatibilityequationthroughouttheinterface
13
2.2.5
Equilibriumequationthroughouttheinterface
14
2.2.6
Stressstrainlawforshearconnection
15
3.Outlineofthegoverningequations
16
3.1Thesystemofthreeequationsinthreeunknownfunctions
16
3.2Displacementformulation
18
3.2.1
Deducingtheproblemdimensions
19
3.2.2
Differentialequationintermsofdeflection
22
3.2.3
Derivingtheotherparameters
25
3.3ExtendedNewmarksequationintermsofcurvature
30
4.Solutionintheelasticrange
36
4.1Compositebeamunderaxialforce
36
4.2Compositebeaminbending
37
4.2.1
Nonredundantbeamsinbending
40
4.2.2
Boundaryconditionsfornonredundantbeams
42
4.2.3
Redundantbeamsinbending
47
4.2.4
Boundaryconditionsforredundantbeams
48
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
5.Stiffnessmatrix
55
5.1Identificationoftheproblem
55
5.2Coefficientsofthestiffnessmatrix
57
5.2.1
Generalprocedureforderivingtheintegrationconstants
57
5.2.2
Stiffnessmatrix:thefirstcolumn
62
5.2.3
Stiffnessmatrix:thesecondcolumn
69
5.2.4
Stiffnessmatrix:thethirdcolumn
78
5.2.5
Completingthestiffnessmatrix
90
5.3Vector of the external nodal force and vector nodal forces equivalent to
distributedaction
91
5.3.1
Vectoroftheexternalnodalforces
91
5.3.2
Vectornodalforcesequivalenttodistributedactions.
91
6.Applications
6.1Simplysupportedcompositebeam
117
117
6.1.1
Solutionsintermsofdisplacements
120
6.1.2
ComparisonsbetweenTimoshenkoandBernoullimodel
123
6.1.3
Solutionbymatrixmethod
136
6.2Continuouscompositebeam
151
6.2.1
Analyticalsolution
151
6.2.2
ComparisonbetweenTimoshenkoandBernoullimodel
158
6.2.3
170
6.2.4
Solutionsintermsofforces
185
6.2.5
Comparisons between Timoshenko model and Bernoulli
model186
7.Conclusions
198
8.Bibliography
199
ii
1. Introduction
Structural behaviour of steelconcrete composite beams and
structures is generally influenced by several phenomena related to the
behaviour of steel and concrete as well as the behaviour of shear
connectors.
Thepresentthesisisaimedtoderivestiffnessmatrixofthecompositebeam
under sufficiently general hypotheses. In particular, after a through
examination of previous works in the scientific literature, various
contributions can be found, and a complete analytical derivation of the
stiffness matrix for composite beams in partial interaction behaving to
Bernoulli theory, has been already formulated, starting from the original
Newmarktheory.
1.1 Stateoftheart
Timoshenko [1] developed a theory for composite beams with two
bonded materials using BernoulliEuler beam theory for each component
andconstrainingtransversedisplacementstobeequal.Newmarketal.[2]
establishedthegoverningequationsforelasticallyconnectedsteelconcrete
beams neglecting uplift and friction. Adekola [3] extended this work by
includingupliftandfrictionaleffects.Heproposedafinite
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
difference procedure for solving the differential equation for uplift and
axialforces.RobinsionandNaraine[4]addressedtheissueofwhetherthe
forces at the interface act on the concrete slab or pull on the steel beam.
Cosenza and Mazzolani [5] proposed a new solution procedure that is
suitable for general loading conditions and McGarraugh and Baldwin [6]
used a simple analytical model to prove that the strength of a composite
girderwithpartialinteractioncanbederivedbynonlinearinterpolationof
the beam strength for the extreme cases of no interaction and full
interaction.Forthestudyofthenonlinearbehaviorofcompositemembers
the existing studies can be grouped into the following two categories: (1)
Finiteelement models utilizing beam, plate, shell, or brick finite elements
to represent in great detail the constituents of the composite structural
element(suchmodelsarerathercomplex,verycomputationallyintensive,
and limited to monotonic loads); and (2) 1D beam elements that capture
salient features of the nonlinear behavior of composite girders within the
framework of NavierBernoulli beam theory. Within the latter category
proposed models can be grouped into three categories: (1) Full composite
action models based on displacement interpolation functions with fiber
discretizationofthecrosssectionanduniaxialstressstrainrelationsofthe
constituent materials, as proposed by Mirza and Skrabek [7] for the
analysis ofcomposite columns under uniaxial bending and ElTawil et al.
[8] under biaxial bending; (2) models of the partial composite action
between concrete and steel based on displacement interpolation functions
fortheconcreteandsteelcomponentofthecompositeelement,which
ChapterIIntroduction
readily supply the relative longitudinal or transverse displacement at the

interface; in this category belong the study by Daniel and Crisinel [9] for
composite beams under monotonic loads, the study by Amadio and
Fragiacomo[10]fortheeffectofconcretecreepandshrinkageincomposite
beams,thestudybyHajjaretal.[11]forconcretefilled,steeltubecolumns,
andthestudybySalarietal.[12]forcompositebeamsundercyclicloads;
and (3) recent models that attempt to overcome the limitations of
displacementbased models by the use of force interpolation functions
(flexibility formulation); interest in this type ofnonlinear model increased
aftertheworkbyCiampiandCarlesimo[14],whoarethefirsttoproposea
consistent implementation of the flexibility formulation of a nonlinear
Bernoulli beam element within the framework of a general purpose
nonlinear analysis program. The selection of suitable force interpolation
functionsthatstrictlysatisfyelementequilibriumisratherstraightforward
for the case of a nonlinear Bernoulli beam element; in this case the fiber
discretizationofthecrosssectionaffordsaconvenientmeansofdescribing
thecomplexhystereticresponseofmembersundercyclicloadinghistories
(Spacone et al. [15]). Difficulties arise, however, in the selection of force
interpolation functions that strictly satisfy equilibrium for cases that
involve interaction between beam displacements and internal forces.
Examplesareananchoredreinforcingbar,aprestressedconcretegirder,a
steelconcrete girder with partial composite action, and a slender column.
Attemptstoextendtheadvantagesofaforcebasedflexibilityformulation
tothesecaseshavebeenrecentlyreported(Yassin[16];AyoubandFilippou
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
[17];Montietal.[19];NeuenhoferandFilippou[20];Salarietal.).Withthe
exception of the study by Neuenhofer and Filippou, which is, however,
limitedtolinearelasticmaterialbehavior,theotherstudiesresorttoadhoc
assumptions for overcoming the difficulty of deriving force interpolation
functions that strictly satisfy equilibrium. The formulations by Yassin,
Montietal.,andAyoubandFilippoulimittheinteractionbetweenthetwo
components to the end nodes of the element and assume a linear
interpolation of bond or friction forces in between. This requires a small
elementsizeforaccuratelocalresponseeliminatingoneoftheadvantages
of the flexibilitybased formulation (Neuenhofer and Filippou). To
overcome this weakness Salari et al. introduced higher order bond force
distribution functions. The formulation, however, lacks clarity about the
relation between the slip distribution in the element and the element end
displacements.Analyticalresultsrevealinterelementdiscontinuitiesofslip
displacementsinviolationofvariationalprinciples.Itisalsonotclearthat
theelementcanbeextendedtoaccommodatedistributedelementloads.In
view of the limitations of the displacement formulation (Neuenhofer and
Filippou) and the difficulty of selecting force interpolation functions that
strictly satisfy equilibrium for problems with strong interaction between
displacementsandinternalforces,AyoubandFilippourecentlyproposeda
consistentmixedformulationoftheanchoredreinforcingbarproblemwith
independent interpolation functions for the axial displacements and the
reinforcingsteelstresses.Thisformulationcombinestheadvantagesofthe
ChapterIIntroduction
displacement and force formulations while overcoming most of their

limitations.
Morerecently,WuandXu[22],[24]consideredtheTimoshenkokinematics
for both the connected members in order to derive a more general model
under similar hypotheses. Three applications were proposed in the
mentionedpapers:
simulationofthebehaviourofabeaminbendingconsideringshear
flexibility;
buckling analysis of the axially loaded beamcolumns taking into

accountsecondordereffectsduetoflexuraldeflection;
dynamicsandvibrationanalysisofcompositebeams.
The authors provided some examples and the deflection values at the
midspan for all the previously mentioned three cases. The value of the
Euler critical load has been also provided regarding the buckling of the
beam.Thisworkisthestartingpointofthepresentthesiswhosefinalresult
consists in deriving the closeform expression for the stiffness matrix,
includingtheshearflexibilityeffects.
RanziandZona[23]workedatthesameproblem,includingtheshrinkage
effects using the Volterra equation and they solved it by approximating
withalinearfunction.
ArecentresearchbySakrandSakla[26]dealswithbeamswithincomplete
connections,inpresenceofcracking.Thedistributedeffectsaretakeninto
accountbothinthecrackedanduncrackedstage.Thenonlinearbehaviour
oftheconnectionismodelledaccordingtoOllgardasusually
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
accepted also within the previously mentioned papers. The stress strain
relationshipistheVolterraonewhichincludesastressfunctionatageneric
instant,sothatitcanbeonlynumericallysolvedstepbystep.Asfarasthe
stressstrainrelationshipofsteel,twoYoung modulihavetobe used:one
for the steel beam and one for the internal reinforcement of the concrete
slab. It can be seen that the setting of this method is just the same of the
FEManalysis.Ithasbeenobservedasubstantialinfluenceofthelongterm
deformabilityofconnection,especiallyforsimplysupportedbeams.
Finally,moreadvancedstudiestrytomodelthestressstrainrelationshipof
the materials with nonlinear functions and take into account the
distributedeffectsofthecracking.
Thepresentworkframesitselfintothelinearanalysisofcompositebeams
withflexibleconnection,anditspurposesaretogiveafurthercontribution
aboutshearstrainsandstresses.
2. ATimoshenkobasedmodelforcomposite
beamsinpartialinteraction
Thekeyfeaturesofabrandnewmodelforsimulatingthebehaviour
of steelconcrete composite beams in partial interaction, looking after the
shearflexibilityofbothconcreteslabandsteelbeamwillbeproposed.
2.1 Keygeometricandmechanicalpropertiesofthe
compositecrosssection
The typical cross section of a steal concrete composite beam is
representedintheFigure2.1.
Figure2.1.Propertiesofthecrosssection.
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Ageometriccentroidofthesectionasawholecanbeeasilydefinedandits
position can be referred to the centroids of steel beam and concrete slab
throughthefollowingequations:
E1 A1 y1 = E 2 A2 y 2 y1 =
E 2 A2
E1 A1
h, y 2 =
h
E1 A1 + E 2 A2
E1 A1 + E 2 A2
(2.1)
2.2 Modelequations
Thegeneralequationsofthementionedmodelwillbeformulatedin
thepresentsection.
2.2.1
Equilibriumequations
Thegoverningdifferentialequationswillbederivedconsideringthe
external actions and the internal (generalized) stresses represented in

Figure2.2.
Figure2.2.Aninfinitesimalelementofthecompositebeam.
ChapterIIATimoshenkobasedmodelforcompositebeamsinpartialinteraction
Amongtheformerones,theinertialactionscanbedefinedasfollows:
Fd = Av, tt
Md = I , tt
(2.2)
where:
A = 1 A1 + 2 A2
I = 1I 1 + 2 I 2
(2.3)
Secondordereffectsarealsoconsideredinthisstage.Figure2.3showsthat
the axial force in Timoshenko beam is directed as the axis of the beam
therefore it is not orthogonal to the cross section because of the shear
flexibility(seetheequation(2..4)):
= v, x +
(2.4)
Asaresult,theanglebetweentheaxialdirectionandthehorizontaloneis
defined through the function v(x); according to Figure 2.3 the second
derivativeofdeflectionv(x)isalwaysnonpositive(thexaxeispositive
towards the right and the deflection is positive towards the bottom)
thereforethesecondderivativeisnegative.
Figure2.3.CalculationoftheforceFN.
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Thereforetheangleisestimatedas:
= v, xxdx
(2.5)
andincaseofinfinitesimalangleswehave:
sen =
(2.6)
Therefore,theverticalforceresultsas -N v,xx dx (directedtowardsthetop).

Thereforeassumingthattheforcesarepositivetowardsthebottomweget
as a result: FN = N v,xx dx . According to the hypothesis of small
deformation, the dynamic equilibrium of forces in vertical direction is
easedtothefollowingequation:
iFi + Fd = 0
(2.7)
andreplacingtheforcesrepresentedinFigure2.2:
Q + Q + Q , xdx + Nv , xxdx + qdx Av , ttdx = 0
Q , x = q + Av , tt Nv , xx
(2.8)
andbeingN=F:
Q , x = q + Av , tt Fv , xx
(2.9)
wheretheinfinitesimalpartsofthesecondorderareeliminated.
According to the hypothesis of small deformation and the dynamic
equilibriumconditionofmoments,wehave:
iMi + Md = 0
(2.10)
replacingthemomentsofforcesinFigure2.2:
M + M + M , xdx Qdx + mdx I , ttdx = 0
(2.11)
andsimplifying:
M , x = m + I , tt + Q
wheretheinfinitesimalpartsofthesecondorderareeliminated.
10
(2.12)
2.2.2
Constitutivelaws
General constitutive (stressstrain) relationships have to be
introducedtoformulatethecompositebeammodel.
Anelasticdeformationcanbealsoconsideredinthoserelationshipsforthe
sakeofgenerality.
Inparticular,Figure2..4showsthefollowingimposedstraincomponents:
thermalinduced anelastic strain, reproduced by a linear field

throughoutthecompositebeamdepth;
shrinkageinconcreteslab.
Theshrinkageaxialdeformationisassumedwiththepositivesignincase
oftheextensionaccordingtotheusualconventionsofmechanics.
Figure2.4.Theanelasticdistributedeffects.
Theexpressionsofbendingmomentsofsteelbeamandconcreteslabcan
bestatedasfollows:
ontheconcreteslab:
M 1 = E1I 1( , x T )
(2.13)
11
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
onthesteelbeam:
M 2 = E 2 I 2( , x T )
(2.14)
Considering the (generalized) stressstrain relationship for shear, the

followingformulacanbeintroduced.
Q = KGA(v , x + )
(2.15)
Asabasicfeatureofthepresentmodel,shearforceandthecorresponding
(generalized)strainarenotdefinedforeitherthesteelbeamortheconcrete
slab, but deal with the composite cross section as a whole; the shear
stiffnessofthebeamsectionisdefinedasfollows:
KGA = K 1G1 A1 + K 2G 2 A2
(2.16)
Forthesakeofsimplicity,thefollowingassumptionwillbeconsideredfor
bendingstiffnessandotherparameters:
EI = E 1I 1 + E 2 I 2
E 1A 1E 2 A 2 2
EI = EI +
h =
E 1A 1 + E 2 A 2
EI k s E 1A 1 + E 2A 2 h 2 E 1A 1E 2 A 2
EI EA 2
=
+
=
k s E 1A 1E 2 A 2 EI E 1A 1 + E 2 A 2
ks
E 1A 1 + E 2 A 2 h 2
2 = ks
+
E 1A 1E 2 A 2 EI
EA =
12
E 1A 1E 2 A 2
E 1A 1 + E 2 A 2
(2.17)
2.2.3
Globalequilibriumequation
ConsideringthebeaminFigure2..5,twoequilibriumequationscan
be stated as follows, including the normal stresses and the bending

momentsforconcreteslabandsteelbeam.
Figure2.5.Globalequilibrium.
Theequilibriuminhorizontaldirectionleadstothefollowingrelationship:
N = N1 + N 2 = F
(2.18)
whiletheequilibriumofbendingmomentscanbestatedasfollows:
M = M 1 + M 2 - N 1h + Fy 2
(2.19)
2.2.4
Compatibilityequationthroughouttheinterface
Considering Figure 2.6, we observe that rotation is common for
both steel beam and concrete slab. As a result of the interlayer slip we
have:
us = u 2 - u1 - h1 - h 2 = u 2 - u1 - h
(2.20)
13
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure2.6.Thecommonrotationofthecrosssection.
and the kinematic assumptions of the model lead to the following

relationships:
ontheconcreteslab:
u 1, x = 1 =
N1
+ sh - T y 1
E 1A 1
(2.21)
onthesteelbeam:
u 2, x = 2 =
N2
+ T y 2
E 2A 2
(2.22)
2.2.5
Equilibriumequationthroughouttheinterface
AninterlayerdistributedforceQsarisesattheinterfacebetweensteel
profileandconcreteslab.Thisinterlayerdistributedshearforceshouldbe
relatedtothetwonormalstressesinN1andN2onconcreteslabandsteel
beam,respectively.
14
Figure2.7.Equilibriumintheinterface.
AccordingtoFigure2.7intheconcreteslabwehave:
- N 1 + N 1 + N 1, xdx + Qsdx = 0 N 1, x = -Qs
(2.23)
andinthesteelbeamswehave:
- N 2 + N 2 + N 2, xdx - Qsdx = 0 N 2, x = Qs
(2.24)
2.2.6
Stressstrainlawforshearconnection
According to Hooke rule the interlayer distributed shear force is
determinedbythelinearexpression:
Qs = ks us
(2.25)
dependingontheinterlayerdisplacementus.
15
3. Outlineofthegoverningequations
Theequationsderivedintheprevioussectioncanbecondensedand
simplified to obtain the key set of simultaneous equations describing the
behaviourofshearflexiblecompositebeamsinpartialinteraction.
3.1 Thesystemofthreeequationsinthreeunknown
functions
Deriving the expression of the slip (2.20) and introducing the
definitionsofnormalstrains(2.21)(2.22)wehave:
Qs , x
N 1, xx
N2
=
= 2 1 , xh =
+ T y 2 +
ks
ks
E 2A 2
F N 1
N1
N1
+ sh - T y 1 , x h =
+ T y 2
+
E 2A 2
E 1A 1
E 1A 1
F
1
1
sh + T y 1 , x h =
N 1
+
+
E 2A 2
E 1A 1 E 2 A 2
sh + T h , x h
us , x =
(3.1)
fromwhichweget:
F
1
1
N1
+
N 1, xx = ks
sh + Th , xh =
E1 A1 E 2 A2
E 2 A2

1
F ks
1
=
+ N1
+
ks + ks sh ks T h + ks , xh
E 2 A2
E1 A1 E 2 A2
andasaresult:
16
(3.2)
ChapterIIIOutlineofthegoverningequations
F ks N 1
+
ks + ks sh ks T h + ks , xh
E 2 A2 EA
N 1, xx =
(3.3)
Furthermore,introducingtheexpressionsofbendingmoments(2.13)and
(2.14)intotheequation(2.19)weobtain:
M = E1I 1( , x T ) + E 2 I 2( , x T ) N 1h + Fy 2
(3.4)
fromwhichwehave:
, x =
M + N 1h Fy 2
+ T
EI
(3.5)
introducingtheequation(3.5)into(3.4)weget:
F ks
N1
M + N 1h Fy 2
+
+ T h +
ks + ks sh + ks
EI
E 2 A2 EA
F ks
N1
M + N 1h Fy 2
ksT h =
+
ks + ks sh + ks
h
EI
E 2 A2 EA
N 1, xx =
(3.6)
and the following expression can be finally obtained after some

mathematicalsimplification:
h2
ks hM
N 1, xx ks 1 +
ks
N1 =
EA
EI
EI
1
hy 2
+
F + ks sh
E 2 A2 EI
(3.7)
Thedefinitions(2.17)canbeintroducedobtainingthefollowingequation:
N 1, xx 2 N 1 =
ks hM
hy 2
1
ks
+
F + ks sh
EI
E 2 A2 EI
(3.8)
Deriving (2.19) and introducing (2.12) the following equation can be

obtained:
M , x = M 1, x + M 2, x N 1, xh = m + I , tt + Q
(3.9)
thatis:
17
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
E1I 1( , xx T , x ) + E 2 I 2( , xx T , x ) N 1, xh = m + I , tt + Q
EI ( , xx T , x ) N 1, xh = m + I , tt + Q
(3.10)
andthefollowingequationcanbefinallyobtained:
EI , xx EI T , x I , tt N 1, xh + m = Q
(3.11)
Finally,derivingequation(2.15),throughthe(2.9)onegets:
Q , x = KGA(v, xx + , x ) = q + Av , tt Fv , xx
(3.12)
thatisfinally:
KGA(v , xx + , x) + Fv , xx Av, tt = q
(3.13)
To sum up briefly, the governing equations of the problem result being

listedinthefollowingsetofsimultaneousequations:
ks hM
hy 2
1
2
N 1, xx N 1 = EI ks E 2 A2 + EI F + ks sh
EI , xx EI T , x I , tt N 1, xh + m = Q
KGA(v , xx + , x ) + Fv, xx Av , tt = q
(3.14)
TheabovesetofthethreeequationsinvolvestheunknownfunctionsN1(x),
(x)ev(x).
3.2 Displacementformulation
The three equations obtained in the previous section can further be
worked and simplified to obtain a single differential equation in terms of
(generalized)displacement.
18
3.2.1
Deducingtheproblemdimensions
The obtained set of equations can be reduced into the equation
depending on the function v(x).The first two equations (3.14) can be

simplified by eliminating function N1(x). Indeed, considering equation
(3.11)thefollowingequationcanbederived:
F ks N 1
+
ks + ks sh ks T h + ks , xh =
E 2 A2 EA
EI , xxx EI T , xx I , ttx m, x Q , x
=
=
h
h
h
h
h
N 1, xx =
EI , xxx EI T , xx I , ttx m, x
=
+
+
h
h
h
h
( q + Av , tt Fv, xx )
h
(3.15)
inwhichN1canbeobtainedasfollows:
EA F k s
k s sh + k s T h k s , x h +
N 1=
k s E 2A 2
EI , xxx EI T , xx I , ttx m , x q Av , tt Fv , xx
+
+
+
+
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
(3.16)
DerivingN1twicewithrespecttotheabscissax,wehave:
N 1, xx =
EA
EI , xxxxx
+
ks sh , xx + ks T , xx h ks , xxxh +
ks
h
EI T , xxxx I , ttxxx m, xxx q , xx Av, ttxx Fv , xxxx
+
+
h
h
h
h
h
h
(3.17)
Fromthelasttwoequationswehave:
19
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
EI , xxxxx
+
k s sh , xx + k s T , xx h k s , xxx h +
h
EI T , xxxx I , ttxxx m , xxx q , xx Av , ttxx Fv , xxxx
+
+
+
+
h
h
h
h
h
h
EI , xxx
EA F k s
2
k s sh + k s T h k s , x h +
+
k s E 2A 2
h
EA
ks
EI T , xx I , ttx m , x q Av , tt Fv , xx
+
+
+
h
h
h
h
h
h
(3.18)
ks h
EA F k s
k s sh + k s T h +
[ EI , x EI T h
k s E 2A 2
EI
EI , xxx EI T , xx I , ttx m , x q Av , tt
k s , x h +
+
+
+
h
h
h
h
h
h
Fv , xx
hy 2
1
+
+
+ Fy 2 ] + k s
F k s sh = 0
h
E 2 A 2 EI
Thefollowingequationcanbeobtainedthroughsuitablesimplifications:
EI EA
I EA
A EA
+ , ttxxx
+ v , ttxx
+
h ks
h ks
h ks
, xxxxx
2 I EA I hEA
EI EA
+ , xxx 2
+ , ttx
+
h ks
h ks
EI
A EA A hEA
+ v , tt 2
EI
h ks
F EA
+ v , xxxx
+
h ks
F EA F hEA
+ v , xx 2
+
+
EI
h ks
EA
EA ksh 2
ks
2
F +
E 2 A2 E 2 A2 EI E 2 A2
E1I 1 ksh E 2 I 2 ksh ksh3 EA

2 hEA +
+
+
EI
EI
EI
20
, x =
EA
2 EA hEA
EA hEA
= q 2
+ q, xx
+ m, x
+
h ks EI
h ks
h ks EI
EA
2
h 2 EAks
EA
+ m, xxx
ks sh , xx ( EA ) +
sh
EI
h ks
2
2 EI EA
ks h3 EA
+T EAh ks h
+ T , xx
+
h ks
EI
EAEI
+T , xxxx
h ks
(3.19)
Thelasttwotermsofthelefthandmemberarebothzero.Compactingthe
otherelementswehave:
EI EA
I EA
A EA
, ttxxx
v , ttxx
+
h ks
h ks
h ks
, xxxxx
EI EA
2 I EA I hEA
, xxx 2
+ , ttx
h ks
h ks
EI
A EA A hEA
F EA
+ v , tt 2
+ v , xxxx
+
h ks
EI
h ks
F EA F hEA
2 EA hEA
v , xx 2
= q
+
h ks
EI
h ks EI
EA
2 EA hEA
EA
q, xx
+ m, x
m, xxx
+
h ks
h ks EI
h ks
(3.20)
EI EA
EAEI
+ sh , xx ( EA ) T , xx 2
+ T , xxxx
h ks
h ks
Observingthat:
2 EA hEA
h ks EI
2 EA EI
=
h ks EI
(3.21)
21
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
andmultiplyingequation(3.20)byks h/EIEAthefollowingequationcan
bederived:
I
A
2 I
2
, ttxxx
v , ttxx , xxx +
, ttx +
EI
EI
EI
2
A
F
+ 2
+
v
v
,
,
tt
xxxx
Fv , xx =
EI
EI
EI
, xxxxx
(3.22)
(q + m , x T , xx EI + sh , xx EA h ) +
EI
1
(q , xx + m , xxx T , xxxx EI )
EI
=
The above equation is equivalent to the first two ones reported in (3.14)
andhastobecompletedbythethirdoneforobtainingthefirstsolution.
3.2.2
Differentialequationintermsofdeflection
The simultaneous differential equations have to be reduced for
deriving the only differential equation similarly to the problem of

Timoshenkobeam.Fromthethirdequationofthesystem(3.14)wehave:
, x =
1
( q + Av, tt Fv, xx ) v, xx
KGA
(3.23)
Thefollowingequationcanbederivedbyintroducingequation(3.23)into
the(3.22):
22
1
[ q , xxxx + A v , ttxxxx Fv , xxxxxx ] v , xxxxxx +
KGA
I
1
+
{[ q , ttxx + Av , ttttxx Fv , xxxxtt ] v , xxxxtt } +
EI KGA
A
1
v , ttxx 2
{[ q , xx + Av , ttxx Fv , xxxx ] +
KGA
EI
I 1
v , xxxx } + 2
[ q , tt + Av , tttt Fv , xxtt ] v , xxtt +
EI KGA
+ 2
A
EI
v , tt +
(3.24)
F
2
v , xxxx
Fv , xx =
EI
EI
EI
1
EI
=
A few easy simplifications lead to the following equation in terms of

deflection:
v , xxxxxx 1 +
KGA
A
I
+
v , xxxxtt
KGA EI
A I
v , ttttxx
KGA EI
A 2A 2I
F
v
,
xxtt
+
EI + KGA + EI 1 + KGA
1 +
+
KGA
A I 2 A
v , tttt 2

v , tt +
EI
KGA EI

F F
F
v , xxxx 2 1 +
+ v , xx 2
=
+
EI
KGA EI
(3.25)
EI
1
+
(q , xx + m , xxx T , xxxx EI ) +
EI
1
I
I
q , ttxx +
q , tt
q , xxxx q , xx
EI
KGA
EI
23
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
The above equation represents in the dynamic field the equation of the
deflection in presence of the constant axial force and of the finite shear
stiffness(thatisF0and[(KGAL2)/EI]).
Inthestaticfieldtheaboveequationissimplifiedasfollows:
v , xxxxxx 1 +
KGA
2
F
v , xxxx 1 +
KGA
F
+
EI
2 F
+ v , xx EI =
EI
1
1
+
(q , xxxx 2q , xx )
KGA
EI
=
(3.26)
AstheaxialforceF=0,thefollowingequationcanbederived:
v, xxxxxx v, xxxx =
2
2
EI
( q + m, x T , xx EI + sh, xx EA h ) +
1
1
+
q , xxxx 2 q , xx )
( q, xx + m, xxx T , xxxx EI )
(
EI
KGA
(3.27)
Ifnoshearflexibilityisassumed,theTimoshenkoequationusuallyreduces
totheBernoullisoneandthefollowingequationcanbeobtainedasF=0:
v, xxxxxx 2 v, xxxx =
2
EI
1
+
EI
(3.28)
Finally, equation (3.28) reduces to the usual differential equation of the

Bernoullibeamasacompletelystiffconnectionisconsidered( L ):
v, xxxx =
24
1
( q + m, x T , xx EI + sh, xx EA h )
EI
(3.29)
while, as absent connection occurs ( L 0 ), the equation of the beam

withflexuralstiffnessEIisobtained:
v, xxxxxx =
1
EI
(3.30)
Asconcreteslabisconnectedtosteelbeam,for L ,shrinkageaxial
deformationcausesthebendingmoment.Therefore,suchshrinkageaxial
deformation appears in the equation of bending (3.29). However, no
bending moment arises by shrinkage in concrete for the case of L 0 .
As a result, shrinkage axial deformation freely occurs in concrete slab
(whichisnotconstrainedbysteelbeamthroughanyfrictionorconnection)
anditdoesnotappearinequationoftheflexion.
3.2.3
Derivingtheotherparameters
Thefollowingstatementsarevalidonlyinthestaticfield.
Equation (2.19) in terms of bending moment M can be transformed as

follows:
25
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
q
F
hEA F k s
+
M = EI
v , xx v , xx T
KGA KGA
k s E 2 A 2
q
F
k sh
v , xx v , xx k s sh + k s T h +
KGA KGA
EI q , xx
F
EI T , xx m , x q
+
+ +
v , xxxx v , xxxx
h KGA KGA
h
h
h
EA EI
Fv , xx
F
+
+ Fy 2 = v , xxxx
1 +
+
h
KGA
ks
+
F
F EA F
2
+
+v , xx EI 1 +
EAh 1 +
k s
KGA
KGA
EI EAh 2 EA
EI EA
EA
+q
+ q , xx
+ m,x
+
s
s
s
KGA
KGA
k
KGA
k
k
(3.31)
F EA h
+F
+ Fy 2 + T [ EI ] + sh ( EA h ) +
E 2A 2
EI EA
+T , xx
k s
The term involving F results as zero; compacting the remaining terms we

obtain:
EA EI
M = v , xxxx
ks
+
1 +
v , xx EI 1 +
+
KGA
KGA
EI EA
EA F
EA
EI
q
+
+ q , xx
ks
ks
KGA
KGA k s
EI EA
T ( EI ) + sh ( EA h ) + T , xx
ks
andfinally:
26
EA
m,x
+
ks
(3.32)
EI
M = v , xxxx 2
1 +
v , xx EI
KGA
1 +
KGA
EI F
+
+
2
EI
EI
EI
EI
EI
q
+
+ q , xx 2
+
m,x
2
2
KGA EI
KGA
EI
EI k s h
EI
T ( EI ) + sh
+ T , xx 2
2

EI
(3.33)
The normal stress in concrete slab N1, and the normal stress in the steel
beam N2, are obtained from the following equation which is derived by
substituting(3.23)into(3.16):
EA F k s
k s sh + k s T h
k s E 2A 2
EI q , xx + Fv , xxxx
q + Fv , xx
k s
v , xx h +
v , xxxx +
KGA
h
KGA
N 1= F N 2 =
(3.34)
EI T , xx m , x q Fv , xx
+
+ +
h
h
h
h
thatisreorganizing:
N 1=
EI q , xx
EI F k s
k s sh + k s T h
+
2
EI E 2 A 2
h KGA
v , xxxx
EI
h
1 +
KGA
k sh 2
EI T , xx m , x q
+
+
+
1
h
h
h KGA
(3.35)
F
F
+v , xx + k sh 1 +
=
KGA
h
Equation(2.12)canbewritteninthestaticfield.FromthisequationQcan
bederived.Substitutingequation(3.33)intoQexpressiononeobtains:
27
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Q = EI , xx EI T , x + m N 1, x h =
q , x + Fv , xxx
= EI
v , xxx EI T , x + m +
KGA
EI
EI q , xxx
k s sh , x + k s T , x h
+
2
EI
h KGA
v , xxxxx
EI
h
1 +
KGA
EI T , xxx m , xx q , x
+
+
h
h
h
k sh 2
+
1
KGA
(3.36)
F
F
+v , xxx + k sh 1 +

KGA
h
simplifyingtheaboveequationthefollowingexpressioncanbederived:
F
EI
Q = v , xxxxx 2 1 +
KGA
h
+ v , xxx EI
1 +
KGA
EI F
F
+ k sh 1 +
+
2
EI h
KGA
EI
EI
k sh 2
1
q , x
+
+
+
2
KGA EI KGA
EI
h k s EI
EI +
k s h 2 T , x + m +
2
2
EI
EI
EI
2
EI
EI
m , xx + 2
sh , x +
EI q , xxx
T , xxx + 2 KGA
andfinallyoneobtains:
28
(3.37)
F

F F EI
EI
Q = 2 1 +
v , xxx +
v , xxxxx EI 1 +
+
2
KGA
KGA EI
EI
EI
h k s EI
sh , x +
+
q , x ( EI ) T , x + m +
2
2
KGA EI
EI
EI
2
EI
EI
EI q , xxx
m , xx + 2 T , xxx + 2 KGA
(3.40)
The interlayer distributed shear force Qs throughout the interface is

obtainedfromequation(2.25):
Qs =
EI
EI 2
ks h
1
+ + k s h T , x +
q , x
KGA h
+v , xxx k s h 1 +
KGA
m , xx EI
F
T , xxx +
+ k s sh , x +
h
h
h
EI q , xxx
EI
v , xxxxx
h KGA
h
1 + KGA
(3.39)
Therotationaldisplacementcanbededucedfromthefollowingexpression
whichisobtainedbyinvertingequation(2.15):
=
Q
v , x
KGA
(3.40)
androtationaldisplacementcanbefinallyderivedasafunctionoftheother
knownparameters:
29
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
EI
2
KGA
= v , xxxxx
F
EI
1 + KGA v , xxx KGA
1 + KGA +
EI F
q , x EI
EI
+
v , x
+
2
EI KGA
KGA KGA EI 2
q , xxx EI
m
m , xx EI T , x
+
( EI ) +
KGA KGA 2 KGA KGA EI 2 KGA

+
sh , x EI k s h T , xxx
+
KGA EI 2 KGA
(3.41)
EI
2

Inthestaticfieldthedifferentialequationofdeflectioncanbefinallystated
asfollows:
2
F
F F
2F
v , xxxxxx 1 +
v
v
1
xx
+
+
+
=
, xxxx
,
EI
KGA
KGA EI
2
1
=
( q, xx + m, xxx +
EI
EI
1
q , xxxx 2 q , xx )
T , xxxx EI )
(
KGA
(3.42)
3.3 ExtendedNewmarksequationintermsof
curvature
DerivinganextensionofthewellknownNewmarkequationinterms
of curvature under the more general hypotheses introduced for
formulatingthepresentmodelisthefinalobjectiveofthepresentsection.
Sincecurvature , x = is,inthestaticfield,describedbytheexpression
(3.12):
30
q + Fv , xx
=
v , xx
KGA
(3.43)
thefollowingequationcanbederived:
v , xx 1
KGA
=+
KGA
(3.44)
andfinally:
q
KGA = KGA + q
=
F
KGA + F
1+
KGA
v , xx
(3.45)
The final expression of bending moment M can be finally obtained by

introducingequation(3.45)in(3.33):
M =
, xx KGA + q , xx EI ( KGA + F )
+
2
KGA + F
KGA
KGA + q EI ( KGA + F )
EI F
+
+
KGA + F
KGA
EI 2
EI
EI
EI
EI
q
+
+ q , xx
m,x
+
2
2
2
KGA EI
KGA
EI
EI k s h
T ( EI ) + sh
2
EI
( , xx KGA + q , xx ) EI
=
KGA 2
+
EI
+ T , xx 2
( KGA + q ) EI
( KGA + q ) EI F q EI
( KGA + F ) EI 2 KGA
KGA
(3.46)
EI
EI
+ q , xx
+
2
2
EI
KGA
EI
EI k s h
EI
m , x
T ( EI ) + sh
+ T , xx 2
2
2

EI
EI
and,consequently,weobtainthefollowingexpression:
31
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
M =
+
, xxEI
EI
EI
q , xx
+ EI + q
+
2
2
KGA
KGA
KGA EI F
( KGA + F ) EI
q EI F
+
( KGA + F ) EI 2
EI
EI
EI
EI
q
+
+ q , xx
m,x
+
2
2
2
KGA EI
KGA
EI
EI k s h
EI
T ( EI ) + sh
+ T , xx 2
2

EI
(3.47)
Therefore,multiplying(3.47)by 2 ( KGA + F ) EI weobtain:
q , xx EI
( KGA + F ) EI +
KGA
q EI
+ EI ( KGA + F ) EI 2 +
( KGA + F ) EI 2 +
KGA
, xx EI ( KGA + F ) EI
+ KGA EI F + q EI F +
EI
EI
EI
EI
+
+ q , xx
m,x
+
q
2
2
2
KGA EI
KGA
EI
EI k s h
T ( EI ) + sh
2
EI
= M ( KGA + F ) EI 2
andfinallyoneobtains:
32
EI
+ T , xx 2

2
( KGA + F ) EI =

(3.48)
, xx
2 ) EI ( KGA + F ) EI KGA EI F =
q , xx EI
KGA
( KGA + F ) EI +
q EI EI 2
( KGA + F ) +
KGA
EI
EI
EI
+q EI F + q
+
+ q , xx
+
2
2
KGA EI
KGA
EI
EI k s h
m , x
T ( EI ) + sh
+
2
2
EI
EI
EI
+T , xx 2 ( KGA + F ) EI 2 M ( KGA + F ) EI 2 =

EI F EI
= q , xx EI EI q , xx
+ q EI EI 2 +
KGA
(3.49)
q EI EI 2 F
q EI
+
+ q EI F + ( KGA + F ) EI 2
+
KGA
KGA
q EI
q , xx EI
EI
+
m,x
T ( EI ) +
2
2
KGA
EI
EI 2
EI k s h
EI
+ sh
+ T , xx 2
2
EI
2
2
M KGA EI M EI F
Hence,thefollowingequationintermsofcurvaturecanbefinallyderived
fortheshearflexiblecompositebeams:
, xx
2 ) EI ( KGA + F ) KGA F =
1
= KGA EI
(q + m , x T , xx EI ) +
EI
sh EA h
M
+ 2
+ T
+
EI
EI
(3.50)
M
1
sh EA h
F EI
( m , x T , xx EI ) + 2 + T
EI
EI
EI
33
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
SuchanequationextendstheonereportedbyFaellaetal.[25]basedonthe
workbyNewmarketal.[2].
TheaboveequationturnsintothestandardoneasF=0:
1
(q + m , x T , xx EI ) +
EI
sh EA h
2M

+ T
EI
EI
, xx 2 =
(3.51)
whichrepresentsNewmarkequationsupposingthattheshearstiffnessis
finite(Timoshenkomodel).
Suchequationtakesintoaccountthepresenceofthefollowingloads:
distributedverticalload
distributedbendingmoment
shrinkageaxialdeformation
thermalinducedanelasticstrain.
The effect of the shear flexibility , in the equation (3.51), is present in the
definitionofthecurvature(3.43).
Finally, the equation (describing the curvature of the beam with the
flexuralstiffnessEI)isobtainedontheconditionthattheconnectionhasits
infiniterigidity( L ).Inconcreteslabshrinkageaxialdeformationis
presentresultingintheconsequentbendingmoment:
=
+ T
EI
sh EA h
EI
(3.52)
Ifconnectionhaszerostiffness( L 0 )thefollowingconditioncanbe
easilyderivedandassured:
34
, xx =
1
(q + m , x T , xx EI
EI
(3.53)
Evenhereweobservethatfor L theshrinkageaxialdeformationis
alsopresentincurvatureequation,whilefor L 0 suchashrinkage
axial deformation does not result in curvatures, but only in relative
displacements.
35
4. Solutionintheelasticrange
The equation formulated in the previous sections will be solved
withinthelinearrange.Generalboundaryandrestraintconditionswillbe
consideredthroughoutthepresentchapter.
4.1 Compositebeamunderaxialforce
Restraint conditions need to be formulated with reference to the
composite beam considering relative slip as further displacement
componentsalongwiththeusualones(transversedisplacement,rotational
displacement).AnonzeroaxialforceFisthenconsideredonthecomposite
section.
Figure4.1.Beamloadedwithanormalforce.
The only reacting restraint is the horizontal simple support that is

restrainedinthecentroidofthecompositecrosssection.Imposingthe
equilibrium and the compatibility we obtain the stresses in concrete slab
andinsteelbeamasnotedinthesystembelow:
36
ChapterIVSolutionintheelasticrange
N 1 + N 2 = F
E 1A 1
E 2A 2
F,N 2 =
F
N1
N 2 N 1=
E 1A 1 + E 2 A 2
E 1A 1 + E 2 A 2
E 1A 1 = E 2 A 2
(4.1)
Consequently, no relative slips occur as an axial force F is applied on the

composite section and shared into the two parts N1 and N2 related to
concreteslabandsteelbeamrespectively.
4.2 Compositebeaminbending
Before analysing the bending problem, we should observe that the
compositebeamkinematicsisbasedononemoreparameterincomparison
withasimplebeam.
Thekinematicquantityusfindsitsstaticcounterpartinthemutualreaction
of the dual restraint: horizontal mutual pendulum between the concrete
slabandthesteelbeam.Thebendingproblemisapproachedinthissection.
The simultaneous equations (3.14) involve three unknowns, namely
deflectionv(x),rotationaldisplacement(x)andnormalstressN1(x).
Inparticular,itresultsthatN1(x)=N2(x)asF=0.
Consequently the slip force S(x) can be considered as a new stress,
perfectly dual of the slip between two parts of the section. The above
definition conceptually simplifies and complete the correspondence
betweennodalforceSanddisplacementus.
37
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure4.2.SlipforceS(x)ininterface.
More precisely, the slip force in interface is defined as S(x)=N1(x)=N2(x)

and the possible boundary conditions reported in Figure 4.3 can be
imposedatthecompositeendofthebeam.
Figure4.3.Thechartofthesimplerestraintsoftheflexionalproblem.
38
Theslipforcecanbeappliedatthefreeendattheslipandinthiscasethe
distribution of stresses is obtained by applying the principle of
superposition.
Figure4.4.R0distributiononthecrosssection.
It is observed that R0 causes two normal stresses and two bending

moments. However, bending moment is equal to zero on the composite
section. In fact, the superposition effects principle can be applied (see
Figure4.4).
39
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
N ' 1 = Ro
N ' 2 = Ro
(4.2)
M 1 + M 2 = Roh
E1I 1
E2I 2
M '' 1 = Roh
, M '' 2 = Roh
M1
M2
EI
EI
=
E1I 1 E 2 I 2
(4.3)
Consequentlythestressesinthecrosssectioncanbeobtainedasfollows:
N 1 = N ' 1 + N '' 1 = R o + 0 = R o
N 2 = N ' 2 + N '' 2 = R o + 0 = R o
E 1I 1
E 1I 1
= R oh
EI
EI
E 2I 2
E 2I 2
M 2 = M ' 2 + M '' 2 = 0 + R oh
= R oh
EI
EI
M 1 = M ' 1 + M '' 1 = 0 + R oh
(4.4)
Thebendingmomentisequalto0asithasbeenstatedbefore:
M = M 1 + M 2 N 1h = R oh
E 1I 1
E 2I 2
+ R oh
R oh = 0
EI
EI
(4.5)
4.2.1
Nonredundantbeamsinbending
Incaseofsimplysupportedbeamsthebendingmomentisalways
known throughout equilibrium. This bending moment results by q(x),

m(x), as well as by the nodal forces M0 and F0. The shrinkage axial
deformationandthermalcurvatureaswellastherestraintdisplacements
donotresultinthestressesbeingthenonredundantbeam.
Thereforesubsiststhefollowingequation:
40
M ( x)
( sh, T , v 0, 0, us 0)
=0
(4.6)
Consequently,thetotalbendingmomentM(x)canbeobtainedasfollows:
M (x ) = M ( x )q ( x ) + M ( x ) m ( x ) + M ( x ) Mo + M ( x ) Fo
(4.7)
andisalwaysknownapriori.Theequationintermsofbendingmoments
canbeapplied:
EI
EI
v , xx EI q
+
+
2
KGA EI
EI
EI
EI k s h
EI
+q , xx 2
m,x
T EI + sh
+ T , xx 2
2
2
EI
EI
KGA
M = v , xxxx
EI
2
(4.8)
whichcanbesolvedagainstdeflectionv(x)asfollows:
M
sh EA h
+ T
v , xxxx 2 v , xx = 2
EI
EI
1
1
+
2 q q , xx )
(q + m , x T , xx EI ) +
(
EI
KGA
(4.9)
thegeneralintegralis:
v (x ) = C 1 senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh( x ) + C 3 x + C 4 + v p (x )
(4.10)
being vp(x) a peculiar integral of the complete equation which can be

founded on condition that the functions M(x) as well as the static and
kinematicloadsareknown,and:
C1, C2, C3 and C4 are the integration constants obtainable by four
boundaryconditions.
41
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
4.2.2
Boundaryconditionsfornonredundantbeams
The integration constants can be derived by imposing the relevant
boundaryconditionsderivingfromtherestraints.
4.2.2.1
Verticalsupport
Figure4.5.Verticalsupport.
Thekinematicboundaryconditionresultsinasimpleconditionintermsof
endtransversedisplacement:
v (x o ) = v o
(4.11)
Thestaticboundaryconditionresultsinasimpleconditionintermsofend
slipforce:
EI
EI q , xx (x o )
k s sh (x o ) + k s T (x o ) h
+
2
h KGA
EI
EI EI T , xx (x o ) m , x (x o )
v , xxxx (x o )
+
h
h
h
q (x o )
k sh 2
1
+
+
+ v , xx (x o )k sh = R o
h KGA
S (x o ) =
42
(4.12)
4.2.2.2
Simplerotationalrestraint
Figure4.6.Simplerotationalrestraint.
endrotationaldisplacement:
EI
EI
v , xxx (x o )
v , x (x o ) +
2
KGA
KGA
(x o ) = v , xxxxx (x o )
m (x o )
q , x (x o ) EI
EI q , xxx (x o ) EI
+
+
+
+
2
2
KGA KGA EI
KGA KGA KGA
sh , x (x o ) EI k s h
m , xx (x o ) EI T , x (x o )
+
( EI ) +
2
KGA EI
KGA
KGA EI 2
T , xxx (x o ) EI
KGA 2
(4.13)
= o
slipforce:
43
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
S (x o ) =
EI
EI 2
EI q , xx (x o )
+
h KGA
EI EI T , xx (x o ) m , x (x o ) q (x o )
k sh 2
v , xxxx (x o )
+
+
1 +
+
h
h
h
h KGA
+v , xx (x o )k sh } = R o
(4.14)
4.2.2.3
Mutualhorizontalpendulum
Figure4.7.Mutualhorizontalpendulum.
endslip:
1
ks h
q , x (x o ) KGA + h + k s h T , x (x o ) +
m , xx (x o ) EI
+v , xxx (x o )k s h k s sh , x (x o ) +
T , xxx (x o ) +
h
h
EI q , xxx (x o )
EI
v , xxxxx (x o )
= uso
h KGA
h
us ( x o ) =
44
EI
EI 2 k s
(4.15)
4.2.2.4
Freeend
Figure4.8.Freeend.
slipforce:
S (x o ) =
EI
EI 2
EI q , xx (x o )
+
h KGA
k sh 2
v , xxxx (x o )
+
+
1 +
+
h
h
h
h KGA
+v , xx (x o )k sh } = R o
(4.16)
Since the beam in bending is nonredundant , there are always four

boundaryconditions:
S (x o ) = R o or us (x o ) = uso atends;
the other two or each of them are: v (x o ) = v o ,or one of them is
v (x o ) = v o andtheotheroneas: (x o ) = o .
The possible boundary conditions for nonredundant beams are
representedinthefollowingFigures.
45
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure4.9.Nonredundantbeams(freeslipatbothends).
Figure4.10.Nonredundantbeams(freeslipatoneend).
46
Figure4.11.Nonredundantbeams(restrainedslipatbothends).
4.2.3
Redundantbeamsinbending
Since bending moment cannot be determined through simple
equilibrium conditions, equation (3.27) should be solved considering

bendingmomentasafurtherunknown:
v , xxxxxx 2v , xxxx =
2
EI
1
1
+
(q , xxxx 2q , xx )
EI
KGA
(3.27)
Thegeneralintegralofsuchanequationresultsasfollows:
v (x ) = C 1 senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh( x ) + C 3 x 3 + C 4 x 2 + C 5 x +
+C 6 + v p (x )
(4.17)
wherevp(x)isstillaparticularsolutionofthecompleteequation,obtained
fromthefunctionsofexternalloads.
Six constants C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 are obtained from six boundary
conditionswhicharepresentedinthefollowingparagraph.
47
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
4.2.4
Boundaryconditionsforredundantbeams
4.2.4.1
Verticalsupport
Figure4.12.Verticalsupport.
endtransversedisplacement:
v ( x o ) = v o
(4.18)
slipforce:
S (x o ) =
EI
EI 2
v , xxxx (x o )
EI q , xx (x o )
+
h KGA
k sh 2
1
+
+
+
h
h
h
h KGA
+v , xx (x o )k sh } = R o
(4.19)
Thesecondstaticboundaryconditionresultsinasimpleconditioninterms
ofendbendingmoment:
48
EI
EI
v , xx (x o )EI q (x o )
+
+
2
KGA EI
EI
EI
+q , xx (x o ) 2
m , x (x o )
T (x o )EI +
KGA
EI 2
EI k s h
EI
+ sh (x o )
+ T , xx (x o ) 2 = M o
2
EI
M (x o ) = v , xxxx (x o )
EI
2
(4.20)
4.2.4.2
Simplerotationalrestraint
Figure4.13.Simplerotationalrestraint.
slipforce:
EI q , xx (x o )
+
h KGA
k sh 2
v , xxxx (x o )
+
+
1 +
+
h
h
h
h KGA
+v , xx (x o )k sh } = R o
S (x o ) =
EI
EI 2
(4.21)
49
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
endrotationaldisplacement:
EI
EI
v , xxx (x o )
2
KGA
KGA
(x o ) = v , xxxxx (x o )
v , x (x o ) +
m (x o )
q , x (x o ) EI
EI q , xxx (x o ) EI
+
+
+
+
2
2
KGA KGA EI
KGA KGA KGA
m , xx (x o ) EI T , x (x o )
sh , x (x o ) EI k s h
+
( EI ) +
2
KGA EI
KGA
KGA EI 2
+
(4.22)
T , xxx (x o ) EI
= o
KGA 2
ofendshearstress:
EI
Q (x o ) = 2 v , xxxxx (x o ) ( EI )v , xxx (x o ) +

EI
EI
+
q , x (x o ) ( EI ) T , x (x o )+ m (x o ) +
2
KGA EI
h k s EI
EI
sh , x (x o )
+
2
2
EI
EI
EI q , xxx (x o )
+ 2
= Fo
KGA
50
EI
m , xx (x o ) + 2
T , xxx (x o ) +
(4.23)
4.2.4.3
Mutualhorizontalpendulum
Figure4.14.Mutualhorizontalpendulum.
endslip:
1
ks h
q , x (x o ) KGA + h + k s h T , x (x o ) +
m , xx (x o ) EI
+v , xxx (x o )k s h k s sh , x (x o ) +
T , xxx (x o ) +
h
h
EI q , xxx (x o )
EI
v , xxxxx (x o )
= uso
h KGA
h
us ( x o ) =
EI
EI 2 k s
(4.24)
bendingmoment:
EI
EI
v , xx (x o )EI q (x o )
+
+
2
KGA EI
EI
EI
+q , xx (x o ) 2
m , x (x o )
T (x o )EI +
EI 2
KGA
EI k s h
EI
+ sh (x o )
+ T , xx (x o ) 2 = M o
2
EI
M (x o ) = v , xxxx (x o )
EI
2
(4.25)
51
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
ofendshearstress:
EI
Q (x o ) = 2 v , xxxxx (x o ) ( EI )v , xxx (x o ) +

EI
EI
+
q , x (x o ) ( EI ) T , x (x o )+ m (x o ) +
2
KGA EI
h k s EI
EI
sh , x (x o )
+
2
2
EI
EI
EI q , xxx (x o )
+ 2
= Fo
KGA
EI
m , xx (x o ) + 2
T , xxx (x o ) +
(4.26)
Thebeaminbendingisredundantandsixboundaryconditionsarealways
needforsolvingtheproblem.
Ineachendtherearethreeboundaryconditions:
S (x o ) = R o or us (x o ) = uso ;
v (x o ) = v o or Q (x o ) = Qo ;
(x o ) = o or M (x o ) = M o .
Therefore, socalled the possible one time redundant schemes are the
subsequentones:
Figure4.15.Onetimeredundantbeams(freeslipatbothends).
52
Figure4.16.Onetimeredundantbeams(freeslipatoneend).
Figure4.17.Onetimeredundantbeams(restrainedslipatbothends).
Thepossibletwotimeredundantschemesarethesubsequentones:
Figure4.18.Twotimeredundantbeam(freeslipatbothends).
53
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure4.19.Twotimeredundantbeam(freeslipatoneend).
Figure4.20.Twotimeredundantbeam(restrainedslipatbothends).
54
5. Stiffnessmatrix
The closedform expressions of the stiffness matrix deriving by the
shearflexiblebeammodelwillbederivedinthepresentsection.
5.1 Identificationoftheproblem
Letusdefinenodaldisplacementvectorofthebeamas:
D = {v 1 , 1 , us 1 , v 2 , 2 , us 2}
T
(5.1)
andthenodalforcesvectorofthebeam:
F = {V 1 , C1 , Hs1 , V 2 , C 2 , Hs 2}
T
(5.2)
obtainedfromthedifferenceof:
T
F = FE F 0
(5.3)
betweenthevectoroftheexternalforces,whichareappliedonthenodes
FE, and the reactive forces vector F0 connected with the kinematically
determinatedbeam(inotherwordsconnectedwithclampednodes).
Therefore,itispossibletowriteequilibriumequationofthebeamas:
T
K D = FE F 0
(5.4)
Consequently,the66stiffnessmatrixofthebeammodelhasbeenalready
defined.Theithcolumnofthismatrixisrepresentedbythegroupof6
nodalforcescorrespondingtoadisplacementvectorwhoseithcomponent
55
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
isoneandtheotherzero.
Displacementsandnodalforceswhicharebothdualwitheachother,have
thepositivesignindicatedFigure5.1andcanbederivedasfollows.
Figure5.1.Positiveconventionfornodalforcesanddisplacements.
K 1i = Q (0) / Di
K 2i = M (0) / Di
K 3i = S (0) / Di
K 4i = Q (L ) / Di
K 5i = M (L ) / Di
K 6i = S (L ) / Di
(5.5)
after having defined with Di the displacement ith component of the

displacementvectorD.
56
ChapterVStiffnessmatrix
5.2 Coefficientsofthestiffnessmatrix
5.2.1
Generalprocedureforderivingtheintegrationconstants
The term of the stiffness matrix can be derived by solving the
differential equation imposing nodal displacements in each component as

theothersareforcedtozero.
Figure5.2.Beaminbendingundergeneralrestraintcondition.
The distributed loads are equal to zero, because the only external actions
aretherestraintdisplacementsandtheparticularintegralvp(x)isequalto
zero,so:
v (x ) = C 1 senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh( x ) + C 3 x 3 + C 4 x 2 + C 5x + C 6
(5.6)
Thefollowingderivatesofsuchfunction,untilthederivateoftheorder6,
resultas:
57
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
v , x (x ) = (C 1 cos h ( x ) + C 2 sen h( x ) ) + 3C 3 x 2 + 2C 4 x + C 5
v , xx (x ) = 2 (C 1 senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh( x ) ) + 6C 3 x + 2C 4
v , xxx (x ) = 3 (C 1 cos h ( x ) + C 2 sen h( x ) ) + 6C 3
v , xxxx (x ) = (C 1 senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh( x ) )
(5.7)
v , xxxxx (x ) = 5 (C 1 cos h ( x ) + C 2 sen h( x ) )

The expressions of relevant displacements and stresses can be derived as
follows:
EI
Q = 2
v , xxxxx ( EI )v , xxx
(5.8)
EI
M = 2
v , xxxx ( EI )v , xx
(5.9)
EI k sh
S =
2
EI
v , xx
EI
2
h
v , xxxx
(5.10)
EI
EI
v , xxxxx
v , xxx v , x
2
KGA
KGA
(5.11)
EI
EI h
us =
v , xxx +
v , xxxxx
2
2
s
k
h
EI
(5.12)
Thefollowingboundaryconditionsintermsofgeneralizeddisplacements
can be introduced for evaluating the constants involved in the above
expressions:
58
v( x = 0) = v1
( x = 0) = 1
us ( x = 0) = us1
v ( x = L ) = v 2
( x = L) = 2
us ( x = L) = us 2
(5.13)
and the following set of equations can be obtained by introducing the

displacementdefinitionsinequations(5.8)(5.12):
C 2 + C 6 = v 1
6EIC 3
C 1 C 5 = 1
KGA
EI 3C 1 6EI h C 3
= us 1
EI 2
ks h
3
2
C 1senh ( L ) + C 2cosh ( L ) + C 3L + C 4 L + C 5L + C 6 = v 2
6EIC 3
C 1cosh ( L ) C 2senh ( L ) 3C 3L2 2C 4 L +

KGA
C 5 = 2
EI 3C 1
EI 3C 2
6EI h C 3
cosh
L
+
C 2senh ( L )
= us 2
(
)
ks h
ks h
EI 2
(5.14)
Consequently, those constants can be easily related to the values of the

imposed nodal displacements. The following simplification will be
introducedinthedefinitionsoftheconstantexpressions.
1
ctgh ( L )
= tgh ( L / 2 )
senh ( L )
(5.15)
Forthesakeofbrevity,alltheconstantsareexpressedasafunctionofC3.
59
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
C1 =
ks h
6 EI ks h 2
u
C3
s1 +
5EI EI
EI 3
(5.16)
C2=
k s h ctgh ( L )
ks h
us 1 +
us 2 +
3
3
EI
EI senh ( L )
6EI k s h 2
1
5
ctgh ( L )
C 3
senh ( L )
EI EI
(5.17)
C3 =
2 ( v1 v 2 ) ( 1 + 2 )
ks h
( us1 + us 2 )
3
2
EI
L
L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
( L )
L
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
12 EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.18)
C4=
(v 1 v 2 ) +
L
ks h
EI 2 L
ctgh ( L )
1
+
+ 1 us 1 +
L
Lsenh ( L )
k s h ctgh ( L )
1
1
6EI
C 3+
us 2 + +
2
L senh ( L )
L KGA L
EI L L
6EI k s h 2 2ctgh ( L )
2
C 3L + 4
+
+ 1 C 3
EI EI L
L
L senh ( L )
(5.19)
C 5 = 1
60
ks h
6 EI ks h 2
6 EI
s1
u
C3
C3
2
4
EI
EI EI
KGA
(5.20)
C 6 = v1
ks h ctgh ( L )
ks h
us 2 +
us1 +
EI senh ( L )
EI 3
3
6 EI ks h 2
1
+ 5
ctgh ( L )
C3
EI EI
senh ( L )
(5.21)
The nodal forces can be easily evaluated starting from equation (5.6)
throughequations(5.8)(5.10)forxequalto0andthespacelengthL:
Q (0) = 6EI C 3
(5.22)
Q (L ) = 6EI C 3
(5.23)
M (0) = 2EI C 4
(5.24)
M (L ) = 2EI C 4 6EI L C 3
(5.25)
S (0) =
EI 2
2EI k s h
C 2+
C 4
h
EI 2
(5.26)
EI 2
S (L ) =
(C 1senh ( L ) + C 2 cos h ( L ) ) +
h
EI k s h
+
( 6C 3L + 2C 4 )
EI 2
(5.27)
Oncethesixforcecomponentshavebeenderived,thestiffnessmatrixcan
bedirectlycalculatedbysolvingequation(5.14)consideringdisplacement
vectorinwhichtheithcomponentistheonlynonzeroone.
61
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
5.2.2
Stiffnessmatrix:thefirstcolumn
ConsideringanodaldisplacementvectorD=[v1,0,0,0,0,0]inequation
(5.14) the terms of the first column can be determined by equations

(5.22)(5.27).The constant Ci can be derived by solving those equations to
obtainthefollowingresults:
C1 =
12 EI
1
3
( L ) EI
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.28)
C2 =
EI
tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
3
EI ( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.29)
C3 =
2
L3
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.30)
C4 =
62
3
L2
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.31)
12 EI
1 EI
+ 2
1
3
L KGA EI
C5=
v 1
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.32)
EI
tgh ( L / 2 )
12
1
3
EI ( L )
C 6 = 1 +
v1
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.33)
Hence,thefollowingnodalforcescanbederived:
S (0) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
12
1
+
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.34)
(5.35)
v1
S ( L) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
63
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
6 EI
L2
M (0) =
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.36)
6 EI
L2
M ( L) =
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
12
1
+
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.37)
12 EI
L3
Q(0) =
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
12
1
+
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.38)
12 EI
L3
Q( L) =
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
v1
(5.39)
The particular case of Bernoulli beams can be derived by the above

expressioninthelimitthattheratio
64
KGA L2
:
EI
lim
S (0) =
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
h L2
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
1 + 12
EI
( L )
v1
(5.40)
lim
S ( L) =
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
h L2
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
1 + 12
EI
( L )
v1
(5.41)
6 EI
L2
lim
(0)
M
=
KGA L2
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
EI
1
1 + 12
EI
( L )
v1
(5.42)
6 EI
L2
lim
(
)
M
L
=
KGA L2
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
EI
1
1 + 12
EI
( L )
v1
(5.43)
12 EI
L3
lim
Q(0) =
2
KGA L
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
EI
1
1 + 12
EI
( L )
v1
(5.44)
65
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
12 EI
L3
lim
Q ( L) =
2
KGA L
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
EI
1
1 + 12
EI
( L )
v1
(5.45)
Furthermore,thecaseoffullshearinteraction(namely,noslipoccurrence
or rigid connection) can be derived from the general model at hand by
forcing L ; the following relationships can be derived for the
Bernoullibeam:
lim S (0) = 6
lim
L KGA L2
EI
EI EI
v1
h L2
(5.46)
S ( L) = 6
lim
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
EI EI
v1
h L2
(5.47)
lim
M (0) =
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
6 EI
v1
L2
(5.48)
6 EI
v1
L2
(5.49)
12 EI
v1
L3
(5.50)
lim
M ( L) =
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
lim
Q(0) =
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
66
lim Q( L) =
lim
L KGA L2
EI
12 EI
v1
L3
(5.51)
On the contrary, the general model reproduces the case of absent

interactionas L 0 :
lim S (0) = 0
lim
L 0 KGA L2
EI
(5.52)
lim S ( L) = 0
lim
L 0 KGA L2
EI
(5.53)
lim
M (0) =
2
lim
L 0 KGA L
EI
6 EI
v1
L2
(5.54)
6 EI
v1
L2
(5.55)
12 EI
v1
L3
(5.56)
12 EI
v1
L3
(5.57)
lim
M ( L) =
2
lim
L 0 KGA L
EI
lim
lim Q(0) =
L 0 KGA L2
EI
lim
lim Q( L) =
L 0 KGA L2
EI
Finally,comingbacktothegeneraldefinitionofstiffnesstermsinequation
(5.5),thetermsofthefirstcolumnofthestiffnessmatrixarelistedbelow:
67
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
K 11 =
12EI
1
3
L
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.58)
K 21 =
6EI
1
2
L
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.59)
K 31 =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
(5.60)
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
K 41 =
12EI
1
3
L
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.61)
K 51 =
68
6EI
1
2
L
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.62)
K 61 =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
(5.63)
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
5.2.3
Stiffnessmatrix:thesecondcolumn
ConsideringanodaldisplacementvectorD=[0,1,0,0,0,0]inequation
(5.14) the terms of the second column can be determined by equations

(5.22)(5.27).The constant Ci can be derived by solving those equations to
6
C1 =
( L )
EI
EI
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.64)
C2 =
6 EI
tgh ( L / 2 )
1
EI ( L )2
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.65)
69
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
C3 =
1
L2
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.66)
C4 =
1
i
2L
3
i1 +
1
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.67)
C 5 = { 1 +
6EI
6 EI
2
2

( L ) EI
KGA L
+
1
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.68)
C6 =
6 EI
tgh ( L / 2 )
1
EI ( L )2
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
Theconsequentnodalstressesresultas:
70
(5.69)
S (0) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
1
L
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
12 EI
EI

3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
(
)
(5.70)
S ( L) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L
( )
i1
1
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12 EI

EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.71)
M (0) =
EI
i
L
3
i1 +
1
L
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
12
EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.72)
71
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
M ( L) =
EI
i
L
3
i1
1
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
EI
12
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.73)
Q (0) =
i
6 EI
i
L2
1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.74)
(5.75)
Q( L) =
i
6 EI
i
L2
1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
KGA L2
:
EI
72
S (0) =
lim
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
1
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
EI
3
1 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.76)
S ( L) =
lim
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1
1
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
3
1 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.77)
EI
3
lim
M
(0)
1
=
1
KGA L2
L
L
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
EI
EI
3
1 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.78)
73
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
EI
3
lim
M ( L) =
1
1
2
KGA L
L
L
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
EI
EI
3
1 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.79)
lim
Q(0) =
2
KGA L
EI
6 EI
L2
1
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1 + 12
1
EI
( L )
1
(5.80)
lim
Q ( L) =
2
KGA L
EI
6 EI
L2
1
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1 + 12
1
EI
( L )
1
(5.81)
or rigid connection) can be derived from the general model at hand by
Bernoullibeam:
lim
lim S (0) = 4
L KGA L2
EI
EI EI
1
hL
(5.82)
lim
S ( L) = 2
lim
2
L KGA L
EI
74
EI EI
1
hL
(5.83)
lim M (0) =
lim
L KGA L2
EI
4 EI
1
L
(5.84)
lim M ( L) =
lim
L KGA L2
EI
2 EI
1
L
(5.85)
lim
Q(0) =
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
6 EI
1
L2
(5.86)
6 EI
1
L2
(5.87)
lim
Q( L) =
2
lim
L KGA L
EI

interactionas L 0 :
S (0) =
lim
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
EI EI
1
hL
(5.88)
EI EI
1
hL
(5.89)
lim
S ( L) =
lim
2
L KGA L
EI
EI + 3EI
lim
M
(0)
=
1
L KGA L2
L
lim
EI
(5.90)
75
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
EI 3EI
lim
M ( L) =
1
2
L KGA L
L
lim
EI
(5.91)
lim
Q(0) =
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
6 EI
1
L2
(5.92)
6 EI
1
L2
(5.93)
lim
lim
Q( L) =
2
L KGA L
EI
K 12 =
6EI
1
2
L
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.94)
K 22 =
EI
i
L
3
i1 +
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
76
(5.95)
EI EI
i
hL
K 32 =
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.96)
K 42 =
6EI
1
2
L
L
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
12EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
KGA
L
EI

( L )
(5.97)
EI
i
L
K 52 =
3
i 1 +
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
1 +
+ 12
3
EI
KGA L2
(
)
(5.98)
K 62 =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i 1 +
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
1 +
+ 12
3
KGA L2
EI
(
)
(5.99)
77
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
5.2.4
Stiffnessmatrix:thethirdcolumn
ConsideringanodaldisplacementvectorD=[0,0,us1,0,0,0]inequation
(5.14) the terms of the second column can be determined by equations

(5.22)(5.27).TheconstantCicanbederivedbysolvingthoseequationsto
C1 =
ks h
i
EI 3
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
6
1
EI
( L )
i1
us1
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12 EI

EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.100)
C2 =
ks h
{ctgh ( L ) +
EI 3
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
tgh
L
6
/
2
1
(
)
EI
( L )
+
us1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.101)
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )

C3 =
us1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
ks h
EI
78
(5.102)
C4 =
ks h tgh ( aL ) aL - 2tgh ( aL )
+
i
2
aL
aL
EI a L
18EI
EI aL - 2tgh ( aL / 2 )
18
-1
+
3
KGA L2
SEI
aL
(
)
i
us1
EI aL - 2tgh ( aL / 2 )
12 EI
1 +
+ 12
-1
3
KGA L2
SEI
aL
(
)
(5.103)
C5 =
ks h
i
EI 2
6 EI
6 EI L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
1
( L )2 EI KGA L2
L
(
)
i1 +
us1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
1 +
+ 12
3
KGA L2
EI
(
)
(5.104)
C6 =
ks h
{ctgh ( L ) +
EI 3
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
tgh
L
6
/
2
1
(
)
3
EI
( L )
us1
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
12 EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.105)
Theconsequentnodalstressesresultas:
79
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
S (0) =
EI EI
us1
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
12
+
EI
tgh ( L ) EI
L
(
)
+
i
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
) EI
12 EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1

( L )
EI

EI EI L senh ( L ) 1
12
+
1
EI ( L )2 senh ( L ) 3
EI
+
+
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1

3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
EI 12 EI EI EI L
EI
KGA
L
EI
EI
tgh
L
( )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1

3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
80
(5.106)
S ( L) =
EI EI
us1
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
+
12
EI
senh ( L ) EI
L
(
)
i
+
L
tgh
L
2
/
2

(
) EI
12 EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
EI
( L )
EI EI L cos ( L ) senh ( L ) 1
12

1
2
EI
6
EI
( L ) senh ( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+
12
1

3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
(5.107)
L
EI 12 EI EI EI
EI
KGA
L
EI
EI
senh
L
(
)
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
M (0) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
u s1
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12 EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.108)
81
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
M ( L) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1
u s1
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
(
)
(5.109)
Q (0) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.110)
(5.111)
us1
Q( L) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
u s1

82
KGA L2
:
EI
S (0) =
lim
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI + 12
1
EI
tgh ( L ) EI
( L )
i
+
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 + 12
1

EI
(
)
EI
+
us1
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
EI
1 + 12
1

EI
( L )
EI
(5.112)
12
+
1
EI ( L )2 senh ( L ) 3
EI
S ( L) =
lim
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
EI
L
1
+ 12
EI
senh ( L ) EI
( L )
i
+
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 + 12
1

3
EI
EI
(
)
12
1
2
EI
6
EI
( L ) senh ( L )
+
u s1
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
EI
1 + 12
1

3
EI
( L )
EI
(5.113)
83
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
M (0) =
lim
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
us1
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
3
1 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.114)
lim M ( L) =
KGA L2
EI
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1
u s1
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
3
1 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.115)
lim
Q(0) =
2
KGA L
EI
EI EI
h L2
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1 + 12
1
EI
( L )
us 1
(5.116)
lim
Q ( L) =
2
KGA L
EI
84
EI EI
h L2
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1 + 12
1
EI
( L )
us1
(5.117)
The above general expressions basically reduce to the ones derived by

Faella,MartinelliandNigro(2002)withintheframeworkoftheNewmark
KGA L2
.
EI
theoryas
orrigidconnection)canbederivedfromthegeneralmodelathandby
Bernoullibeam:
lim S (0) = +
lim
L KGA L2
EI
(5.118)
lim
lim
L KGA L2
EI
( EI EI )
S ( L ) = 2
EI h 2 L
us1
(5.119)
lim
M (0) = 4
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
( EI EI ) us1
hL
(5.120)
lim
M ( L) = 2
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
( EI EI ) us1
hL
(5.121)
lim
lim Q (0) = 6
L KGA L2
EI
( EI EI ) us1
h L2
(5.122)
85
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Q( L) = 6
lim
2
lim
L KGA L
EI
( EI EI ) us1
h L2
(5.123)

interactionas L 0 :
S (0) =
lim
2
lim
L 0 KGA L
EI
EI EI
us1
h2 L
(5.124)
EI EI
us 1
h2 L
(5.125)
S ( L) =
lim
2
lim
L 0 KGA L
EI
lim
M (0) =
2
lim
L 0 KGA L
EI
EI EI
us1
hL
(5.126)
EI EI
us 1
hL
(5.127)
lim
M ( L) =
2
lim
L 0 KGA L
EI
lim Q (0) = 0
lim
L 0 KGA L2
EI
(5.128)
lim
lim Q( L) = 0
L 0 KGA L2
EI
(5.129)
86
K 13 =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
(5.130)
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
K 23 =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.131)
87
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
K 33 =
EI EI
i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
+
12
EI
tgh ( L ) EI
L
(
)
+
i
L
tgh
L
/
2

(
) EI
12 EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
EI
( L )
12
+
1
EI ( L )2 senh ( L ) 3
EI
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
12
1
+
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
(5.132)
EI 12 EI EI EI L
+
1
EI EI tgh ( L )
EI KGA L
+
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1

3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
K 43 =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
88
(5.133)
K 53 =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.134)
K 63 =
EI EI
i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
+ 12
EI
senh ( L ) EI
( L )
i
+

12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI

3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
(
)
EI

12

1
2
6
EI
EI
( L ) senh ( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+
12
1

3
2
EI
KGA L
( L )
EI
(5.135)
L
EI 12 EI EI EI
EI
KGA
L
EI
EI
senh
L
(
)
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1

3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
89
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
5.2.5
Completingthestiffnessmatrix
Thethreeremainingcolumnsofthestiffnessmatrixcouldbederived
throughthesameprocedurefollowedforthefirstthreeones.However,for
the sake of brevity, an alternative procedure has been put in place in this
work,lookingafterbothgeometricandstructuralsymmetry.
K14=K41,K15=K51,K16=K61,K24=K42,K25=K52,K26=K62,K34=K43,K35=K53,K36=K63.
The diagonal elementsat the last three positions, being the direct effects,
have necessarily the positive sign (the stiffness matrix serves in order to
define the elastic potential energy of the system which is a quadratic
definite positive form). The diagonal elements also have the expressions
whichcoincidewiththeexpressionsoftheelementsinthediagonalinthe
firstthreepositions:
K44=K11,K55=K22,K66=K33.
Finallywehave:
K54=K21,K64=K31,K65=K32
afterobservingthatbothbendingmomentandslipforceattheend
2, which are caused by the lowering in the extreme 1, have the
signoppositetothebendingmomentandoppositetotheslipforce
at the end 1 (on condition that the bending moment and the slip
forcearenodalforces);
and after noticing that the slip force in the extreme 2, which is
caused by the rotation of the extreme 2 ,is of the same sign as
regardstheslipforceintheextreme1(onconditionthattheslip
90
force at the extreme 2 is the nodal force). All this is caused by the
symmetryofthestructuralsystem.
Forthesymmetryofthestiffnessmatrixwehave:
K45=K54,K46=K64,K56=K65.
5.3 Vectoroftheexternalnodalforceandvector
nodalforcesequivalenttodistributedaction
The nodal actions equivalent to the actions distributed throughout
thebeamaxiswillbeevaluatedinthepresentparagraph.
5.3.1
Vectoroftheexternalnodalforces
ThevectorFEoftheequivalentexternalnodalforcesisinthiscase
equaltothenullvector,sincethebeamresultsrestrainedatbothitsnodes
withrespecttoallthedegreesoffreedom.Consequently,nostressresults
inthebeambyapplyingexternalnodalforces:
FE = {VE1 , CE1 , HEs1 , VE 2 , CE 2 , HEs 2} = 0

T
(5.136)
5.3.2
Vectornodalforcesequivalenttodistributedactions.
AsfarasthevectorofforcesequivalenttothedistributedactionsF0
it can be derived following a procedure substantially similar to those

consideredforevaluatingthetermsofthestiffnessmatrix.Obviously,the
termsofthevectordependontheshapeandnatureoftheloadsapplied
91
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
throughoutthebeamaxis.Inthiscaseallthedistributedconstantloadsare
assumed(Figure5.3): q(x)= q, m(x)= m, sh(x)= sh , T(x)= T .
However,theimposeddisplacementsare: us01 , us02 , v01 , v02 , 01 , 02 .
Figure5.3.Beamloadedwithexternalactions.
Let us now deal with the vector of nodal forces by calculating the two
contributionsduetothebothimposednodaldisplacementsanddistributed
loads.However,theforcesarebeingtransformedintothenodalactionsof
theperfectclampaccordingtothefollowinginformation(Figure5.1):
V 01 = Q (0)
C 01 = M (0)
Hs 01 = S (0)
V 02 = Q (L )
C 02 = M (L )
Hs 02 = S (L )
92
(5.137)
5.3.2.1
Nodalforcesduetoimposednodaldisplacements
Thenodalforcesduetoimposednodaldisplacementsareformally
similar to the terms of the stiffness matrix. In fact, if we substitute the
constraining normalized displacements us1 , us2 , v1 , v2 , 1 , 2 with the
external loads us01 , us02 , v01 , v02 , 01 , 02 , the expressions can be rewritten
asfollowing:
nodalforcescausedbyv01
Hs 01(vo1) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
vo1
(5.138)
C 01(v o 1) =
6EI
L2
=
vo1
L
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
12EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.139)
V 01(v o 1) =
12EI
L3
=
vo1
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.140)
93
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Hs 02(vo1) =
EI EI
i
h L2
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
vo1
i
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.141)
C 02(v o 1) =
6EI
L2
vo1
=
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.142)
V 02(v o 1) =
12EI
L3
vo1
=
L
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
12EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
nodalforcescausedbyv02
Hs 01(vo 2) =
EI EI
i
h L2
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
vo 2
i
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
94
(5.143)
(5.144)
C 01(v o 2) =
6EI
L2
=
vo 2
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.145)
V 01(v o 2) =
12EI
L3
vo 2
=
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.146)
Hs 02(vo 2) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
vo 2
(5.147)
C 02(v o 2) =
6EI
L2
=
vo 2
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.148)
95
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
V 02(v o 2) =
12EI
L3
=
vo 2
2
tgh
L
/
2
(
)
12EI
EI
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.149)
nodalforcescausedby01
Hs 01( o1) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
o1
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12 EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.150)
C 01( o1) =
EI
i
L
3
i1 +
o1
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
EI
12
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.151)
V 01( o1) =
i
6 EI
i
L2
1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
96
o1
(5.152)
Hs 02( o1) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1
o1
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.153)
C 02( o1) =
EI
i
L
3
i1
o1
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.154)
V 02( o1) =
i
6 EI
i
L2
1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+
+
1
12
1
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
o1
(5.155)
97
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
nodalforcescausedby02
Hs 01( o 2) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L
(
)
i1
o2
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12 EI

EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.156)
C 01( o 2) =
EI
i
L
3
i1
o2
L
tgh
L
2
/
2
(
)
EI
EI
12
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.157)
V 01( o 2) =
6 EI
i
L2
1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
98
o2
(5.158)
Hs 02( o 2) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
o2
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
(
)
(5.159)
C 02( o 2) =
EI
i
L
3
i1 +
o2
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
L
(
)
(5.160)
V 02( o 2) =
6 EI
i
L2
1
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
o2
(5.161)
99
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
nodalforcescausedbyus01
Hs 01(uso1) =
EI EI
uso1i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
+ 12
EI
tgh ( L ) EI
L
(
)
i
+
2
/
2
L
tgh
L

(
)
12 EI
EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
EI
( L )
12
+
1
EI ( L )2 senh ( L ) 3
EI
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
12
1
+
3
2
EI
KGA L
( L )
EI
(5.162)
EI 12 EI EI EI L
EI
KGA
L
EI
EI
tgh
L
(
)
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1

3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
C 01(uso1) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L
(
)
i1 +
uso1
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12 EI

EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
100
(5.163)
V 01(uso1) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.164)
uso1
Hs 02(uso1) =
EI EI
uso1i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
+ 12
EI
senh ( L ) EI
( L )
i
+

12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
EI
(
)
12

1
2
EI
6
EI
( L ) senh ( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+
12
1
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
(5.165)
L
EI 12 EI EI EI
+
1
EI EI senh ( L )
EI KGA L
+
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
101
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
C 02(uso1) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1
uso1
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
(
)
(5.166)
V 02(uso1) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
12
1
+
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
102
uso1
(5.167)
nodalforcescausedbyus02
Hs 01(uso 2) =
EI EI
uso 2i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
+ 12
EI
senh ( L ) EI
( L )
i
+

12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI

3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
EI
(
)
12

1
2
6
EI
EI
( L ) senh ( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+
12
1
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
(5.168)
L
EI 12 EI EI EI
EI EI senh ( L )
EI KGA L
+
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+ 12
1
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
C 01(uso 2) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1
uso 2
2
/
2
L
tgh
L
(
)
12
EI
EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
( L )
(5.169)
103
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
V 01(uso 2) =
EI EI
i
h L2
6
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
( L )
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.170)
uso 2
Hs 02(uso 2) =
EI EI
uso 2 i
h2 L
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI 2
L EI
+ 12
EI
tgh ( L ) EI
( L )
i
+

12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
EI
(
)
12
+
1
EI ( L )2 senh ( L ) 3
EI
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
+
12
1
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
EI 12 EI EI EI L
1
2
EI EI tgh ( L )
EI KGA L
+
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 ) EI
1 +
12
1
+
3
2
EI
EI
KGA L
( L )
104
(5.171)
C 02(uso 2) =
EI EI
i
hL
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
i1 +
uso 2
12 EI

EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
3
1 + KGA L2 + 12 EI 1
(
)
(5.172)
V 02(uso 2) =
EI EI
i
h L2
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
L)
(
uso 2
i
12 EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.173)
After obtaining these expressions, the contribution of nodal imposed

displacementstothevectorofequivalentnodalforcescanbeeasilyderived
V 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) =V 01(v o 1) +V 01(v o 2) +V 01( o 1) +

+V 01(o 2) +V 01(uso 1) +V 01(uso 2)
C 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) = C 01(v o 1) + C 01(v o 2) + C 01( o 1) +
+C 01(o 2) + C 01(uso 1) + C 01(uso 2)

Hs 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) = Hs 01(v o 1) + Hs 01(v o 2) + Hs 01( o 1) +
+ Hs 01( o 2) + Hs 01(uso 1) + Hs 01(uso 2)
V 02(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) =V 02(v o 1) +V 02(v o 2) +V 02( o 1) +

+V 02(o 2) +V 02(uso 1) +V 02(uso 2)
C 02(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) = C 02(v o 1) + C 02(v o 2) + C 02( o 1) +

+C 02(o 2) + C 02(uso 1) + C 02(uso 2)
Hs 02(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) = Hs 02(v o 1) + Hs 02(v o 2) + Hs 02(o 1) +

+ Hs 02( o 2) + Hs 02(uso 1) + Hs 02(uso 2)
(5.174)
105
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
5.3.2.2
Nodalforcesduetodistributedloads
Asfarastheactionscausedbybothstaticandkinematicdistributed
loads, the differential equation of the deflection (3.27) can be written as
follows:
v, xxxxxx 2 v, xxxx = 2
EI
(5.175)
Thegeneralintegralinsuchequationresultsas:
v ( x ) = C 1senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh ( x ) + C 3x 3 + C 4 x 2 + C 5x + C 6 +
+
q x4
24EI
(5.176)
Theotherdisplacementcomponentscanbederivedbyequations(3.39)and
(3.41):
6C 3 ( EI EI )
EI 3
C 1 cosh ( x ) + C 2senh ( x ) )
+
(
ks h
ks h
q x EI
ks h
EI
us (x ) =
(5.177)
( x) = C1 cosh ( x ) C 2 senh ( x ) 3C 3 x 2 2C 4 x C 5 +
q x3
qx
m
6 EI C 3
6 EI KGA KGA
KGA
(5.178)
After obtaining these expressions, the equivalent nodal forces can be

derivedbysolvingthefollowingsystemofsimultaneousequations:
106
v( x = 0) = 0
( x = 0) = 0
us ( x = 0) = 0
v ( x = L ) = 0
( x = L) = 0
us ( x = L) = 0
(5.179)
whoseexplicitshapecanbewrittenasfollows:
C 2 + C 6 = 0
m
6EIC 3
KGA C 1 C 5 + KGA = 0
EI 3C 1 6 ( EI EI ) C 3
=0
ks h
ks h
C 1senh ( L ) + C 2cosh ( L ) + C 3L3 + C 4 L 2 + C 5L + C 6 +
q L4
=0
+
24EI
6EIC 3
2
KGA C 1cosh ( L ) C 2senh ( L ) 3C 3L 2C 4 L +
q L3 q L
m
+
=0
C
5
6EI KGA KGA
3
3
EI C 1 cosh L + EI C 2senh L +
(
)
( )
ks h
ks h
6 ( EI EI ) C 3 q L EI
1
=0
ks h
ks h
EI
(5.180)
The relevant expressions of the constants Ci can be evaluated introducing

thefollowingdefinition:
107
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
B = 12 ( EI - EI ) KGA ( L 2 tgh ( L / 2 ) ) +
+ 3L EI 12EI + KGA L2
(5.181)
theconstantsresultexpressedasfollows:
C1=
1
q
24m
+
( EI - EI ) L - 3
2
B
EI EI
(5.182)
C2=
24mtgh ( L / 2 )
1
q
EI
EI
L
(
) 3
B
2
EI EI tgh ( L / 2 )
(5.183)
C3=
2 3EI L m cosh ( L / 2 )
qL
+
12EI
B
(5.184)
C4=
1 L2
12
12 ( EI EI )
72 3EI L2 m
q
24 EI KGA 2 EI EI
B
(5.185)
C5=
( EI EI )
EI EI
qL 2m + qL
+
+
2 2 2 KGA
24 L 2 EI EI + ( EI EI ) KGA m
(5.186)
2KGA B
C6=
108
1
q
24m
+
EI
EI
L
(
) 3
2
B
EI EI tgh ( L / 2 )
(5.187)
In this case generalized force expressions result from equations (3.33),

(3.35),(3.38):
M (x ) =
6 C 3 x EI 2C 4 EI
T EI + sh
q x2
EI
EI
q
+
+
2
2
KGA EI
EI EI
h
(5.188)
Q ( x ) = 6 C 3 EI q x + m
(5.189)
S ( x) =
EI ks h 1
+ + ks hT ks h sh +
q
EI 2 KGA h
q x2
+ ks h 2 ( C1sen ( x ) + C 2 cosh ( x ) ) + 6 C 3 x + 2C 4 +
+
2 EI
EI 4
q
( C1sen ( x ) + C 2 cosh ( x ) ) +
h
EI
(5.190)
Asaconsequence,theexpressionsofstressonthebeamendsareobtained
asfollows:
EI
EI
2C 4 EI q
+
+
2
KGA EI
EI EI
T EI + sh
h
M (0) =
(5.191)
M (L ) =
6 C 3 L EI 2C 4 EI
EI EI
T EI + sh
h
q L2
EI
EI
q
+
+
2
2
KGA EI
(5.192)
109
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Q (0) = 6 C 3 EI 0 + m
(5.193)
Q ( L ) = 6 C 3 EI q L + m
(5.194)
S (0) =
EI k s h
1
q
+ + k s h T k s h sh +
2
EI KGA h
EI
+ k s h C 2 + 2C 4
h
2
q
4
C 2 + EI
(5.195)
S ( L) =
EI
EI 2
ks h 1
+ + ks hT ks h sh +
q
KGA h
q L2
+ ks h ( C1sen ( L ) + C 2 cosh ( L ) ) + 6 C 3 L + 2C 4 +
+
2 EI
EI 4
q
( C1sen ( L ) + +C 2 cosh ( L ) ) +
h
EI
2
(5.196)
Replacing the value of the constants evaluated in (5.180) by the former

expressions,weobtaintheequivalentnodalforces:
110
S (0) = sh EA + T h EA +
+
q L 2 EI
1
12 h
EI
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 ) +
1 6
2
( L ) tgh ( L / 2 )
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 )
6m
( EI EI )
KGA L h
( L )
(5.197)
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
S (L ) = sh EA + T h EA +
+
q L 2 EI
1
12 h
EI
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 ) +
1
6
( L ) tgh ( L / 2 )
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 )
6m
( EI EI )
KGA L h
( L )
(5.198)
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
sh ( EI EI )
q L2
M (0) =
T EI
+
h
12
6 EI m
KGA L
+
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
(5.199)
111
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
M (L ) =
sh ( EI EI )
h
T EI
q L2
+
12
6 EI m
KGA L
(5.200)
(5.201)
(5.202)
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
Q (0) =
qL
+m +
2
12 EI m
KGA L2
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
Q (L ) =
qL
+m +
2
12 EI m
KGA L2
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
It is worth noticing that shear connection stiffness (namely, the L

parameter)onlyaffectsthetermscorrespondingtotheinterfaceforceS(0)
and S(L). Moreover, shear stiffness only affects the contribution of the
distributed bending moment m(x) in all the above terms. The general
expressions derived for the terms of the vector of nodal forces can be
specialized to the case of the Newmark model (namely, to the case of
Bernoullibehavingbeams)bysolvingthefollowinglimits:
112
lim S (0) = sh EA + T h EA +
KGA L2
EI
L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 )
(
q L2 EI
+
1
1 6
2
12 h
EI
( L ) tgh ( L / 2 )
(5.203)
lim S ( L) = sh EA + T h EA +
KGA L2
EI
L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 )
(
q L2 EI
+
1
1 6
2
12 h
EI
( L ) tgh ( L / 2 )
(5.204)
sh ( EI EI )
M (0) =
lim
2
KGA L
EI
q L2
12
(5.205)
q L2
T EI
12
(5.206)
T EI
lim M ( L) =
sh ( EI EI )
KGA L2
EI
Q(0) =
lim
2
KGA L
EI
qL
+m
2
(5.207)
lim
Q( L) =
2
KGA L
EI
qL
+ m
2
(5.208)
in which the shear stress and the bending moment at the nodes do not
dependontheconnectionrigidity.Therefore,suchresultsremainidentical
alsofortheconnectionofinfiniterigidityaswellasforthecaseofabsent
113
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
interaction. On the contrary, interface forces depend on both shear

interactionparameterLandshearstiffness.
lim
lim
2
S (0) = sh EA + T h EA +
q L2 EI
1
EI
12 h
(5.209)
lim
lim
2
S ( L) = sh EA + T h EA +
q L2 EI
1
EI
12 h
(5.210)
L KGA L
EI
L KGA L
EI
lim S (0) = sh EA + T h EA
lim
L 0 KGA L2
EI
(5.211)
lim S ( L) = sh EA + T h EA
lim
L 0 KGA L2
EI
(5.212)
Thecomponentsofthevectorofnodalforcescanbeevaluatedbyequation
(5.137)asfollows:
qL
m +
2
12 EI m
KGA L 2
+
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
V 01(q , m , sh , T ) =
114
(5.213)
C 01(q , m , sh , T ) =
sh ( EI EI )
h
6 EI m
KGA L
+ T EI +
q L2
+
12
(5.214)
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
Hs 01(q , m , sh , T ) = sh EA + T h EA +
q L2 EI
+
1
12 h
EI
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 ) +
( L ) tgh ( L / 2 )
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 )
6m
( EI EI )
KGA L h
( L )
(5.215)
qL
+m +
2
12 EI m
KGA L2
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
(5.216)
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
V 02(q , m , sh , T ) =
115
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
C 02(q , m , sh , T ) =
sh ( EI EI )
h
6 EI m
KGA L
T EI
q L2
+
12
(5.217)
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
+ 12
1
1 +
3
2
EI

( L )
KGA L
Hs 02(q , m , sh , T ) = sh EA T h EA +
q L2 EI
1
12 h
EI
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 ) +
( L ) tgh ( L / 2 )
( L ) 2tgh ( L / 2 )
6m
( EI EI )
KGA L h
( L )
(5.218)
12EI
EI
L 2tgh ( L / 2 )
1
12
1
+
+
3
2
EI
( L )
KGA L
Finally, the vector of nodal forces can be obtained by summing the two
contributionsduetoimposednodaldisplacementsanddistributedactions.
V 01 =V 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) +V 01(q , m , sh , T )

C 01 = C 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) + C 01(q , m , sh , T )
Hs 01 = Hs 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) + Hs 01(q , m , sh , T )
V 02 =V 02(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) +V 02(q , m , sh , T )

C 02 = C 02(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) + C 02(q , m , sh , T )
Hs 02 = Hs 02(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) + Hs 02(q , m , sh , T )
116
(5.219)
6. Applications
Thedifferentialequationintermsoftransversedeflectionsv(x)canbe
utilized in the present section to present a possible application of the
presented models to the case of simply supported beam and continuous
beaminpartialinteraction.
6.1 Simplysupportedcompositebeam
Figure6.1.Simplysupportedcompositebeam.
ThefirstapplicationdealswiththebeaminFigure6.1.Thefunctions
expressingdisplacementsandforcesarerepresentedasfollows:
( x) =
EI
EI
v , xxxxx
v, xxx v, x
2
KGA
KGA
(6.1)
117
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
EI
EI h
us ( x) =
v, xxx + 2
v, xxxxx
2
ks h
EI
(6.2)
Q=
EI
(6.3)
v , xxxxx EIv, xxx
M=
EI
EI
EI
+
v , xxxx EIv , xx q
2
KGA EI
(6.4)
EI
S=
EI 2
ksh 2
EI q
+ 1 +
kshv, xx v, xxxx
h
h KGA
(6.5)
The only relevant functions in this case are v(x) and S(x); the boundary
conditionsareasfollows:
v( x = 0) = 0
S ( x = 0) = 0
(
)
0
v
x
L
=
=
S ( x = L) = 0
(6.6)
Theseconditionsresultinauniquesolutionforthedifferentialequationof
thedeflectiongivenby(6.4):
v , xxxx 2 v , xx = 2
1
M
2
+ q
+
EI
EI KGA
(6.7)
which is a particular case of the Newmark equation (3.51) in terms of

deflectionv(x)throughthe(3.43).
Thegeneralintegralforthatequation:
118
CapitoloVIApplications
v( x) = C1 senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh ( x ) + C 3 x + C 4 + vp ( x)
(6.8)
wherevp(x)isaparticularsolutionofthecompleteequation,relatedtothe
moment equation M(x). This one can be obtained from the vertical and
rotationalequilibriumconditions:
M ( x) =
qL
q
x x2
2
2
(6.9)
Consequently, the differential equation in terms of deflection can be

writtenasfollows:
2 x2 2 L
1
2
+
+
v , xxxx v , xx = q
x+
EI KGA
2 EI 2 EI
2
(6.10)
Basedontheexpression(6.9)ofbendingmomentsthesolutionofsuchan
equationcanbeassumedasfollows:
vp ( x) = x 2 ( A x 2 + B x + C ) = A x 4 + B x3 + C x 2
(6.11)
thatis,substitutingindifferentialequation:
vp ( x) =
q
qL 3
q ( EI EI ) 2 2
x4
x 2
+
x
KGA
24 EI
12 EI
2 EI EI
(6.12)
hencetheintegralcanbewritten:
v( x) = C1 senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh ( x ) + C 3 x + C 4 +
qL 3
q ( EI EI ) 2 2
x 2
+
x
KGA
12 EI
2 EI EI
q
x4 +
24 EI
(6.13)
andtherelevantderivativescanbefinallyevaluated:
119
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
v, xx = 2C1 senh ( x ) + 2C 2 cos h ( x ) +

q ( EI EI ) 2
2
+
KGA
EI EI
q x2 q L x
+
2 EI 2 EI
(6.14)
v, xxxx = 4C1 senh ( x ) + 4C 2 cos h ( x ) +
EI
(6.15)
6.1.1
Solutionsintermsofdisplacements
Consideringtheaboveexpressionsofv(x)andtherelevantboundary
conditions the following simultaneous equations can be written to define

theconstantsCi:
120
C 2 + C 4 = 0
EI 2
q ( EI EI ) 2
2
s
k
h
C
+
2
2 EI EI
KGA
EI
q EI q
ks h 2
4
C 2 + EI h + h 1 + KGA = 0
q L4
C
senh
L
C
L
C
L
C
1
2
3
4
+
+
+
+
cosh
( )
( )
EI
24
q L2 ( EI EI ) 2
+
2
=0
KGA
2 EI EI
EI
ksh ( 2C1 senh ( L ) + 2C 2 cos h ( L ) +
2
EI
q ( EI EI ) + +
2 EI EI
KGA
q EI
4
4
C1 senh ( L ) + C 2 cos h ( L ) + EI h +
2
q
ks h
+ 1 +
= 0
h KGA
(6.16)
whichcanbeevaluatedasfollows:
C1 = q
( EI EI ) tgh L / 2
(
)
4
EI EI
(6.17)
C2 =
q
EI EI
4
( EI EI )
(6.18)
121
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
C3 =
qL 12 ( EI EI ) KGA + 2 EI (12 EI + KGAL2 )

24 2 EI EI KGA
(6.19)
C4 =
q
EI EI
4
( EI EI )
(6.20)
Finally,thedeflectionv(x)canbewrittenasfollows:
v( x) =
q
12 EI 4 EI ( L x ) x +
24 EI EI KGA
4
+ KGA ( 2 + 2 ( L x ) x ) + EI KGA 24 + 2 ( L x ) x *
* 12 + 2 ( L2 + Lx x 2 ) +
(6.21)
+24 ( EI EI ) KGA cosh ( x ) senh ( x ) tgh ( L / 2 )
Itiseasytocheckthattheabovegeneralexpressionbasicallyreducestothe
Newmarksone(basedonBernoullitheoryforwhich
KGA L2
)andto
EI
theBernoulliequationas L :
q L3
C1 = C 2 = C 4 = 0 , C 3 =
24 EI
(6.22)
Theanalyticalexpressionofthemidspandeflectionisprovidedasfollows:
v( L / 2) =
q
*
384 EI EI KGA
4
* 48 EI 8KGA + 4 L2 EI + ( L ) KGA + EI KGA *[384 +

2
1
2
4
48 ( L ) + 5 ( L ) +384 ( EI EI ) KGA
cosh ( L / 2 )
122
(6.23)
Obviously, due to the symmetry of the beam, the deflection value is the
maximum throughout the beam axis. Once again, to check what has been
shown,intheTimoshenkocaseweobtain:
5q L4
q L2
+
v( L / 2) =
384 EI 8 KGA
5q L4
q L2
+
v( L / 2) =
384 EI 8 KGA
se L
se L 0
(6.24)
whileintheBernoullisone:
v( L / 2) =
5q L4
384 EI
5q L4
v( L / 2) =
384 EI
se L
se L 0
(6.25)
The above limit values will be considered as reference to compare the

generalresultsobtainedbyequation(6.23).
6.1.2
ComparisonsbetweenTimoshenkoandBernoullimodel
Inordertoevaluatetheinfluenceofthesheareffects(otherthanthe
rigidity of the connection ) of deflection, casestudy in table 6.1 has been

assumeddenotingwith1thepropertiesofconcreteand2thoseofsteel.
123
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
E1
30000
N/mm2
E2
G1
G2
A1
A2(IPE600)
I1
I2(IPE600)
h
L
EI
EA
EI
K1
K2
KGA
q
210000
0,2
0,2
12500
87500
150000
15600
281250000
920800000
375
1000
2,01806E+14
7776000000
1,29531E+15
0,833
0,464
2196000000
50
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
mm2
mm2
mm4
mm4
mm
mm
N*mm2
N
N*mm2
N
N/mm
Table6.1.Geometricandmechanicalproperties.
The shear factor of the slab has been assumed equal to 5/6 (rectangular
crosssection)andtheshearfactorofsteelbeamwebhasbeentakenasthe
webtototalarearatio.Thevaluesofthestiffnessksrelatedtosevenvalues
ofLtobeassumedfortheanalysis,asreportedinTable6.2.
124
mm1
ks
L
0
1
N/mm2
0,0001
mm1
ks
N/mm2
10
0,001
mm1
ks
817
N/mm2
20
0,002
mm1
ks
3267
N/mm2
30
0,003
mm1
ks
7351
N/mm2
50
0,005
mm1
ks
L
20420
70
0,007
N/mm2
mm1
ks
40023
N/mm2
Table6.2.Connectionrigidityks.
ThesevenvaluesofL,thedeflectionplotswithafiniteKGA(equaltothe
one of the beam under consideration) and infinite KGA are reported in
ordertocomparetheirinfluenceonthesheardeformabilityandonthe
totaldeflectionandtounderstandthevaluesofthedeflectionvaryingthe
connectionstiffness.
ThefirstdiagraminFigure6.2,showsthevariousdeflectionwhichcanbe
qualitativelycompared:
125
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
infiniteKGA(
finiteKGA(
KGA L2
),
EI
KGA L2
EI
),
the latest ones, with equal L factor, are a bit bigger as the beams are
affectedbytheslip.
TheBernoullideflectionsarerepresentedbythecontinuousline,whilethe
Timoshenkosonebythediscontinuousone(Figure6.2).
In the Figures 6.36.9 the deflections are compared for various values of
theLparameterrangingfrom0to70.
126
Figure6.2.Deflectionofthebeaminthecasesexaminated.
127
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.3.(L)=0.
128
Figure6.4.(L)=1.
129
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.5.(L)=10.
130
Figure6.6.(L)=20.
131
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.7.(L)=30.
132
Figure6.8.(L)=50.
133
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.9.(L)=70.
134
Table 6.3 collects the values of the maximum deflection at midspan

reported for each of the values of L evaluated for both shearflexible or
infinitelystiffsection.
vmax
mm
KGAfinito
aL=0
32,5
aL=1
30,0
aL=10
7,71
aL=20
5,9
aL=30
5,5
aL=50
5,4
aL=70
5,3
vmax
mm
KGAinfinito
aL=0
32,2
aL=1
29,7
aL=10
7,4
aL=20
5,6
aL=30
5,3
aL=50
5,1
aL=70
5,0
v/v
%
0,87
0,95
3,69
4,78
5,08
5,26
5,31
Table6.3.Valuesofthemaximumdeflection.
135
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
It can be seen considering that the v/v ratio between the Timoshenko
andBernoullideflectionisaslargeasshearconnectionisstiff.
6.1.3
Analternativeapproachforsolvingsimplysupportedbeamscanbe
followedbyusingthestiffnessmatrixformulatedinthepresentwork.The
beamcanbesubdividedinelementsandthedeflectioncanbedeveloped
through interpolation with a larger precision increasing the number of
finiteelements(tenelementshavebeenconsideredherein).
The following cases have the same connection rigidity ks of the previous
ones.DeflectionderivedforthecasesofTimoshenkoandBernoullibeams
arerepresentedinFigure6.106.23fordifferentvaluesofL.
136
Figure6.10.(L)=0(Timoshenko).
137
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
138
139
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
140
141
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
142
143
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.17.(L)=0(Bernoulli).
144
145
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
146
147
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
148
149
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
150
Itcanbeseenthatthereisagoodconvergenceamongtheresultsobtained
byananalyticalapproachandthosederivedbythematrixone.
6.2 Continuouscompositebeam
Figure6.24.Continuouscompositebeamwithtwoequalspans.
The casestudy considered in the following is represented in Figure

6.24.Symmetrywillbeconsideredintheanalysesofthebeamwhichwill
beobtainedbybothanalyticalandmatrixapproach.
6.2.1
Analyticalsolution
Thedifferentialequation(5.175)hastobesolvedwithrespecttothe
constants C1C6 by using the displacement function and the relevant

boundaryconditions.Generalintegralofequation(5.176)is:
151
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
v ( x ) = C 1senh ( x ) + C 2 cosh ( x ) + C 3x 3 + C 4 x 2 + C 5x + C 6 +
+
q x4
24EI
(5.176)
andboundaryconditions:
v (x = 0) = 0
S (x = 0) = 0
M (x = 0) = 0
v (x = L ) = 0
(x = L ) = 0
us (x = L ) = 0
or:
152
(6.26)
C 2 + C 6 = 0
( EI EI ) 2C 2 + 2C 4 4C 2 + q EI +
(
)
h
EI h 2

( EI EI ) = 0
EI
+
+q
2
h KGA
EI h
EI 4C 2 + q EI ( 2C 2 + 2C 4 ) +
2
EI
q EI + EI = 0
KGA EI 2
3
2
C 1senh ( L ) + C 2cosh ( L ) + C 3L + C 4 L + C 5L + C 6 +
4
+ q L = 0
24EI
6EIC 3
C 1cosh ( L ) C 2senh ( L ) 3C 3L2 2C 4 L +

KGA
q L3 q L
C 5
=0
6EI KGA
EI 3C 1
EI 3
cosh ( L ) +
C 2senh ( L ) +
ks h
ks h
6 ( EI EI ) C 3 q L
EI
1
=0
ks h
ks h
EI
(6.27)
The unknown constants can be determined by solving the above

simultaneous equations and the definition of the parameter P can be
introduced:
P = {( L) EI *
* 3 ( EI EI ) KGA + 2 EI ( 3EI + KGA L2 ) cosh( L) +
3EI ( EI EI ) KGA senh( L)}
(6.28)
153
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
C1 =
EI
1 *
8 P EI
q
* 24 ( EI EI ) KGA +
+12 ( L ) * ( 2 EI EI + ( EI EI ) KGA ) +
2
+5 ( L ) EI KGA + 24 ( EI EI ) KGA cosh( L) +

4
(6.29)
8( L) 3 ( EI EI ) KGA + 2 EI ( 3EI + KGA L2 ) senh( L)
q EI
4
EI EI
C2 =
(6.30)
C3 =
* 8 ( EI EI ) KGA + 4 ( L ) *
16 P
2
* ( 2 EI EI + ( EI EI ) KGA ) + ( L ) EI KGA cosh( L) +

4
(6.31)
+8 ( EI EI ) KGA (1 + ( L) senh( L) )
1
1 EI
C 4 = q
+ 2
1
2 KGA 2 EI EI
154
(6.32)
C5 =
q
*
48 EI KGA P
3
2
* 144 ( EI EI ) KGA2 + 72 2 EI ( EI EI ) KGA *
* ( 2EI + KGAL2 ) + 6( L) 2 2 ( EI EI ) EI KGA *
( 24 EI + 5KGA L ) + ( L) EI *
* ( 72 EI + 30 EI KGA L + KGA L ) cosh( L) +
2
(6.33)
24 ( EI EI ) KGA 6 ( EI EI ) KGA + 3 2EI *
* ( 2 EI + KGAL2 ) +
+2( L) 3 ( EI EI ) KGA + 2 EI ( 3EI + KGAL2 ) senh( L)
C6 =
q EI
4
EI EI
(6.34)
Once more, the general model reduces to the Newmarks one as
KGA L2
and a further reduction to the case of complete interaction
EI
canbeobtainedas L :
C1 = C 2 = C 4 = C 6 = 0 , C 3 =
qL
q L3
,C5 =
16 EI
48 EI
(6.35)
whosesolutionisingoodagreementwiththeoneintermsofdeflectionfor
amonolithicbeamwithEIstiffnessandinfiniteshearstiffness.
Byintroductiontheconstantsinequation(5.176)thedeflectionisobtained:
155
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
v( x) =
q
*
48 EI KGA P
4
* 48 ( EI EI ) cosh( x) + cosh( L) ( ( L x ) *
* 144 ( EI EI ) KGA2 + 6 4 ( EI EI ) EI KGA L x *

2
* 24 EI + KGA ( 5 L2 + L x x 2 ) + 6EI 2 L x ( 72 EI 2 +
+ KGA2 L2 ( L x )( L + 2 x ) + 6 EI KGA ( 5 L2 + L x x 2 ) +
24 2 ( EI EI ) KGA ( EI ( 6EI 3KGA L x ) +
))
+EI KGA ( 2 L2 + 2 L x x 2 ) + 144 ( EI EI ) KGA2 *

2
*senh( x) ) + 6 ( EI EI ) KGA 4 x ( 6 ( EI EI ) KGA +
(6.36)
+ 2 EI * ( 6 EI 3KGA L2 + KGA x 2 ) + ( 24*

* ( EI EI ) KGA + 12 2 ( 2 EI EI + ( EI EI ) KGA ) L2 +
+5 4 EI KGA L4 ) * senh( x) + senh( L) *
* EI KGA 24 + 12 2 x ( 2 L + x ) + 4 ( 8 L3 x 4 Lx3 + x 4 ) +
+12 EI 4 EI x ( 2 L + x ) + KGA ( 2 + 2 x ( 2 L + x ) ) +
)) }
8 L 3 ( EI EI ) KGA + 2 EI ( 3EI + KGA L2 ) senh( x)
The analytical expression of deflection in the midspan (that is not the

maximumintheconsideredscheme)isasfollows:
156
v( L / 2) =
q
*
48 EI KGA P
4
L
* 48 ( EI EI ) cosh( L / 2) + cosh( L)
*
2
* 144 ( EI EI ) KGA2 + 36 6 EI 2 EI 2 L2 +
2
63 6
1
EI EI 2 KGA L4 + 6 EI 2 KGA2 L6 +
4
2
21 KGA L2
4
2
+3 ( EI EI ) EI KGA L 24 EI +
+
4
24 2 ( EI EI ) KGA 6 EI EI EI KGA L2 +
2
11
2
+ EI KGA L2 + 144 ( EI EI ) KGA2 senh( L / 2) ) +

4
(6.37)
+6 ( EI EI ) KGA ( 12 3 EI EI L 12 ( L ) KGA *
* ( EI EI )
11
3
EI KGA ( L ) + ( 24 ( EI EI ) KGA +
2
+12 2 ( 2 EI EI + ( EI EI ) KGA ) L2 + 5 4EI KGA L4 *

*senh( L / 2) + ( 24 KGA ( EI EI ) 9 4 EI EI L2 +
57
4
9 ( L ) KGA ( EI EI ) ( L ) EI KGA +
16
8 L ( 3 ( EI EI ) KGA +
)}
+ 2 EI ( 3EI + KGA L2 ) senh( L / 2) senh( L)
157
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
6.2.2
ComparisonbetweenTimoshenkoandBernoullimodel
Inordertoevaluatetheinfluenceofthesheareffects(otherthanthe
rigidityoftheconnection)onthedeflection,thecharacteristicsofthebeam
inTable6.4havebeenassumed(denotingwith1thecharacteristicsofthe
concreteand2ofthesteel).
E1
30000
N/mm2
E2
G1
G2
A1
A2(IPE600)
I1
I2(IPE600)
h
L
EI
EA
EI
K1
K2
KGA
q
210000
0,2
0,2
12500
87500
150000
15600
281250000
920800000
375
1000
2,01806E+14
7776000000
1,29531E+15
0,833
0,464
2196000000
50
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
mm2
mm2
mm4
mm4
mm
mm
N*mm2
N
N*mm2
N
N/mm
Table6.4.Geometricandmechanicalproperties.
The shear factor of the slab is assumed equal to 5/6 (rectangular cross
section)andequaltotheareaofthewebtothetotalareaofthesectionratio
(Tshapesection)forthesteelbeam.
158
E1
30000
N/mm2
E2
G1
G2
A1
A2(IPE600)
I1
I2(IPE600)
h
L
EI
EA
EI
K1
K2
KGA
q
210000
0,2
0,2
12500
87500
150000
15600
281250000
920800000
375
1000
2,01806E+14
7776000000
1,29531E+15
0,833
0,464
2196000000
50
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
mm2
mm2
mm4
mm4
mm
mm
N*mm2
N
N*mm2
N
N/mm
Table6.5.Connectionstiffnessassumedinthecasestudy.
Inordertoevaluatetheinfluenceoftheshearflexibilityondeflection,the
values of the deflections are reported against parameter L for both the
casesoffiniteKGAandforinfiniteKGA.
The first diagram in Figure 6.25 shows deflections values throughout the
beamaxis.
Table 6.5 reports the values of both stiffness ks and interaction parameter
Ladoptedinthefollowinganalysis.
Continuous line refers to the case of infinite shear stiffness, while the
discontinuousoneisrelatedtothecaseoffinitevalueofKGA(Figure6.25).
159
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
In the following Figure 6.266.32, the deflections obtained for different

casesofLrangingfrom0to70arereportedcomparingthecaseoffinite
and infinite shear stiffness. Only the solution of one span has been
representedforthesakeofsymmetry.
160
Figure6.25.Deflectionofthebeaminthecasesexaminated.
161
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.26.(L)=0.
162
Figure6.27.(L)=1.
163
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.28.(L)=10.
164
Figure6.29.(L)=20.
165
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.30.(L)=30.
166
Figure6.31.(L)=50.
167
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.32.(L)=70.
168
Table6.6reportsthemaximumdeflectionvaluesandtherelativedifference
derived by assuming either finite or infinite shear stiffness of the cross
beam.
vmax
cm
KGAfinito
aL=0
13,7
aL=1
13,2
aL=10
4,5
aL=20
3,1
aL=30
2,7
aL=50
2,5
aL=70
2,5
vmax
cm
KGAinfinito
aL=0
13,4
aL=1
12,9
aL=10
4,2
aL=20
2,7
aL=30
2,4
aL=50
2,2
aL=70
2,1
v/v
%
2,37
2,45
7,08
10,55
11,93
12,85
13,32
Table6.6.Valuesofmaximumdeflection.
169
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Itcanbeseenthatwhentheconnectionstiffnessincreasesthedifferenceof
thedeflectionsbetweentheBernoulliandTimoshenkomodelincreases.
6.2.3
Analternativeapproachforsolvingcontinuousbeamcanbefollowed
byusingthestiffnessmatrixformulatedinthepresentwork.Thebeamcan
be subdivided in elements and the deflection can be developed through
interpolation with a larger precision increasing the number of finite
elements(tenelementshavebeenconsideredhereinforeveryspan).
The following cases have the same connection rigidity ks of the previous
ones.DeflectionderivedforthecasesofTimoshenkoandBernoullibeams
arerepresentedinFigure6.336.46fordifferentvaluesofL.
170
171
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
172
173
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
174
175
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
176
177
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
178
179
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
180
181
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
182
183
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
184
6.2.4
Solutionsintermsofforces
Equations (6.29)(6.34) relating the integration constants Ci to the
nodalforceanddisplacementscanbenowutilizedforpostprocessingthe
solutionobtainedintermsofnodaldisplacements.
Once the constants C1,C2,C3,C4,C5 and C6 are known , it is possible to rich
thefunctionsofinterest.Inparticular,wepaytheattentiononthebending
momentinordertostudyitsvariationbetweenthecaseoffiniteKGAand
infiniteKGA.Bendingmomentscanbeexpressedasfollows:
M=
EI
EI
+
v , xxxx EIv , xx q
2
KGA EI
EI
2
(6.38)
thatis,intermsofconstantsofintegration:
EI 4
q
C1senh ( x ) + 4C 2 cosh ( x ) + +
2

EI
q x2
EI 2C1senh ( x ) + 2C 2 cosh ( x ) + 6C 3 x + 2C 4 +
+
2 EI
EI
EI
q
+
2
KGA EI
M=
(6.39)
Simplifyingtheaboveequations:
M =
q EI
q x2
EI
3
4
1
6
EIC
x
2
EIC
2
2
KGA
EI
(6.40)
andsubstitutingthevalueoftheconstants,wehave:
185
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
M =
+
qx 2 q EI
q EI
2
1
+
2
EI KGA
q ( 2 EI EI + ( EI EI ) KGA )
2 EI KGA
3 xq EI
( 8 ( EI EI ) KGA +
8 P
(6.41)
4 2 ( 2 EI EI + ( EI EI ) KGA ) L2 ( L ) EI KGA *
4
*cosh ( L ) + 8 ( EI EI ) KGA (1 + ( L ) senh ( L ) )

Afinalcheckaboutthelimitbehaviourofthesolutioncanbecarriedoutin
terms of bending moments M(x), which directly reduces to the case of
KGA L2
monolithicBernoullibeamas
and L :
EI
qL
q x2
M =3
x
8
2
(6.42)
6.2.5
ComparisonsbetweenTimoshenkomodelandBernoulli
model
Inordertoevaluatetheinfluenceoftheshearflexibilityonbending
moment, the values of the bending moments are reported against

parameterLforboththecasesoffiniteKGAandforinfiniteKGA.
ThefirstdiagraminFigure6.47showsbendingmomentvaluesthroughout
thebeamaxis;continuousline referstothecaseofinfiniteshearstiffness,
whilethediscontinuousoneisrelatedtothecaseoffinitevalueofKGA.
186
In the following Figure 6.486.54, the bending moments obtained for

differentcasesofLrangingfrom0to70arereportedcomparingthecase
offiniteandinfiniteshearstiffness.Onlythesolutionofonespanhasbeen
representedforthesakeofsymmetry.
Inthefollowinggraphs,thebendingmomentsareexpressedinKNm.
187
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.47.Bendingmoment.
188
Figure6.48.(L)=0.
189
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.49.(L)=1.
190
Figure6.50.(L)=10.
191
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.51.(L)=20.
192
Figure6.52.(L)=30.
193
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Figure6.53.(L)=50.
194
Figure6.54.(L)=70.
195
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
Also the minimum value of the bending moment for finite KGA and
infiniteKGAwithfixedthesevenvaluesofLarereported.
Mmin
KNm
KGAfinito
aL=0
623
aL=1
606
aL=10
564
aL=20
596
aL=30
605
aL=50
610
aL=70
612
Mmin
KNm
KGAinfinito
aL=0
625
aL=1
609
aL=10
573
aL=20
606
aL=30
615
aL=50
621
aL=70
623
M/M
%
0,28
0,36
1,52
1,68
1,71
1,73
1,73
Table6.7.Valuesoftheminimumbendingmoment.
196
Figure6.55.
Increasingtherigidityoftheconnectionthepercentagedifferencebetween
the moment under Bernoulli hypothesis and the one under Timoshenko
hypothesis increases in turn (Figure 6.55); but this variation is less
pronounced compared with the one of the deflections. It means that the
staticregime,comparedwiththedeformativeone,islessaffectedbythe
differencebetweenthetwomodels.
Moreover, in the case examinated, (L)=70 can be already considered
coincidingwiththecaseofinfiniteconnectionevenasregardsthebending
moment,asthepercentagevariationbecomesconstantfrom(L)=70.
Itcanbeseeninthetable6.7.
197
7. Conclusions
Formulation of an analytical model for shear flexible composite

beams in partial interaction, representing a generalization of the
wellknownNewmarkmodel;
derivationofthestiffnessmatrixandthevectorofequivalentnodal
forcesinclosedform;
comparison between the stiffness matrix derived for shear flexible

beams with the ones derived by the Bernoullibased Newmark
model; the key parameters influencing the difference between the
two models have been also emphasized through various case
studies;
application of both the analytical model and the matrixapproach

forsolvingtworelevantcasestudies.
The following issues are among the possible future development of the
proposedmodel:
numericalimplementationtoreproducethenonlinearbehaviourof
materialsofshearconnection;
further generalization of the analytical model for the case of

completely free rotations for the two connected parts.
198
8. Bibliography
[1].
S.P.TimoshenkoAnalysisofbimetalthermostats.J.Opt.Soc.Am.11(1925),
pagg.233255.
[2].
N. M.Newmark , C. P.Siess and I. M.Viest Tests and analysis of composite

beamswithincompleteinteraction.Proc.Soc.forExperimentalStressAnalysis
9(1)(1951).
[3].
A.O.Adekola Partial interaction between elasticity connected elements of a

compositebeam.Int.J.SolidsandStruct.4(1968),pagg.11251135.
[4].
H.Robinson and K. S. Naraine Slip and Uplift Effects in Composite Beams.

Engrg.Found.Conf.onCompos.Constr.(1988).
[5].
E.Cosenza and S.Mazzolani Analisi in campo lineare di travi composte con

conessioni deformabili: Formule esatte e resoluzioni alla differenze. Ist Indian
WorkshoponCompos.Struct.(1993),pagg.121.
[6].
J. B.McGarraugh and J. W.Baldwin Lightweight concreteon steel composite

beams.Engrg.J.8(3)(1971),pagg.9098.
[7].
S. A.Mirza and B. W.Skrabek Reliability of short composite beamcolumn

strengthinteractionJ.Struct.Engrg.ASCE117(8)(1991),pagg.23202339.
[8].
S. ElTawil, C. F. SanzPicon and G. G.Deierlein Evaluation of ACI 318 and

AISC(LRFD)strengthprovisionsforcompositebeamcolumnsJ.Constructional
SteelRes.34(1995),pagg.103123.
[9].
B.J.Daniels,andM.CrisinelCompositeslabbehaviorandstrengthanalysis.I:
CalculationprocedureJ.Struct.Engrg.ASCE119(1)(1993),pagg.1635.
199
GiuseppeDiPalma
163/000542
[10]. C.AmadioandM.FragiacomoAfiniteelementmodelforthestudyofthecreep
and shrinkage effects in composite beams with deformable shear connections
CostruzioniMetalliche(4)(1993),pagg.213228.
[11]. J. F.Hajjar, , P. H.Schiller and A.Molodan A distributed plasticity model for
concretefilledsteeltubebeamcolumnswithinterlayerslip.PartI:Slipformulation
andmonotonicanalysisST971UniversityofMinnesotaMinneapolis(1997).
[12]. M. R.Salari, E.Spacone, P. B.Shing and D.Frangopol Nonlinear analysis of
composite beams with deformable shear connectors J. Struct. Engrg. ASCE 124
(10)(1998),pagg.11481158.
[13]. M. R.Salari, E.Spacone, P. B.Shing and D.Frangopol Behavior of composite
structuresundercyclicloadingASCEStruct.Congr.XV(1997),pagg.731735.
[14]. V.Ciampi,andL.CarlesimoAnonlinearbeamelementforseismicanalysisof
structure.Proc.,8thEur.Conf.onEarthquakeEngrg.(1986),6.3/736.3/80.
[15]. E.Spacone, F. C.Filippou and F. F.Taucer, Fiber beamcolumn model for
nonlinearanalysisofRCframes.II:ApplicationsEarthquakeEngrg.andStruct.
Dyn.25(7)(1996b),pagg.727742.
[16]. M. H. M. Yassin (1994). Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures
under monotonic and cyclic loads PhD thesis, University of California,
Berkeley,Calif.
[17]. A.AyoubandF.C.FilippouAmodelforcompositesteelconcretegirdersunder
cyclicloadingASCEStruct.Congr.XV(1997).
[18]. A.Ayoub and F. C. Filippou Mixed formulation of bond slip problems under
cyclicloadsJ.Struct.Engrg.,ASCE,125(6)(1999),pagg.661671.
[19]. G.Monti,F.C.FilippouandE.Spacone,Finiteelementforanchoredbarsunder
cyclicloadreversalsJ.Struct.Engrg.ASCE123(5)(1997),pagg.614623.
[20]. A.Neuenhofer and F.C. Filippou Evaluation of nonlinear frame finiteelement
modelsJ.Struct.Engrg.ASCE123(7)(1997),pagg.958966.
200
CapitoloVIIConclusioni
[21]. A.NeuenhoferandF.C.FilippouGeometricallynonlinearflexibilitybasedframe
finiteelementJ.Struct.Engrg.ASCE124(6)(1998),pagg.704711.
[22]. YuFei Wu, Rongqiao Xu,Weiqiu Chen Free vibrations of the partial
interaction composite members with axial force SCIENCE DIRECT Journal of
SoundandVibration299(2007),pagg.10741093.
[23]. Gianluca Ranzi, Alessandro ZonaA steelconcrete composite beam model with
partial interaction including the shear deformability of the steel component.
SCIENCEDIRECT29(2007),pagg.30263041.
[24]. Rongqiao Xu, Yufei Wu Static,dynamic,and buckling analysis of partial
interaction composite members using Timoshenkos beam theory. SCIENCE
DIRECT International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007), pagg.1139
1155.
[25]. CiroFaella,EnzoMartinelli,EmidioNigroSteelandconcretecompositebeams
withflexibleshearconnection:exactanalyticalexpressionofthestiffnessmatrix
and applications. COMPUTERS AND STRCTURES 80 (2002), pagg.1001
1009.
[26]. MohammadA.Sakr,SheriefS.S.SaklaLongtermdeflectionofcrackedcomposite
beams with nonlinear partial shear interaction: IFinite element modelling
SCIENCE DIRECT Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008),
pagg.14461455.
[27]. Nunzio Scibilia Strutture miste acciaiocalcestruzzo legnocalcestruzzo Dario
FlaccovioEditore(2001).
[28]. CiroFaellaMetodidianalisidellestruttureintelaiateCuesEditore(2002).
201

Engineering Thesis Giuseppe Di Palma

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Engineering Thesis Giuseppe Di Palma

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNIVERSITDEGLISTUDIDISALERNO

A NEW TIMOSHENKO-BASED ANALYTICAL

Anno Accademico 2007/2008

Comparisons between Timoshenko model and Bernoulli

readily supply the relative longitudinal or transverse displacement at the

displacement and force formulations while overcoming most of their

buckling analysis of the axially loaded beamcolumns taking into

external actions and the internal (generalized) stresses represented in

Therefore,theverticalforceresultsas -N v,xx dx (directedtowardsthetop).

Q + Q + Q , xdx + Nv , xxdx + qdx Av , ttdx = 0

M + M + M , xdx Qdx + mdx I , ttdx = 0

thermalinduced anelastic strain, reproduced by a linear field

Considering the (generalized) stressstrain relationship for shear, the

be stated as follows, including the normal stresses and the bending

and the kinematic assumptions of the model lead to the following

- N 1 + N 1 + N 1, xdx + Qsdx = 0 N 1, x = -Qs

and the following expression can be finally obtained after some

Deriving (2.19) and introducing (2.12) the following equation can be

To sum up briefly, the governing equations of the problem result being

depending on the function v(x).The first two equations (3.14) can be

EI T , xxxx I , ttxxx m, xxx q , xx Av, ttxx Fv , xxxx

EI T , xxxx I , ttxxx m , xxx q , xx Av , ttxx Fv , xxxx

E1I 1 ksh E 2 I 2 ksh ksh3 EA

deriving the only differential equation similarly to the problem of

A few easy simplifications lead to the following equation in terms of

Finally, equation (3.28) reduces to the usual differential equation of the

while, as absent connection occurs ( L 0 ), the equation of the beam

Equation (2.19) in terms of bending moment M can be transformed as

The term involving F results as zero; compacting the remaining terms we

The interlayer distributed shear force Qs throughout the interface is

1 + KGA v , xxx KGA

KGA KGA 2 KGA KGA EI 2 KGA

The final expression of bending moment M can be finally obtained by

Therefore,multiplying(3.47)by 2 ( KGA + F ) EI weobtain:

The only reacting restraint is the horizontal simple support that is

Consequently, no relative slips occur as an axial force F is applied on the

More precisely, the slip force in interface is defined as S(x)=N1(x)=N2(x)

It is observed that R0 causes two normal stresses and two bending

known throughout equilibrium. This bending moment results by q(x),

being vp(x) a peculiar integral of the complete equation which can be

Since the beam in bending is nonredundant , there are always four

equilibrium conditions, equation (3.27) should be solved considering

after having defined with Di the displacement ith component of the

differential equation imposing nodal displacements in each component as

v , xxxxx (x ) = 5 (C 1 cos h ( x ) + C 2 sen h( x ) )

and the following set of equations can be obtained by introducing the

C 1cosh ( L ) C 2senh ( L ) 3C 3L2 2C 4 L +

Consequently, those constants can be easily related to the values of the

(5.14) the terms of the first column can be determined by equations

The particular case of Bernoulli beams can be derived by the above

On the contrary, the general model reproduces the case of absent

(5.14) the terms of the second column can be determined by equations

The particular case of Bernoulli beams can be derived by the above

On the contrary, the general model reproduces the case of absent

(5.14) the terms of the second column can be determined by equations

The particular case of Bernoulli beams can be derived by the above

The above general expressions basically reduce to the ones derived by

On the contrary, the general model reproduces the case of absent

FE = {VE1 , CE1 , HEs1 , VE 2 , CE 2 , HEs 2} = 0

it can be derived following a procedure substantially similar to those

After obtaining these expressions, the contribution of nodal imposed

V 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) =V 01(v o 1) +V 01(v o 2) +V 01( o 1) +

C 01(v o 1,v o 2, o 1, o 2, uso 1, uso 2) = C 01(v o 1) + C 01(v o 2) + C 01( o 1) +

+C 01(o 2) + C 01(uso 1) + C 01(uso 2)