Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Non-linear analysis of steelconcrete composite

frames with full and partial shear connection
subjected to seismic loads
Oreste S. Bursia,, Fei-Fei Sunb, Stefano Postalc
a Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering, University of Trento, Via Mesiano 77, 38050, Trento,
Italy
b Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering, University of Trento, 38050, Italy
c Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, 38050, Italy

Received 27 October 2003; accepted 29 June 2004

Abstract

The seismic performance of moment-resisting frames consisting of steelconcrete composite

beams with full and partial shear connection is investigated. To this end, six full scale composite
substructures with headed stud shear connectors have been tested and the corresponding inelastic
response to both monotonic and variable reversed displacements have been investigated. Three-
dimensional finite element models of the substructures set with the ABAQUS code and based on
shell elements are established in order to evaluate different modelling assumptions and local effects;
and to calibrate a one-dimensional model conceived with the Drain-3DX code relying on layered
beamcolumn elements. The one-dimensional model is then exploited for a parametric study on
two four-storey frames by means of non-linear dynamic analyses. The analyses have revealed that
composite frames with a low shear connection degree of about 0.4 perform as well as their companion
frames with full shear connection under severe seismic loads. Nonetheless, the shear connection
degree should be high enough in order to protect shear connectors in the central part of beams
from failure. Although their equivalent damping is not very high, shear connectors could reduce
the ductility demand on other parts of a composite frame, such as beam ends or partial strength

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Oreste.Bursi@ing.unitn.it (O.S. Bursi).

0143-974X/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.06.002
68 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Nomenclature

abcdef nomenclature for a specific sample frame in view of parametric analyses:

a = A or B being the frame type;
b = S or L being the shear connector type with 16 mm or 22 mm diameter;
c = 1, 2, 3 or 4 being the shear connection degree FC, IFC, IC or LC;
d = M or C being the type of monotonic or cyclic shear forceslip law;
e = E or A being the type of effective breadth according to Eurocode 8 or to
ABAQUS;
f = U or S being the type of unstiffened or stiffened beam-to-column joint
bc width of column
d horizontal displacement at frame floors
db , dc depth of beam and column
db lever arm of a composite joint
dr interstorey drift
dy yielding horizontal displacement at frame floors
e concrete slabbeam slip
fy yield stress of steel
F reaction force of substructure
t thickness of web
tc f thickness of column flange
Vy , Vu yield and ultimate shear strength of joints
degree of shear connection
y yielding shear deformation of a shear panel

beam-to-column joints. This design option could provide a further means to achieve a favourable
performance of a composite moment-resisting frame, in addition to the benefit of cost reduction.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Composite member; Partial shear connection; Effective breadth; Low-cycle fatigue; Degradation;
Composite frame

1. Introduction

The partial composite action between the concrete slab and steel beam of composite
framing systems in earthquake-prone zones as well as the use of partial strength beam-
to-column joints can reduce costs and provide more choice to the designer. However,
especially the adoption of a weak shear connection in a practical seismic design is
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 69

largely hampered by the paucity of experimental data and hysteretic models for the
characterisation of a shear forceslip law.
As the presence of reinforced concrete and partial shear connection increases inevitably
the complexity of analysis and design procedures compared to those of steel structures [1],
extensive research has been carried out on the numerical modelling of steelconcrete
composite beams. Hirst and Yeo [2] used a layered beam-plate element in order to
study partially-connected composite beams. Razaqpur and Nofal [3] proposed a three-
dimensional (3D) FE model with a bar element adopted to simulate the non-linear
behaviour of stud shear connectors. In that model, webs of I-beams were reproduced with
four node plane quadrilateral elements whilst flanges and concrete slabs were modelled
by means of four-noded layered shell elements. Sebastian and McConnel [4] presented a
model composed of a two-dimensional (2D) and a one-dimensional (1D) layered bending-
membrane element for the concrete slab and the steel beam, respectively, and a stub
element for shear connector.
In view of the high computational expense of 2D and 3D models, Arizumi et al. [5]
and Daniels and Crisinel [6] proposed displacement-based beam elements which can be
formulated easily. Fang et al. [7] suggested a displacement-based element with a shape
function combined with trigonometric and polynomial functions showing an extraordinary
accuracy in the elastic case. Salari and Spacone [8] developed a force-based finite element,
whilst Ayoub and Filippou [9] formulated a two-field mixed element; both of them exhibit
a superior performance in the non-linear case. Fabbrocino et al. [10] proposed a beam
theory based on a specific kinematic model of the cross-section of continuous composite
beams, including partial shear interaction and bond between concrete and reinforcing bars.
Though numerous are the studies dealing with the numerical modelling of composite
beams, the analysis of composite frames with partial shear connection is not yet a
straightforward task. Only few publications [7,8,11] dealt with static analysis of composite
frames with partial shear connection all aiming at reducing the numbers of FEs per
composite beam. No matter what kind of beam element type is exploited, some common
modelling issues remain to be clarified in view of reliable and efficient frame analyses, such
as: (i) the shear connection degree; (ii) the type of monotonic or cyclic shear forceslip law;
(iii) the value of the effective breadth [12,13] of the concrete slab; (iv) the modelling of
beam-to-column joints including column shear panels. All together, they represent basic
aspects of the seismic analysis of composite systems and are the issues that the paper
explores further.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 introduces composite
beam specimens with full and partial shear connection embodying 22 mm diameter headed
studs undergoing variable and random amplitude displacement cycles as well as companion
push-off and pullpush specimens. Experimental data are then used in Section 3 in order
to validate a 3D composite beam model assembled with the ABAQUS code [14], in which
beam cross-sections do not remain plane. Successively, typical modelling assumptions
exploited in 1D models are ascertained. In detail, the approximations related to the
use of a constant effective breadth of the concrete slab and of forceslip relations for
connectors provided by push-off tests are quantified. A 1D FE model conceived with
layered beamcolumn elements in the Drain-3DX code [15] is calibrated in Section 4.
Then, a parametric study on the seismic performance of moment-resisting (MR) frames
70 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

with full and partial shear connection by means of non-linear dynamic frame analyses
is conducted in Section 5. Finally, conclusions and future developments are drawn in
Section 6.

2. Composite substructures

2.1. Specimen description

The aim of this research was to investigate the cyclic behaviour of composite frames
with full and partial shear connection. The first phase of the tests on substructures
embodying 16 mm diameter headed shear studs was reported by Bursi and Gramola [16].
Hence only the second phase on substructures endowed with 22 mm diameter shear
connectors is presented hereafter.
The composite substructures embedding 22 mm diameter shear studs represent a
typical European design with a slab with thickness of about 145 mm and no steel beam
encasement. In a typical MR frame under lateral loads, the moment inflection points are
close to the midspan and midheight of beams and columns, respectively; these boundary
conditions are reproduced in the substructure illustrated in Fig. 1(a). Conventional shear
connection degrees = N/N f under sagging moment equal to 1.60, 0.74 and 0.53 were
designed for composite beams with full shear connection (RFC), intermediate partial shear
connection (RIC) and low partial connection (RLC), respectively, for composite beams
with 22 mm diameter shear studs. Values in round brackets refer to specimens with 16 mm
diameter shear studs. Under hogging moment, the overall force developed by the stud
connectors exceeded the force developed by longitudinal reinforcing bars.
Eight 12-mm longitudinal reinforcing bars were adopted to provide a slab reinforcement
ratio of 0.66% as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). This ratio was increased to 1.83% around the HE
360B column section, to enable the beam-to-column joint to transfer to the column the
ultimate beam moment. Nonetheless, the amount of reinforcement was kept to a minimum
to lower the neutral axis and delay local buckling.
The composite beam cross-section and all adjacent cross-sections were classified as
Class 3 owing to the steel web. However, the favourable effects of web stiffeners were not
considered. The details of the beam-to-column partial-strength joint owing to web panel
yielding are illustrated in Fig. 1(b). It was designed in order to satisfy the capacity design
criteria [13] on the basis of adequate connection performance exhibited by this component
when the column section is sufficiently large [17]. The material properties of the beams
are collated in Table 1. TRW Nelson studs were adopted with a diameter of 22 mm and a
mean height of 126 mm. Moreover, both the resistance and the ductility of connectors were
enhanced using ribs parallel to the shear flow direction [18].
The main instrumentation that is an integral part of the test set-up is illustrated in
Fig. 1(a). In detail, the interface slip between the steel beam and the concrete slab is
detected by means of coupled LVDTs located at Secs. 1, 2, 3 and 4, whilst the vertical

separation, i.e. the uplift, is measured at Secs. 1, 2, 3, 3 , 4 and 5. In order to estimate
internal forces in steel beams, flange strains are recorded by means of linear strain gauges
located at Secs. 2 and 4. At these sections also axial deformations of reinforcing bars are
monitored to scrutinise the effective breadth of the reinforcing bars at each loading stage.
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 71

Fig. 1. Test specimen with 22 (16) mm diameter shear studs: (a) substructure and shear connection details;
(b) mesh lay-out and partial-strength joint.

Table 1
Material properties of substructures with 22 mm headed shear studs

Specimen Rebars Stud Beam flange Beam web Concrete

fy fu fy fu fy fu fy fu fy E cm
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

RFC 532.6 621.3 324.0 457.0 298.6 425.9 324.6 436.7 41.2 32 811
RIC 532.6 621.3 324.0 457.0 298.6 425.9 324.6 436.7 40.5 32 624
RLC 532.6 621.3 324.0 457.0 298.6 425.9 324.6 436.7 39.8 32 435
72 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 2. Quasi-static cyclic loading test procedures.

Fig. 3. Hysteresis loops of the RFC substructure embodying 22 mm diameter shear studs.

With regard to loading procedures, monotonic and cyclic loading was exploited. Fig. 2
shows schematically the ECCS procedure employed [19] and the test control parameter d.

2.2. Specimen behaviour

The failure modes of the specimens with 22 mm diameter connectors are outlined in
Table 2, whilst the hysteresis loops exhibited by a RFC substructure are depicted in Fig. 3.
The cycles are stable, to a certain extent. The hysteretic behaviour is governed by web panel
and steel beam yielding for positive (pull) loads; and web panel yielding, reinforcing bar
yielding and concrete fracturing for negative (push) loads. Web buckling occurred at about
370 mm from the column flange beyond the reinforcing plates in line with the prediction
of Eurocode 4 [20].
Bi- and trilinear approximations of each skeleton curve can be defined as illustrated
schematically in Fig. 4, on the basis of best-fitting and energy-equivalence criteria between
the skeleton curve and numerical approximations. The reckoned values for positive as
well as negative hemicycles are collected in Table 3. Due to local buckling of beam
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 73

Table 2
Substructure state at failure
Specimen Test protocol Beam IPE 400 Connector
Pull regime Push regime 22 mm diameter

Steel beam yielding Rebar yielding

Cyclic Stud shearing
Concrete crushing Flange and web buckling
RFC
Steel beam yielding
Monotonic Stud shearing
Concrete crushing
Steel beam yielding Rebar yielding
Cyclic Stud shearing
Concrete crushing Flange and web buckling
RIC
Steel beam yielding
Monotonic Stud shearing
Concrete yielding
Steel beam yielding Rebar yielding
Cyclic Stud shearing
Concrete crushing Flange and web buckling
RLC
Steel beam yielding
Monotonic Stud shearing
Concrete yielding

Fig. 4. Bi- and trilinear fits of a reaction forcedisplacement envelope.

flange and web, the negative ductility levels du /d y are lower than the positive ones,
but satisfactory. The forcedisplacement response of specimens subjected to monotonic
loading is depicted in Fig. 5. The ultimate displacement reaches more than twice the value
of the cyclic positive displacement under cyclic loading as indicated in Table 3. Hence, the
reduction in ductility owing to the cyclic behaviour is significant. The slip distribution at
the ultimate displacement du+ is shown in Fig. 6. As can be expected, the slip values in
the RLC substructure are larger than those in the RFC one. The same trend occurs for the
substructures subjected to cyclic loading.
In order to investigate thoroughly the shear forceslip relationship of 22 mm headed
stud shear connectors, we fabricated eleven elemental push-type specimens. Beam stub
and concrete slab characteristics were similar to those of the above-mentioned companion
steelconcrete composite substructures. Details on the geometry, profiled steel sheeting,
test set-up and results are provided in [21]. Specimens were loaded in a quasi-static fashion
both monotonically and cyclically [19] according to the test set-up shown in Fig. 7(a). In
detail, the forceslip response relevant to the RPM-01 specimen subjected to a monotonic
74 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 5. Monotonic force vs. displacements of substructures embodying 22 mm diameter shear connectors.

Fig. 6. Slip distributions at du+ of substructures embodying 22 mm diameter shear connectors.

increasing slip as well as to the RPC-01 specimen subjected to alternate slips [19] is
depicted in Fig. 7(b). Due to hysteresis effects, both strength and ultimate slip ductility
reduction amounts to about 32% and 51%, respectively, with regard to the monotonic
forceslip response. As a result, both the choice and modelling of a shear forceslip law
of a stud in a FE model of a composite beam undergoing cyclic loading may not be so
obvious.

3. Analysis of substructures with 3D FE models

3.1. Material and FE model
The material models exploited for 3D elements are those available in the ABAQUS
code [14]. Elasto-plastic simulations of composite substructures are performed by means
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 75

Table 3
Parameters of the cyclic response of substructures embodying 22 mm diameter shear connectors

Specimen K e+ K h+ Fy+ +
Fmax +
Fmax /Fy+ d y+ du+ du+ /d y+
PULL (kN/mm) (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm)

RFC 21.7 1.4 458.7 563.9 1.23 21.2 108.5 5.12

RIC 21.1 1.0 463.9 541.9 1.17 21.9 114.5 5.23
RLC 22.6 0.9 466.5 539.5 1.16 20.7 102.5 4.95

Specimen K e K h Fy
Fmax
Fmax /Fy d y du du /d y
PUSH (kN/mm) (kN) (kN) (mm)

RFC 17.9 2.3 348.7 425.2 1.22 19.5 76.0 3.90

RIC 18.5 2.5 345.3 422.3 1.22 18.6 80.0 4.30
RLC 17.8 2.5 337.3 411.0 1.22 19.0 78.4 4.13

Fig. 7. (a) Test set-up, pullpush specimen and boundary conditions; (b) monotonic shear force vs. slip and
hysteresis loops of pullpush specimens.
76 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

of a macro-level approach for concrete fracture, in which the plain concrete is assumed to
be an equivalent isotropic continuum. The material model for concrete is developed within
the framework of the theory of plasticity [14]. Though it does not predict explicitly crack
initiation and evolution, as does the companion model based on the coaxial rotating crack
formulation, without doubt it is more robust from a computational standpoint. In detail, the
pressure-dependent DruckerPrager yield criterion formulated in stress space is adopted.
The two material constants are linked to the MohrCoulomb constants, viz. the cohesion
and the angle of internal friction, by matching the fictitious tensile strength ft and the
biaxial compressive strength f bc  of concrete according to transformation formulae [22].

Moreover, a non-associated flow rule is exploited. The strain-hardening behaviour of

concrete is governed by means of the stressstrain law of concrete in uniaxial compression
or uniaxial tension, complemented with appropriate post-peak softening rules. In detail,
the tension-softening behaviour of concrete related to its progressive fracturing or tension-
stiffening behaviour owing to the presence of reinforcement is reproduced with exponential
decay curves [23]. Confining effects owing to transversal reinforcement and profiled-steel
sheeting are considered in the compression regime by means of the model of Mander et al.
[24]. The concrete model does not embody a specific fracture energy G f , to overcome
mesh-dependent results [25]. However, as the concrete slab is moderately reinforced both
in the longitudinal and transversal direction, the mesh-dependency is small.
Longitudinal reinforcing bars in the slab are assumed to be made with a hardening
elasto-plastic material and modelled using discrete two-noded beam elements. The discrete
representation of the reinforcement is adopted because the influence of bond-slip is of
interest. Thereby, dimensionless bond-link elements are adopted to connect concrete and
steel nodes. In detail, the bond stressslip relation is modulated according to the law
proposed in [23]. Friction between the structural steel and concrete slab is not modelled
because it has little influence on substructure response.
The 3D model depicted in Fig. 8 embodies 3670 elements and owing to symmetry,
only half of the substructure is reproduced. In detail, shell elements labelled S4 [14] are
used both for steel beam and concrete slab. Beam elements B31 are employed to model
reinforcing bars in a discrete manner; whilst non-linear spring elements SPRING2 are
adopted to trace the behaviour of shear connectors as well as the bond-slip between the
slab and reinforcing bars. Linear truss elements T3D2 are utilised to reproduce uplift.
In order to reduce the complexity of the FE analyses conducted with ABAQUS [14],
only monotonic loading regimes are considered hereafter.

3.2. Effective breadth

Usually, the non-uniform distribution of longitudinal stresses or shear lag within a

concrete slab due to shear strains is largely simplified by using the constant effective
breadth (EB) concept [12,13]. Such an approach may lead to significant errors for
composite beams under seismic loading, as the EB is not constant in the elastic case [26]
and the stress redistribution into the slab leads to an enlargement of the effective breadth
in the inelastic case [16]. However, nowadays 1D beam elements with full or partial shear
connection require the use of constant effective breadths. In order to probe the link between
the EB and the partial interaction of composite beams inelastic analyses have been carried
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 77

Fig. 8. 3D FE model of a test substructure with 22 mm diameter stud connectors.

out. Therefore, the 3D model illustrated in Fig. 8 was invoked to trace the EB of concrete
both in pull and in push regimes. Simulations confirm that the ratio of the half-breadth
be to the actual half-breadth b is slightly dependent on the shear connection degree. More
specifically, be /b amounts to about 0.6 or in terms of beam length be /L to 0.045. This value
is within the range [0.5bc /L, 0.075] proposed in the prEN version of Eurocode 8 [13]
regarding specific rules for steelconcrete composite buildings, where bc is the column
flange width.
The EB distributions relevant to the maximum load are plotted in Fig. 9, in which the
column cross-section is located on the left hand side. As expected, the EB narrows towards
the simply-supported beam end and exhibits different trends in the two regimes. In detail,
it is larger when the concrete is under tensile loading owing to diffuse concrete cracking
whilst it is smaller when the concrete is subjected to compressive loading. The effect of
the partial interaction between the steel beam and the concrete slab on the EB has been
analysed too. In a large zone of the slab, a clear relation between the EB and the partial
interaction is not evident. Towards the simply-supported beam end, as expected, the larger
the interaction the larger the EB of the slab subjected to tensile loading. This trend is not
confirmed in the pull regime.

3.3. Behaviour and design of panel zones

Panel zone yielding has long been recognized as an efficient means to dissipate seismic
energy and to provide a favourable hysteretic behaviour [27]. By using FE analyses, we
investigated the interaction between the column web panel yielding and the composite
beam with full and partial shear connection embodying 22 mm diameter shear studs. The
FE prediction of the monotonic response of the RFC specimen, in terms of reaction force
vs. panel shear deformation is illustrated in Fig. 10. The web panel exhibits high ductility
and approaches a maximum value of 97 mrad in terms of rotations. Such deformations
78 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 9. Effective breadths of concrete slabs at maximum horizontal load.

together with the flexural yielding of the composite beam contribute to the overall ductility
of the substructure.
The 3D model of the substructure allows also the distribution of shear stresses in the
panel zone to be appraised. One can see clearly from Fig. 11 that shear stresses spread also
in the zone close to the concrete slab. As a result, von Mises stresses approach values of
about 415 MPa in a large zone of the web panel. The distribution of longitudinal stresses
in column flanges is depicted in Fig. 12 at a displacement ductility level du+ /d y+ = 2.1 in
order to emphasise yielding; we can observe that only two plastic hinges are likely to form
in one column flange after the shearing of the column web panel. Based on these results,
the Krawinklers design formula [27] was modified by introducing a factor 0.5, in order to
take into account the yielding of one column flange after a shear deformation of 4 y , viz.


3 bc tc2f
Vu = Vy 1 + 0.5 (1)
db dc t
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 79

Fig. 10. Reaction force vs. panel shear deformation of an exterior joint and design predictions.

Fig. 11. Shear stresses along the member and joint for a positive ductility du+ /d y+ = 9.9.

where
Vy = 0.55 f y dc t. (2)
Vy and Vu are computed on the basis of the lever arm db which spans the steel beam depth
db and half concrete slab depth for sagging moment; whilst db spans the steel beam depth
db and the height of the rebars for hogging moment. This modification can be appreciated
in Fig. 10, where the prediction of the design Eq. (1) and that of the Krawinklers formulae
are compared with the reaction forcepanel shear deformation provided by ABAQUS [14].
The same modification can be applied to the formulae suggested in Eurocode 3 [28].
With regard to the prediction of the monotonic strength of specimens with 22 shear
connectors, a satisfactory accuracy is achieved by using Eq. (1) as outlined in Table 4 where
the notation of Fig. 2 has been used. A representation of the strength prediction is also
80 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 12. Longitudinal stresses along the column axis for a positive ductility du+ /d y+ = 2.1.

Table 4
Experimental values and strength predictions for monotonic tests with 22 diameter shear connectors

Monotonic Experimental Analytical Fy+ /Fpanel

+ +
Fmax +
/Fbeam
(PULL) Fy+ +
Fmax +
Fpanel +
Fbeam

RFC 481.9 550.1 454.7 577.1 1.06 0.95

RIC 473.5 551.1 454.7 525.6 1.04 0.98
RLC 447.6 520.9 454.7 502.2 0.98 1.04

shown in Fig. 5, where the panel yielding governs the inelastic behaviour of substructures.
Therefore, an accurate modelling of the shear panel is needed in view of analysis of MR
frames.

3.4. Degree of shear connection

In order to appreciate the effect of the degree of partial shear interaction on the
substructure performance, including the limiting cases, FE analyses were performed by
means of the 3D model depicted in Fig. 8. The responses illustrated in Fig. 13 include
the simulations corresponding to the tested substructures ( = 0.53, 0.74, 1.60), the two
extreme cases that are relevant to the perfect interaction ( = ) and no interaction
( = 0), together with the response of the steel beam alone. One may observe that even
the LPC substructure, that is characterised by a low connection degree ( = 0.53) is
endowed with a remarkable strength; whilst the difference in terms of strength between
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 81

Fig. 13. Effect of the partial connection relevant to substructures with 22 mm diameter shear connectors.

the RPC ( = 1.60) and the case that corresponds to perfect interaction ( = ) is quite
small. Fig. 13 illustrates also the case corresponding to a substructure embodying full shear
connection with a column without web panel yielding, i.e. with web doubler plates. In this
design condition, the strength of the substructure increases remarkably, but the limited
ductility of the concrete in compression imposes a global strain-softening behaviour.

4. Calibration of a 1D FE model

In view of the parametric analysis of MR frames which will be presented in the next
section, we calibrate a 1D FE model using both experimental data and results provided
by the 3D models illustrated in Sections 2 and 3, respectively. The FE model depicted
in Fig. 14 is used to perform 1D analyses of the substructures by means of the DRAIN-
3DX code [15]. It exploits about 96 elements, of which 49 inelastic fibre beamcolumn
elements with distributed plasticity in order to model steel beam and concrete slab with five
fibres each. This element is based on a force (flexibility) formulation in which equilibrium
is enforced in a strict sense. The steel column is reproduced with one inelastic fibre
beamcolumn element, whilst an inclined truss element, modelled again with one inelastic
fibre beamcolumn element, takes into account the column web panel deformation. The
reinforcing bars are modelled by means of a distributed representation as illustrated in
Fig. 14(b) and therefore, the bond-slip is not considered. Stud connectors are simulated
employing the spring elements depicted schematically in Fig. 14(b).
The material model adopted for 1D analysis is the one provided in the DRAIN-3DX
code [15]. For the concrete fibres, the uniaxial constitutive law takes into account cracking,
including tension stiffening or tension softening and crushing of concrete including
post-crushing strength loss. The material model for steel considers yielding and hardening
whilst the shear studs are simulated with link elements having linear kinematic hardening
rules.
Fig. 15 shows some comparisons regarding: (i) the LC specimen endowed with 16 mm
diameter shear studs under monotonic loading; (ii) the same LC specimens subjected to
cyclic loading. The effective breadth of the pull phase has also been used for the push
82 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 14. Test substructure: (a) 1D FE model; (b) fibre representation of a section.

phase according to [29]. Nonetheless the DRAIN-3DX analysis does not consider stiffness
and strength degradation of the material as well as beam local instability [15]; these
factors have limited the possibility of achieving a good agreement between predictions
and experimental data. Similar results are achieved with simulations on substructures
embedding 22 mm diameter stud connectors.

5. Parametric analysis on MR frames

In order to investigate the seismic performance of composite frames with partial
shear connection and partial strength beam-to-column joints, a parametric analysis was
conducted on two four-storey MR frames depicted in Fig. 16. The central and the lateral
columns of Frame A are made up of HEB320 and of HEB260 profile, respectively; whilst
those of Frame B are made up of HEB 360 and of HEB280 profile, respectively. The centre-
to-centre between the frames was 4.8 m with a variable action Q k,i = 4 kN/m2 for the
floors and to 2 kN/m2 for the roofs. They were designed for a peak ground acceleration
(p.g.a.) of 0.5 g, with a Type 1 spectrum typical of magnitudes greater than 5.5 in Europe;
soil A; damping of 5%; and a q factor equal to 6 [13]. All simulations were performed
with an artificial accelerogram characterised by a total duration of 25 s and a strong motion
duration of about 20 s, as depicted in Fig. 17(a). The accelerogram is compatible with the
Eurocode 8 design spectrum as illustrated in Fig. 17(b).
Six factors are considered of relevance in the parametric analyses. For conciseness,
each factor is identified in the form of abcdef with a = A or B denoting Frame A or
B, respectively, and with the remaining letters defined as follows: (i) b = S or L being
the shear connection type with 16 mm or 22 mm diameter headed stud, respectively. The
beams and the concrete slabs are selected according to the shear connector type. In detail,
beams made up of IPE330 profile and slabs 120 mm thick are chosen for 16 mm diameter
studs; whilst beams made up of IPE400 profile and slabs 145 mm thick are selected for
22 mm diameter studs. (ii) c = 1, 2, 3 or 4 represents the shear connection degree FC,
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 83

Fig. 15. Validation of a 1D FE model for: (a) monotonic loading; (b) cyclic loading.

Fig. 16. Elevation of four-storey MR Frames A and B.

84 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 17. (a) Artificial accelerogram; (b) response spectra.

Table 5
Shear connection degree and damping ratio

Beam type c Shear connection degree Number of shear studs Damping ratio
22 16 Np (%)

FC 1 1.26 1.13 2 36 4
IFC 2 0.84 0.75 2 24 5
IC 3 0.63 0.56 2 18 6
LC 4 0.42 0.38 2 12 8

IFC, IC or LC outlined in Table 5, respectively. The shear connectors are embodied in

pairs and are located in span-wise uniform intervals as depicted in Fig. 1. On the basis
of experimental data [16], a specific damping ratio is associated to each shear connection
degree as listed in Table 5. (iii) d = M or C being the monotonic or cyclic shear forceslip
law, respectively; they were traced from test results [18] and are summarized in Table 6. As
illustrated in Fig. 7(b), monotonic responses deviate largely from cyclic responses, which
exhibit stiffness degradation and strength deterioration. Therefore, two types of hysteretic
models available in the Drain-3DX code [15], viz. a bilinear elasticplastic model with
the skeleton of the monotonic response and a bilinear elasticplastic model with pinching
endowed with the skeleton of the cyclic response, both depicted in Fig. 18, are adopted to
reproduce the two cases. In detail, the model with pinching has been tuned to dissipate the
same amount of energy wiped out through the experimental cyclic response. (iv) e = E or
A corresponds to the adopted effective breadth of the concrete slab provided by Eurocode
8 rules [13] and simulations performed with ABAQUS [14], respectively. (v) f = U
or S being the type of unstiffened or stiffened and strengthened beam-to-column joints,
respectively. In detail, the former is designed according to Eurocode 8 requirements so that
the shear panel and the beamcolumn connection can dissipate energy; whereas the latter
is stiffened in order to exhibit an elastic behaviour.
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 85

Fig. 18. Numerical representations of a shear connector response with DRAIN-3DX [15]. (a) Bilinear model;
(b) bilinear and pinching model.

Table 6
Parameters of the monotonic and the cyclic response of shear stud specimens

Loading ke kh ey eu py b d
(mm) regime (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (mm) (mm) (kN)

16 Monotonic 3450.00 98.00 0.096 14.70 330.7 S M

16 Cyclic 827.00 81.00 0.40 4.00 332.4 S C
22 Monotonic 768.40 13.54 0.69 11.15 530.9 L M
22 Cyclic 1008.45 37.58 0.36 5.47 364.0 L C

Table 7
Fundamental periods of some frames in sec

Frame FC IFC IC LC
(c = 1) (c = 2) (c = 3) (c = 4)

AScCEU 1.033 1.049 1.059 1.071

BScCEU 1.025 1.031 1.041 1.059
ALcCEU 0.947 0.956 0.963 0.972
AScMEU 1.030 1.045 1.055 1.067
AScCAU 1.037 1.054 1.065 1.078
AScCES 0.928 0.946 0.959 0.972

The fundamental periods of some frames are collected in Table 7. Rather small
variations of periods can be found due to the change of either the shear connection degree or
the forceslip law of shear connection, or the effective breadth. Meanwhile, more evident
is the effect of the stiffening and strengthening of beam-to-column joints and the usage of
different shear studs. The effect of the latter, however, is actually due both to the slabs and
to the beams which have a stronger IPE 400 profile with 22 mm diameter headed studs.
Representative results of the non-linear numerical investigation are provided hereafter.
The time histories of the interstorey drift of the second floor are shown in Fig. 19; whilst
both maximum interstorey drifts and maximum slabbeam slips are outlined in Table 8.
86 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 19. Interstorey drift responses of the second floor for Frames A and B.

The main outcome of the investigation is that all frames exhibit a satisfactory performance
under the earthquake with a p.g.a. = 0.5 g. A detailed discussion of the results follows.

5.1. Effect of degree of shear connection

An attentive reader may observe in Tables 5 and 7 that the increase of the fundamental
period for a frame with FC shear connection is within 5%, when two-thirds of shear
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 87

Table 8
Maximum interstorey drift and concrete slabbeam interface slip
+ +
c dmax dr max dr max / h emax emax c dmax dr max dr max / h emax emax
(mm) (mm) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (mm) (mm)

AScCEU 1 156.55 54.54 1.558 <4.0 >4.0 AScMEU 1 149.55 50.58 1.445 4.647 >14.7
2 154.56 53.49 1.528 1.014 0.995 2 153.51 53.10 1.517 1.018 0.867
3 151.63 52.38 1.497 0.798 0.792 3 149.85 51.92 1.483 0.881 0.845
4 141.15 48.80 1.394 0.617 0.764 4 139.51 48.22 1.378 0.811 0.866
BScCEU 1 140.76 49.29 1.408 <4.0 >4.0 AScCAU 1 157.87 54.85 1.567 1.016 3.419
2 140.85 48.34 1.381 1.434 1.480 2 157.21 54.72 1.563 <4.0 1.780
3 132.52 45.57 1.302 1.436 2.013 3 153.44 53.01 1.515 1.605 >4.0
4 130.23 44.26 1.265 0.590 0.774 4 143.56 49.48 1.414 0.656 0.631
ALcCEU 1 153.89 56.41 1.612 1.763 4.405 AScCES 1 157.90 57.17 1.633 <4.0 >4.0
2 145.68 52.84 1.510 0.513 0.538 2 150.90 53.83 1.538 1.860 1.298
3 137.39 49.65 1.419 0.461 0.492 3 141.61 50.63 1.447 1.478 1.365
4 123.42 44.16 1.262 0.444 0.447 4 124.33 44.19 1.263 0.843 1.638

connectors are removed. Comparing the time histories of AS1CEU and BS1CEU with
those of AS4CEU and BS4CEU, respectively in Fig. 19, no evident effect on the interstorey
drift response can be found. Nonetheless, the shear connection degree reduction leads to
a reduction of the maximum interstorey drift, as shown in Table 8. It must however be
pointed out that this favourable trend is also influenced by the concurrent increase of the
damping ratio outlined in Table 5, that is applied to all the structural members of the MR
frames as a stiffness-proportional damping. A complementary investigation has shown that
the frames AS4CEU and BS4CEU will experience a slightly larger interstorey drift than
their companion frames AS1CEU and BS1CEU, respectively, if the same damping ratio of
4% is employed. Therefore, a low shear connection degree is seen to be able to ensure a
favourable seismic performance of MR frames. Nonetheless, low-cycle fatigue phenomena
are significant in the low shear connection case [16] and, owing to limited data, Eurocode
8 limits the partial shear connection degree to 0.8 [13].
One may observe in Table 8 that the maximum slabbeam interface slip of a frame
with full shear connection is much larger than that of its companion frame with low shear
connection. Nevertheless, a detailed look at the slip distribution along the beams is needed
to interpret these results. The slip distributions of the shear studs and their evolutions at
the second floors of Frames AS4MEU and BS4MEU are depicted in Fig. 20(a) and (b),
respectively. It must be noted that the slabbeam relative slip at a beamcolumn interface
is always zero and for clarity, this is not indicated in Fig. 20. The slip distribution within
a beam span is symmetric under dead load and antisymmetric under seismic load. Hence
the combination of both loads results in that the shear connectors slip prevalently in the
same direction in a half span. As a result, a positive peak occurs at the right end of the first
span of Frame BS4MEU and a negative peak at the left end of the second span, as shown in
Fig. 20(b). Most of the shear studs in a beam with full shear connection remain elastic such
as those of AS1MEU and BS1MEU shown in Fig. 21, whilst most of the shear studs in a
weak beam such as others in Fig. 21 experience inelastic slips. As an elastic and a failed
88 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

Fig. 20. Distribution of concrete slabbeam interface slip of the second floor and its evolution: (a) Frame A;
(b) Frame B.

shear stud make little difference in cracking or crushing concrete, the large slips in the
composite frame with full shear connection indicated in Table 8 cannot imply an overall
failure of the shear connection. Conversely, the inelastic slips that occurred in beams
with low shear connection weaken inevitably the overall slabbeam connection. However,
the slip magnitudes listed in Table 8 are not large enough to endanger the integrity of
composite beams with low shear connection.

5.2. Effect of modelling parameters

The selection of the forceslip law of the shear connection, i.e. d = M or C, leads to
behaviours with marked differences. As evident from Table 6, the adopted initial stiffness
ke , yield slip e y and ultimate slip eu for d = M are different from those employed for
the case d = C. Moreover, the hysteretic rules of both cases differ significantly from
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 89

Fig. 21. Maximum slip distribution in the beams of the second floor: (a) Frame A; (b) Frame B.

each other as illustrated in Fig. 18. Nonetheless, the maximum interstorey drifts and the
maximum slips of AScCEU and of AScMEU, respectively, collected in Table 8 do not
exhibit large differences. This entails that the modelling of shear connectors entails mainly
local effects.
The effect of the effective breadth of the slab can be assessed in Table 8 by comparing
the results of the maximum slip of the frames AScCEU and AScCAU. It is worthwhile to
note that the distribution of the effective breadth according to the ABAQUS predictions
is non-uniform along the beam span. More specifically, the effective breadth is smaller at
beam end than at internal sections. This renders the slip of headed studs at the beam ends
more sensitive both to cracking or crushing of the slab.
The change in the effective breadth affects slightly the global behaviour of the MR
frames. The same conclusion can be drawn from the minor difference observed between
the fundamental periods of the frames AScCEU and AScCAU collected in Table 7.

5.3. Effect of stiffening and strengthening of beam-to-column joints

Both the stiffening and strengthening of beam-to-column composite joints cause a clear
variation of the fundamental periods, maximum interstorey drifts and maximum slips of the
frames AScCEU and AScCES as reported in Tables 7 and 8. In detail, there is a change of
90 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

about 10% in the fundamental period of frames. Moreover, the stiffening and strengthening
of beam-to-column joints causes an increase and a decrease in maximum interstorey drift
for frames with full and low shear connection, respectively; and it induces larger maximum
slips in the beams of the frame AScCES. The same phenomenon can be observed for the
slips of frames AS4MEU and BS4MEU compared with those of frames AS4MES and
BS4MES depicted in Fig. 21. In fact, both weak shear connections and partial-strength
joints can dissipate input energy during an earthquake, whilst in a stiffened and full strength
MR frame, more energy dissipation is forced in shear connections of composite beams.
In order to quantify the hysteretic energy dissipated by shear connectors, the equivalent
damping [30] has been evaluated for shear studs of frames BS4ECU and BS4ECS,
respectively. The equivalent damping of an individual stud ranges from 1.2% to 3.0% in
BS4ECU and from 1.3% to 3.4% in BS4ECS. Nevertheless, the mean value of equivalent
damping for the shear studs in the frame BS4ECS amounts to 2.6%, which is much
larger than that developed by shear connectors, viz. 1.7%, in the frame BS4ECU. These
results indicate that the shear connection cannot provide a significant source of dissipated
hysteretic energy for a MR frame; moreover, these damping values are lower than the
structural damping ratios listed in Table 5.

5.4. Effect of shear connector type

The use of shear connectors with diameter 16 and 22 mm represents typical cases in
engineering practice and hence requires the concurrent use of steel beams and concrete
slabs of different height as adopted in this investigation. According to the discussion above,
only small effects at the frame level are expected due to changes in shear connection degree
and material properties, resulting from the selection of different types of shear stud. In
order to examine the effect of the simultaneous modification of beam sections, it is more
informative to inspect the relations between AScCEU, ALcCEU and AScCES provided by
the results of Tables 7 and 8. The change determines the same effects on the fundamental
period and on the maximum interstorey drift of a composite frame as the stiffening of
beam-to-column joints. Interestingly, the former reduces the maximum slip, contrarily to
an increase by the latter. As a matter of fact, less energy is dissipated in shear connectors
embedded in stiffer beams.

6. Conclusions and perspectives

The objective of this study has been the investigation of the seismic performance of
composite moment-resisting frames with full and partial shear connection subjected to
seismic loading. Six substructures of such frames in which the global mechanisms are
obtained by localising dissipative phenomena in beam-to-column joints and in composite
beam ends have been tested under cyclic loading, demonstrating their satisfactory
performance in terms of energy dissipation and ductility. The three-dimensional finite
element analysis of composite substructures with partial composite action and partial-
strength joints has allowed some inelastic phenomena characterising their behaviour, such
as the distribution of longitudinal stresses in the composite slab and the distribution of
stresses in the column web panel and flanges to be understood. Moreover, the analyses
 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792 91

have demonstrated the adequacy of three-dimensional finite element models based on the
smeared crack approach.
In order to perform non-linear dynamic analyses of moment-resisting frames, a one-
dimensional finite element model has been conceived with structural elements based on the
fibre-concept available in the Drain-3DX code [15]. Hence, typical modelling assumptions
adopted in the one-dimensional model have been validated both with experimental data
and three-dimensional models of substructures.
The parametric analyses limited to two four-storey moment-resisting frames have
revealed that composite frames with low shear connection degree of about 0.4 perform
as well as their companion frames with full shear connection under severe seismic loading.
Generally, only shear connectors at beam ends of beams with full shear connection
dissipate energy whilst all shear connectors contribute to the energy dissipation of beams
with a low shear connection degree. Nonetheless, the shear connection degree should be
high enough in order to protect from failure shear connectors in the central part of beams.
In fact owing to limited data and as low-cycle fatigue phenomena are significant in the low
shear connection case, at present Eurocode 8 limits the partial shear connection degree to
0.8 [13].
Since the shear connectors in the middle part of a beam with full connection remain
elastic, only those in the middle of a beam with low connection can be expected to dissipate
energy during the cracking or crushing of a slab. Although their equivalent damping is not
very high, they could reduce the ductility demand on other parts of a composite frame, such
as beam ends or partial strength beam-to-column joints. This could provide a further means
to achieve a favourable performance of a composite moment-resisting frame, in addition
to the benefit of cost reduction.
The extension of the parametric study performed in this work to other moment-resisting
frames clearly imposes further analyses. Finally, simulation and implementation in FE
codes of the deteriorating behaviour of dissipative components of composite members and
beam-to-column joints by means of robust hysteretic models deserves further studies.

Acknowledgements
The results presented in this work were carried out in the framework of Italian research
projects. The financial support of MIUR (Italian Ministry for Education, University and
Research) is gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] Leon RT. Analysis and design problems for PR composite frames subjected to seismic loads. Engineering
Structures 1998;20(46):36471.
[2] Hirst MJS, Yeo MF. The analysis of composite beams using standard finite element programs. Computers
& Structures 1980;(11):2337.
[3] Razaqpur AG, Nofal M. A finite element for modeling the nonlinear behavior of shear connectors in
composite structures. Computers & Structures 1989;32(1):16974.
[4] Sebastian WM, McConnel RE. Nonlinear FE analysis of steelconcrete composite structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(6):66274.
[5] Arizumi Y, Hamada S, Kajita T. Elasticplastic analysis of composite beams with incomplete interaction
by finite element method. Computers & Structures 1981;14(56):45362.
92 O.S. Bursi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 6792

[6] Daniels BJ, Crisinel M. Composite slab behaviour and strength analysis. Part I: calculation procedure.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1993;119(1):1635.
[7] Fang LX, Chan SL, Wong YL. Numerical analysis of composite frames with partial shear-stud interaction
by one element per member. Engineering Structures 2000;22:1285300.
[8] Salari MR, Spacone E. Analysis of steelconcrete composite frames with bond-slip. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(11):124350.
[9] Ayoub A, Filippou FC. Mixed formulation of nonlinear steelconcrete composite beam element. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(3):37181.
[10] Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Analysis of continuous composite beams including partial
interaction and bond. Journal Structural Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(11):128894.
[11] Zaremba CJ. Strength of steel frames using partial composite girders. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 1988;114(8):174160.
[12] Wang X, Rammerstorfer FG. Determination of effective breadth and effective width of stiffened plates by
finite strip analyses. Thin-Walled Structures 1996;26(4):26186.
[13] prEN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium; 2002.
[14] ABAQUS users manualversion 6.2.4. Pawtucket (RI): Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorenson; 2001.
[15] Campbell S, Powell GH, Prakash V. DRAIN-3DX Base program description and user guide. Report No.
UCB/SEMM-94/07; 1994.
[16] Bursi OS, Gramola G. Behaviour of composite substructures with full and partial shear connection under
quasi-static cyclic and pseudo-dynamic displacements. Materials and Structures, RILEM 2000;33:15463.
[17] Hajjar JF, Dexter RJ, Lee D, Cotton S, Opard S, Ye Y. Seismic detailing of column stiffeners in steel
moment-resisting connections. In: Proc. of the fourth int. conf. on the behaviour of steel structures in seismic
areas STESSA 2003, 912 June, Naples, 2003. p. 30712.
[18] Bursi OS, Gramola G. Behaviour of headed shear connectors under low-cycle high amplitude displacements.
Materials and Structures, RILEM 1999;32:2907.
[19] ECCS-109, Design of composite joints for buildings. Technical Committee 11Composite Structures.
ECCS; 1999.
[20] prEN 1994-1, Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1: General rules for
buildings. CEN; 2001.
[21] Zandonini R, Bursi OS. Cyclic behavior of headed stud shear connectors. In: Composite construction in
steel and concrete IV. ASCE, Banff, Canada; 2002. p. 47082.
[22] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982. p. 270.
[23] Stevens NJ, Uzumeri SM, Collins MP, Will GT. Constitutive model for reinforced concrete finite element
analysis. ACI Structural Journal 1991;88(1):4959.
[24] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain model for confined concrete. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1988;114(8):180426.
[25] Hilleborg A, Moder M, Peterson PE. Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means
of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cement and Concrete Research 1976;(6):77382.
[26] Katsikadelis JT, Sapountzakis EJ. A realistic estimation of the effective breadth of ribbed plates.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 2002;39:897910.
[27] Krawinkler H. Shear in beamcolumn joints in seismic design of steel frames. Engineering Journal, AISC
1978;5(3):8291.
[28] prEN 1993-1. 2000. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1: General rules for buildings, CEN; 2000.
[29] Bursi OS, Zandonini R. Non-linear analysis of full and partial shear connection composite substructures.
In: Composite construction in steel and concrete IV. ASCE, Banff, Canada; 2002. p. 24961.
[30] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. 2nd ed. Upper
Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 2001.