Article

Analysis of Equivalent Flexural Stiffness of Steel–Concrete

Composite Beams in Frame Structures
Mu‐Xuan Tao 1, Zi‐Ang Li 2, Qi‐Liang Zhou 2 and Li‐Yan Xu 1,3,*

1 Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry,
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; [email protected]
2 Beijing Engineering Research Center of Steel and Concrete Composite Structures, Tsinghua University,

Beijing 100084, China; [email protected] (Z.‐A.L.); [email protected] (Q.‐L.Z.)

3 School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

* Correspondence: [email protected];

Abstract: Vertical deflection of a frame beam is an important indicator in the limit‐state analysis of
frame structures, particularly for steel–concrete composite beams, which are usually designed with
large spans and heavy loads. In this study, the equivalent flexural stiffness of composite frame
beams is analysed to evaluate their vertical deflection. A theoretical beam model with a spring con‐
straint boundary and varied stiffness segments is established to consider the influence of both the
rotation restraint stiffness at the beam ends and the cracked section in the negative moment region,
such that the inelastic bending deformation of the composite beams can be elaborately described.
By an extensive parametric analysis, a fitting formula for evaluating the equivalent flexural stiffness
of the composite beams, including the effects of the rotational constraint and the concrete cracking,
is obtained. The validity of the proposed formula is demonstrated by comparing its calculation ac‐
Citation: Tao, M.‐X.; Li, Z.‐A.; curacy with those of existing design formulas for analysing the equivalent flexural stiffness of the
Zhou, Q.‐L.; Xu, L.‐Y. Analysis of composite beam members. Moreover, its utility is further verified by conducting non‐linear finite
Equivalent Flexural Stiffness of element simulations of structural systems to examine the serviceability limit state and the entire
Steel–Concrete Composite Beams in process evolution of beam deflections under vertical loading. Finally, to facilitate the practical ap‐
Frame Structures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, plication of the proposed formula in engineering design, a simplified method to calculate the de‐
10305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ flection of composite beams, which utilises the internal force distribution of elastic analysis, is pre‐
app112110305 sented based on the concept of equivalent flexural stiffness.

Academic Editors: Jong Wan Hu Keywords: equivalent flexural stiffness; rotation constraint; composite beam; negative moment
and Junwon Seo
area; deflection

Received: 7 October 2021

Accepted: 30 October 2021
Published: 2 November 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu‐ Composite frame structural systems have been widely employed in high‐rise build‐
tral with regard to jurisdictional ings, girder bridges, and other structures with large span and heavy loads, because of
claims in published maps and institu‐ their favourable structural performance and economic benefit [1–5]. Compared with
tional affiliations. simply supported beams, the continuous steel–concrete frame beams can obtain a signif‐
icant increase in structural stiffness, such that they have the advantages of higher span
ratio, less deflection, and fundamental frequency of vibration. However, for a continuous
composite beam in frame structures, the concrete slab over the intermediate supports suf‐
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li‐
fers a tension condition and may be cracked when in service. Due to the cracking of the
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
concrete slab under negative bending, the sectional flexural stiffness values of the contin‐
This article is an open access article
uous composite beams in the positive and negative moment areas are different. The var‐
distributed under the terms and con‐
ied sectional flexural stiffness along the member length induces a remarkable reduction
ditions of the Creative Commons At‐
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre‐
in the integral rigidity of the composite frame beams and should be considered in their
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
limit‐state analysis [6]. To date, many researchers have focused on the deflection analysis

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112110305 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 2 of 21

and design method of the composite beams with full and partial interactions [7–10]. More‐
over, for a frame beam under vertical loads, the distribution of the bending moment and
the cracking region are closely related to the deformation capacity of the beams and the
columns connected to it, i.e., the rotational constraint condition at the frame beam end.
This complex boundary condition increases the difficulty in evaluating the flexural stiff‐
ness of the continuous composite beam.
The mechanism behaviour of steel–concrete composite beams has been investigated
in previous researches [11–13]. Moreover, in order to facilitate the design of the composite
frame structures, extensive experimental and numerical researches have also been con‐
ducted to focus on the flexural behaviour of the steel–concrete composite beams. New‐
mark [14] was the first to develop an elastic analysis theory of composite beams, including
the slip that occurs in the concrete slab–steel beam interface. The basic equilibrium and
compatibility equations for a beam element were established to calculate the deflection
and analyse the stresses distribution of composite beams. Considering the slip effect at the
steel beam–concrete slab interface, analytical models and design formulae were presented
by Lawson et al. [15] to predict the effective stiffness of composite beams. Ding et al. [16]
and Liu et al. [17,18] investigated the flexure behaviour of composite beams through ex‐
perimental and numerical studies on simply supported composite beams under the con‐
dition of both positive and negative bending, and also verified the calculation method
proposed by Tao and Nie [19] to estimate the flexural capacity of composite beams. Based
on the realistic discrete shear force distribution, Zhang et al. [20] modelled the shear studs
of composite beams by using a set of nonlinear springs, such that the interaction between
the steel beam and concrete slab could be elaborately simulated. Lou et al. [21] worked on
the long‐term behaviour of the composite beam and carried out a numerical study to pre‐
dict long‐term deformation, which focused on the effects of concrete creep and shrinkage.
Fragiacomo et al. [22] proposed a formulation for the evaluation of composite beam re‐
sponse under varied monotonic load levels, including both short‐ and long‐term loading.
To improve the bending capacity and anti‐slip performance of composite beams, Wang et
al. [23] proposed new assembled monolithic steel‐prestressed concrete composite beams
and demonstrated their superiority in flexure capacity by experimental investigations.
With a growing demand in engineering applications of composite beam systems, re‐
searches on performance of composite beams with varied types of configurations—such
as high‐strength steel concrete composite beams [24], composite beams with different slab
materials and shear transfer mechanisms [25], prefabricated composite beams with bolt
shear connectors [26], among others—also have been conducted.
Despite the success of the foregoing studies in the prediction of the flexural behav‐
iour of composite beams by incorporating various factors, such as interlayer slip, cracked
concrete, material nonlinearity, loading conditions, and member configurations, most of
the aforementioned methods focus on the independent composite beam without consid‐
ering the realistic boundary conditions at the beams ends. In the calculation of the flexure
stiffness for composite frame beams, the exiting methods generally take the boundary
constraints of the beam component as fixed ends, and thereby lead to an inaccurate eval‐
uation of the cracking effect in the negative moment region. For example, when the stiff‐
ness ratio of a frame beam to the adjacent beam and column is relatively small, particu‐
larly for composite beams employed under large‐span and heavy loading conditions as
discussed by Nie et al. [27], the cracking area of the concrete slab and its influence on the
flexural stiffness would be overestimated.
As for the consideration of the flexural stiffness reduction in the negative moment
region for a composite beam, two methods are frequently adopted in the structural design
procedure. One of the most commonly used methods is dividing the entire continuous
composite beam into several segments with different section stiffness. Specifically, these
are negative moment segments with reduced section stiffness (EI−) at the beam ends and
a positive moment segment with normal section stiffness (EI+) in the middle. However,
the division into beam segments is subjective, and the ranges of positive and negative
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 3 of 21

moment regions are determined roughly. For example, considering the Chinese Code [28]
and Eurocode 4 [29], at each end, 15% of the length of a beam is suggested as one of the
negative moment segments, and the remainder of the span is defined as the positive mo‐
ment segment. Another simplified method to evaluate the equivalent flexural stiffness of
a continuous composite beam is employing the weighted average of EI+ and EI−, which is
calculated using Equation (1):
𝐸𝐼 𝛽𝐸𝐼 1 𝛽 𝐸𝐼 , (1)
where β is the weight factor, which is not greater than 1. In American codes ANSI/AISC
[30], β is recommended as 0.4 for a composite frame beam under vertical loads. Liew et al.
[31] showed that the elastic behaviour of a composite frame beam can be simulated well
when β = 0.6.
Both of the above methods are based on a fundamental assumption that the length
ratio of the negative moment region and the entire continuous composite beam is con‐
stant. However, this assumption evidently does not hold when considering the actual
boundary constraint conditions of the continuous beams in a practical composite frame
structural system. As shown in Figure 1, the distribution of the internal force and the
cracking region of a composite beam are closely related to the deformation capacity of the
beams and columns connected to it, i.e., the rotational constraint condition at the frame
beam end. If the rotational restraint stiffness at the beam ends is sufficiently strong, the
frame beam can be considered similar to a fixed beam, and thus, the cracking region of
the concrete slab is relatively large. Conversely, when the rotational restraint stiffness is
relatively weak, such as in the case of composite beams designed with large stiffness for
large‐span and heavy loading conditions, the frame beam can be considered as a simply
supported beam. Consequently, the cracking region of the concrete slab is small.

Figure 1. Bending mechanism of the composite frame beam in a structural system. ((a) Composite frame structural sys‐
tem;(b) Composite frame beam;(c) Deformation and bending moment diagram of composite frame beam.)

In this study, a theoretical beam model with a spring constraint boundary and varied
stiffness segments is established to describe the inelastic bending deformation of compo‐
site frame beams. The effects of the rotation restraint stiffness at the beam boundaries as
well as the concrete slab cracking in the negative moment region are evaluated by a para‐
metric analysis. By identifying the key factors affecting the flexural stiffness of composite
beams, a design formula for calculating the equivalent flexural stiffness of a frame beam
and a simplified method to analyse its deflection under vertical loads in engineering prac‐
tice are proposed. The accuracy of the proposed design method is verified by comparing
its calculated results with those obtained using existing design formulas and finite ele‐
ment (FE) analysis.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 4 of 21

2. Theoretical Analysis
After the concrete slab cracking in the negative moment area, the effective flexural
stiffness reduces and the composite beam performs an inelastic deformation. To discuss
the inelastic bending deformation of composite frame beams, a theoretical model is estab‐
lished for a composite beam subject to a uniformly distributed vertical load. As shown in
Figure 2, the composite beam is divided into three segments with different section flexural
stiffness depending on the cracking of its concrete slab. For the middle segment of the
beam, the concrete slab remains intact under a positive moment, and the section stiffness
is defined as the normal value (EI+). However, the segments at the two ends of the beam
suffer cracking in the concrete slab, and hence, the reduced section stiffness (EI−) is chosen.
The spring constraint boundaries are also included in the proposed model to simulate in
detail the rotation constraint imposed by the adjacent beams and columns in the frame
structural system. As the full shear connection is assumed for all composite beams dis‐
cussed in this study, the slip effect at the steel–concrete interfaces is neglected in the the‐
oretical model as well as in the numerical model discussed in the following sections. This
simplified treatment in modelling is validated to be reasonable by previous studies [3,32],
especially when considering the slip constraint provided by the beam–column joints.

Figure 2. Theoretical model of the composite frame beam under uniform vertical loads. ((a) Boundary constraints and
deformation;(b) Moment and section stiffness distribution.)

First, the internal force distribution of the composite beam is derived by the theoret‐
ical model. The reaction force at the left support is obtained from the equilibrium condi‐
tion as
1
𝐹 𝑞𝑙 𝑘 𝜃 𝑘 𝜃 ⁄𝑙 , (2)
2
where q is the uniformly distributed vertical load applied on the composite beam; l is the
length of the beam span; k1 and k2 represent the rotation restraint stiffness of the spring
boundaries at the left and right ends of the beam, respectively; and θ1 and θ2 are the rota‐
tion angles at the two ends of the composite beam under the vertical load, respectively.
The moment distribution, M(x), of the composite beam can be expressed by the fol‐
lowing equation:
1
𝑀 𝑥 𝐹𝑥 𝑘 𝜃 𝑞𝑥 , (3)
2
where x is the distance of the calculated point to the left end support.
Based on the theory of material mechanics, the bending moment and vertical deflec‐
tion of the composite beam satisfy the following relationship:
𝑑 𝑤 𝑥
𝐸𝐼 𝑀 𝑥 , (4)
𝑑𝑥
where subscript i denotes the three segments of the composite beam, which are numbered
from left to right as 1, 2, and 3, respectively; wi(x) represents the distribution of the vertical
deflection for the corresponding beam segment; and EIi is the bending stiffness of the ith
beam segment, being EI− or EI+ depending on the segment. The contribution of reinforced
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 5 of 21

steel rebars in the concrete slab is assumed to be negligible [3], and is thereby ignored in
the calculation of EI− and EI+.
The rotation angle distribution of the composite beam can be derived by integrating
Equation (4) as follows:
1 1
𝐸𝐼 𝜃 𝑥 𝑀 𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝐹𝑥 𝑘 𝜃𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝐶 (5)
2 6
where θi(x) is the rotation angle distribution function of the corresponding beam segment;
and C1i is the integration constant, which is determined by the boundary conditions of the
composite beam.
The distribution function of the vertical deflection can be further derived by integrat‐
ing Equation (5) as follows:
1 1 1
𝐸𝐼 𝑤 𝑥 𝜃 𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝐹𝑥 𝑘 𝜃𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝐶 𝑥 𝐶 , (6)
6 2 24
where C2i is the integration constant, which is determined by the boundary conditions of
the composite beam.
The boundary conditions of the composite beam in the frame structural system are
as follows:
𝑀 𝑥 𝑀 𝑥 𝑀
⎧ 𝜃 0 𝜃
⎪
⎪ 𝜃 𝑙 𝜃
⎪ 𝑤 0 0
𝑤 𝑙 0 , (7)
⎨ 𝜃 𝑥 𝜃 𝑥
⎪ 𝜃 𝑥 𝜃 𝑥
⎪
⎪ 𝑤 𝑥 𝑤 𝑥
⎩ 𝑤 𝑥 𝑤 𝑥
where x1 and x2 represent the coordinates positions where the bending moments reach the
value of cracking moment M0 on the left and right sides of the composite beam, respec‐
tively.
Using the first boundary condition function expressed in Equation (7), the rotation
angles at the beam ends—θ1 and θ2—can be expressed as follows:
𝑞𝑥 𝑥 2𝑀
⎧ 𝜃
⎪ 2𝑘
. (8)
⎨𝜃 𝑙 𝑞 𝑙𝑞𝑥 𝑙𝑞𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝑥 2𝑀
⎪ 2𝑘
⎩
By substituting Equation (7) into Equations (5) and (6), all the integration constants
(C1i and C2i, i = 1, 2, 3) can be eliminated, and thus, a non‐linear equation system of x1 and
x2 is obtained.
𝑘 6𝐸𝐼 𝐼 𝑞𝑥 𝑥 𝐼 𝑘 𝑞 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑥 𝐼 𝑘 𝑞 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑥 12𝑀 𝐸𝐼 𝐼 𝐼 𝑘 𝑥 𝐼 𝑘 𝑥
⎧
⎪ 6𝐸𝐼 𝐼 𝑞 𝑙 𝑥 𝑥 𝑙 𝐼 𝑘 𝑞 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑥 𝐼 𝑘 𝑞 𝑥 3𝑥 𝑥 6𝑙𝑥 𝑥 3𝑙 𝑥 𝑥 2𝑙
𝑘
⎪ 12𝑀 𝐸𝐼 𝐼 𝐼 𝑘 𝑥 𝐼 𝑘 𝑙 𝐼 𝑘 𝑥
. (9)
⎨ 𝑘 𝑥 𝐼 𝑞𝑥 2𝐼 𝑞𝑥 𝑥 𝐼 𝑞𝑥 2𝐼 𝑞𝑥 𝑥 12𝐼 𝑀 12𝐼 𝑀
⎪
⎪ 12𝐸𝐼 𝐼 𝑙𝑞 𝑙 𝑥 𝑥 𝑙 𝐼 𝑘 𝑞 𝑥 2𝑥 𝑥 𝐼 𝑘 𝑞 𝑥 2𝑥 𝑥 6𝑙 𝑥 𝑥 4𝑙 𝑥 𝑥 3𝑙
⎩ 12𝑀 2𝐸𝐼 𝐼 𝑙 𝐼 𝑘 𝑥 𝐼 𝑘 𝑙 𝐼 𝑘 𝑥
The non‐linear system of equations can be solved using the Levenberg–Marquardt
method; thus, all the parameters in Equation (9) can be determined by the given boundary
conditions in practical cases. When the values of x1 and x2 are determined, the vertical
deflection distribution as well as the equivalent flexural stiffness can be calculated by the
following steps:
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 6 of 21

1. x1 and x2 are substituted into Equation (7), and the rotation angles at the beam ends
(θ1 and θ2) are solved;
2. θ1 and θ2 are substituted into Equations (2) and (3) to solve the bending moment dis‐
tribution function, M(x);
3. M(x) is integrated using Equations (5) and (6), and the boundary condition functions
(Equation (7)) are used to determine the integration constants (C1i and C2i, i = 1, 2, 3).
Therefore, the vertical deflection distributions of each beam segment (wi(x)) and the
entire composite beam (w(x)) can be obtained.

3. Parameter Analysis
3.1. Rotation Constraints at Beam Ends
For a composite beam in a frame structural system, the rotation constraints at the
beam ends are closely related to the surrounding beams and columns connected to it. In
the theoretical model of the composite beam established above, the rotation constraints at
the beam ends are simulated by spring constraint boundaries. To accurately evaluate the
restraint stiffness at the beam ends, an equal‐span composite frame structural system was
selected to study the calculation method of parameter ki (i = 1, 2).
For the planar beam–column joint shown in Figure 3, the rotation restraint stiffness
at the beam end (kb) and column end (kc) can be calculated using Equation (10):
𝑘 𝑘cu 𝑘bl 𝑘cb
, (10)
𝑘 𝑘bl 𝑘cb 𝑘br
where kcu, kbl, kcb, and kbr represent the rotation restraint stiffness provided by the sur‐
rounding beams and columns.

Figure 3. Composition of end rotation constraints stiffness of the beams and columns in the frame.
((a) Rotation constraints at beam ends;(b) Rotation constraints at column ends.)

According to the mechanical principle of frame structure systems, the rotation re‐
straint stiffness provided by a structural member to its adjacent members can be defined
as a multiple of its linear stiffness:
𝐸𝐼
𝑘 𝑐𝑖 𝑐 , (11)
𝑙
where c is the coefficient determined by the constraint condition at the other end; i is the
linear stiffness of the member; EI is the flexural stiffness of the member; and l is the length
of the member.
To simplify the calculation, all the beams and columns are assumed to have the same
linear stiffness, i.e., kcu = kcb and kbl = kbr. Thus, in the equal‐span frame structural system,
the rotation restraint stiffness at the ends of any beam or column member are the same,
except for the case in which the beam or column member is located in the side span or top
story. Thus, Equation (10) can be rewritten as Equation (12):
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 7 of 21

𝑘 𝑐 𝑖 2𝑐 𝑖
, (12)
𝑘 2𝑐 𝑖 𝑐 𝑖
where ib and ic are the linear stiffness of an adjacent beam and column, respectively, and
c1 and c2 are the undetermined parameters that need to be calibrated by constraint stiffness
kb and kc.
For a certain frame structural system with the given values of ib and ic, the values of
c1 and c2 can be calculated by iteration. The calculation results indicate that the values of
c1 and c2 are mainly related to the linear stiffness ratio of the beam and column (δ), as
illustrated in Figure 4. In general, the value of δ varies from 0.1 to 5 and remains not
greater than 1 for a composite frame structural system [28]. Within this parameter range,
typically c1 decreases with the increase in δ, whereas c2 increases. However, it is noted from
the figure that the values of c1 and c2 vary very little with δ in the given interval. Therefore,
the average values of c1 and c2 (c1 = 3.85, c2 = 3.60) are used in Equation (12) and, thus, the
rotation restraint stiffness at the composite beam ends can be approximately calculated
using Equation (13):
𝑘 3.85𝑛𝑖 3.60𝑚𝑖 , (13)
where n and m are, respectively, the numbers of beams and columns connected to the
investigated composite beam.
Based on the displacement method in structural mechanics, the rotation constraint
provided by a fixed supported beam to a far end is four times the linear stiffness of the
member, whereas that by a hinged supported beam is thrice the linear stiffness. As the
real boundary condition of a composite frame beam is between those of perfect fixed and
hinged supports, the range of the rotation constraint coefficient should be from 3 to 4. This
is consistent with the theoretical analysis of coefficients ib and ic, as previously discussed.

Figure 4. Variation in c1 and c2 with beam‐to‐column line stiffness ratio. ((a) Relationship between c1 and δ;(b) Relation‐
ship between c2 and δ.)

3.2. Identification of Critical Parameters

Using the theoretical model described in Section 2, an extensive parametric analysis
was first conducted for the composite beam with equal rotation constraints at both ends,
i.e., for the case of k1 = k2 (the unequal constraint case will be discussed in a subsequent
section). The vertical deflection of the composite beam was proved to be primarily related
to only three key parameters: (1) the linear stiffness of the composite beam before the con‐
crete slab cracking (denoted as i+ = EI+/l); (2) the linear stiffness of the composite beam after
the concrete slab cracking (denoted as i+ = EI+/l); and (3) the rotation constraint stiffness of
the composite beam at both ends (denoted as k = k1 = k2). In addition, it was observed that,
when these three factors change proportionally, i.e., increase or decrease simultaneously
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 8 of 21

by the same multiple, the structural responses—vertical deflection, internal force, and
equivalent flexural stiffness—of the concerned composite frame beam remained invariant.
Therefore, two dimensionless parameters were identified as the dominant factors for the
vertical deformation of composite beams. These are (1) the ratio of the rotation restraint
stiffness and the linear stiffness of the composite beam after the concrete slab cracking
(denoted as K = k/i−), and (2) the ratio of the linear stiffness of the composite beam before
and after the concrete slab cracking (denoted as α = i+/i−).
To facilitate the detailed parameter analysis of the equivalent flexural stiffness of
composite beams, the regular ranges of critical parameters K and α were determined
based on the engineering practice. Parameter K represents the effect of the rotation con‐
straints at the beam ends on the calculation of the equivalent flexural stiffness. This is
discussed for two scenarios: common frame structures designed with equal‐span arrange‐
ments and composite beams designed with large spans and heavy loads. For the case of
common frame structures, the linear stiffness ratio of the composite beam and the column
should range from 0.2 to 1, and thus, the range of parameter K was calculated to be 10–40
using Equation (13). For the case of composite beams designed with large spans and heavy
loads, the range of parameter K was 4–10 based on relevant practical engineering exam‐
ples [27].
Parameter α reflects the effect of the concrete slab cracking on the equivalent flexural
stiffness of a composite beam, and it is also referred to as the stiffness amplification coef‐
ficient in structure design codes. According to the JGJ 138‐2016 Chinese Code for Design
of Composite Structure [33], the stiffness amplification coefficient, α, is calculated using
Equation (14),
2.2
𝛼 .
1, (14)
𝐼 /𝐼 0.5
where Ic is the equivalent moment of inertia of the concrete slab section and Is is the mo‐
ment of inertia for a pure steel beam section.
Nie and co‐workers [34,35] have completed numerous numerical studies on compo‐
site beams that considered the cracking effect of the concrete slab. Based on their analysis
results, the value of parameter α is found to range from 1.1 to 7, which covers most engi‐
neering application cases of composite beams.

3.3. Consideration of Unequal Rotation Constraints at Beam Ends

For the case in which the rotation restraint stiffness at the left and right ends of a
composite beam are unequal, the rotation constraints at both the need to be calculated
independently. Two additional variables—total restraint stiffness (ktot) and distribution
coefficient (s)—are introduced to express the rotation restraint stiffness at the left and right
ends of the composite beam as follows:
𝑘 𝑠𝑘 , (15)

𝑘 1 𝑠 𝑘 . (16)
Generally, the values of s range from 0.3 to 0.7 in engineering practices. When varia‐
ble s = 0.5, the constraint stiffness at both the beam ends are the same, and, when it deviates
from 0.5, the difference between them increases. By keeping parameters α and ktot con‐
stant, the theoretical calculation results of the equivalent flexural stiffness of the composite
beam are obtained, as shown in Figure 5. In the figure, the vertical coordinate axis repre‐
sents the stiffness ratio of the composite beam to the steel beam, EIeq/EI−, and the horizon‐
tal coordinate axis represents the variation in s.
This indicates that, when parameter ktot is relatively small, EIeq/EI− decreases as vari‐
able s deviates from 0.5. Conversely, when variable ktot is relatively large, EIeq/ EI− increases
when variable s deviates from 0.5. Compared with the case when variable s = 0.5, the fluc‐
tuation range of EIeq/EI− does not exceed 3%. Therefore, the case in which the rotation
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 9 of 21

restraint stiffness values are unequal at the two beam ends can be simplified as the equal
rotation constraint case using an average value of the rotation restraint stiffness calculated
by
𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 ⁄2. (17)

Figure 5. Influence of end rotational constraint stiffness distribution on the equivalent flexural stiffness of the composite
beam. ((a)α=2, ktot=10;(b) α=2, ktot=100; (c) α=4, ktot=10; (d) α=4, ktot=50; (e) α=4, ktot=100; (f) α=6, ktot=10; (g) α=6, ktot=50; (h) α=6,
ktot=100.)

3.4. Length of the Negative Moment Region

The length of the negative moment region is an important indicator in the design of
composite frame beams. As shown in Figure 6, the length of the negative moment region
is closely related to critical parameters K and α. Generally, the length of the negative mo‐
ment region increases with the increase in parameter K. When parameter K, indicating the
constraint stiffness at the ends of the composite beam, is zero, the frame beam degenerates
to a simply supported beam, and thus, there is no negative moment region in the compo‐
site beam. As parameter K increases from 0 to 10, the length of the negative moment region
increases rapidly, whereas when K exceeds 10, it keeps increasing, but at a relatively lower
rate.
As discussed in Section 3.2, parameter K in the range of 0 to 10 represents composite
beams designed with large spans and heavy loading conditions. In this case, the length of
the negative moment region is sensitive to the constraint stiffness at the beam ends; thus,
parameter K significantly affects the cracking of the concrete slab and the flexural stiffness
distribution of the composite beam. However, in the traditional method for evaluating the
effective flexural stiffness of a composite beam, the length of the negative moment region
is generally taken as a constant without considering the boundary conditions. For exam‐
ple, GB 50017‐2017 [28] and Eurocode 4 [29] define the negative moment regions as the
segments with a 15% length of the span at both the beam ends and assign EI− as the section
flexural stiffness of the negative moment segments. The horizontal line representing the
ratio of the length of the negative moment region to the beam span at 15% is also plotted
in Figure 6. It indicates that a fixed value of 0.15 overestimates the length of the negative
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 10 of 21

moment region, and overstating the cracking effect of the concrete slab results in a rela‐
tively smaller calculated value of the flexural stiffness of the composite beam.

Figure 6. Variation in the length of the negative moment region with critical parameters K and α.

When parameter K is fixed, the length of the negative moment region decreases with
the increase in parameter α, i.e., the ratio of the linear stiffness of the composite beam
before and after the concrete slab cracking. This is because, for a composite beam with a
large sectional flexural stiffness in the non‐cracked area, a large proportion of the internal
force is shared by the positive moment region, and consequently, the cracking area, i.e.,
the length of the negative moment region, decreases.

3.5. Equivalent Flexural Stiffness

For the convenience of structural design in engineering applications, an equivalent
flexural stiffness represented by the weighted average of EI+ and EI− is frequently used to
evaluate the integral stiffness of a composite beam. The weight factor of the equivalent
stiffness—parameter β in Equation (1)—can be calculated using the theoretical model pre‐
sented in Section 2. The relationship between the weight factor and the rotational con‐
straint stiffness (described by parameters K and α) is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Variation in the weight factor of equivalent stiffness with end rotational restraint stiff‐
ness.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 11 of 21

It can be seen that the computed value of β increases as parameter K increases, which
indicates that a strong rotational constraint results in a small equivalent flexural stiffness.
In addition, factor β initially increases rapidly when K is relatively small and subsequently
changes gradually, approaching saturation. When parameter K is fixed, weight factor β
increases as parameter α reduces, and the difference in the equivalent flexural stiffness is
larger when K ranges from 10 to 20. In Figure 7, the calculated results of weight factor β
are also compared with the recommended values of ANSI/AISC and Liew et al. It can be
concluded that the fixed value of weight factor β cannot accurately describe the equivalent
flexural stiffness of the composite beam because the effects of the boundary rotation con‐
straints and the concrete slab cracking are not elaborately considered in most cases. In
particular, for the composite beams designed with a large span and heavy loading, the
rotation constraints at the beam ends are relatively weak and parameter K is small (e.g.,
4–10) [27]. Fixed weight factor β, suggested by the previously mentioned studies, signifi‐
cantly underestimate the integral rigidity of the composite beam. For the commonly used
frame structural system arranged with equal spans, parameter K varies within the values
of 10–40 and parameter α is approximately 0.4. In this case, the recommended value of β
provided in ANSI/AISC can reasonably describe the deformation mechanism and flexural
stiffness of the composite beams. In comparison, the value of 0.6 suggested by Liew et al.
leads to a remarkable difference from the theoretical results of β for both the large‐ and
common‐span beams.
Based on the parameter analysis, as prescribed, the rotational constraint condition is
proved to have the dominant effect on the equivalent flexural stiffness of the composite
beam. To consider the critical parameters of the rotational constraint—K and α—in eval‐
uating the equivalent flexural stiffness, a simplified formula for calculating weight factor
β is proposed by curve fitting, as expressed in Equation (18):
0.02𝛼 0.49 𝐾 .9
𝛽 . (18)
𝐾 .9 5.7𝛼 21.7𝛼 35.6
In Figure 7, the change in weight factor β calculated using Equation (18) is repre‐
sented by solid lines. It can be seen that the calculated results of weight factor β agree well
with those obtained from the theoretical model. Taking parameter K = 0 as an example,
coefficient β is calculated to be 0 using Equation (18), and the equivalent flexural stiffness
is EI+, which is in agreement with the theoretical results of a simply supported beam with‐
out the cracking effect. In addition, when parameter K approaches infinity, the limit of β
is 0.02α + 0.49 and corresponds to the stiffness amplification coefficient, which is also in
good agreement with the theoretical tendency of composite beams with a fixed support
boundary.

4. Validation
To validate the accuracy of the proposed formula for evaluating the equivalent flex‐
ural stiffness of a composite frame beam, the calculated results were compared with those
obtained from other design formulas as well as the simulation results of refined FE mod‐
els.

4.1. Comparison with Existing Design Formulas

First, for conducting a parameter analysis, numerous design cases were selected from
practical engineering. As shown in Figure 8, the analysed examples consisted of 180 com‐
posite beams with different cross‐sections, in which the span length, L, ranges from 6 to
20 m. The effective slab width was calculated using the stiffness amplification coefficient,
α, and the slab thickness ranged from 100 to 150 mm. The span‐to‐steel beam height ratio,
L/hs, ranged from 15 to 25, and the steel beam flange width to height ratio, bf/hs, ranged
from 0.4 to 1.0. In addition, the steel beam flange thickness, tf, and the web thickness, tw,
were also designed to satisfy the requirement of a compact section.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 12 of 21

Figure 8. Numerical examples of the composite frame beam.

Subsequently, the analysed cases were divided into two groups based on the con‐
straint boundary at the beam ends. In one group, parameter K ranged from 4 to 10, which
represents the composite beams designed with large spans and heavy loads. In the other
group, it ranged from 12 to 36, which represents the common composite frame beams
arranged with equal spans. The calculated results of the proposed formula in this paper
were compared with those obtained from the existing method, including the recom‐
mended methods of ANSI/AISC, Eurocode 8 [36], and Liew et al., as shown in Figure 9.
Note that the related regulations in ANSI/AISC and Eurocode 8 are similar; thus, the re‐
sults calculated by both methods are plotted as one. Compared with the theoretical meth‐
ods of the equivalent flexural stiffness calculation, the formula proposed in this paper had
a margin of error of less than 1%. In comparison, the average errors of the methods sug‐
gested by ANSI/AISC and Liew et al. were more than 10%, which is because of ignoring
the constraint boundary condition at the beam ends.

Figure 9. Comparison of the equivalent flexural stiffness calculated by the formula proposed in this paper and other
existing methods. ((a) Comparison of EIeq calculation results in large‐span heavy‐loading design conditions;(b) Compari‐
son of EIeq calculation results in commonly arranged frame design conditions.)

4.2. Comparison with FE Analysis of Frame Structures

To consider the bearing mechanism of a composite beam in a frame structural system,
the equivalent flexural stiffness calculated by the proposed formula was further validated
by conducting an FE analysis of the entire process deformation of a frame structure. The
numerical model was built based on a four‐story and five‐span plane frame, whose de‐
tailed design parameters are provided in Figure 10. As the main variable parameter, the
spans of the composite beams adopted the values of 6, 9.5, 13, 16.5, and 20 m in the nu‐
merical examples. The effective width of the concrete slab in the composite beams was
calculated using stiffness amplification coefficient α according to JGJ 138‐2016 [33]. In ad‐
dition, the sectional dimensions of the composite beams were divided into two groups. In
one group, the concrete slab thickness, hc, was 120 mm; the span‐to‐steel beam height ratio,
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 13 of 21

L/hs, was 20; and the steel bam flange width to height ratio, bf/hs, was 0.6. In the other
group, the concrete slab thickness, hc, was 150 mm; the span‐to‐steel beam height ratio,
L/hs, was 15, and the steel bam flange width to height ratio, bf/hs, is 1.0. For all the FE mod‐
els, the parameters of steel beam flange thickness, tf, and web thickness, tw, were designed
to satisfy the requirements of width‐thickness ratios specified in GB 50017‐2017. Based on
the principle of ‘strong column–weak beam’ in structural design, the sectional sizes of the
columns changed with the span of the frame beam, and the axial compression ratio of each
column was set as approximately 0.4 to ensure that the columns do not yield before the
beam achieves the ultimate limit state.

Figure 10. Finite element model of the composite frame example.

The FE models of the investigated frame structures were established using a modi‐
fied fibre beam–column element proposed by the Tao and Nie teams[19], which was de‐
veloped using the subroutine package, COMPONA‐MARC, based on the general FE anal‐
ysis software, MSC Marc. The accuracy of the modified fibre beam–column element in the
non‐linear analysis of composite frame systems was considerably validated [19,37]. Based
on previous research on modelling strategies [32], the length of the fibre beam–column
element was suggested to be as, approximately, the depth of the cross‐section. In each
cross‐section of the beam elements, the concrete slab was divided into 5 × 5 fibres, i.e., 25
fibres in total; the beam flange was divided into 10 fibres; and the web plate was divided
into 20 fibres. In each cross‐section of the column elements, the flange and web plates were
divided into 10 and 20 fibres, respectively. The constitutive law, suggested by Rüsch [38],
was adopted for the uniaxial stress–strain skeleton curve of the concrete, and the consti‐
tutive relationship suggested by Esmaeilly et al. [39] was adopted for that of steel. The
detailed parameters of the material constitutive model are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Skeleton curve of the stress–strain constitutive law used for steel and concrete. ((a)
Stress−strain relation of steel;(b) Stress−strain relation of concrete.)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 14 of 21

A uniformly distributed load in the vertical direction was applied to the middle and
side spans of the composite frame beams located in the first and fourth stories. The applied
loads started at zero and continued to increase until the frame beams completely entered
the plastic stage; thus, the entire evolution process of the deflection can be traced for the
considered beams. The simulated load–deflection curves of some typical frame beams are
presented in Figure 12a,b. By defining the point when the applied load achieves half of
the ultimate stage as the normal service stage, the corresponding deflection at the middle
of the span was compared with the results calculated by the proposed formula. The com‐
parison suggests that the simplified formula expressed in Equation (18) can predict well
the flexural stiffness of the composite beams in the service stage. For the 40 numerical
examples of composite beams shown in Figure 12c, the vertical deformations calculated
by the recommended formula agree well with the FE analysis results. The calculation er‐
rors of the investigated cases are all within 10%, which demonstrates that the proposed
formula has good accuracy for evaluating the equivalent flexural stiffness of the compo‐
site beams.

Figure 12. Comparison between the calculation results of the proposed formula and the FE analysis. ((a) Load−deflection
curve of 6‐m‐span frame at middle span in 1st story;(b) Load−deflection curve of 6‐m‐span frame at side span in 4th
story;(c) Comparison of deflection results between proposed formula and FE models.)

5. Simplified Design Method

As discussed above, the rotation restraint stiffness at each beam end is the dominant
factor in calculating the equivalent flexural stiffness of the composite frame beams. In the
proposed formula, the rotation restraint stiffness of the frame beam is represented by pa‐
rameter K, which needs to be determined in advance. However, the calculation of the ro‐
tation restraint stiffness—the value of parameter K—requires the calibration of the line
stiffness for the adjacent structural members, such as the beams and columns connected
to the considered frame beam. Thus, it is still complex to use the proposed formula to
evaluate the equivalent flexural stiffness of a frame beam. To overcome this drawback in
practical design, a simplified method for calculating the rotation constraints at the beam
ends and a design formula for evaluating the vertical deflection of the frame beam are
proposed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 15 of 21

5.1. Simplified Method for Calculating Rotation Constraint Stiffness

The stiffness of the rotation constraints at the beam ends can be directly reflected by
the bending moment distribution on the composite beam. As a rule, strong rotation con‐
straints at the beam ends lead to large negative moment regions on the composite frame
beam. Therefore, the rotation constraint stiffness can be represented by the length of the
negative moment region by identifying the distribution trend of the internal force.
For a composite beam with a uniform flexural stiffness distribution and no concrete
slab cracking, the reaction force at the beam support and the distributions of the bending
moments, rotations, and vertical deflections on the composite beam can be derived using
the theoretical model described in Section 2. These are expressed as follows:
1 𝑘 𝜃 𝑘 𝜃
𝐹 𝑞𝑙 , (19)
2 𝑙
1
𝑀 𝑥 𝐹𝑥 𝑘 𝜃 𝑞𝑥 , (20)
2
𝐸𝐼 𝜃 𝑥 𝑀 𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝐹𝑥 𝑘 𝜃𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝐶 , and (21)
1 1 1
𝐸𝐼 𝑤 𝑥 𝜃 𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝐹𝑥 𝑘 𝜃𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝐶𝑥 𝐶, (22)
6 2 24
where the definitions of the notations are consistent with those specified in Section 2.
For frame beams with constant sectional stiffness, the boundary condition functions
at the beam ends can be expressed as
𝜃 0 𝜃
⎧
𝜃 𝑙 𝜃
. (23)
⎨𝑤 0 0
⎩𝜃 𝑙 0
By substituting the boundary condition functions into Equations (21) and (22), θ1 and
θ2 can be expressed as

⎧ 𝜃 𝑞𝑙 6𝐸𝐼 𝑘 𝑙
⎪ 12 12 𝐸𝐼 4𝐸𝐼 𝑘 𝑘 𝑙 𝑘 𝑘 𝑙
. (24)
⎨ 𝑞𝑙 6𝐸𝐼 𝑘 𝑙
⎪𝜃 12 12 𝐸𝐼 4𝐸𝐼 𝑘 𝑘 𝑙 𝑘 𝑘 𝑙
⎩
Subsequently, the internal force distribution functions listed in Equations (20)–(23)
can be solved.
To build the relationship between the rotation constraint stiffness and the bending
moment distribution, two additional parameters αcr and lcr are introduced to describe the
length of a negative moment region, which are defined as follows:
𝑙 𝑙
𝛼
𝑙 , (25)
𝑙 𝑙 𝑙 𝛼 𝑙
where lcr1 and lcr2 are the lengths of the negative moment regions located on the composite
beam at the left and right ends, respectively; lcr is the total length of the negative moment
region; and l is the length of the composite beam span.
Based on the definitions of lcr1 and lcr2, the following relationship should be satisfied:
𝑀 𝑙 𝑀 𝑙 𝑙 0. (26)
Thus, the rotation restraint stiffness can be expressed as
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 16 of 21

⎧𝑘 12𝐸𝐼 𝑙 𝑙 𝑙
⎪ 𝑙 𝑙 2𝑙𝑙 4𝑙𝑙 6𝑙 𝑙
. (27)
⎨𝑘 12𝐸𝐼 𝑙 𝑙 𝑙
⎪ 𝑙 𝑙 2𝑙𝑙cr 4𝑙𝑙cr 6𝑙 𝑙cr
⎩
If the rotation restraint stiffness at both the ends of the beam are equal (k1 = k2), the
lengths of the negative moment regions at the beam ends are equal, and the following
results can be obtained:
1
𝑙 𝑙 𝛼 𝑙, (28)
2
6𝐸𝐼 2𝛼cr 𝛼cr
𝑘 𝑘 . (29)
𝑙 2 6𝛼cr 3𝛼cr
For the case in which the rotation restraint stiffness at the two ends of the beam are
unequal, the lengths of the negative moment regions at the beam ends are different. The
unequal distribution of the negative moment regions is described by the total length of
the negative moment regions (lcr) and the distribution coefficient (s), as defined in Equa‐
tion (30):
𝑙 𝑙
𝑠 1 . (30)
𝑙 𝑙
Based on the theoretical model, the equivalent flexural stiffness (EIeq) is calculated
from the varied values of lcr and s, and the results are presented in the normalized form of
the stiffness ratio, EIeq/EI−, as shown in Figure 13. It can be seen that, when distribution
coefficient s deviates from 0.5, EIeq/EI− decreases. However, compared with the calculation
results when s = 0.5, the fluctuation range of EIeq/EI− does not exceed 4% when s varies
within 0.3–0.7, which covers the range of interest in practice engineering. Therefore, for
the case in which the lengths of the negative moment regions are unequal at the two beam
ends, i.e., 𝑠 0.5, it is acceptable to simplify the calculation of the rotation restraint stiff‐
ness using the average value of lcr1 and lcr2.

Figure 13. Effects of the unequal distribution of the negative moment regions on the equivalent flexural stiffness. ((a)
α=2, αcr=0.2;(b) α=2, αcr=0.3;(c) α=2, αcr=0.4;(d) α=4, αcr=0.12;(e) α=4, αcr=0.25;(f) α=4, αcr=0.35;(g) α=6, αcr=0.1;(h) α=6,
αcr=0.2;(i) α=6, αcr=0.32.)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 17 of 21

5.2. Simplified Design Formula for Calculating Vertical Deflection

To utilize Equation (18) to calculate the vertical deflection of a composite beam, two
critical parameters, i.e., K and α, need to be calibrated first. By substituting Equation (29)
into the definition formula of K, the ratio of the rotation restraint stiffness and the linear
stiffness of the composite beam after the concrete slab cracking can be easily obtained as
𝑘 6𝛼 2𝛼cr 𝛼cr
𝐾 . (31)
𝑖 2 6𝛼cr 3𝛼cr
Figure 14 illustrates the relationship between parameter K and negative moment re‐
gion factor αcr for different values of parameter α. Generally, when α is fixed, parameter
K increases as the negative moment region increases. Note that when αcr = 0, the composite
frame beam degenerates to a simply supported beam and parameter K = zero. When αcr is
close to its theoretical maximum value of 1 √3/3, parameter K approaches infinity. For
the case when αcr is fixed, parameter K increases as the stiffness amplification coefficient
α becomes larger, which indicates that a large flexure stiffness of the composite beam leads
to strong rotation constraints at the beam ends.

Figure 14. Relationship between parameter K and negative moment region factor αcr.

In practical design, critical parameter K can be calculated using coefficients α and αcr
in Equation (31). The weight factor of the equivalent stiffness, β, can also be calculated
using this simplified method, and the relationship between parameters β and αcr is pre‐
sented in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Variation in equivalent stiffness weight coefficient β with parameters α and αcr.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 18 of 21

To facilitate the utilization of this simplified method, a vertical deflection correction

factor αΔ is introduced and defined as follows:
Δco
𝛼Δ (32)
Δ
where Δco is the vertical deflection of the composite frame beam considering the effect of
the concrete slab cracking and Δ is the vertical deflection of the composite beam neglecting
the effect of the concrete slab cracking.
Based on the relationship between the flexural stiffness and the vertical deflection of
the composite beam during the elastic stage, the definition of the vertical deflection cor‐
rection factor, αΔ, can be rewritten as
𝐸𝐼 𝛼
𝛼 (33)
𝐸𝐼eq 𝛽 1 𝛽 𝛼
For composite frame beams with different cross‐section properties and rotation con‐
straints, the theoretical value of αΔ can be calculated using Equation (33). Figure 16 illus‐
trates the relationship of αΔ with the negative moment region factor, αcr, for different val‐
ues of the stiffness amplification coefficient, α. As expressed in Equation (33), αΔ is deter‐
mined using the equivalent flexural stiffness weight coefficient, β, and the stiffness ampli‐
fication coefficient, α, where β is determined by critical parameters K and α. In addition,
if the elastic analysis results of the internal force of a frame structure are available, param‐
eter K can be further expressed using α and αcr. Therefore, it is reasonable to use the stiff‐
ness amplification coefficient, α, and the negative moment region factor, αcr, as independ‐
ent variables when determining the vertical deflection correction factor, αΔ. Based on the
theoretical analysis results of αΔ shown in Figure 16, a piecewise function is proposed as
the simplified design formula for calculating the vertical deflection correction factor, αΔ:
1, 𝛼 0.1
⎧ 𝜉 1 𝛼 0.25 0.1𝜉
⎪ , 0.1 𝛼 0.25
𝛼 0.15 , (34)
⎨ 𝜉 𝜉 𝛼 0.43𝜉 0.25𝜉
⎪ , 𝛼 0.25
⎩ 0.18
where ξ1 and ξ2 are the calculated values of the vertical deflection correction factor when
αcr = 0.25 and 0.43, respectively, which can be calibrated by the following equations:
𝜉 0.06𝛼 0.96, 𝛼 0.25, (35)
𝜉 0.03𝛼 0.466𝛼 0.61, 𝛼 0.43. (36)

Figure 16. Variation in vertical deflection correction factor αΔ with parameters α and αcr.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 19 of 21

As shown in Figure 16, there is a good agreement between the calculation results of
the simplified design formula and the theoretical model. It is demonstrated that, by elab‐
orately considering the rotation constraints at the beam ends and the cracking effect in the
concrete slab, the proposed design formula can accurately describe the equivalent flexural
stiffness of the composite beams. The vertical deflection correction factor, αΔ, is observed
to increase with the increase in the negative moment region factor, αcr, or the stiffness am‐
plification coefficient, α, which is consistent with the theoretical analysis results as previ‐
ously discussed. For the particular case of αcr = 0, correction factor αΔ = 1, as calculated
using Equation (34), indicates that the simply supported composite beam does not need
to adjust the calculated vertical deflection of the elastic analysis.
In summary, using the proposed design formula, as described in the following steps,
the vertical deflection of composite frame beams can be easily calculated:
1. Based on the elastic analysis results of a structural design software, the lengths of the
negative moment regions, lcr1 and lcr2, can be obtained from the internal force distri‐
butions. Subsequently, the negative moment region factor, αcr, can be calculated us‐
ing Equation (25);
2. By substituting parameter αcr and stiffness amplification coefficient α into Equation
(34), the vertical deflection correction factor, αΔ, can be obtained;
3. Utilizing the deformation results of the elastic analysis, the design value of the verti‐
cal deflection of the composite frame beam is determined using the proposed formula
in Equation (32).

6. Conclusions
Based on the concept of equivalent flexural stiffness, a simplified design method is
proposed to calculate the vertical deflection of a composite frame beam. To identify the
influence of the rotation restraint stiffness at the beam ends and the cracked section in the
negative moment regions, a theoretical beam model is established. By conducting an ex‐
tensive parameter analysis of different frame beams, a fitting formula for evaluating the
equivalent flexural stiffness as well as a simplified design formula for calculating the ver‐
tical deflection are proposed. The main conclusions are summarized as follows:
1. For a composite frame beam under uniform vertical loading, the rotation restraint
stiffness at the two beam ends has a significant effect on its vertical deflection and
internal force distribution, which should be elaborately considered when calculating
its equivalent flexural stiffness;
2. By considering the boundary constraint conditions at the beam ends, the proposed
formula for calculating the equivalent flexural stiffness can reasonably describe the
deformation mechanism of a composite frame beam, presenting a higher calculation
accuracy than those of the recommended formulas in ANSI/AICS and by Liew et al.;
3. By comparing with the non‐linear FE analysis results of multiple entire frame struc‐
tures, the accuracy and reliability of the proposed formula is further validated. The
vertical deflections in the service stage calculated using the proposed formula agree
well with those obtained from the entire process load–displacement curves in the FE
analysis;
4. Utilising the internal force distribution of a frame beam by elastic analysis, a simpli‐
fied, but effective design method is proposed to calculate the vertical deflection. The
design procedure is based on the deflection correction of the non‐cracking analysis
results, which is demonstrated to capture the influence of the complex boundary con‐
ditions and can be easily used in the practical design of composite frame beams.

Author Contributions: conceptualization, M.‐X.T. and L.‐Y.X.; methodology, M.‐X.T.; software, Z.‐
A.L. and Q.‐L.Z.; validation, L.‐Y.X.; investigation, M.‐X.T. and L.‐Y.X.; data curation, Z.‐A.L. and
Q.‐L.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.‐A.L.; writing—review and editing, M.‐X.T. and L.‐
Y.X.; visualization, L.‐Y.X.; supervision, M.‐X.T.; funding acquisition, M.‐X.T. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 20 of 21

Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under
Grants No. 51878378 and No. 51878379.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within in the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Na‐
tional Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51878378).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Bursi, O.S.; Gramola, G. Behaviour of composite substructures with full and partial shear connection under quasi‐static cyclic
and pseudo‐dynamic displacements. Mater. Struct. 2000, 33, 154–163, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02479409.
2. Udagawa, K.; Mimura, H. Behavior of composite beam frame by pseudodynamic testing. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 1991, 117, 1317–
1335, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9445(1991)117:5(1317).
3. Zona, A.; Barbato, M.; Conte, J.P. Nonlinear seismic response analysis of steel–concrete composite frames. J. Struct. Eng. 2008,
134, 986–997, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9445(2008)134:6(986).
4. Nakashima, M.; Matsumiya, T.; Suita, K.; Zhou, F. Full‐scale test of composite frame under large cyclic loading. J. of Struct. Eng.
2007, 133, 297–304, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9445(2007)133:2(297).
5. Wang, Y.H.; Nie, J.G.; Cai, C.S. Numerical modeling on concrete structures and steel–concrete composite frame structures.
Comp. Part B Eng. 2013, 51, 58–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.02.035.
6. Ramnavas, M.P.; Patel, K.A.; Chaudhary, S.; Nagpal, A.K. Service load analysis of composite frames using cracked span length
frame element. Eng. Struct. 2017, 132, 733–744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.071.
7. Akbas, S.D. Large deflection analysis of a fiber reinforced composite beam. Steel Compos. Struct. 2018, 27, 567–576,
https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.27.5.567.
8. Chiorean, C.G.; Buru, S.M. Practical nonlinear inelastic analysis method of composite steel‐concrete beams with partial compo‐
site action. Eng. Struct. 2017, 134, 74–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.12.017.
9. Kirkland, B.; Uy, B. Behaviour and design of composite beams subjected to flexure and axial load. Steel Compos. Struct. 2015, 19,
615–633.
10. Mirambell, E.; Bonilla, J.; Bezerra, L.M.; Clero, B. Numerical study on the deflections of steel‐concrete composite beams with
partial interaction. Steel Compos. Struct. 2021, 38, 67–78, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2021.38.1.067.
11. Vasdravellis, G.; Uy, B. Shear strength and moment‐shear interaction in steel‐concrete composite beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2014,
140, 04014084, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0001008.
12. Kirkland, B.; Kim, P.; Uy, B.; Vasdravellis, G. Moment–shear–axial force interaction in composite beams. J. Constr. Steel. Res.
2015, 114, 66–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.07.011.
13. Soto, A.G.; Caldentey, A.P.; Peiretti, H.C.; Benitez, J.C. Experimental behaviour of steel‐concrete composite box girders subject
bending, shear and torsion. Eng. Struct. 2020, 206, 110169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110169.
14. Newmark, N.M. Test and analysis of composite beams with incomplete interaction. Proc. Soc. Exp. Stress Anal. 1951, 9, 75–92.
15. Lawson, R.M.; Lam, D.; Aggelopoulos, E.S.; Nellinger, S. Serviceability performance of steel–concrete composite beams. Proc.
Inst. Civil Eng. Struct. Build. 2017, 170, 98–114, https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.16.00048.
16. Ding, F.X.; Liu, J.; Liu, X.M.; Guo, F.Q.; Jiang, L.Z. Flexural stiffness of steel‐concrete composite beam under positive moment.
Steel Compos. Struct. 2016, 20, 1369–1389, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.20.6.1369.
17. Liu, J.; Ding, F.X.; Liu, X.M.; Yu, Z.W. Study on flexural capacity of simply supported steel‐concrete composite beam. Steel
Compos. Struct. 2016, 21, 829–847, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.21.4.829.
18. Liu, J.; Ding, F.X.; Liu, X.M.; Yu, Z.W.; Tan, Z.; Huang, J.W. Flexural Capacity of Steel‐Concrete Composite Beams under Hog‐
ging Moment. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 3453274, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3453274.
19. Tao, M.X.; Nie, J.G. Fiber beam‐column model considering slab spatial composite effect for nonlinear analysis of composite
frame systems. J. Struct. Eng. 2013, 140, 04013039, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0000815.
20. Zhang, Q.H.; Jia, D.L.; Bao, Y.; Dong, S.; Cheng, Z.Y.; Bu, Y.Z. Flexural behavior of steel–concrete composite beams considering
interlayer slip. J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019084, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0002374.
21. Lou, T.J.; Wu, S.S.; Karavasilis, T.L.; Chen, B. Long‐term deflection prediction in steel‐concrete composite beams. Steel Compos.
Struct. 2021, 39, 21–33, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2021.39.1.021.
22. Fragiacomo, M.; Amadio, C.; Macorini, L. Finite‐element model for collapse and long‐term analysis of steel–concrete composite
beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 489–497, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9445(2004)130:3(489).
23. Wang, Y.H.; Yu, J.; Liu, J.P.; Zhou, B.X.; Chen, Y.F. Experimental study on assembled monolithic steel‐prestressed concrete
composite beam in negative moment. J. Constr. Steel. Res. 2020, 167, 105667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.06.004.
24. Shamass, R.; Cashell, K.A. Behaviour of composite beams made using high strength steel. Struct. 2017, 12, 88–101,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.08.005.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10305 21 of 21

25. Shi, Y.; Yang, K.D.; Guan, Y.; Yao, X.M.; Xu, L.; Zhang, H.B. The flexural behavior of cold‐formed steel composite beams. Eng.
Struct. 2020, 218, 110819, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110819.
26. Yang, T.; Liu, S.Y.; Qin, B.X.; Liu, Y.Q. Experimental study on multi‐bolt shear connectors of prefabricated steel‐concrete com‐
posite beams. J. Constr. Steel. Res. 2020, 173, 106260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106260.
27. Nie, J.G.; Pan, W.H.; Tao, M.X.; Zhu, Y.Z. Experimental and numerical investigations of composite frames with innovative
composite transfer beams. J. of Struct. Eng. 2017, 143, 04017041, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0001776.
28. GB 50017‐2017. Code for Design of Steel Structures; Ministry of Housing and Urban‐Rural Development of the People’s Republic
of China: Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese)
29. EN 1994‐1‐1:2004, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures–Part 1‐1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings;
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
30. ANSI/AISC 360‐10, AISC Committee, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings; American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago,
IL, America, 2010.
31. Liew, J.Y.R.; Chen, H.; Shanmugam, N.E. Inelastic analysis of steel frames with composite beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2001, 127,194‐
202, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9445(2001)127:2(194).
32. Nie, J.G.; Tao, M.X.; Cai, C.S.; Chen, G. Modeling and investigation of elasto‐plastic behavior of steel–concrete composite frame
systems. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2011, 67, 1973–1984, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.06.016.
33. JGJ 138‐2016, Code for Design of Composite Structures; Ministry of Housing and Urban‐Rural Development of the People’s Repub‐
lic of China: Beijing, China, 2016 (in Chinese).
34. Nie, J.G.; Tao, M.X. Slab spatial composite effect in composite frame systems. I: Effective width for ultimate loading capacity.
Eng. Struct. 2012, 38, 185–199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.034.
35. Nie, J.G.; Tao, M.X. Slab spatial composite effect in composite frame systems. II: Equivalent stiffness and verifications. Eng.
Struct. 2012, 38, 171–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.036.
36. BS EN 1998‐1:2004. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance–Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for
Buildings; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
37. Tao, M.X.; Nie, J.G. Element mesh, section discretization and material hysteretic laws for fiber beam–column elements of com‐
posite structural members. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 2521–2544, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527‐014‐0335‐2.
38. Rusch, H. Researches toward a general flexural theory for structural concrete. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1960, 57, 1–28.
39. Esmaeily, A.; Xiao, Y. Behavior of reinforced concrete columns under variable axial loads: Analysis. ACI Struct. J. 2005, 102, 736–
744.