Comparison between three different composite

systems
U. Klanšek & S. Kravanja
University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovenia

Abstract
This paper presents the economical comparison between three different
composite systems: composite I beams, composite trusses consisting of channel
sections and composite trusses made up of hollow sections. The comparison was
made for simply supported beams for different spans and different loads.
Composite structures were designed in accordance with Eurocodes for both the
ultimate and the serviceability limit states. In order to carry out the comparison
between the three different structural systems, the optimal design solutions were
obtained for the individual combination of the span and imposed load. The
optimization was subjected to a minimization of the structure’s self-
manufacturing costs and performed by the nonlinear programming (NLP)
approach. Further, a comparison between the obtained optimal costs was made
for all defined spans.
Keywords: structural optimization, non-linear programming, composite I beams,
composite trusses.

1 Introduction
In this paper, the non-linear programming (NLP) structural optimization was
performed for three different simply supported composite systems: composite I
beams, composite trusses made up of European steel channel sections (UPE) and
composite trusses consisted of cold formed hollow sections. In order to
determine the spans, at which the individual composite structure shows its
advantages, the economical comparison between the mentioned systems was
carried out on the basis of the obtained optimal self-manufacturing costs.
The optimization/comparison of composite systems was performed for spans
from 5 to 50 meters and for variable imposed load 5 kN/m2.

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
88 High Performance Structures and Materials II

In the context of structural optimization, the NLP cost optimization models

COMBOPT (COMposite Beams OPTimization) for composite I beams,
COMTOPTH (COMposite Trusses OPTimization /Hollow sections) for
composite trusses from hollow sections and COMTOPTC (COMposite Trusses
OPTimization /Channel sections) for composite trusses from channel sections
were developed. Composite structures were designed in accordance with
Eurocodes [1, 2, 3, 4] in order to satisfy the requirements of both the ultimate
and the serviceability limit states.
The research, dealt in this paper, presents a natural continuation of the
obtained research work introduced in [5] and [6], where only the optimization of
self-manufacturing costs of composite I beams and composite trusses made up of
hollow sections was considered. Now, the composite trusses consisted of channel
sections were included in the research which enables the comparison between the
all three mentioned types of composite structures.

2 Three different composite systems

The considered composite systems are built up of reinforced concrete slab of
constant depth and from structural steel section. These two composite section
members are connected together by the cylindrical shear studs, welded to the top
of steel section and embedded in concrete. The full shear connection between the
slab and the steel section is considered. The concrete slab is designed separately
as a one-way spanning slab of constant depth, running continuously over the
steel sections.

Figure 1: The static systems of composite I beams and composite trusses.

While the steel section of the composite I beams is made up of the duo-
symmetrical welded I section, the two different types of composite trusses are
produced from cold formed circular/square hollow sections and from hot rolled
European channel sections, i.e. UPE sections, respectively. In addition, the
composite trusses were constructed as a Pratt trusses with tension diagonals.
Design/dimensioning of composite structures was performed in accordance
with Eurocode 4 for the conditions of both ultimate limit states and serviceability
limit states. The design loads were calculated with regard to Eurocode 1. The
concrete slab was designed in accordance with Eurocode 2. As Eurocodes do not
provide any directions for calculation of internal forces in members of composite

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
 High Performance Structures and Materials II 89

trusses, they were determined accordingly to British Standard 5950 [7]. The
optimization of steel members was performed on the basis of Eurocode 3.

beff beff
be be be be

d
tf tf

H hw hw

tf tf
bf bf
e

Figure 2: Vertical cross-section of composite I beam system.

When the ultimate limit states of composite I beams were considered, the
structures were checked for the bending moment, vertical shear force, shear
buckling, interaction between the bending and vertical shear and the longitudinal
shear force between the concrete slab and the top flange of steel I section. In the
similar manner, the verification of ultimate limit states of composite trusses
includes the proof of bending moment resistance, vertical shear resistance and
the longitudinal shear resistance between the concrete slab and the top chord of
steel truss.

beff beff
be be be be

d
xt ht xt ht
tt tt

At At

H h h

Ab Ab

db db
xb tb h xb tb

Figure 3: Vertical cross-section of composite truss system – hollow sections.

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
90 High Performance Structures and Materials II

The ultimate moment capacity was calculated by the plastic method

considering the site of neutral axis within the concrete slab. In limit state design,
the moment capacity of the composite truss was determined by assuming that
structural steel is fully yielded and the effective concrete slab cross-section is
stressed to 85% of its compressive strength. In the case of composite trusses, the
ultimate moment capacity was determined by the tensile resistance of bottom
steel chord and the compressive resistance of the concrete slab, neglecting the
contribution of the top chord of steel truss. While the vertical shear of the
composite I beam is carried by the web of welded I section, the vertical load of
composite truss is transferred via axial forces in bracing members. Consequently,
the shear resistance of composite truss system was evaluated by considering the
tensile and compression/buckling capacity of bracing members. The proper
longitudinal shear transfer was achieved by sufficient design bearing/shear
resistance of shear studs and design resistance of surfaces of potential shear
failure in the concrete slab. Shear connectors were designed by the plastic
method. Standard fire resistance F 30 was considered.

eff eff
be be be be

d
twt twt
ztt ht ztt ht
tft tft
bt bt
At At
H
h

Ab Ab
tfb tfb
ztb hb ztb hb
twb twb
bb bb
e

Figure 4: Vertical cross-section of composite truss system – channel

sections.

Considering the serviceability limit state, the vertical deflections were

calculated by the elastic method, using the effective second moment of cross-
sectional area and the effects of creep/shrinkage of concrete. Both, the total
deflection subjected to overall load δmax and the deflection subjected to variable
imposed load δ2 were under the limited maximum values, span/250 and
span/300, respectively.

3 The optimization
The proposed NLP cost optimization models COMBOPT, COMTOPTH and
COMTOPTC were developed by using the General Algebraic Modelling System

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
 High Performance Structures and Materials II 91

(GAMS) [8]. CONOPT (Generalized reduced-gradient method) [9] and MINOS

(Reduced-gradient method) [10] were used for the optimization. Generally, the
non-linear continuous optimization problem can be formulated as:
Min z = f(x)
subjected to: h(x) = 0 (NLP)
g(x) ≤ 0
x ∈ X = { x x ∈ Rn, xL ≤ x ≤ xU }
where x is a vector of continuous variables, defined within the compact set X.
Functions f(x), h(x) and g(x) are nonlinear functions involved in the objective
function z, equality and inequality constraints, respectively. All functions f(x),
h(x) and g(x) must be continuous and differentiable.
With regard to NLP problem formulation, the proposed optimization models
include the constants (input data), continuous variables, structural analysis
constraints and structure's economic objective function.
The optimization model constants include the span, topology of composite
truss, variable imposed load, several material parameters, costs, partial safety
factors, etc. Defined input data remain fixed for the individual optimization.
In the context of optimization, the variables denote entities whose values are
generally unknown until after a model has been solved. The optimization model
variables represent the parameters of composite structure e.g. dimensions, cross-
section characteristics, materials, design loads, internal forces, deflections,
economic parameters, etc. The optimal values of the considered variables were
obtained at minimal self-manufacturing costs of composite structure.
The optimization model (in)equality constraints and the bounds of the
variables represent a rigorous system of the design, loading, stress, deflections
and stability functions. While the majority of the design constraints were
determined from the Eurocodes (ultimate and serviceability limit states), the
design forces and deflections were obtained from the structural analysis. It
should be noted that the individual optimization model performs the optimization
and structural analysis simultaneously.
For the purpose of better illustration, the fundamental (in)equality constraints
and the objective function of the optimization model COMTOPTC are presented.
Within the scope of structural design, the (in)equality constraints were formed as
constraints of ultimate and serviceability limit states for composite truss.

Resistance to bending moment of composite cross-section:

M Sd ≤ M pl , Rd (1)
 Ab ⋅ f y ⋅ γ c  Ab ⋅ f y
M pl , Rd =  h + (ht − ztt ) + d − ⋅ (2)
 4 ⋅ be ⋅ α ⋅ f ck ⋅ γ a  γ a
where MSd is the design bending moment, Mpl,Rd is the plastic resistance moment,
fy is the yield strength of structural steel, fck is the characteristic cylinder strength

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
92 High Performance Structures and Materials II

of concrete, α is the coefficient which takes account of the long-term effects on

the compressive strength of concrete and of the unfavourable effects resulting
from the way in which the load is applied, γc, γa are the safety coefficients for
concrete and structural steel, respectively. For other denotations, see Figure 4.
Tension resistance of the truss diagonals:
N Sdi , j ≤ N pl , Rd i , j (3)
Ai , j ⋅ f y
N pl ,Rdi , j = (4)
γM0
where N Sd is the design tensile force, N pl , Rd is the tension resistance, A is the
i, j i,j i,j

cross-sectional area, γ M 0 is the partial safety coefficient and i, j denote the nodes
of the individual bracing member.
Buckling resistance of the truss verticals:
N Sdi , j ≤ N b ,Rd , yi , j (5)
N Sdi , j ≤ N b ,Rd , zi , j (6)
Ai , j ⋅ f y
N b ,Rd , yi , j = χ y i , j (7)
γ M1
A ⋅ fy
N b ,Rd , z i , j = χ z i , j i, j
(8)
γ M1
where N b , Rd , y , N b , Rd ,z are the buckling resistances, χ y , χz are the reduction
i, j i,j i,j i,j

factors for the relevant buckling mode according to y and z axis, respectively and
γ M 0 is the partial safety coefficient.
Shear between the concrete slab and the top chord of composite truss:
VSd ≤ VRd , p (9)
VSd ≤ VRd ,st (10)
0.2 ⋅ d ⋅ f ck
VRd , p = (11)
γc
0.2 ⋅ (2 ⋅ hst + d st ) ⋅ f ck
VRd ,st = (12)
γc
where VSd is the design longitudinal shear per unit length of beam, VRd,p is the
design resistance to shear failure in concrete slab per unit length of beam, VRd,st
design resistance to shear failure of concrete in surroundings of shear studs per
unit length of beam, hst and dst are the overall height and the diameter of the
shank of cylindrical shear stud.

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
 High Performance Structures and Materials II 93

Shear connectors – cylindrical shear studs:

Vl ≤ nst ⋅ PRd , p (13)
Vl ≤ nst ⋅ PRd ,st (14)
1
PRd , p = 0.29 ⋅ d st 2 ⋅ ⋅ f ck ⋅ (27142
. ⋅ f ck + 2378.57) (15)
γv
π ⋅ d st 2
PRd ,st = 0.8 ⋅ f u ⋅ (16)
4 ⋅γ v
where Vl is the total design longitudinal shear force, PRd,p is the design bearing
resistance per cylindrical shear stud, PRd,st is the design shear resistance of the
cylindrical shear stud, nst is the number of shear studs per composite truss, fu is
the ultimate tensile strength of shear stud and γv is the partial safety coefficient
for studs.
(In)equality constraints of serviceability limit states for composite truss:
L
δ max ≤ (17)
250
L
δ2 ≤ (18)
300

Table 1: Material and labour costs.

Cc Material and erection costs for concrete C 25/30 85.00 EUR/m3

Cc Material and erection costs for concrete C 30/37 95.00 EUR/m3
Cc Material and erection costs for concrete C 35/45 102.50 EUR/m3
Cc Material and erection costs for concrete C 40/50 110.00 EUR/m3
Cc Material and erection costs for concrete C 45/55 115.00 EUR/m3
Cc Material and erection costs for concrete C 50/60 120.00 EUR/m3
Cs Material costs for structural steel Fe360-Fe510 0.40-0.75 EUR/kg
Cr Material and erection costs for reinforcing steel S 400 0.70 EUR/kg
Cst Cylindrical stud costs per piece (incl. material and 1.20 EUR
welding)
Cac Anti-corrosion resistant painting costs 7.50 EUR/m2
Cf Fire protection painting costs (F 30) 25.00 EUR/m2
Cct Sheet-iron cutting costs 3.00 EUR/m1
Cw Welding costs 5.00 EUR/m1
Cp Panelling costs (incl. material and erection) 12.00 EUR/m2

The economic objective function of the objective variable COST represents

the self-manufacturing costs per m2 of the use surface of composite truss. The
proposed economic objective function includes the material costs, sheet-iron

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
94 High Performance Structures and Materials II

cutting costs, welding, anti-corrosion resistant painting, fire resistant-painting,

panelling and erection costs. Material and labour costs are given in Table 1.
min : COST = [Cc ⋅ Vc + Cs ⋅ ρ s ⋅ Vs + Cr ⋅ ρ s ⋅ Vr + Cst ⋅ nst +
(19)
]
+ (Cac + C f ) ⋅ Aac , f + Cct ⋅ Lct + Cw ⋅ Lw + C p ⋅ e ⋅ L / (e ⋅ L )
where COST denotes the self-manufacturing costs per m2 of the use surface of
the composite system; Cc, Cs, etc. are material and labour costs defined in
Table 1; Vc, Vs and Vr represent the volumes of concrete slab (per composite
beam), structural steel and the reinforcing steel, respectively; ρs is the unit mass
of steel; nst defines the number of shear studs (per composite beam); Aac,f is the
exposed area of steel parts; Lct is the length of all the performed sheet-iron cuts
and Lw is the length of all the performed welds; e represents the intermediate
distance between steel beams and L denotes the span of the composite beams.

4 Comparison of the obtained optimal results

The optimization was performed for all three different composite systems for
spans from 5 to 50 meters and for variable imposed load 5 kN/m2. As the self-
weight of the composite structure depends on its optimal cross-section, it was
automatically calculated within the individual optimization process.

450
400
Overall depth (cm)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Topology (number of internal partitions)

Composite I beams Composite trusses - channel sections

Composite trusses - hollow sections

Figure 5: Overall depth of composite truss, depended on the topology.

Topology of the structure was fixed throughout the individual optimization.

Further, the optimization of composite truss was carried through the several
optimization executions taking into account the varying of truss topology, i.e.
number of internal partitions. The optimal topology corresponds to the topology
with the minimum of obtained self-manufacturing costs.
Composite truss topology has also a substantial impact on the overall depth of
cross-section. The example of composite structures over the span of 30 m, shows

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
 High Performance Structures and Materials II 95

a decrease of the overall depth of composite trusses in the dependence with the
considered structural topology, see Figure 5.
The economical comparison between the three different composite systems
shows, that in the case of spans between 5 and 30 m, composite trusses consisted
of hollow sections are cheaper than the composite trusses from channel sections
and composite I beams. Regarding the spans longer than 30 m, the composite
trusses from channel sections are more appropriate solution.

140,0
120,0
Costs (EUR/m2)

100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
0,0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Span (m)
Composite I beams Composite trusses - channel sections
Composite trusses - hollow sections

Figure 6: Comparison of the obtained self-manufacturing costs.

0,8
0,7
0,6
Mass (t/m2)

0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Span (m)

Composite I beams Composite trusses - channel sections

Composite trusses - hollow sections

Figure 7: Comparison of the obtained masses.

Figure 7 shows a comparison of the obtained masses for the mentioned types
of composite structures. It is evident, that composite I beams are considerably
heavier than the composite trusses for all defined spans. Further, the composite I

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
96 High Performance Structures and Materials II

beams become essentially heavier at spans beyond 15 m. In the context of

comparison between the composite trusses, it is found that composite trusses
made up of hollow sections are heavier then the composite trusses produced
from channel sections for spans between 5 and 12 m. The opposite conclusion
stands for the spans between 12 and 30 m. For spans beyond 30 m, the masses of
both composite truss systems are nearly the same.

5 Conclusions
In this study, an economical comparison between the composite I beams,
composite trusses from hollow sections and composite trusses consisted of
channel sections was carried out on the basis of the results of NLP structural
optimization. The optimization/comparison of composite systems was performed
for spans from 5 to 50 m and for variable imposed load 5 kN/m2.
The comparison of the self-manufacturing costs between the three different
composite systems shows that composite trusses consisted of hollow sections are
cheaper than the composite trusses from channel sections and composite I beams
for spans between 5 and 30 m. For the spans beyond 30 m, the composite trusses
made up of channel sections are more economical solution.
The research also showed that overall depth of composite truss can be
significantly reduced by increasing the number of its internal partitions (adhered
given topology) and even more by using the channel sections for bracing
members, without causing much effect on the costs. Finally, the comparison of
masses has showed that composite I beams are considerably heavier then the
composite trusses for all defined spans.

References
[1] Eurocode 1, Basis of design and actions on structures, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 1995.
[2] Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 1992.
[3] Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 1995.
[4] Eurocode 4, Design of composite structures, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 1992.
[5] Šilih, S. and Kravanja, S., Comparison of composite floor systems. Proc.
of the First International Conference on High Performance Structures
and Composites, eds. Brebbia, C.A. and De Wilde, W.P., WIT press:
Southampton, Boston, pp. 595-603, 2002.
[6] Kravanja, S. and Šilih, S., Optimization based comparison between
composite I beams and composite trusses. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 609-625, 2003.
[7] British Standard BS 5950, Structural use of steelwork in building, British
Standards Institution, 1990.

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5
 High Performance Structures and Materials II 97

[8] Brooke, A., Kendrick, D. and Meeraus, A., GAMS - A User's Guide.
Scientific Press, Redwood City, CA, 1988.
[9] Drud, A.S., CONOPT – A Large-Scale GRG Code, ORSA Journal on
Computing, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 207-216, 1994.
[10] Murtagh, B.A. and Saunders, M.A., MINOS User's Guide: Technical
Report SOL 83-20, System Optimization Laboratory, Department of
Operations Research, Stanford University, 1985.

High Performance Structures and Materials II, C.A. Brebbia & W.P. De Wilde (Editors)
© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-717-5