SHEAR AND NORMAL STRESSES INTERACTION IN COUPLED

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
By Edoardo Cosenza1 and Marisa Pecce2

ABSTRACT: A unified approach to evaluate the behavior of composite structural elements is proposed consid-
ering the interaction between the shear and normal stresses due to the connecting system. The model assumes
linear behavior for the materials and connection and allows one to analyze different structural problems in the
serviceability conditions. Numerical examples show that many classical coupled problems could be analyzed by
a unified approach; in particular, the coupled shear walls subject to horizontal loads, steel-concrete composite
beams with stud connectors, and reinforced beams strengthened with external plates are considered.

INTRODUCTION The objective of this study is to generalize the classical

linear approach to the subject, develop a unified model that
Composite systems in structural engineering are very com- considers the continuous distribution of the shear and normal
mon to optimize the performance of the components. Classic stresses due to the interaction of the components and carry out
cases are steel-concrete composite beams, where steel beams a closed-form solution, where the role of the mechanical and
and concrete slabs are connected by mechanical devices to geometrical parameters is clear.
improve the performances of both materials. Newmark et al. Finally the three well-known structural problems of coupled
(1951) introduced the first linear modeling of the problem, but walls, steel-concrete composite beams, and RC beams exter-
more reliable models have been developed more recently, tak- nally reinforced by FRP laminate are examined and compared
ing into account the nonlinear behavior of the materials (steel by numerical examples.
and concrete) and connectors (Aribert and Aziz 1986; Oehlers
and Bradford 1995; Leon and Viest 1997; Salari et al. 1998). THEORETICAL ANALYSES
Furthermore, in continuous beams, the bond law between con-
crete and steel reinforcement has also been introduced when Two elements defined as parts i and s are connected by a
the loading pattern causes negative bending (Manfredi et al. continuous element interface c. The coordinate system and
1999). sign convention shown in Fig. 1 are assumed, and the cross
Another type of system is coupled shear walls particularly section of the components is constant along the abscissa x.
suitable for resisting horizontal loads. Rosman (1964) intro- The vertical and axial equilibrium equations are
duced an early linear analytical approach to this problem. Also
in this case, the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete due dTs
= ⫺qs ⫹ ␴ ⭈ b (1a)
to cracking and plastification has been introduced in more re- dx
cent, detailed models.
dTi
A further composite system is given by RC beams externally = ⫺qi ⫺ ␴ ⭈ b (1b)
reinforced with laminates or sheets for strengthening existing dx
structures. This typology was first studied for steel plates, but dN
recently a strong interest has been shown for the use of fiber- = ⫺␶ ⭈ b (1c)
dx
reinforced plastic (FRP) laminates. Also for this problem, the
linear model has been developed by many authors (Arduini
and Di Leo 1993; Täljsten 1997; Malek et al. 1998), but the
research is still in progress for taking into account the nonlin-
ear behavior of the adhesive and RC element.
In all composite structural elements, the connection between
the components influences the bearing capacity, deformability,
and failure mode; the failure could occur in the connection
system, not allowing the full utilization of the strength or duc-
tility of the materials.
Therefore the evaluation of the stresses due to the compo-
nent interaction is very important for analyzing the composite
behavior. A simple approach assumes the linear behavior of
the materials and connection. Furthermore the connecting sys-
tem is considered continuous and the beam theory is applied
to model the two parts of the composite element. In this way
useful design information could be obtained about the behav-
ior, especially under serviceability conditions.
1
Full Prof., Dept. of Analisi e Progettazione Strutturale, Univ. ‘‘Fed-
erico II’’ of Napoli, Via Claudio, 21—80125 Napoli, Italy.
2
Assoc. Prof., Univ. of Sannio, Piazza Roma—82100 Benevento, Italy.
Note. Associate Editor: Jim Garrett. Discussion open until June 1,
2001. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this tech-
nical note was submitted for review and possible publication on Septem-
ber 30, 1999. This technical note is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 1, January, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
01/0001-0084–0088/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Technical Note No. 22017. FIG. 1. Stresses in Composite System (Signs Convention)

84 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001

where b = width of the contact surface; and the axial force N ␶ VI ⫺ ␣ 2␶ IV ⫹ 4␤4 ⭈ ␶ II ⫺ 4 ⭈ ␤4 ⭈ ␣ 2(1 ⫺ i)
is equal for the s and i component (Ns = Ni) considering simple
bending. (ds ⫹ di)
⭈ ␶ = kh kv b (Ts (x) ⫹ Ti (x))
The rotation equilibrium equations are (EI)s (EI)i (9)

dMs and the general solution of (9) is

= Ts ⫹ ␶ ⭈ b ⭈ ds (2a)
dx ␶ = C1 e⫺␣ ⬘x ⫹ C2 e ␣ ⬘x ⫹ C3 e⫺␤⬘x sin(␤⬙x) ⫹ C4 e⫺␤⬘x cos(␤⬙x)
dMi
= Ti ⫹ ␶ ⭈ b ⭈ di (2b) ⫹ C5 e ␤⬘x sin(␤⬙x) ⫹ C6 e ␤⬘x cos(␤⬙x) ⫹ ␥1T(x) (10)
dx
where
Defining us and ws as the below horizontal and vertical dis-
placements, respectively, of the s component and ui and wi as kh kv ⭈ c 2
the above horizontal and vertical displacements, respectively, i= (11a)
4 ⭈ ␤4 ⭈ ␣ 2
of the i component, if the linear elastic behavior is assumed
for the materials of the two components, the relations between (ds ⫹ di)
⫹kh kv b
the horizontal displacement and strain ε are expressed (EI)s (EI)i
␥1 = (11b)
N Ms ds ⫺4 ⭈ ␤4 ⭈ ␣ 2 ⫹ kh kv ⭈ c 2
u = εs = ⫺
I
s ⫹ (3a)
(EA)s (EI)s where T(x) = total shear at the abscissa x; and the three pa-
N Mi di rameters ␣ ⬘, ␤⬘ and ␤⬙ have to be calculated by solving the
u Ii = εi = ⫹ ⫺ (3b) characteristic equation associated with (9)
(EA)i (EI)i
␭6 ⫺ ␣ 2␭4 ⫹ 4␤4␭2 ⫺ 4 ⭈ ␤4 ⭈ ␣ 2(1 ⫺ i) = (␭4 ⫹ 4␤4)(␭2 ⫺ ␣ 2)
and the well-known relation between bending moment and
curvature gives ⫹ 4 ⭈ ␤4 ⭈ ␣ 2 ⭈ i = 0 (12)
Ms The six constants Ci (i = 1, 2, . . . , 6) depend on the boundary
w IIs = (4a)
(EI)s conditions, and the solution of the problem requires solving a
standard system of six algebraic linear equations.
Mi The coupling effect between the shear and normal stresses
w IIi = (4b)
(EI)i is governed by the parameter i. If i is zero, the system [(7)
where (EA)s , (EI)s , (EA)i , and (EI)i = axial and flexural stiff- and (8)] is uncoupled. In this case (12) provides that ␣ ⬘ = ␣,
nesses, respectively, of the two components s and i. Moreover ␤⬘ = ␤⬙ = ␤, and ␶ and ␴ are independent. More generally, i
the superscript indicates the differentiation with respect to x. and the interaction degree are lower. It is also worth noting
Also the interface constitutive law is assumed as linear elas- that i is independent from kh , kv , and b.
tic. Two stiffness values, kh and kv, have to be defined for
relating stresses and displacements as follows: NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
␶ = kh (us ⫺ ui) (5a) In the following, the three well-known problems described
in Fig. 2 are numerically analyzed using the unified approach
␴ = kv (ws ⫺ wi) (5b) developed above.
i.e., in this approach the interface element is modeled as linear
springs uniformly distributed and independent in the horizontal Shear Coupled Walls
and vertical directions.
RC walls are typical elements resisting horizontal actions,
The following parameters can be established:
in which regular windows are very often realized along the
␣ 2 = kh ⭈ b ⭈ 冉 1
(EA)s
⫹
1
(EA)i
⫹
d 2s
(EI)s
⫹
d 2i
(EI)i
冊 (6a)
entire elements so that the structure becomes similar to two
walls coupled by means of the beams of each floor. Due to

冉 冊
the large dimensions of the walls, a frame model would not
ds di be satisfactory, contrary to the good results that can be ob-
c=b ⫺ (6b)
(EI)s (EI)i tained modeling the floor beams as a continuous connection

冉 冊
uniformly distributed along the wall heights. The classical lin-
1 1 ear approach, known since the 1960s (Rosman 1964), does not
4␤4 = kv b ⫹ (6c)
(EI)s (EI)i
therefore differentiating (5a) three times and using (1)–(4) re-
sults in

␶ III ⫺ ␣ 2␶ I ⫺ kh ⭈ c ⭈ ␴ = ⫺kh 冉 ds
(EI)s
qs ⫹
di
(EI)i
qi 冊 (7)

whereas differentiating (5b) four times and using (1)–(4) re-

sults in

␴ IV ⫹ 4␤4␴ ⫹ kv ⭈ c ⭈ ␶ I = kv 冉 1
(EI)s
qs ⫺
1
(EI)i
qi 冊 (8)

ANALYTICAL SOLUTION
The problem is governed by the system of linear differential
equations [(7) and (8)]. Combining these equations, a single FIG. 2. (a) Coupled Walls; (b) Steel-Concrete Composite
differential equation in the unknown ␶ is obtained Beam; (c) Beam Strengthened with FRP Plate

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 85

consider normal stresses but only shear stresses; the interaction
of the shear and normal stresses could be considered by the
approach previously introduced.
If shear coupled walls loaded with a horizontal uniformly
distributed load q are considered, according to the symbols of
Fig. 2(a), the boundary conditions are
In x = 0:
Ms = Mi = 0; Ts = Ti = 0; N=0
In x = H:
ws = wi = 0; w Is = w Ii = 0; us = ui = 0
The two stiffness constants of the interface connection depend
on the shear and normal stiffnesses of the beams for kh and kv,
respectively.
In particular if the width of the walls and beams is b, it is
12(EI)t 1 (EA)t 1
kh = ⭈ ; kv = ⭈ kv is defined only for the model.
Lt3 b⭈h Lt b ⭈ h
where the index t indicates the transversal beams’ properties.
A numerical example is developed assuming H = 35 m,
interstory height h = 3.5 m; two walls with heights as = 3.0
m and ai = 2.5 m, and width b = 0.3 m. For the beams, the
length is Lt = 1.0 m and two values of the height ht are con-
sidered, 0.2 and 0.8 m. The elasticity modulus of concrete is
30,000 MPa, and all elements are assumed as uncracked in
evaluating the flexural stiffness and area.
The results are summarized in Fig. 3, where the shear and
normal stresses, in nondimensional form as ratio q/b, are
drawn along the height of the walls. It can be observed that
the normal stress values are more relevant, in comparison with
the shear stresses, when the beams are thin.
Composite Steel-Concrete Beam
The element is composed by a steel profile and concrete
slab connected by mechanical devices. Also in this case the
connection system is discrete and the linear solution of the
problem has been known since 1951 (Newmark et al. 1951)
without considering the normal stresses.
When referring to a beam with a vertical, uniformly distrib-
uted load, according to the symbols of Fig. 2(b), the boundary
conditions are
In x = 0:
Ms = Mi = 0; Ti = T, (Ts = 0); N=0
In x = L/2:
w Is = w Ii = 0; Ts = Ti = 0; us = ui = 0
FIG. 3. Shear and Normal Stresses in Coupled Walls
86 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001
The definition of kh and kv depends on the mechanical devices;
in particular, if the shear force-slip relationship P-s and tensile
force-uplift F-u relationship of the connectors are assumed lin-
ear, it is
(P/s) (F/u)
kh = ; kv =
b⭈p b⭈p
where b = width of the steel section flange; and p = spacing
of the studs.
In the following, a numerical example is developed for a
steel profile HEB 200 with a slab of height d = 12 cm, width
B = 100 cm, length of beam L = 5 m, and concrete Young’s
modulus = 30,000 MPa. The 16-mm diameter connection studs
are used with a stiffness P/s = 0.12 kN/mm and T/u = 0.024
kN/mm and spacing p = 15 cm. Two positions of the load—
above and below the beam—are introduced. This last case is
interesting because some of the studs are in tension, whereas
in the first case all studies are compressed so that the stiffness
The nondimensional stresses and shear stress distribution
along the beam according to the Jourawsky theory are drawn
in Fig. 4. The position of the load (above or below) only in-
fluences the normal stresses, not the shear stresses. An inter-
esting observation is that the studs in tension, in the case of
load b, are low stressed, whereas the compression stress in the
connection is much higher.
Beam Strengthened by FRP Sheet
The last example is a concrete beam reinforced with an
externally attached FRP sheet. In this composite system high
shear and normal stresses rise at the free end of the plate if it
is cut far from the support of the beam. Analytical studies have
been developed on this specific problem (Arduini and Di Leo
1993), and approximate solutions neglecting the coupling ef-
fect of the stresses have bene proposed (Täljsten 1997; Malek
et al. 1998).
In this example a simply-supported beam under a uniform
distributed load is anayzed. According to Fig. 2(c), the bound-
ary conditions are
In x = 0:
Ms = M(x), (Mi = 0); Ts = T(x), (Ti = 0); N=0
FIG. 4. Shear and Normal Stresses in Steel-Concrete Com-
posite Beam
 TABLE 1. Values of Parameters of Numerical Examples

␣ ␣⬘ ␤ ␤⬘ ␤⬙
Parameter i (m⫺1) (m⫺1) (m⫺1) (m⫺1) (m⫺1)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Coupled shear walls
Beams ht = 0.2 m 0.0351 0.1054 0.1036 0.3628 0.3629 0.3626
Beams ht = 0.8 m 0.0351 0.8434 0.8381 0.5130 0.5123 0.5079
Composite beam 0.0379 1.430 1.405 1.884 1.888 1.878
Strengthened beam 0.5836 35.59 22.98 104.0 104.9 103.1

action could become important. It remains ␤⬘ 艑 ␤⬙ 艑 ␤, but

␣ ⬘ is significantly different with respect to ␣. The reliability
of approximate solutions in evaluating shear stress has to be
analyzed carefully.

FIG. 5. Shear and Normal Stresses in FRP Strengthened
Beam
In x = L/2:
w Is = w Ii = 0; Ts = Ti = 0; us = ui = 0
For the numerical calculation, a beam with a rectangular cross
section is considered, with height H = 150 mm, width b = 100
mm, length L = 2.4 m, and plate attached 300 mm from the
support. The concrete is characterized by a Young’s modulus
of 30,000 MPa. The adhesive is characterized by the Young’s
modulus Ea = 1,500 MPa and shear modulus Ga = 580 MPa.
The thickness is t = 2 mm. The plate is applied for the whole
width b of the concrete section and has a thickness s = 3 mm.
The Young’s modulus along the fibers’ direction is 230,000
MPa.
For the adhesive (i.e., the connection stiffness)
kh = Ga /t; kv = Ea /t
In Fig. 5 the shear and normal stresses trend along the beam
is reported in nondimensional form, assuming the origin is the
free end of the FRP sheet. The stress values reduce in a short
length, emphasizing that it is a local and very concentrated
problem. This result is also valid for ultimate conditions, as
confirmed by many experimental tests carried out by various
authors. The failure of the specimens occurred with the peeling
at the end of the plate in the concrete section due to tensile
concrete strength lower than the adhesive and FRP tensile
strengths.
Remarks on Numerical Examples
To compare the above described examples, Table 1 sum-
marizes the main parameters of the problems.
It is interesting that, in the case of shear walls and composite
beams, the degree of interaction i of (11) is much lower than
1. Thus the degree of interaction is low, ␣ ⬘ 艑 ␣, and ␤⬘ 艑
␤⬙ 艑 ␤. The classical solutions to evaluate the shear stresses
provide an acceptable design approximation; however, it
should be noted that the classical solutions do not provide the
normal stress values.
In the case of RC beams strengthened by FRP, the problem
is different. The value of i is comparable to 1, and the inter-
CONCLUSIONS
A unified method to evaluate shear and normal stresses in
coupled linear systems is developed.
The degree of interaction between normal and shear stresses
is controlled by a single nondimensional parameter. The ex-
amples point out that, in the cases of shear walls and com-
posite beams, this degree of interaction is low and, in the case
of RC beams strengthened by FRP, the grade of interaction
could be higher.
Moreover the analysis shows the importance of normal
stresses, which are often neglected in the models; therefore, in
some problems the concentration of these stresses is important
in choosing the calculation procedure for a reliable design.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Arduini, M., and Di Leo, A. (1993). ‘‘Composite behaviour of partially
plated beams in the linear elastic range.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Fiber-
Reinforced-Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Struct., American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 43–53.
Aribert, J. M., and Aziz, K. A. (1986). ‘‘Calcul des poutres mixtes jusqu’à
l’ètat ultime avec un effet de soulèvement à l’interface acier-béton.’’
Constr. Mètallique, 4, 3–36.
Leon, R. T., and Viest, I. M. (1997). ‘‘Theories of incomplete interaction
in composite beams.’’ Proc., Engrg. Found., Compos. Constr. in Steel
and Concrete III, ASCE, Reston, Va., 858–870.
Malek, A. M., Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M. R. (1998). ‘‘Prediction
of failure load of R/C beams strengthened with FRP plate due to stress
concentration at the plate.’’ ACI Struct. J., 95(1), 142–150.
Manfredi, G., Fabbrocino, G., and Cosenza, E. (1999). ‘‘Modeling of
steel-concrete composite beams under negative bending.’’ J. Engrg.
Mech., ASCE, 125(6), 654–662.
Newmark, N. M., Siess, C. P., and Viest, I. M. (1951). ‘‘Tests and analysis
of composite beams with incomplete interaction.’’ Proc., Soc. for Ex-
perimental Stress Anal., 1, 75–92.
Oehlers, D. J., and Bradford, M. A. (1995). Composite steel and concrete
and concrete structural members—Fundamental behaviour, Pergamon,
Tarrytown, N.Y.
Rosman, R. (1964). ‘‘Approximate analysis of shear walls subjected to
lateral loads.’’ ACI J., 717.
Salari, M. R., Spacone, E., Shing, P. B., and Frangopol, D. M. (1998).
‘‘Nonlinear analysis of composite beams with deformable shear con-
nectors.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124(10), 1148–1158.
Täljsten, B. (1997). ‘‘Strengthening of beams by plate bonding.’’ J. Mat.
in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 9(4), 206–212.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A = area;
a = dimension;
B = width;
b = width of connection surface;
C = constant or vector of constants;
c = mechanical parameter;
D = matrix;

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001 / 87

 d = slab height or distance from centroid; T = shear force in beams or tension force in studs;
E = Young’s modulus; t = thickness of adhesive;
F = tension force in studs; u = displacement along x-axis;
f = vector; w = displacement along z-axis;
G = shear modulus; ␣, ␤, ␥ = mechanical parameters;
H = height; ␴ = normal stress; and
h = interstory height; ␶ = shear stress.
I = inertia;
i = interaction degree; Subscripts
k = stiffness of connection;
L = length; a = adhesive;
M = bending moment; h = horizontal;
N = axial force; i = inferior component;
P = shear force in studs; s = superior component;
p = studs step; t = transversal beams; and
S = thickness of FRP sheet; v = vertical.

88 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2001