ASE | Theoretical Principles

• This pair of forces (flange shear from warping longitudinal stresses) carries a part of the
MT loading.
• So the longitudinal warping stresses at the beginning of the beam create a MTs at the end
- and oposite.
• An MTs at a beam section x1 creates longitudinal warping stresses at another beam section
x2.

2.3.4 SOFiSTiK - T-Beam Philosophy centric (for buildings)

Automatic addition of the T-beam parts for FE plates with beams

Example see ase3_t_beam_test.dat

Usage in bridge construction see also tbeam_philosophy_e.pdf

Figure 2.6: T-Beam Philosophy

Attention: This model can not be used for influence line evaluation with ELLA because ELLA
does not add the slab parts to the beam! This is only possible with the excentric T-Beam
philosophy with PLEX

A 2D slab analysis is usually sufficient and desirable for beams and continuous beams with
effective cross section widths in a slab. Only in a 2D slab analysis normal forces are not
determined in the slab or in the beam! The advantage is that the slab can be simply designed
(without normal forces) particularly for the shear checks. In addition the determined beam
moments can be designed directly with the right T-beam cross section.

Procedure: The user or the graphical input program positions a centric defined beam in the
node plane (with the T-beam cross section see picture on the right). The QUAD elements are
also defined centric. As the beam is positioned in the centre of gravity (a little bit below the
slab center), the upper edge of the T-beam looks a little bit out of the slab - this is also visible in
WinGRAF. The ANIMATOR displaces the cross section a little bit downwards, so that the upper
edges beam+slab appear at the same position for a better visualization. So in the standard
case the beam section is defined with the corresponding effective slab width. Looking from the
side (see picture left below) you see that cross section parts and slab overlap and concrete
areas are defined twice. These double parts are now corrected in the T-Beam philosophy:

Therefore in the stiffness analysis the slab part (I-slab = bVh3/12 with b=effective width = width
of the cross section) is substracted automatically from the stiffness of the beam I-Tbeam. An
equivalent (reduced) beam is used:

I–equivalent beam = I–Tbeam – I–slab

2-6 SOFiSTiK 2020

 Theoretical Principles | ASE

In the same way the deadload of the equivalent beam is modified to avoid double dead load.

Then the program at first determines a bending moment of this equivalent beam in a FE anal-
ysis. The internal forces parts of the slab (M-slab = m-slab · b) are added automatically imme-
diately. Thus the complete T-beam internal forces are available for the following beam design:

M–Tbeam = M–equivalent beam + M–slab

The bending moments My and the shear forces Vz are added as default, for shells also the
normal forces N. The torsional moment Mt is not added as default.

Output:

• The parts of the slab are already included in the printout of the beam forces.
• A statistic of the slab parts follows. The maximum slab parts are compared with the maxi-
mum beam internal forces:

Statistic Beam - Additional Forces from a Slab

Loadcase 2
The printed beam-forces include max. additional forces of a slab:
max. beam-force without slab-addition max. slab-addition
cno bm Vz My Vz My
[m] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm]
1 2.20 max 48.60 243.78 43.63 5.95
min -48.60 0.00 -43.63 0.00

For safety the internal forces are not reduced in the FE plate elements, although it would be
possible about the amount of the increase of the beam internal forces. So this method can be
uneconomical for smaller beam heights.

Beams which are connected with kinematic constraints at the slab are also processed, if the
beams are positioned in the slab plane.

Defaults for the addition of the plate internal forces to the beam internal forces:

For slab structures:

• The single beam must have a cross section with a defined width at the start and the end.
A defined width can be generated from a T-beam (e.g. record SREC in AQUA) and from
general cross sections (e.g. AQUA record SECT and following). The maximum width of
the cross section is used in each case (independent of the position of the plate, above or
below). A cross section which is input without dimensions however with stiffnesses (e.g.
with record SVAL) does not known any defined width. A plate part can therefore not be
added for these beams!
• The single beam is connected generally directly with the nodes of the plate.
• After an automatic mesh generation or a free mesh definition the straight beam which
is positioned in the plate plane can be combined also with the FE mesh via kinematic
constraints.
• The beam reads the plate thickness and the modulus of elasticity from these plate nodes.
Different plate thicknesses are possible at the beam start and end.

SOFiSTiK 2020 2-7

ASE | Theoretical Principles

Additionally for three-dimensional slab structures (ASE):

The feature can be used also for three-dimensional slabs however with following restrictions:

• The beams must be positioned in the same plane as the plate. The plate parts are not
added for beams which are connected eccentrically.

Special features with the input:

• The beam cross section must represent the effective cross section, therefore the web and
the effective plate. If a concrete slab on a steel girder should be considered as a composite
construction, the steel girder must be defined with the effective concrete plate as cross
section! The determined internal forces and moments refer then to this composite cross
section.
• The effective width (cross section width) should be chosen a little bit smaller than to large
especially over the columns, because for the plate moment to be added only the moment
near the node at which the beam and the plate are combined is used (see CTRL PLAB
V2). This plate moment is processed then unchangeable acting about the whole width.
The internal forces and moments are therefore not exactly integrated about the effective
width!
• The plate stiffness I-plate (without the part of Steiner) is diverted from the total cross section
stiffness I-cross. If the subtrahend I-plate is bigger than 0.8·I-cross, a warning is printed
and the minimum stiffness of 0.2·I-cross is used.
• For three-dimensional systems the subtrahend is maximal 0.9·A-cross for the area A-plate.
At least 0.1·A-cross are available then for the fictitious beam in the FE system.

Special features with the output:

• The attenuated stiffnesses are printed with ECHO PLAB FULL. If a cross section is avail-
able at beams with different plate thicknesses (e.g. haunches), the attenuated stiffness is
printed for the minimal and maximal plate thickness.
• The plate parts are already available in the printed beam internal forces and moments and
can be designed directly.

  

  
        

 
     

Figure 2.7: Beam internal forces

2-8 SOFiSTiK 2020

 Theoretical Principles | ASE

For comparison a load case can be calculated once without input of CTRL PLAB and the
second time with CTRL PLAB 0 and another load case number. The beam internal forces and
moments of both calculations can be represented then with the same scale in a picture.

(More precise) calculation possibilities:

Also with the above describes method, the normal forces occur in the compression zone (plate)
first during the design of the T-beam. Normal forces are not considered during the calculation
of the FE system. The effective width has to be estimated manually and defined. In reality the
normal forces act from the supports into the plate. For a more precise calculation three pos-
sibilities are described here. For all three variants the effective width is realized automatically
via the normal force calculation and has not to be input:

1. The web part which is positioned below the plate can be defined as a beam which lies
eccentrically below the plate. Then two nodes lying upon each other are however neces-
sary for the system input. This complicates the input. Problems occur also for the design,
because the sum of the internal forces from web+plate including the parts of Steiner are
necessary for a design of the total T-beam. The method is therefore only reasonable for
composite slabs with eccentrically defined steel beams (see ASE example 5.3).

     
Figure 2.8: Eccentrical defined steel beam

2. The web can be also generated with shell elements. The same problems for the design
result as for the eccentrical beam. In addition it should be noted that the area in the
intersection point plate-web is not defined twice:

Figure 2.9: Shell elements

3. The SOFiSTiK offers the eccentrical plate elements as a real alternative. The system
is generated here with different thick plate elements. The plate elements get a larger
thickness in the area of the beams. A simply defined node plane which lies at the upper
edge of the plate is here necessary in the input. All elements can be defined eccentrically
below the node plane. Thereby all elements have the same upper edge, the thicker
beam elements stand only below out. Normal forces which are considered for the design

SOFiSTiK 2020 2-9

ASE | Theoretical Principles

are produced due to the eccentrical position of the elements. Thereby the usual plate
design is done simultaneously the beam design - a special beam design is therefore
not necessary. The FE analysis uses here automatically the real effective width via the
simultaneous analysis of the normal force distribution. This method is therefore applicable
not only for the analysis of building slabs but also for analysis of concrete bridges. Each
elements is processed for themselves alone during design and not the total T-beam
cross section! This method is however only correct for beams with moderate thickness.
The design can be uneconomical for larger beams (web height larger than 2.5·plate
thickness), but it is in each case at the sure side. The simple method with fictitious beams
lying in the plate is more practical for larger web heights.

plane of the
node points

eccenticity

centroid line of QUAD lying

underside of the below the ndoe plane
QUAD elements

Figure 2.10: Eccentrical plate element

In example steel_composite_real.dat three methods with beams are compared for bridge de-
sign. In voided_slabḋat and tendon_failureḋat excentric quads are used for the slab cantilever.

For all analysis methods the resultant internal forces and moments can be determined with the
program SIR (Sectional Results) and DECREATOR. Afterwards a design as beam cross sec-
tion is possible, also for system 2 from folded structure elements. This is especially necessary
in bridge design for checks of the ultimate limit state and for checks for safety against cracking.

Literature: Katz and Stieda [1], Wunderlich, Kiener, and Ostermann [2], Bellmann [3], and
Katz [4]

2.3.5 T-Beam Philosophy excentric (for bridges)

In bridge design the following method is perfect to get the full forces in the beam and at the
same time use a quad slab for the distribution of loads:

Separation of forces to beam and slab

2-10 SOFiSTiK 2020

 Theoretical Principles | ASE

Bem Qd

Figure 2.11: Example two girder T-Beam bridge with quad deck

As you immediately see in figure 2.11 concrete is input twice, one time in the quad and at the
same location in the beam section. This is done because the traditional bridge engineer wants
100% of the force in longitudinal direction in the beam section. In the T-Beam philosophy on
excentric beams with TBEX the double parts are treated as shown in figure Bild 2.12:

Bem Qd

correctonbem

Figure 2.12: Internally used stiffness parts in longitudinal direction

The double defined concrete part (beam+quad) is now substracted using a correction beam.
This correction beam is created automatically using TBEX and has a negative stiffness to
compensate the double concrete part, also in excentric position. You can say it is an excentric
beam with negative E-modulus. The forces of the three parts are now as shown in figure 2.13:

SOFiSTiK 2020 2-11

ASE | Theoretical Principles

N=0
Bem M = 1000 kNm

Qd
N = -150 kN
M = 80 kNm

correctonbem
N = +150 kN
M = -80 kNm

Figure 2.13: Forces of the three parts e.g. on 1000 kNm external bending moment

As the correction beam compensates the stiffness of the quads in longitudinal direction of the
bridge, the real beam gets the full bending moment of the bridge as in a discretisation with
beams only.

The quad elements are excentrically above the center of gravity of the beam and so get a
compression normal force. The correction beam gets the oposite forces due to the negative
stiffness. We see that the sum of forces of all three parts is exactly N=0 and M= 1000 kNm.

All forces are related to the center of the individual part as they also appear in WINGARF and
AQB.

Comment to internal analysis: the real beam also stores the forces of the correction beam.
Setting on a primary load case (CSM construction stages), all parts are taken into account
correctly. For temperature loading and creep and shrinkage this is done as well. The correction
beam uses the creep and shinkage values from the quads and so also compensates the creep
and shrinkage of the quad elements.

Problem normal forces: the beam bending moments reach quite well the results of a pure
beam analysis. But in a pure beam analysis no normal forces occur in such a simple two span
girder. Unfortunately we cannot reach this with PLEX and full isotropic quads because the
correction beam shall compensate the stiffness of the quads but cannnot do this completely for
the normal forces. The following figure 2.14 shows the normal forces in the quads. We see the
typical compression bulb - that means that the normal forces need some time or distance to
flow from the slab into the web. Or in other words: the forces need some time (some distance)
to spread to whole slab:

2-12 SOFiSTiK 2020

 Theoretical Principles | ASE

Figure 2.14: Normal forces in the quad deck slab

Figure 2.15: Distance for the web shear force to spread into the slab

As the correction beam is a beam element, the normal force due to the excentricity to the real
beam is created immediately - without a shift due to the compression bulb. So the real beam
gets a (little) delta-N, see following figure:

Bem

correctonbem Qd

det − N

Figure 2.16: Center: normal force in the excentirc correction beam

If this disadvantage counts more than the advantage of a full isotropic slab (better load distribu-
tion, transverse prestress) you can also use the quad slab without normal stiffness with GRP2
QUEA 1E-5 as shown in loadcase 103 in t_beam_excentric_test.dat.

Further remarks to dead load, transverse slab prestress, ELLA and a possible reduction of the
normal stiffness of the slab can be found at the input of TBEX.

2.4 Pile Elements

A single pile is idealized through a straight, elastically supported beam with shear deformations
and 2nd order theory. It is numerically integrated with the complete system of 12 differential
equations. Pile elements get a minimal constraint of the rotational spring in order to prevent
instabilities.

Example see single_pile.dat

These equations are integrated numerically with the Runge-Kutta method.

SOFiSTiK 2020 2-13