Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Numerical and analytical investigations of flexural behaviours of ECC–LWC

encased steel beams
Md. Imran Kabir a, C.K. Lee a, *, Y.X. Zhang b
a
School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
b
School of Engineering, Western Sydney University, NSW 2751, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: By conducting a series of experimental study, the authors recently demonstrated that engineered cementitious
Engineered Cementitious Composites composites (ECC) can be employed to encase the compression flanges of structural steel sections to prevent
Encased steel beam slender flanges from local buckling and lateral torsional buckling of laterally unconstrainted beams. In this
Flexural behaviour
context, this paper presents comprehensive numerical and analytical investigations on the flexural behaviour of
Numerical modelling
Analytical solution
ECC-lightweight concrete (LWC) encased steel beams with a wide range of steel section geometry (from compact
to slender) and steel grade (from normal strength to high strength). In the numerical study, a validated
three–dimensional (3D) nonlinear finite element (FE) model was adopted to carry out a parametric study on the
flexural capacity of 234 encased beams with different design parameters such as steel grade, ECC and LWC
strengths, compactness of steel section, beam depth to width aspect ratio and flange and web thicknesses etc.
Furthermore, an analytical model was developed by using the strain compatibility and force equilibrium con­
ditions to predict the load-deformation curves of the encased beams until the flexural failure of the beams.
Finally, in order to reduce efforts needed for day-to-day design, a simplified analytical solution was also pro­
posed, and its accuracy was validated.

1. Introduction
While the application of structural steel as a flexural member offers
numerous advantages, one of the limitations of using structural steel is
that local buckling and lateral torsional buckling (LTB) could occur if the
compression flange of the steel section is slender and/or when the beam
is not restrained adequately. Under such situations, the flexural capacity
of the steel section could be reduced significantly. Many studies have
demonstrated that the premature failure of normal strength steel (NSS)
beam due to local buckling or LTB could be prevented by encasing the
steel section in normal concrete (NC) [1–4]. However, such beams often
failed by shear due to the low shear and tensile strengths of concrete.
Thus, the use of closely spaced transverse reinforcement or shear con­
nectors to prevent premature shear failure, which could complicate the
construction process especially near beam-column joint areas, is
required. Some further studies [5–8] related to high strength steel (HSS)-
concrete composite beams showed that by connecting the HSS section
with concrete slab using shear connectors, the flexural capacities of the
composite beams were improved. However, the failure modes of these
beams were concrete crushing before the yielding of the HSS section.
Furthermore, in case of slender HSS section [9], bond failure between
the concrete encasement and the compression flanges of the HSS sec­
tions was observed before the crushing of concrete. As a result, local
buckling of the compression flanges of the HSS sections was observed
which resulted in the premature failure of the beams before the full
plastic moment capacity of the HSS sections was developed.
In contrast, recent studies by the authors [3–4,10–12] demonstrated
that an alternative encasement configuration where the combined use of
Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) and Light Weight Concrete
(LWC) could successfully prevent local buckling and LTB of both NSS
and HSS I-beams. Since the material cost of ECC is higher than that of
NC, ECC was only employed to encase the compression flange of the
steel section to prevent the onset of local buckling and LTB, while LWC
was employed in the remaining part of the beam to reduce the cost and
weight of the beam. Thus, the proposed ECC-LWC beams offered many
advantages over the conventional methods such as the elimination of
transverse reinforcement or shear connectors, protection against
corrosion, enhancement of fire resistance of the embedded steel member
and simplification of construction process. However, due to the high cost
of testing and limitations of the testing facility available, only a limited

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: c.lee@adfa.edu.au (C.K. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112356
Received 10 December 2020; Received in revised form 28 February 2021; Accepted 1 April 2021
Available online 18 April 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Md. Imran Kabir et al.
Fig.1. ECC-LWC encased beams and FE model. (a) Typical cross-sections of the “-t” configuration, (b) Typical cross-sections of the “-bt” configuration, (c) FE model,
boundary and loading conditions a typical beam with the “-t” configuration.
number of beams with a maximum load capacity of 800 kN and 3.5 m
clear span under four-point bending were tested. As a result, the effects
of various geometric and material parameters could not be explored
thoroughly by these experimental studies. Thus, a detailed numerical
parametric study is necessary to complement the experimental study in
order to obtain an in–depth understanding of the flexural behaviour this
type of encased beams with different geometric and material
parameters.
As both experimental and detailed numerical methods required a
significant amount of resources and computational efforts to conduct,
they would not be easily employed by practical engineers in their day­
–to–day design. Therefore, the availability of a reliable analytical model
which needs much less computational resources and time to conduct is
essential for promoting such encasement configurations in practical
applications. In addition, a comprehensive analytical model which could
predict the complete load–deflection curve and the flexural capacities of
the encased beams will also be useful for researchers to study the flex­
ural responses of the proposed beam.
This study has two main objectives. The first objective is to conduct a
2
Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356
comprehensive numerical study which employs the validated 3D non-
linear finite element (FE) model suggested in [4,10–12] to model the
behaviours of 234 fully ECC–LWC encased steel beams which cover a
wider range of material and geometric parameters. The second objective
is to propose an analytical model which could predict the full
load–deformation behaviours of the encased steel beams. Furthermore,
based on the full analytical model, a simplified analytical model was also
devised to determine the flexural capacity (load when the compression
ECC cover failure) of the encased steel beams. Finally, the accuracy of
the proposed simplified analytical model was evaluated against all the
test and numerical parametric study results.
2. Comprehensive numerical study
It has been demonstrated that the 3D nonlinear FE model developed
in [4,10,12] could accurately predict the entire flexural responses
(including the initial stiffness, top cover failure load, the mid–span
deflection, and the post peak behaviours) of the fully ECC–LWC encased
steel beams. Therefore, this FE model was adopted in the comprehensive
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 1
Values of parameters used in the constitutive material model of steel section.
Steel grade Parameter
εy (%) fy (MPa) εp (%) εu (%) fu (MPa)
S350 0.175 350 2.6 11.91 592.81
S690 0.383 760.04 – 5.6 881.21
S960 0.482 964.61 – 4.7 1244.9
parametric study to thoroughly investigate the effects of different ma­
terial and geometric parameters on the flexural behaviour of the encased
beams. In the next section, a concise description is given on the key
features of this FE model. More detailed descriptions and the validations
of the FE models are presented in [4,10,12].
2.1. Key features of the 3D nonlinear FE model used
In the 3D nonlinear FE model used, different ingredients of the
ECC–LWC encased steel beams (i.e., ECC, HSS and LWC, Fig. 1a and b)
were modelled using the eight-node hexahedral solid elements C3D8R
elements (Fig. 1c) available in the FE package ABAQUS [13]. In order to
reproduce the loading and support conditions used during the tests
[4,10–12], rigid loading and support plates were created and connected
to the beam at the supports and loading points using the ABAQUS’s tie
constraint feature [13] (Fig. 1c). In order to distribute the loading and
support reactions to the beam uniformly and prevent stress concentra­
tion and local failure, one reference point (RP) [13] was created for each
loading/support plate to prescribe the appropriate boundary conditions
that corresponding to the actual loading and support conditions adopted
in the tests. As it was confirmed in previous studies [4,10,12] that a
mesh with 40 mm nominal element size can predict the flexural
behaviour of the encased beams accurately at a reasonable computa­
tional cost, all the beams used in parametric study were discretised using
elements with a nominal size of 40 mm.
Displacement controlled loading were applied at the two loading
points while the simply supported boundary conditions were repro­
duced by imposing the pin support conditions at one end and the roller
support conditions at the other end. It should be noted that the boundary
conditions were applied through the corresponding RP of the loading/
support plates (Fig. 1c). As previous testy results [4,10–12] confirmed
that bond slip could occur between the ECC/LWC and steel interfaces,
surface to surface cohesive interactions was employed for prescribing
the bond-slip behaviours between the interfaces of ECC and steel sec­
tion. The push test results obtained by Rana et al. [14] were adopted for
defining the surface-to-surface cohesive behaviours. In addition, a sim­
ple Coulomb friction model with a frictional coefficient of 0.25 was used
for defining the interactions between the LWC and steel surfaces.
Finally, as it was observed in previous tests [4,10–12] that perfect bond
exists between the ECC-LWC interfaces, all ECC-LWC interfaces were
connected using the tie constraint feature of ABAQUS [13].
The constitutive material models proposed in [15–16], [17] and [18]
were respectively employed to define the stress–strain behaviours of
steel section, ECC and LWC. Previous studies [3,4,10–12] show that
these models can reproduce the experimental compressive and tensile
stress–strain behaviours of the materials. The Concrete Damage Plas­
ticity (CDP) model was adopted as the damage model of ECC and LWC
[4]. The values of all key parameters used in the material models are
presented in Tables 1–4. The definitions of the key parameters are shown
in Figs. 2–5.
E(MPa)
2.2. Design of the parametric study
200,000
198,220
200,000
The main proposed of the parameter study is to investigate the effects
of different grades of materials and the geometric properties on the
flexural behaviour the ECC–LWC encased steel beams. Towards this end,
based on the experimental results obtained in [3,4,10–12], it is found
that the following seven material and geometric properties are key pa­
rameters that could influence the flexural resistance of the beam:
(i)the compressive strength of ECC (30 MPa, 50 MPa, and 70 MPa),
(ii)the compressive strength of LWC (20 MPa, 40 MPa, and 50 MPa)
(iii)the yield strength of steel (350 MPa, 690 MPa, and 960 MPa)
(iv) the thickness of flange (6 mm, 8 mm, and 10 mm)
(v) the thickness of web (4 mm, 5 mm, and 6 mm)
(vi) the thickness of ECC layer (25%, 50%, and 75% of the beams
depth), and
(vii) the thickness of compression (top) and tension (bottom) covers
(25 mm, 30 mm and 40 mm).
It should be mentioned here that while ECC is well known for its
superior the tensile ductility (up to 2%) when compared with conven­
tional concrete (0.23%), its tensile ductility and strength (up to 8 MPa)
are still much smaller than all steel grades (at least 15% and 275 MPa).
Hence, when ECC is employed to encase the steel section, ECC’s tensile
performance is not very important as nearly all the tensile force at the
tension side of the beam will be resisted by the steel section. This
observation has been confirmed in [3] where it was found that the
flexural strength of the beams was only slightly affected by the tensile
strength of ECC used. Hence, the effects of the tensile strength and
ductility of ECC were not included in the current parametric study.
For each parameter, three different parametric values, which cover a
reasonable range for practical applications, are considered. Their values
are listed in the backets following the name of the parameters.
Besides the above parameters, the effects of two different ECC cover
configurations and three different beam depth to width ratios were
investigated. For the ECC cover configuration, the first configuration
corresponds to a design where only the compression (top) flange of the
steel section was encased by ECC (Fig. 1a) and the suffix “–t” will be
employed to refer those beams with such configuration. The second
configuration, which is denoted by the suffix “–bt” is corresponding to a
design with both flanges were encased by ECC (Fig. 1b). For both con­
figurations, the remaining portion of the steel section was encased by
LWC. Furthermore, for each configuration, three different beam depth
(D) to beam width (B) ratios of 1.2 (B-1 series), 1.76 (B-2 series) and 2.04
(B-3 series) were considered by using three different steel sections. The
Table 3
Values of parameters used in the constitutive material model of ECC under
tension (for all ECC compressive strengths).
ft(ecc) (MPa) εt0 (%) σtp (MPa) εtp (%) εtu (%)
4.79 0.022 5.17 0.77 0.86

Table 2
Values of parameters used in the constitutive material model of ECC under compression.
ECC grade Parameter

ε0.4 (%) σ0.4 (MPa) ε0 (%) fc(ecc)

’
(MPa) εl (%) σl (MPa) εmax (%) σc (MPa) E0 (MPa)

30 0.08 12 0.53 30.15 0.79 15.11 1.05 3.78 15,500

50 0.1 19.28 0.52 48.19 0.81 20.43 2.38 14.97 19,220
70 0.15 28.22 0.49 70.54 0.78 34.29 3.17 24.67 19,220

3
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 4
Values of parameters used in the constitutive material model of LWC.
LWC grade Parameter

εyc (%) 0.4f ’c (MPa) ε’c (%) fc’ (MPa) εcu (%) σcu (MPa) Ec (MPa)

20 0.038 8.12 0.22 19.94 0.79 11.46 21,019

40 0.054 15.13 0.2 40.08 0.58 9.8 29,725
50 0.062 18.6 0.195 49.95 0.46 8.83 33,234

Fig. 2. Tensile stress–strain curves of normal strength and high strength steels.

Fig. 5. Compressive stress–strain curve of LWC.

cross–sectional profiles of all 3 × 2 = 6 different combinations of these

two ECC cover configurations and three beam aspect ratios are shown in
Table 5. Note that according to the AS4100 classification [19], the steel
sections used in the B-1 series are compact (i.e., sections can reach the
plastic limit under bending) for S350 and S690 steel grades and non-
compact (i.e., sections can only reach the elastic limit) for S960 steel
grade. For the B-2 series, the sections used are non-compact for S350 and
S690 steel grades and slender (i.e., sections cannot reach the elastic
limit) for S960 steel grade. Finally, for the B-3 series, the sections are
non-compact for the S350 steel grade and slender for the S690 and S960
steel grades. A summary of abbreviations employed to define the
geometrical and materials properties of beams modelled in the para­
metric study is given in Table 6.
Fig. 3. Compressive stress–strain curve of ECC. It should be noted that in this parametric study, not all combinations
of the seven selected parameters, the two different ECC cover configu­
rations and the three beam aspect ratios are modelled. As this will lead
to a very large number (37 × 2 × 3 = 13,122) of models that exceeds the
computational resources available and generated a huge amount of re­
sults that are very difficult to interpret. Hence, the whole parametric
study was divided into two parts. The first part focused on the effects of
material parameters (i.e., yield strength of steel, compressive strengths
of ECC and LWC) while in the second part the focus was given to the
effects of geometrical parameters (i.e., thickness of steel section’s flange,
web, thickness of ECC encasements and covers).

3. Parametric study results and discussions

3.1. Effects of the material parameters

Fig. 4. Tensile stress–strain curves of ECC.
3.1.1. General
In order to study the effect of material parameters, 162 models with
different material grades were created and their flexural capacities were
computed by the detailed FE model. Details of these models are sum­
marized in Table 7 for the “-t” configuration (Fig. 1a) and in Table 8 for
the “-bt” configuration. For all cases, the moment capacities obtained
from the FE model (Mu, FE) were compared against the corresponding

4
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 5
Configurations of beams used in the parametric study.
Series Steel section (ds Depth of steel Flange Web thickness, Width (B) × Height (D) det deb Cross-section profile of the
× bf × tf × tw) section, ds (mm) tw (mm) of the beam (mm × mm) beams
Width, bf Thickness, tf
(mm) (mm)

B-1-t 150 × 75 × 6 × 6 150 75 6 6 175 × 210 0.25D 0

B-1- 150 × 75 × 6 × 6 0.25D 0.25D

bt

B-2-t 310 × 110 × 6 × 310 110 6 6 210 × 370 0.25D

6

B-2- 310 × 110 × 6 × 0.25D 0.25D

bt 6

B-3-t 450 × 150 × 6 × 450 150 6 6 250 × 510 0.25D

6

B-3- 450 × 150 × 6 × 0.25D 0.25D

bt 6

Note:
(1) det = Depth of the compressive (top) ECC layer.
(2) deb = Depth of the tension (bottom) ECC layer.
(3) Classification of steel section web according to AS4100:2020 (for sections with 6 mm flange and 6 mm web).
C = Compact section with component aspect ratio ≤ plastic limit; N = Non-compact section with plastic limit < component aspect ratio ≤ elastic limit, S = Slender
section wit component aspect ratio > elastic limit.

Table 6
moment capacities of the steel sections (Mp) and presented in the terms Summary of abbreviations employed to define the geometrical and materials
of Mu, FE/Mp. Note that if the steel section used is compact, Mp is equal properties of beams modelled in the parametric study.
the plastic moment capacity of the section. While for non-compact and Abbreviation Description
slender sections, Mp is corresponding to the effective moment capacities
E30/E50/E70 ECC with compressive strength of 30 MPa/50 MPa/ 70 MPa
[19]. From Table 7, it is observed that the mean values of Mu, FE/Mp S350/S690/ Steel section with yield strength of 350 MPa/690 MPa/ 960 MPa
were 1.57, 1.45 and 2.05 for the B–1–t, B–2–t and B–3–t series, S960
respectively. Similarly, Table 8 shows that for the B–1–bt, B–2–bt and L20/L40/L50 LWC with compressive strength of 20 MPa/40 MPa/50 MPa
B–3–bt series, the mean values of Mu, FE/Mp were 1.6, 1.49, and 2.13, –t Only top flange of the steel section was encased in ECC
Both flanges of the steel section were encased in ECC
respectively. Therefore, it is concluded that when comparing the “-t”
–bt
B-1 series The encased steel section was 150 × 75 × 6 × 6
series (only the compression flange is encased by ECC) with the “-bt” B-2 series The encased steel section was 310 × 110 × 6 × 6
series (both the compression and tension flanges were encased by ECC), B-3 series The encased steel section was 450 × 150 × 6 × 6

5
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 7
Details and FE modelling results for the B-1-t, B-2-t, and B-3-t series beams used in material parameters investigation.
Beam Material properties Configuration of beams

f’ECC fy f’LWC B-1-t (150 × 75 × 6 × 6) B-2-t (310 × 110 × 6 × 6) B-3-t (450 × 150 × 6 × 6)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Pu^ Mu, FE Mp* Mu, FE Pu^ Mu, FE* Mp* Mu, FE Pu^ Mu, FE Mp* Mu, FE
* /Mp /Mp * /Mp

E30S350L20 30 350 20 92.2 46.08 27.92 1.65 329 164.55 144.45 1.14 685.2 343 214.84 1.59
E30S350L40 40 92.5 46.23 1.66 330 164.86 1.14 682.92 341 1.59
E30S350L50 50 93.8 46.92 1.68 337 168.7 1.17 682.44 341 1.59
E30S690L20 30 690 20 158 78.78 55.04 1.43 582 291.09 202.82 1.44 1226.1 613 301.65 2.03
E30S690L40 40 158 79.16 1.44 587 293.34 1.45 1228.9 614 2.04
E30S690L50 50 160 79.94 1.45 598 299.06 1.47 1227 614 2.03
E30S960L20 30 960 20 195 97.73 76.58 1.28 726 362.96 239.24 1.52 1523.4 762 355.81 2.14
E30S960L40 40 196 98.05 1.28 731 365.64 1.53 1509.9 755 2.12
E30S960L50 50 199 99.58 1.3 729 364.72 1.52 1546.4 773 2.17
E50S350L20 50 350 20 102 51.22 27.92 1.83 351 175.67 144.45 1.22 751.64 376 214.84 1.75
E50S350L40 40 102 51.06 1.83 355 177.51 1.23 759.19 380 1.77
E50S350L50 50 104 51.9 1.86 355 177.61 1.23 753.03 377 1.75
E50S690L20 50 690 20 167 83.68 55.04 1.52 617 308.5 202.82 1.52 1310.5 655 301.65 2.17
E50S690L40 40 169 84.55 1.54 620 309.76 1.53 1324.4 662 2.2
E50S690L50 50 170 85.12 1.55 628 313.83 1.55 1322.1 661 2.19
E50S960L20 50 960 20 205 102.7 76.58 1.34 771 385.72 239.24 1.61 1646.5 823 355.81 2.31
E50S960L40 40 203 101.7 1.33 775 387.25 1.62 1612.7 806 2.27
E50S960L50 50 209 104.6 1.37 775 387.25 1.62 1617.5 809 2.27
E70S350L20 70 350 20 110 54.75 27.92 1.96 371 185.66 144.45 1.29 775.17 388 214.84 1.8
E70S350L40 40 110 55.05 1.97 371 185.49 1.28 794.87 397 1.85
E70S350L50 50 109 54.67 1.96 378 189.07 1.31 772.49 386 1.8
E70S690L20 70 690 20 179 89.42 55.04 1.62 643 321.64 202.82 1.59 1348.5 674 301.65 2.24
E70S690L40 40 180 90.2 1.64 643 321.61 1.59 1347.2 674 2.23
E70S690L50 50 183 91.26 1.66 653 326.43 1.61 1340.4 670 2.22
E70S960L20 70 960 20 217 108.4 76.58 1.42 796 398.11 239.24 1.66 1684.3 842 355.81 2.37
E70S960L40 40 217 108.3 1.41 794 397.19 1.66 1690.3 845 2.38
E70S960L50 50 208 104.2 1.36 791 395.25 1.65 1689.6 845 2.37
Mean 1.57 Mean 1.45 Mean 2.05
^
Units are in kN.
*
Units are in kN-m.

Table 8
Details and FE modelling results for the B-1-bt, B-2-bt, and B-3-bt series beams used in material parameters investigation.
Beam Material properties Configuration of beams

f’ECC fy f’LWC B-1-bt (150 × 75 × 6 × 6) B-2-bt (310 × 110 × 6 × 6) B-3-bt (450 × 150 × 6 × 6)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) ^ ^
Pu Mu, FE Mp* Mu, FE Pu Mu, FE* Mp* Mu, FE Pu^ Mu, FE Mp* Mu, FE
* /Mp /Mp * /Mp

E30S350L20 30 350 20 92.2 46.08 27.92 1.74 329 164.55 144.45 1.23 685.2 343 214.84 1.73
E30S350L40 40 92.5 46.23 1.76 330 164.86 1.24 682.92 341 1.74
E30S350L50 50 93.8 46.92 1.78 337 168.7 1.28 682.44 341 1.75
E30S690L20 30 690 20 158 78.78 55.04 1.43 582 291.09 202.82 1.47 1226.1 613 301.65 2.12
E30S690L40 40 158 79.16 1.44 587 293.34 1.48 1228.9 614 2.12
E30S690L50 50 160 79.94 1.46 598 299.06 1.49 1227 614 2.15
E30S960L20 30 960 20 195 97.73 76.58 1.29 726 362.96 239.24 1.52 1523.4 762 355.81 2.18
E30S960L40 40 196 98.05 1.29 731 365.64 1.53 1509.9 755 2.19
E30S960L50 50 199 99.58 1.31 729 364.72 1.56 1546.4 773 2.20
E50S350L20 50 350 20 102 51.22 27.92 1.92 351 175.67 144.45 1.30 751.64 376 214.84 1.84
E50S350L40 40 102 51.06 1.91 355 177.51 1.29 759.19 380 1.84
E50S350L50 50 104 51.9 1.93 355 177.61 1.29 753.03 377 1.86
E50S690L20 50 690 20 167 83.68 55.04 1.54 617 308.5 202.82 1.55 1310.5 655 301.65 2.10
E50S690L40 40 169 84.55 1.55 620 309.76 1.57 1324.4 662 2.26
E50S690L50 50 170 85.12 1.55 628 313.83 1.55 1322.1 661 2.28
E50S960L20 50 960 20 205 102.7 76.58 1.35 771 385.72 239.24 1.57 1646.5 823 355.81 2.22
E50S960L40 40 203 101.7 1.34 775 387.25 1.63 1612.7 806 2.36
E50S960L50 50 209 104.6 1.35 775 387.25 1.60 1617.5 809 2.38
E70S350L20 70 350 20 110 54.75 27.92 2.03 371 185.66 144.45 1.36 775.17 388 214.84 1.94
E70S350L40 40 110 55.05 2.06 371 185.49 1.40 794.87 397 2.00
E70S350L50 50 109 54.67 2.06 378 189.07 1.40 772.49 386 2.03
E70S690L20 70 690 20 179 89.42 55.04 1.63 643 321.64 202.8 1.60 1348.5 674 301.6 2.29
E70S690L40 40 180 90.2 1.65 643 321.61 1.63 1347.2 674 2.31
E70S690L50 50 183 91.26 1.65 653 326.43 1.66 1340.4 670 2.35
E70S960L20 70 960 20 217 108.4 76.58 1.42 796 398.11 239.24 1.64 1684.3 842 355.81 2.41
E70S960L40 40 217 108.3 1.42 794 397.19 1.70 1690.3 845 2.40
E70S960L50 50 208 104.2 1.40 791 395.25 1.68 1689.6 845 2.42
Mean 1.60 Mean 1.49 Mean 2.13
^
Units are in kN.
*
Units are in kN-m.

6
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 6. (a) Failure mode, (b) yielding of steel section, (c) compressive, and (d) tensile damage contour plots of a typical B-3-bt series of beam at failure with
compressive strength of ECC, LWC and yield strength of steel equal to 30 MPa, 40 MPa, and 690 MPa, respectively.

Fig. 7. Variation of Mu, FE/Mp for different material strengths for the “-t” series beams.

7
Md. Imran Kabir et al.
Fig. 8. Variation of Mu, FE/Mp for different material strengths for the “-bt” series beams.
the Mu, FE/Mp ratio was slightly improved by 1.91%, 2.76%, and 3.9%
for the B-1, B–2 and B–3 series, respectively. Such slight improvements
were due to the tensile strength contribution from the ECC encasement
for the tension flange. It is because the peak tensile strain (εtp = 0.77%,
Table 3) of ECC is higher than the yield strain (εy from 0.175% to
0.482%, Table 1) of all steel grades, the ECC encasement for the tension
flange actually contributed to the moment resistance of the beam even
after the steel section was yielded. Furthermore, the Mu, FE/Mp values
also suggest that all encased steel sections attended their full plastic
capacity before failure and both local/LTB of the steel section were
prevented by the encasement. The typical failure modes of the beams
predicted by the FE model, including the yielding of the steel section,
compressive and tensile damage of the encasement materials are shown
in Fig. 6.
In order to obtain a better understanding on the overall trend of the
Mu, FE/Mp ratio, their values for all models are plotted in Fig. 7 and
Fig. 8. These figures indicate that Mu, FE/Mp increased with the increase
in material strengths for the B–2–t, B–2–bt, B–3–t and B–3–bt series.
However, for the B–1–t and B–1–bt series, with the same material
strength of ECC and LWC, Mu, FE/Mp decreased as the yield strength of
the steel section increased (Note that Mp also increase as the yield
strength of the steel increase.). The effects of each material property on
the flexural capacity of the beams is discussed separately in the
following sections.
3.1.2. Effect of ECC compressive strength
In order to investigate the effects of the compressive strength of ECC
(fECC
’
) on the flexural capacity the encased beams, fECC ’
was varied in
three steps: 30 MPa, 50 MPa and 70 MPa. The stress–strain behaviours of
ECC under compression were changed according to the compressive
strength. However, the values of the other parameters for defining the
CDP model were kept the same as listed in Table 8 of [4]. Fig. 9 shows
some typical plots of Mu, FE/Mp against the beam mid–span deflection
8
Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356
when fECC
’
was varied from 30 MPa to 70 MPa while the yield strength of
the steel sections and the compressive strength of LWC were fixed at 690
MPa and 40 MPa, respectively. Fig. 9 (g) and (h) suggest that as the
compressive strength of ECC was increased from 30 MPa to 70 MPa, Mu,
FE/Mp increased by 28.13% and 27.91% for B–1–t and B–1–bt series,
respectively. However, by doubling the compressive strength of the ECC,
only marginal improvements (4% to 6%) of the flexural capacity were
achieved for the B–2–t, B–2–bt, B–3–t and B–3–bt series.
3.1.3. Effect of LWC compressive strength
The effect of LWC compressive strength (fLWC
’
) was study by changing
fLWC
’
from 20 MPa to 50 MPa. Fig. 10 presents some typical normalized
moment–deflection curves for different values of fLWC ’
while the yield
strength of the steel section and the compressive strength of ECC were
fixed at 690 MPa and 50 MPa, respectively. Fig. 10 (a)–(f) clearly show
that the LWC’s compressive strength caused negligible effects. Fig. 10
(g) and (h) show that by increasing fLWC
’
from 20 MPa to 50 MPa, Mu, FE/
Mp was only increased by 0.5% to 2.5%. This was due to the low tensile
strength of LWC so that almost all tensile forces were carried by the ECC
and steel sections.
3.1.4. Effect of steel yield strength
The normalized moment–deflection curves for different steel yield
strength (fy ), with the ECC and LWC compressive strengths respectively
fixed at 50 MPa and 40 MPa, are shown in Fig. 11 (a) to (f). From these
plots, it is observed that Mu, FE/Mp were increased significantly as fy was
increased from 350 MPa to 960 MPa for the B–2–t, B–2–bt, B–3–t and
B–3–bt series (i.e. beams with higher D/B ratio and non-compact and
slender steel sections). Fig. 11 (g) and (h) further suggest that the
improvement of Mu, FE/Mp was about 20% to 25% when fy was increased
from 350 MPa to 960 MPa. However, this trend is opposite for the B–1–t
and B–1–bt series with the lowest D/B ratio. For these series, Mu, FE/Mp
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 9. (a)-(f) Some typical Mu, FE/Mp vs deflection curves for the “-t” and “-bt” series with different ECC strengths, (g) and (h) Variation of Mu, FE/Mp for different
ECC compressive strengths.

9
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 10. (a)-(f) Some typical Mu, FE/Mp vs deflection curves for the “-t” and “-bt” series with different LWC strengths, (g) and (h) Variation of Mu, FE/Mp for different
LWC compressive strengths.

10
Md. Imran Kabir et al.
Fig. 11. (a)-(f) Mu, FE/Mp vs deflection curves for the “-t” and “-bt” series with different steel yield strengths, (g) and (h) Variation of the Mu, FE/Mp for different steel
yield strengths.
was decreased for about 30% as fy was increased from 350 MPa to 960
MPa. The reason is that from Table 5, the steel sections used in the B-1
series are all non-slender and they can reach their plastic or elastic
moment capacities even they are not encased. Hence, as fy increased, the
moment capacity of the steel section also increased significantly. How­
ever, the overall flexural capacity of the encased beams did not increase
11
Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356
proportionately since the compressive strengths of ECC and LWC was
fixed. For the B-2 and B-3 series, since the steel section used are either
non-compact or slender, Mp is corresponding to the effective moment
capacity which does not increase proportionately as fy increases. How­
ever, for the encased beams since local buckling was prevented, the full
plastic moment capacity of the steel section could be utilized so that the
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 9
Details and modelling results of the B-1-t, B-2-t, and B-3-t series beams used in geometrical parameters investigation.
Beam ID Dimensions of the steel section (mm) det (% of beams Height, D) Clear cover (mm) PFEA (kN) Mu, FE (kN.m) Mp (kN.m) Mu, FE /Mp

ds bf tw tf

B-1-t-1 150 75 6 6 25% 30 169.80 84.90 55.04 1.54

B-1-t-2 8 196.54 98.27 66.78 1.47
B-1-t-3 10 223.85 111.9 77.84 1.44
B-1-t-4 4 6 25% 30 154.96 77.48 51.01 1.52
B-1-t-5 5 162.78 81.39 53.02 1.54
B-1-t-6 6 169.80 84.90 55.04 1.54
B-1-t-7 6 6 25% 30 169.80 84.90 55.04 1.54
B-1-t-8 30% 171.16 85.58 1.55
B-1-t-9 50% 168.81 84.41 1.53
B-1-t-10 6 6 25% 25 165.77 82.89 55.04 1.51
B-1-t-11 30 169.80 84.90 1.54
B-1-t-12 40 176.66 88.33 1.60
B-2-t-1 310 110 6 6 25% 30 624.23 312.1 202.82 1.54
B-2-t-2 8 716.62 358.3 326.77 1.10
B-2-t-3 10 806.58 403.2 393.45 1.03
B-2-t-4 4 6 25% 30 549.24 274.6 162.65 1.69
B-2-t-5 5 586.87 293.4 190.76 1.54
B-2-t-6 6 624.23 312.1 202.82 1.54
B-2-t-7 6 6 25% 30 624.23 312.1 202.82 1.54
B-2-t-8 30% 625.90 312.9 1.54
B-2-t-9 50% 637.02 318.5 1.57
B-2-t-10 6 6 25% 25 617.41 308.7 202.82 1.52
B-2-t-11 30 624.23 312.1 1.54
B-2-t-12 40 633.47 316.7 1.56
B-3-t-1 450 150 6 6 25% 30 1322 661.0 301.65 2.19
B-3-t-2 8 1505.6 752.8 464.00 1.62
B-3-t-3 10 1698.3 849.1 547.92 1.55
B-3-t-4 4 6 25% 30 1147.6 573.8 226.29 2.54
B-3-t-5 5 1234.7 617.3 283.52 2.18
B-3-t-6 6 1322.0 661 301.65 2.19
B-3-t-7 6 6 25% 30 1322.0 661 301.65 2.19
B-3-t-8 30% 1329.3 664.7 2.20
B-3-t-9 50% 1353.6 676.8 2.24
B-3-t-10 6 6 25% 25 1315.3 657.6 301.65 2.18
B-3-t-11 30 1322 661.0 2.19
B-3-t-12 40 1332.5 666.2 2.21

flexural capacity of the encased beams increased at a faster rate than Mp.
3.2. Effect of the geometric parameters
3.2.1. General
The geometric parameters considered in this study included:
(i) the flange width to thickness ratio, bf/tf (7.5 to 25, by changing tf
from 10 mm to 6 mm and bf from 75 mm to 150 mm),
(ii) the web depth to thickness ratio, dw/tw (23 to 110, by changing tw
from 6 mm to 4 mm and dw from 150 mm to 450 mm),
(iii) the thickness of ECC encasement (det or deb, from 25% to 50% of
beam depth),
(iv) the thickness of clear cover (from 25 to 40 mm).
Similar to the material parameters study, the effects of these pa­
rameters were investigated with two encasement configurations (“-t”
and “-bt”) and three beam aspect ratios (B-1, B-2, and B-3). By consid­
ering these parameters, 72 models were created. Note that the steel yield
strength, the ECC compressive strength and the LWC compressive
strength were fixed at 690 MPa, 50 MPa and 40 MPa, respectively.
The details of these models and the results obtained are summarized
in Tables 9 and 10 for the “-t” and “-bt” series, respectively. Values of Mu,
FE obtained from the FE analyses were compared against the corre­
sponding Mp of the steel sections and presented in terms of Mu, FE/Mp.
The results obtained are plotted in Figs. 12–15 and will be discussed the
following sections.
3.2.2. Effect of flange width to thickness ratio
Since in the parametric study, the width of the flange was fixed, as
the flange width to thickness ratio increased, the plate slenderness was
decreased. As a result, the beam flexural capacity was also increased.
From Table 9, it is observed that for the “–t” series, decreasing the steel
flange width to thickness (bf/tf) ratio increased the flexural capacity for
the B-1, B-2, and B-3 series by 32%, 29.2% and 28.5%, respectively.
Similarly, it was observed from Table 10 that for the “–bt” series beams,
the improvement in the flexural capacity was 31%, 32.56% and 27%,
respectively. For different flange width to thickness ratios, the normal­
ized moment capacity vs mid-span deflection curves of some typical
beams are plotted in Fig. 12. From Fig. 12 (a) and (b), it can be seen that
Mu, FE/Mp was decreased as the flange thickness was increased. This is
because, with the increase in flange thickness, the plastic moment ca­
pacity of the steel section was increased significantly, but the total
flexural capacity of the encased beams did not increase at the same rate
(since the ECC and LWC strengths were fixed). Mu, FE/Mp decreased
approximately by 7% for the B–1–t and B–1–bt series, whereas for the
B–2–bt, B–2–bt, B–3–t and B–3–bt series, Mu, FE/Mp decreased by about
32%. Hence, it can be concluded that by increasing the flange thickness,
the decrease in Mu, FE/Mp was less for compact/non-compact beams (B-1
series) than slender beams (B-2 and B-3 series).
3.2.3. Effect of web depth to thickness ratio
Similar to the steel flange thickness, the beam flexural capacity
increased with the increase in web depth to thickness ratio (dw/tw). As
shown in Tables 9 and 10, the flexural capacities of the B–1–t, B–2–t and
B–3–t series were increased approximately by 10%, 13.7% and 15.2%,
respectively. The improvement was about 2.3%, 11% and 15.5% for the
B–1–bt, B–2–bt and B–3–bt series, respectively. These results suggested
that increasing the web thickness of slender beams could improve the
flexural capacity. The normalized moment capacity vs mid-span

12
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 10
Details and modelling results of the B-1-bt, B-2-bt, and B-3-bt series beams used in geometrical parameters investigation.
Beam ID Dimensions of steel det (% of beams height, D) deb (% of beams height, D) Clear cover (mm) PFEA (kN) Mu, FE (kN.m) Mp (kN.m) Mu, FE /Mp
section (mm)

ds bf tw tf

B-1-bt-1 150 75 6 6 25% 25% 30 170.77 85.39 55.04 1.55

B-1-bt-2 8 197.31 98.66 66.78 1.48
B-1-bt-3 10 223.79 111.90 77.84 1.44
B-1-bt-4 4 6 25% 25% 30 157.90 78.95 51.01 1.55
B-1-bt-5 5 162.67 81.34 53.02 1.53
B-1-bt-6 6 170.77 85.38 55.04 1.55
B-1-bt-7 6 6 12.5% 12.5% 30 163 81.5 55.04 1.48
B-1-bt-8 15% 15% 166.02 83.01 1.51
B-1-bt-9 25% 25% 170.77 85.39 1.55
B-1-bt- 6 6 25% 25% 25 167.92 83.96 55.04 1.53
10
B-1-bt- 30 170.77 85.38 1.55
11
B-1-bt- 40 177.87 88.93 1.62
12
B-2-bt-1 310 110 6 6 25% 25% 30 619.51 309.76 202.82 1.53
B-2-bt-2 8 728.26 364.13 326.77 1.11
B-2-bt-3 10 821.42 410.71 393.45 1.04
B-2-bt-4 4 6 25% 25% 30 557.87 278.93 162.65 1.71
B-2-bt-5 5 601.26 300.63 190.76 1.58
B-2-bt-6 6 619.51 309.76 202.82 1.53
B-2-bt-7 6 6 12.5% 12.5% 30 611.75 305.88 202.82 1.51
B-2-bt-8 15% 15% 613.38 306.69 1.52
B-2-bt-9 25% 25% 619.51 309.76 1.53
B-2-bt- 6 6 25% 25% 25 631.38 315.69 202.82 1.56
10
B-2-bt- 30 619.51 309.76 1.53
11
B-2-bt- 40 646.43 323.21 1.59
12
B-3-bt-1 450 150 6 6 25% 25% 30 1363.0 681.49 301.65 2.26
B-3-bt-2 8 1547.5 773.75 464.00 1.67
B-3-bt-3 10 1732.2 866.09 547.92 1.58
B-3-bt-4 4 6 25% 25% 30 1180.5 590.26 226.29 2.61
B-3-bt-5 5 1258.6 629.27 283.52 2.22
B-3-bt-6 6 1363.0 681.49 301.65 2.26
B-3-bt-7 6 6 12.5% 12.5% 30 1350.8 675.4 301.65 2.24
B-3-bt-8 15% 15% 1355.9 677.95 2.25
B-3-bt-9 25% 25% 1363.0 681.5 2.26
B-3-bt- 6 6 25% 25% 25 1352.6 676.30 301.65 2.24
10
B-3-bt- 30 1363.0 681.49 2.26
11
B-3-bt- 40 1375.8 687.91 2.28
12

deflection curves of some typical beams with different dw/tw values are
plotted in Fig. 13. From Fig. 13 (a) and (b), it is further observed that the
influences of increasing web thickness were small for both the B–1–t and
B–1–bt series. However, for the B-2–t, B–2–bt, B–3–t and B–3–bt series,
Mu, FE/Mp for beams with 4 mm thick web are higher than beams with 5
mm and 6 mm thick web. It is also important to note that for these series
of beams, Mu, FE/Mp as not much affected when the web thickness was
increased from 5 mm to 6 mm. Fig. 13 (g) and (h) further confirm that
Mu, FE/Mp decreased for 8–14% when the web thickness was varied from
4 to 6 mm for the B–2–t, B–2–bt, B–3–t and B–3–bt series.
3.2.4. Effect of ECC encasement thickness
In Fig. 14 (a)–(h), the normalized moment capacity–deflection
curves for ECC encasement thickness are plotted. From these plots, it is
found that the stiffnesses and the flexural capacity were only slightly
increased when thicker ECC layer was employed. These results
confirmed that if the ECC encasement thickness is more than 25% of the
beam depth, increasing the ECC compressive strength is more effective
than increasing the ECC encasement thickness in terms of flexural ca­
pacity improvement. From Tables 9 and 10 shows that by doubling the
ECC depth, the flexural capacity was just increased by 4.76%.
3.2.5. Effect of ECC cover thickness
The effect of ECC cover thickness was investigated by varying the
cover from 25 mm to 40 mm with the ECC encasement thickness was
fixed at 25% of beam’s depth. The results obtained are summarized in
Fig. 15. Fig. 15 (a) to (d) show that Mu, FE/Mp was slightly affected by the
increase in cover thickness for all series. From Tables 9 and 10, it is
further observed that the beam’s flexural capacity was only increased by
1.5–6.5% as the cover thickness was changed to 25–40 mm. Hence, in
normal application 25 mm ECC cover thickness should be used.
4. Analytical model for predicting flexural capacity of ECC–LWC
encased steel beams
In this study, an analytical model is developed by using the strain
compatibility and force equilibrium to predict the full load–deformation
behaviours of the ECC–LWC encased steel beams. The constitutive ma­
terial laws as described in Section 2.1 were employed to define the
stress–strain behaviours of ECC, LWC and encased steel section. The
analytically predicted load–deformation curves were then validated
against the experimental and the detailed FE modelling load-
deformation curves reported in [4,10,12]. In addition, a simplified

13
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 12. (a)-(f) Some typical Mu, FE/Mp vs mid-span deflection curves for the “-t” and “-bt” series of beams with different bf/tf values. (g) and (h) Variation of the Mu,
FE/Mp for different bf/tf values.

14
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 13. (a)-(f) Some typical Mu, FE/Mp vs mid-span deflection curves for “-t” and “-bt” series of beams with different dw/tw values, (g) and (h) variation of the Mu, FE/
Mp for different dw/tw values.

15
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 14. (a)-(f) Some typical Mu, FE/Mp vs mid-span deflection curves for “-t” and “-bt” series of beams with different ECC encasement thickness, (g) and (h) variation
of Mu, FE/Mp for different ECC encasement thickness.

16
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 15. (a)-(f) Some typical Mu, FE/Mp vs deflection curves of for “-t” and “-bt” series of beams with different ECC cover thickness, (g) and (h) variation of the Mu, FE/
Mp for different ECC cover thickness.

17
Md. Imran Kabir et al.
Fig. 16. Case-I stress distribution when the N.A. is inside of the compression (top) ECC encasement.
Fig. 17. Case-II stress distribution when the N.A. is outside of the compression (top) ECC encasement.
analytical model was proposed for quick flexural capacity calculation.
Finally, the accuracy of the proposed simplified analytical model was
evaluated against the test results, the detailed FE modelling results ob­
tained in [4,10,12] as well as all 234 cases of parametric study results.
4.1. The full analytical model
During the development of the full analytical model, the following
assumptions were employed.
1. Plane section remains plane before and after bending.
2. Only pure flexural failure is considered. It is assumed that even for
slender beam, neither shear nor combined shear and flexural failure
will occur.
3. Based on the test results of [4,10–12], strains of LWC and ECC en­
casements and steel section are assumed to be linearly proportional
to its distance from the neutral axis (N.A.) until the top ECC cover
failure.
4. Tensile strength of LWC is ignored completely.
5. For ECC, only the tensile strength of the tension (bottom) ECC
encasement are considered. For the compressive (top) encasement,
its tensile strength is ignored.
6. Compressive stress distributions of the ECC and LWC encasements
are represented by rectangular stress blocks. However, both trian­
gular (before yielding) and rectangular (after yielding) stress blocks
are employed to represent the stress distribution of the steel section.
18
Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356
7. Perfect bond exists between the encased steel section and the ECC/
LWC surfaces.
8. No buckling of encased steel section will occur.
Based on the above assumptions, there are two possible scenarios
when the beam is subjected to bending. In Case–I, the neutral axis (N.A.)
is inside the compression (top) ECC encasement (Fig. 16). In Case–II, the
N.A is outside (below) of the compression ECC encasement (Fig. 17). For
both cases, a six-step procedure is employed to trace the
load–deformation curve of the encased beams.
4.1.1. Step–1: Determination of strains, stresses, and internal forces of
ECC, LWC and steel
In this step, the strains, and the corresponding stresses at the
compression (top) ECC, the LWC and the tension (bottom) ECC en­
casements are determined. In order to do so, a small strain increment is
added the existing strain at the extreme fibre of the top ECC encasement
to obtain the updated strain εc(ecc) .An initial trial value of D/2 (D is the
depth of the beam) of the N.A. depth dc is assumed. For this updated
εc(ecc) , the strains at the extreme fibre of the LWC and the bottom ECC
encasements can be expressed as
εc(ecc)
εc(lwc) = (dc − det ) (1)
dc
εc(ecc)
εt(ecc) = (D − dc ) (2)
dc
In Eqs. (1) and (2), εc(lwc) and εt(ecc) are the strains at the extreme fibre
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

of the LWC and bottom ECC encasement, respectively. In Eqs. (1), det εc(ecc)
refers the thickness of the top ECC encasement. εts(w) = (D − dc − ka ) (13)
dc
From Figs. 16 and 17, the compressive forces of the top ECC
encasement (Fc(ecc) ), the LWC encasement (Fc(lwc) ) and the tensile forces The corresponding compressive(Fcs(w) ) and tensile (Fts(w) ) forces in
of the bottom ECC encasement (Ft(ecc) ) can be expressed as the web can then be determined from Eqs. (14) and (15), respectively:
[ { } [
0.5(dc − ka )tw εcs(w) Es(w) if εcs(w) < εy(w)
Fc(ecc) =
αecc σc(ecc){ γecc dc B − Af − (γecc dc − ka )tw } if dc < det
(3) Fcs(w) = (14)
αecc σc(ecc) γecc det B − Af − (γecc det − ka )tw if dc > det 0.5(dc − ka − y’ )tw fy(w) + y’ tw fs(w) if εcs(w) > εy(w)

[ [
0.5(D − dc − ka )tw εts(w) Es(w) if εts(w) < εy(w)
Fc(lwc) =
0 if dc < det
(4) Fts(w) = (15)
αlwc σ c(lwc) {γlwc (dc − det )(B − tw )} if dc > det 0.5(D − dc − ka − y’’ )tw fy(w) + y’’ tw fs(w) if εts(w) > εy(w)

[ In Eqs. (14) and (15), Es(w) and εy(w) are the elastic modulus and the
0 if deb < 0
Ft(ecc) = { } (5) yielding strain of the web. The yielding strain of the web, εy(w) can be
ft(ecc) deb B − Af − (deb − ka )tw if deb > 0 f
expressed as Ey(w)
s(w)
where fy(w) is the yield strength of the web. In Eqs. (14)
In Eqs. (3) to (5), σ c(ecc) and σc(lwc) are the stresses of ECC and LWC at
and (15), fs(w) is the post yield stress of the web which can be obtained
the corresponding strains, respectively. Their values can be easily
again from the constitutive material law. y’ and y’’ are the height of the
calculated from the material models described in Section 2.1. The terms
yielded portion of the web under compression and tension, respectively.
B,Af , ka , and tw are respectively the width of the beam, the area of the
They can be expressed as
flange, the distance of the inner face of the flange to the top/bottom face
of the beam (Fig. 16), and the thickness of the web. ft(ecc) and deb are the dc
y’ = εy(w) if εcs(w) > εy(w) (16)
tensile strength and the thickness of the bottom ECC encasement, εc(ecc)
respectively. The two factorsα and γ in Eqs. (3) and (4) can be deter­
mined by using Eqs. (6) and (7) from the AS 3600 [20]. fc’ is the y’’ =
dc
εy(w) if εts(w) > εy(w) (17)
compressive strength of ECC or LWC. εc(ecc)

α = 1 − 0.003fc’ ≤ 0.82 (6) 4.1.2. Step 2: Determination of the neutral axis depth dc
For each value of εc(ecc) , by using the initial assumed value of N.A.
γ = 1.05 − 0.007fc’ ≤ 0.67 (7) depth dc = D/2, the strains, the stresses, and the corresponding internal
As perfect bonding between the steel section and the ECC/LWC is forces in all parts of the section can be obtained from Eqs. (1) to (17). If
assumed, the compressive and tensile strains in the flanges of the steel the beam is under bending only, the true value of dc can obtained by
section can be expressed as using the following equilibrium equations.
∑ ∑
εc(ecc) FC = FT (18a)
εcs(f ) = (dc − kb ) (8)
dc
Fc(ecc) + Fc(lwc) + Fcs(f ) + Fcs(w) = Ft(ecc) + Fts(f ) + Fts(w) (18b)
εc(ecc)
εts(f ) = (D − dc − kb ) (9) ∑ ∑
dc In Eq. (18a), FC and FT are the total compressive and tensile
forces acted on the section, respectively. As Eq. 18 is a nonlinear
where εcs(f) , and εts(f) are the compressive and tensile strains at the centre equation of dc , by starting with dc = D/2, the correct value of dc is ob­
of top and bottom flanges, respectively. kb is the distance of the centre of tained iteratively by using the standard bi–section method until both
the flange from the top face of the beam (Fig. 16). The corresponding sides of the Eq. (18b) are equal with an error tolerance of 0.001%.
compressive (Fcs(f) ) and tensile forces (Fts(f) ) in the compression and
tension flanges of the steel section can be determined from Eqs. (10) and 4.1.3. Step 3: Determination of the level arm distances of internal forces
(11), respectively. from the neutral axis
[ After the correct value of dc is computed, by using the stress distri­
Af εcs(f ) Es(f ) if εcs(f ) < εy(f )
Fcs(f ) = (10) bution diagram (Figs. 16 and 17), the level arm distances of the internal
Af fs(f ) if εcs(f ) > εy(f )
forces from the N.A. can calculated by using Eqs. (19) to (25).
[ [
Af εts(f ) Es(f ) if εts(f ) < εy(f ) d (1 − 0.5γecc ) if dc < det
Fts(f ) = (11) rc(ecc) = c (19)
Af fs(f ) if εts(f ) > εy(f ) dc − 0.5γecc det if dc > det
In Eqs. (11) and (12), Es(f) and εy(f) are the elastic modulus and the [
0 if dc < det
yielding strain of the steel flange. The yielding strain of the flange, εy(f) rc(lwc) = (20)
dc − (1 − 0.5γlwc )det if dc > det
fy(f )
can be expressed as Es(f )
where fy(f) is the yield strength of the flange. In
Eqs. (10) and (11), fs(f) is the post–yield stress of the flange, which can be rcs(f ) = dc − kb (21)
obtained from the constitutive material law described in Section 2.1. ( )
Similarly, the compressive(εcs(w) ) and tensile (εts(w) ) strains in the web rcs(w) =
dc − ka
(22)
can be determined from Eq. (12) and Eq. (13), respectively 2

εcs(w) =
εc(ecc)
(dc − ka ) (12) rt(ecc) = D − dc − 0.5deb (23)
dc
rts(f ) = D − dc − kb (24)

19
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

bottom ECC encasement, the bottom flange, and the web of the encased
steel section from the N.A.

4.1.4. Step 4: Calculation of the beam moment capacity

The applied moment MFAN of the composite section is then calculated
by taking moments of the internal forces about the N.A.

MFAN = Fc(ecc) rc(ecc) + Fc(lwc) rc(lwc) + Fcs(f ) rcs(f ) + Fcs(w) rcs(w) + Ft(ecc) rt(ecc)
+ Fts(f ) rts(f ) + Fts(w) rcs(w)
(26)

4.1.5. Step 5: Calculation of the effective flexural rigidity and curvature of

the beam
The formula proposed by Kara [21] was adopted for calculating the
mid–span deflection of the beam. The effective flexural rigidity EIeff of
the beam at the maximum moment location was first determined from
Fig. 18. A simply supported beam subjected to four-point bending. the moment–curvature relationship for each loading as
MFAN
(
D − dc − ka
) EI eff = (27)
rcs(w) = (25) φ
2
εc(ecc)
In Eqs. (19) to (22), rc(ecc) , rc(lwc) , rcs(f) , and rcs(w) are, respectively, the φ= (28)
dc
level arm distances of the compressive forces of the top ECC encasement,
the middle LWC encasement, the compression flange, and the web of the where φ is the curvature of the beam.
encased steel beams from the N.A.. Similarly, in Eqs. (23) to (25), rt(ecc) ,
rts(f ) , and rcs(w) are the level arm distances of the tensile forces of the

For each value , assume the depth of N.A, as D/2 and calculate the
values of strains, stresses and internal forces using Eq. 1 to 17.

Apply the force equilibrium conditions in Eq. 18.

+ + + = + +

if
Assume a new value
No of and calculate
∑ = ∑ the strains, stresses
and internal forces
using Eq. 1 to 17.
Yes

Determine the distances of the internal

forces from the N.A from Eq. 19 to 25

Determine the moment

capacity using Eq. 26.

Determine the effective flexural rigidity and

curvature from Eq. 27 to 28.

Determine the mid-span deflection, from Eq. 29.

Determine the applied load, P from Eq. 30.

Fig. 19. Steps to obtain the full load-deformation curve.

20
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 20. Stress distribution when an encased beam reaches its ultimate state.

Fig. 21. Flow chart for the calculation of moment capacity of the beams using simplified analytical method.

4.1.6. Step 6: Calculation of the mid–span deflection of the beam

MFAN
For a simply supported beam subjected to two symmetrically placed P= (30)
a
concentrated loads as shown in Fig. 18, the maximum mid–span
deflection, δmax can be determined as Obviously, Eqs. (27) to (30), can be easily extended to other loading
cases.
2 2
δmax =
Pa(3L − 4a )
(29) In order to trace out the load-deformation curve, an incremental
24EI eff procedure was employed. Starting from an initial value ofεc(ecc) = 0, at
In Eq. (29), a is the shear span, L is the clear span of the beam and P is each load step a small strain increment of 0.05% is added. The six-step
the applied load at each loading point and us equal to procedure described and Eqs. (1) to (30) are then applied and solved to
obtain the values of P and δmax . A flow chart of the whole procedure

21
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Fig. 22. Comparison of load–deflection curves obtained from full analytical model with experimental and FE results obtained in references [4,10and12]

22
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 11
Comparison of the top cover failure load obtained from the full and simplified analytical model against test and FE results from references [4,10,12].
Reference Top cover failure load (kN) PFAN/ PFAN/ PSAN/ PSAN/
PEXP PFEA PEXP PFEA
Beam From test, From FE analysis, From full analytical From simplified analytical
PEXP PFEA model, PFAN model, PSAN

Kabir et al. E50L50- 112.43 111.89 114.17 108.84 1.00 1.02 0.97 0.97
[4] bt
E75L25- 115 112.38 118.69 112.91 0.98 1.06 0.98 1.00
bt
E25L75-t 105.04 107.98 104.36 97.69 1.03 0.97 0.93 0.90
E50bt-f 192.15 194.10 191.01 205.47 1.01 0.98 1.07 1.06
Kabir et al. E75bt-f 191.79 201.05 201.47 211.94 1.05 1.00 1.11 1.05
[10]
E25t-f 214.61 205.31 207.14 197.32 0.96 1.01 0.92 0.96
Kabir et al. E15L85-f 607.16 588.83 580.25 594.89 0.97 0.99 0.98 1.01
[12]
E25L75-f 589.79 578.21 553.68 607.54 0.98 0.96 1.03 1.05
Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
COV 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06

employed is shown in Fig. 19. simplified procedure is a major extension of the formula devised in [12]
so that it is applicable to both the “-t and -bt” configurations. It also uses
the assumptions employed in the full analytical model but focuses on the
4.2. Simplified analytical model
ultimate state of the encased beam when the whole encased steel section
is yielded and the compression (top) ECC cover is failed. The stress
In order to use the full analytical solution to obtain the load-
distributions of the sections at the ultimate state are shown in Fig. 20.
deformation curve, solution of nonlinear equation (Eq. (26)) by an
Similar to the full analytical model, two scenarios are possible when the
iterative solver is required to obtain the position of the N.A. Therefore,
beam reaches its ultimate state. In Case–I, the N.A is inside the top ECC
computational tools like a spreadsheet program are needed so it may not
encasement (Fig. 20a) while it is outside the top encasement for Case-II
be the most convenient procedure for practical engineers to conduct
(Fig. 20b). To start the calculation, it is assumed that the position of the
their everyday design work. Hence, a simplified analytical model is also
N.A is inside the top encasement and the trial depth of the N.A is
proposed for the prediction of the encased beam’s flexural capacity. This

Table 12
Comparison of simplified analytical model results with FE results for the B-1-t, B-2-t, and B-3-t series beams used in material parameters investigation.
Beam Material Steel section
properties

f’ECC fy f’LWC B-1-t (150 × 75 × 6 × 6) B-2-t (310 × 110 × 6 × 6) B-3-t (450 × 150 × 6 × 6)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) ^ ^
PFEA Mu, FE MSAN MSAN/ PFEA Mu, FE* MSAN* MSAN/ PFEA^ Mu, FE* MSAN* MSAN/
* * Mu, FE Mu, FE Mu, FE

E30S350L20 30 350 20 92.15 46.08 43.4 0.94 329.09 164.55 154.19 0.94 685.2 342.6 319.25 0.93
E30S350L40 40 92.46 46.23 43.5 0.94 329.72 164.86 154.29 0.94 682.92 341.46 319.26 0.93
E30S350L50 50 93.84 46.92 43.5 0.93 337.4 168.7 154.32 0.91 682.44 341.22 319.26 0.94
E30S690L20 30 690 20 157.56 78.78 77.4 0.98 582.18 291.09 276.76 0.95 1226.13 613.07 574.42 0.94
E30S690L40 40 158.31 79.16 78.2 0.99 586.69 293.34 278.68 0.95 1228.87 614.44 577.26 0.94
E30S690L50 50 159.87 79.94 78.4 0.98 598.12 299.06 279.36 0.93 1227 613.5 578.23 0.94
E30S960L20 30 960 20 195.45 97.73 104 1.06 725.92 362.96 370.48 1.02 1523.41 761.71 768.84 1.01
E30S960L40 40 196.1 98.05 105 1.07 731.28 365.64 373.88 1.02 1509.94 754.97 774.68 1.03
E30S960L50 50 199.16 99.58 105 1.06 729.43 364.72 375.17 1.03 1546.44 773.22 776.83 1.00
E50S350L20 50 350 20 102.44 51.22 46.9 0.92 351.35 175.67 164.22 0.93 751.64 375.82 335.92 0.89
E50S350L40 40 102.13 51.06 46.9 0.92 355.02 177.51 164.22 0.93 759.19 379.59 335.92 0.88
E50S350L50 50 103.81 51.9 46.9 0.90 355.23 177.61 164.22 0.92 753.03 376.51 335.92 0.89
E50S690L20 50 690 20 167.37 83.68 83.1 0.99 617 308.5 296.23 0.96 1310.48 655.24 614.47 0.94
E50S690L40 40 169.1 84.55 83.4 0.99 619.51 309.76 296.75 0.96 1324.37 662.19 614.80 0.93
E50S690L50 50 170.24 85.12 83.5 0.98 627.66 313.83 296.94 0.95 1322.09 661.05 614.91 0.93
E50S960L20 50 960 20 205.45 102.72 110 1.07 771.43 385.72 392.93 1.02 1646.5 823.25 816.20 0.99
E50S960L40 40 203.47 101.73 111 1.09 774.5 387.25 394.66 1.02 1612.68 806.34 818.51 1.02
E50S960L50 50 209.2 104.6 111 1.06 774.5 387.25 395.32 1.02 1617.46 808.73 819.36 1.01
E70S350L20 70 350 20 109.5 54.75 48.2 0.88 371.32 185.66 168.06 0.91 775.17 387.58 342.80 0.88
E70S350L40 40 110.1 55.05 48.2 0.88 370.98 185.49 168.06 0.91 794.87 397.43 342.80 0.86
E70S350L50 50 109.34 54.67 48.2 0.88 378.14 189.07 168.06 0.89 772.49 386.25 342.80 0.89
E70S690L20 70 690 20 178.83 89.42 85.6 0.96 643.29 321.64 304.66 0.95 1348.46 674.23 632.00 0.94
E70S690L40 40 180.41 90.2 85.8 0.95 643.23 321.61 304.92 0.95 1347.19 673.6 632.05 0.94
E70S690L50 50 182.53 91.26 85.8 0.94 652.86 326.43 305.01 0.93 1340.44 670.22 632.07 0.94
E70S960L20 70 960 20 216.8 108.4 113 1.04 796.22 398.11 402.48 1.01 1684.25 842.13 836.51 0.99
E70S960L40 40 216.68 108.34 113 1.04 794.39 397.19 403.80 1.02 1690.31 845.16 838.03 0.99
E70S960L50 50 208.44 104.22 113 1.09 790.51 395.25 404.30 1.02 1689.63 844.82 838.59 0.99
Mean 0.98 Mean 0.96 Mean 0.95
COV 0.07 COV 0.05 COV 0.05
^
Units are in kN.
*
Units are in kN-m.

23
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 13
Comparison of simplified analytical model results and FE results for the B-1-bt, B-2-bt, and B-3-bt series beams used in material parameters investigation
Beam Material Steel section
properties

f’ECC fy f’LWC B-1-bt (150 × 75 × 6 × 6) B-2-bt (310 × 110 × 6 × 6) B-3-bt (450 × 150 × 6 × 6)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
PFEA^ Mu, FE MSAN MSAN/ PFEA^ Mu, FE* MSAN* MSAN/ PFEA^ Mu, FE* MSAN* MSAN/
* * Mu, FE Mu, FE Mu, FE

E30S350L20 30 350 20 92.15 46.08 47.76 1.04 329.09 164.55 171.03 1.04 685.2 342.6 358.72 1.05
E30S350L40 40 92.46 46.23 47.99 1.04 329.72 164.86 171.48 1.04 682.92 341.46 359.11 1.05
E30S350L50 50 93.84 46.92 48.06 1.02 337.4 168.7 171.61 1.02 682.44 341.22 359.22 1.05
E30S690L20 30 690 20 157.56 78.78 81.24 1.03 582.18 291.09 291.43 1.00 1226.13 613.07 608.76 0.99
E30S690L40 40 158.31 79.16 82.16 1.04 586.69 293.34 294.07 1.00 1228.87 614.44 613.13 1.00
E30S690L50 50 159.87 79.94 82.51 1.03 598.12 299.06 295.01 0.99 1227 613.5 614.62 1.00
E30S960L20 30 960 20 195.45 97.73 107.1 1.10 725.92 362.96 384.29 1.06 1523.41 761.71 801.05 1.05
E30S960L40 40 196.1 98.05 108.4 1.11 731.28 365.64 388.42 1.06 1509.94 754.97 808.58 1.07
E30S960L50 50 199.16 99.58 109 1.09 729.43 364.72 390 1.07 1546.44 773.22 811.35 1.05
E50S350L20 50 350 20 102.44 51.22 52.1 1.02 351.35 175.67 184.23 1.05 751.64 375.82 382.42 1.02
E50S350L40 40 102.13 51.06 52.1 1.02 355.02 177.51 184.23 1.04 759.19 379.59 382.42 1.01
E50S350L50 50 103.81 51.9 52.1 1.00 355.23 177.61 184.23 1.04 753.03 376.51 382.42 1.02
E50S690L20 50 690 20 167.37 83.68 87.26 1.04 617 308.5 312.36 1.01 1310.48 655.24 652.53 1.00
E50S690L40 40 169.1 84.55 87.7 1.04 619.51 309.76 313.28 1.01 1324.37 662.19 653.48 0.99
E50S690L50 50 170.24 85.12 87.86 1.03 627.66 313.83 313.61 1.00 1322.09 661.05 653.81 0.99
E50S960L20 50 960 20 205.45 102.72 113.8 1.11 771.43 385.72 407.87 1.06 1646.5 823.25 851.34 1.03
E50S960L40 40 203.47 101.73 114.6 1.13 774.5 387.25 410.14 1.06 1612.68 806.34 854.75 1.06
E50S960L50 50 209.2 104.6 115 1.10 774.5 387.25 411 1.06 1617.46 808.73 856.01 1.06
E70S350L20 70 350 20 109.5 54.75 53.66 0.98 371.32 185.66 188.87 1.02 775.17 387.58 391.04 1.01
E70S350L40 40 110.1 55.05 53.66 0.97 370.98 185.49 188.87 1.02 794.87 397.43 391.04 0.98
E70S350L50 50 109.34 54.67 53.66 0.98 378.14 189.07 188.87 1.00 772.49 386.25 391.04 1.01
E70S690L20 70 690 20 178.83 89.42 89.81 1.00 643.29 321.64 321.24 1.00 1348.46 674.23 671.24 1.00
E70S690L40 40 180.41 90.2 90.12 1.00 643.23 321.61 321.8 1.00 1347.19 673.6 671.63 1.00
E70S690L50 50 182.53 91.26 90.24 0.99 652.86 326.43 322.01 0.99 1340.44 670.22 671.76 1.00
E70S960L20 70 960 20 216.8 108.4 116.6 1.08 796.22 398.11 417.78 1.05 1684.25 842.13 872.58 1.04
E70S960L40 40 216.68 108.34 117.3 1.08 794.39 397.19 419.57 1.06 1690.31 845.16 875.02 1.04
E70S960L50 50 208.44 104.22 117.6 1.13 790.51 395.25 420.25 1.06 1689.63 844.82 875.92 1.04
Mean 1.04 Mean 1.03 Mean 1.02
COV 0.04 COV 0.03 COV 0.03
^
Units are in kN.
*
Units are in kN-m.

calculated as A flow chart procedure for calculating the moment capacities is

shown in Fig. 21.
Dtw fy(w) + ft(ecc) deb B
dc = (31)
αecc γecc f ’c(ecc) B + 2fy(w) tw
5. Validation of the analytical models
If the computed value of dc is less than the depth of top ECC
encasementdet , the assumption is correct, and the moment capacity of 5.1. Validation of the full analytical model
the beams (MSAN) can be determined by taking moment about the N.A.
{ When tracing the load-deformation curve during the validation of
MSAN =αecc γ ecc f ’c(ecc) Bdc 2 (1− 0.5γecc )+bf tf fy(f ) (D− 2kb )+0.5tw fy(w) (dc − ka )2 the full analytical model, the extreme fibre of the top ECC encasement,
}
+(D − dc − ka )2 +ft(ecc) deb B(D − dc − 0.5deb ) εc(ecc) was increased in an increment of 0.05% for each loading step. For
(32) each value of εc(ecc) , an initial value ofdc = D/2 was assumed. A MS Excel
spreadsheet iterative nonlinear equation solver was written to solve the
If the value of dc calculated by Eq. (31) is greater than the depth of nonlinear Eq. 18 for the correct value of dc . Iterations were performed
the top ECC encasementdet , the corrected depth of the N.A can be until the unbalance force at the mid-span of the beam is equal to or less
computed by using Eq. (33). than 0.001% of the total forces at that section. By using the converged
{ } value of dc , the moment capacity of the beams and the mid–span
Dtw fy(w) + ft(ecc) deb B − det B αecc γ ecc f ’c(ecc) − αlwc γ lwc f ’c(lwc)
dc = (33) deflection were computed. Typical computation time required to obtain
αlwc γlwc f ’c(lwc) B + 2fy(w) tw a full load–deformation curve is about 10 min by using a low-end
desktop workstation with a 4-core Intel i7-6700 CPU running at 3.4 GHz.
The moment capacity of the beams can be calculated as
The accuracy of the full analytical method is validated by comparing
MSAN =αecc γ ecc f ’c(ecc) Bdet (dc − 0.5γecc det ) + αlwc γlwc f ’c(lwc) B(dc − det )2 (1 − 0.5γlwc ) its predictions with the test results and 3D nonlinear FE results obtained
{ } for the eight tested encased beams reported in [4,10,12], which includes
+bf tf fy(f ) (D− 2kb )+0.5tw fy(w) (dc − ka )2 + (D − dc − ka )2
normal and high strength steels as well as compact and slender sections.
+ft(ecc) deb B(D − dc − 0.5deb ) The comparison results are shown in Fig. 22. Fig. 22 shows that good
(34) agreements of initial stiffness, peak characteristics, and post–peak

24
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 14
Comparison of simplified analytical model results with FE results for the B-1-t, B-2-t, and B-3-t series beams used in geometrical parameters investigation
Beam ID Dimensions of the steel section det (% of beams Height, D) Top/ bottom cover thickness (mm) PFEA (kN) Mu, FE (kN.m) MSAN (kN.m) MSAN/Mu, FE
(mm)

ds bf tw tf

B-1-t-1 150 75 6 6 25% 30 169.80 84.90 83.42 0.98

B-1-t-2 8 196.54 98.27 96.37 0.98
B-1-t-3 10 223.85 111.92 108.94 0.97
B-1-t-4 4 6 25% 30 154.96 77.48 74.21 0.96
B-1-t-5 5 162.78 81.39 78.96 0.97
B-1-t-6 6 169.80 84.90 83.42 0.98
B-1-t-7 6 6 25% 30 169.80 84.90 83.42 0.98
B-1-t-8 30% 171.16 85.58 84.34 0.99
B-1-t-9 50% 168.81 84.41 84.69 1.00
B-1-t-10 6 6 25% 25 165.77 82.89 81.65 0.99
B-1-t-11 30 169.80 84.90 83.42 0.98
B-1-t-12 40 176.66 88.33 87.21 0.99
B-2-t-1 310 110 6 6 25% 30 624.23 312.11 296.75 0.95
B-2-t-2 8 716.62 358.31 339.24 0.95
B-2-t-3 10 806.58 403.29 381.14 0.95
B-2-t-4 4 6 25% 30 549.24 274.62 255.78 0.93
B-2-t-5 5 586.87 293.44 276.96 0.94
B-2-t-6 6 624.23 312.11 296.75 0.95
B-2-t-7 6 6 25% 30 624.23 312.11 296.75 0.95
B-2-t-8 30% 625.90 312.95 299.85 0.96
B-2-t-9 50% 637.02 318.51 299.85 0.94
B-2-t-10 6 6 25% 25 617.41 308.70 293.21 0.95
B-2-t-11 30 624.23 312.11 296.75 0.95
B-2-t-12 40 633.47 316.73 304.13 0.96
B-3-t-1 450 150 6 6 25% 30 1322.00 661.00 614.80 0.93
B-3-t-2 8 1505.66 752.83 701.44 0.93
B-3-t-3 10 1698.34 849.17 787.29 0.93
B-3-t-4 4 6 25% 30 1147.62 573.81 522.22 0.91
B-3-t-5 5 1234.72 617.36 571.51 0.93
B-3-t-6 6 1322.00 661.00 614.80 0.93
B-3-t-7 6 6 25% 30 1322.00 661.00 614.80 0.93
B-3-t-8 30% 1329.37 664.69 618.35 0.93
B-3-t-9 50% 1353.60 676.80 618.35 0.91
B-3-t-10 6 6 25% 25 1315.33 657.67 609.34 0.93
B-3-t-11 30 1322.00 661.00 614.80 0.93
B-3-t-12 40 1332.57 666.29 626.04 0.94
Mean 0.95
COV 0.03

behaviour were achieved. The top cover failure load of the beams pre­
dicted by the full analytical model (PFAN) were also compared with the
test (PEXP) and the nonlinear FE results (PFEA) in Table 11. Table 11
shows that the mean values of PFAN/PEXP and PFAN/PFE are both equal to
1.00 with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.03 for both ratios. Thus,
these results confirmed the accuracy of the proposed full analytical
method in predicting the flexural behaviour of the encased beams with
different steel grades and section types.
5.2. Validation of the simplified analytical model
The simplified analytical model was first employed to recalculate the
top cover failure loads of the eight beams employed in the validation of
full analytical model. The predicted top cover failure loads obtained
from the simplified analytical model (PSAN) were compared with the
experimental and FE results as shown in Table 11. Table 11 shows that
the mean values of PSAN/PEXP and PSAN/PFEA were again both equal to
1.00 with the same coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.06. These results
suggest that the simplified analytical model would also be able to predict
the top cover failure load of the beams with an accuracy similar to the
full analytical model.
The accuracy of the simplified analytical model is further validated
against the 234 beams used in the parametric study (Tables 7–10) by
comparing the moment capacities obtained by the simplified analytical
model (MSAN) with the FE modelling results (MFE). The comparison re­
sults are presented in form of MSAN/MFE in Tables 12–15. From Table 12,
it can be seen that for the “-t” series beams with different material
properties, the mean values of MSAN/Mu, FE obtained are equal to 0.98,
0.96, and 0.95 with corresponding COVs of 0.07, 0.05, and 0.05 for the
B–1–t, B–2–t, and B–3–t series, respectively. Similarly, Table 13 shows a
similar trend for the “–bt” series. In these cases, the mean values of
MSAN/Mu, FE were equal to 1.04, 1.03, and 1.02 (with corresponding
COVs equal to 0.04, 0.03, and 0.03) for the B–1–bt, B–2–bt, and B–3–bt
series, respectively. For beams with different geometrical parameters,
Tables 14 and 15 show that the proposed simplified analytical model can
also accurately predict their flexural capacities. The mean values of
MSAN/Mu, FE are 0.95 and 1.0 (with the corresponding COVs equal to
0.03 and 0.03) for the “–t” and “–bt” series, respectively. Finally, in
order to provide an overall insight on the accuracy and reliability of the
simplified analytical model, values of MSAN for all 234 beams used in the
parametric study are plotted against the corresponding Mu, FE values and
the experimental results (MEXP) for the eight beams tested in [4,10,12]
in Fig. 23. Fig. 23 clearly shows that the simplified analytical model
produced reliable predictions with a good correlation factor (R2 =
0.9938) over a wide range of beam moment capacities.

25
Md. Imran Kabir et al. Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356

Table 15
Comparison of simplified analytical model results with FE results for the B-1-bt, B-2-bt, and B-3-bt series beams used in geometrical parameters investigation
Beam ID Dimensions of steel det (% of beams height, deb (% of beams height, Clear cover PFEA (kN) Mu, FE (kN.m) MSAN (kN. MSAN/Mu,
section (mm) D) D) (mm) m) FE

ds bf tw tf

B-1-bt-1 150 75 6 6 25% 25% 30 170.77 85.39 87.70 1.03

B-1-bt-2 8 197.31 98.66 100.65 1.02
B-1-bt-3 10 223.79 111.90 113.22 1.01
B-1-bt-4 4 6 25% 25% 30 157.90 78.95 78.84 1.00
B-1-bt-5 5 162.67 81.34 83.40 1.03
B-1-bt-6 6 170.77 85.38 87.70 1.03
B-1-bt-7 6 6 12.5% 12.5% 30 163 81.5 87.70 1.08
B-1-bt-8 15% 15% 166.02 83.01 89.21 1.07
B-1-bt-9 25% 25% 170.77 85.39 91.79 1.07
B-1-bt- 6 6 25% 25% 25 167.92 83.96 85.53 1.02
10
B-1-bt- 30 170.77 85.38 87.70 1.03
11
B-1-bt- 40 177.87 88.93 92.34 1.04
12
B-2-bt-1 310 110 6 6 25% 25% 30 619.51 309.76 313.28 1.01
B-2-bt-2 8 728.26 364.13 355.76 0.98
B-2-bt-3 10 821.42 410.71 397.67 0.97
B-2-bt-4 4 6 25% 25% 30 557.87 278.93 274.00 0.98
B-2-bt-5 5 601.26 300.63 294.09 0.98
B-2-bt-6 6 619.51 309.76 313.28 1.01
B-2-bt-7 6 6 12.5% 12.5% 30 611.75 305.88 313.28 1.02
B-2-bt-8 15% 15% 613.38 306.69 319.12 1.04
B-2-bt-9 25% 25% 619.51 309.76 327.58 1.06
B-2-bt- 6 6 25% 25% 25 631.38 315.69 308.86 0.98
10
B-2-bt- 30 619.51 309.76 313.28 1.01
11
B-2-bt- 40 646.43 323.21 322.49 1.00
12
B-3-bt-1 450 150 6 6 25% 25% 30 1363.0 681.495 653.48 0.96
B-3-bt-2 8 1547.5 773.75 740.12 0.96
B-3-bt-3 10 1732.2 866.09 825.97 0.95
B-3-bt-4 4 6 25% 25% 30 1180.5 590.265 566.75 0.96
B-3-bt-5 5 1258.6 629.275 611.56 0.97
B-3-bt-6 6 1363.0 681.495 653.48 0.96
B-3-bt-7 6 6 12.5% 12.5% 30 1350.8 675.4 653.48 0.97
B-3-bt-8 15% 15% 1355.9 677.95 665.88 0.98
B-3-bt-9 25% 25% 1363.0 681.5 683.83 1.00
B-3-bt- 6 6 25% 25% 25 1352.6 676.305 646.52 0.96
10
B-3-bt- 30 1363.0 681.495 653.48 0.96
11
B-3-bt- 40 1375.8 687.91 667.81 0.97
12
Mean 1.00
COV 0.03

Fig. 23. Comparison between the simplified analytical model and FE results for all 234 beams used in the parametric study and the 8 tested beams studied in
Reference [4,10,12].

26
Md. Imran Kabir et al.
6. Conclusions
This study presents the numerical and analytical investigations on
the flexural behaviour of ECC-LWC encased compact, non-compact and
slender steel beams for a wide range of material and geometric param­
eters. For the numerical investigation, a parametric study involving 234
beams with different encasement configurations, section aspect ratios,
material strengths and other geometrical properties was carried out.
From the parametric study results, it was found that:
1. The flexural strength of the encased steel beam was proportionally
increased as the yield strength of the steel section increased but was
mildly affected by the ECC compressive strength and was almost not
affected by the LWC compressive strength. This is because, as the
ECC-LWC encasement allowed the full yielding of steel section,
majority of the tensile and compressive forces were carried by the
steel section rather than by ECC or LWC.
2. For compact encased steel sections, the flexural capacity ratio be­
tween the encased beam and the encased steel section decreased as
the yield strength of the steel section increased. However, this trend
was reversed if the encased steel sections were non-compact or
slender sections. This implies that the ECC/LWC encasements is more
effective in enhancing the flexural capacity of non-compact and
slender beams.
3. In terms of flexural capacity enhancement, it is more effective to
increase the flange thickness rather than the web thickness of the
encased steel section. This is simply because when local buckling is
prevented, it is more effective to increase the plastic moment of the
steel section by increasing flange thickness than the web thickness.
4. If the thickness of the compression ECC encasement layer is at least
25% of the overall beam depth, increasing the depth of ECC layer and
the cover thickness of the ECC layer will not greatly enhance the
flexural capacity of the beam. This is due to the fact that when the
thickness of the ECC encasement is equal to or more than 25% of the
overall beam depth, both local/global buckling and bond slip be­
tween the ECC/LWC-steel interface are prevented. In this case, the
steel section will resist most of the compressive and tensile forces
developed and the contribution from the ECC encasement is relative
less important.
For the analytical study, a full analytical model which can predict the
full load-deformation curve of the encased beams was proposed and it is
supplemented by a simplified model to allow engineers to conduct fast
calculations of the beam’s flexural capacity. Validations of the analytical
models against the experimental results, the numerical results and
parametric study results with 234 different beams showed that both the
detailed and simplified models can accurately predict the flexural ca­
pacity of the encased beams.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Md. Imran Kabir: Writing - original draft, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization. C.K. Lee:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Resources, Writing - re­
view & editing. Y.X. Zhang: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
27
Engineering Structures 239 (2021) 112356
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
Commonwealth’s support for this research received through
Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and
UNSW Canberra’s support through University International Post­
graduate Award are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Hawkins NM. Strength of concrete-encased steel beams. Civil Eng Trans 1973;15:
39–45.
[2] Kindmann R, Bergmann R. Effect of reinforced concrete between the flanges of the
steel profile of partially encased composite beams. J Constr Steel Res 1993;27:
107–22.
[3] Rana MM, Lee CK, Al-Deen S, Zhang YX. Flexural behaviour of steel composite
beams encased by engineered cementitious composites. J Constr Steel Res 2018;
143:279–90.
[4] Kabir MI, Lee CK, Rana MM, Zhang YX. Flexural and bond-slip behaviours of
engineered cementitious composites encased steel composite beams. J Constr Steel
Res 2019;157:229–44.
[5] Uy B. Stability and ductility of high-performance steel sections with concrete infill.
J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:748–54.
[6] Uy B, Sloane RJ. Behaviour of composite tee beams constructed with high strength
steel. J Constr Steel Res 1998;46:203–4.
[7] Zhao H, Yuan Y. Experimental studies on composite beams with high-strength steel
and concrete. Steel Compos Struct 2010;10:373–83.
[8] Ban H, Bradford MA. Flexural strength of high-strength steel-concrete composite
beams with varying steel grades. Compos Constr Steel Concr VII 2016:120–30.
[9] Elghazouli AY, Treadway J. Inelastic behaviour of composite members under
combined bending and axial loading. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:1008–19.
[10] Kabir MI, Lee CK, Rana MM, Zhang YX. Strength enhancement of high strength
steel beams by engineered cementitious composites encasement. Eng Struct 2020;
207:110288.
[11] Kabir MI, Lee CK, Rana MM, Zhang YX. Flexural behaviour of engineered
cementitious composite encased high strength steel composite beam. In: The 14th
Nordic Steel Construction Conference, September 18–20, 2019, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
[12] Kabir MI, Lee CK, Rana MM, Zhang YX. Flexural behaviour of ECC-LWC encased
slender high strength steel composite beams. J Constr Steel Res 2020;173:106253.
[13] ABAQUS. ABAQUS Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.14, Rhode Island. USA:
Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp; 2014.
[14] Rana MM, Lee CK, Al–Deen S. A study on the bond stress–slip behaviour between
engineered cementitious composites and structural steel sections. In: 8th European
Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2017.
[15] Ban H, Bradford M. Flexural behaviour of composite beams with high strength
steel. Eng Struct 2013;56:1130–41.
[16] Zhong T, Wang ZB, Yu Q. Finite element modelling of concrete–filled steel stub
columns under axial compression. J Constr Steel Res 2013;89:121–31.
[17] Meng D, Huang T, Zhang YX, Lee CK. Mechanical behaviour of a polyvinyl alcohol
fibre reinforced engineered cementitious composite (PVA–ECC) using local
ingredients. Constr Build Mater 2017;141:259–70.
[18] Carreira D, Chu K. Stress–strain relationship for plain concrete in compression.
ACIJ 1985:797–804. Title no.82–72.
[19] SA (Standards Australia). AS 4100: 2020 Steel Structures. Sydney, Australia: SA;
2020.
[20] SA (Standards Australia). AS 3600: 2018 Concrete Structures. Sydney, Australia:
SA; 2018.
[21] Kara IF. Flexural performance of FRP-reinforced concrete encased steel composite
beams. Struct Eng Mech 2016;59(4):775–93.