4 Analysis and Design of Steel Deck - Concrete Composite Slabs

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
STEEL DECK – CONCRETE COMPOSITE SLABS
Budi Ryanto Widjaja
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
Civil Engineering
W. S. Easterling, Chairman
R. M. Barker
E. G. Henneke
S. M. Holzer
T. M. Murray
October, 1997
Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords: composite slabs, direct method, iterative method, finite element model, long span, resistance factor
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
STEEL DECK – CONCRETE COMPOSITE SLABS
by
Budi R. Widjaja
Dr. W. S. Easterling, Chairman
Department of Civil Engineering
(ABSTRACT)
As cold-formed steel decks are used in virtually every steel-framed structure for
composite slab systems, efforts to develop more efficient composite floor systems continues.
Efficient composite floor systems can be obtained by optimally utilizing the materials, which
includes the possibility of developing long span composite slab systems. For this purpose, new
deck profiles that can have a longer span and better interaction with the concrete slab are
investigated.
Two new mechanical based methods for predicting composite slab strength and behavior
are introduced. They are referred to as the iterative and direct methods. These methods, which
accurately account for the contribution of parameters affecting the composite action, are used to
predict the strength and behavior of composite slabs. Application of the methods in the
analytical and experimental study of strength and behavior of composite slabs in general reveals
that more accurate predictions are obtained by these methods compared to those of a modified
version of the Steel Deck Institute method (SDI-M). A nonlinear finite element model is also
developed to provide additional reference. These methods, which are supported by elemental
tests of shear bond and end anchorages, offer an alternative solution to performing a large
number of full-scale tests as required for the traditional m-k method. Results from 27 composite
slab tests are compared with the analytical methods.
Four long span composite slab specimens of 20 ft span length, using two different types
of deck profiles, were built and tested experimentally. Without significantly increasing the slab
depth and weight compared to those of composite slabs with typical span, it was found that these
long span slabs showed good performance under the load tests. Some problems with the
vibration behavior were encountered, which are thought to be due to the relatively thin layer of
concrete cover above the deck rib. Further study on the use of deeper concrete cover to improve
the vibrational behavior is suggested.
Finally, resistance factors based on the AISI-LRFD approach were established. The
resistance factors for flexural design of composite slab systems were found to be φ=0.90 for the
SDI-M method and φ=0.85 for the direct method.
In Memory of my Father
and
In Love of my Mother
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am most grateful to Dr. W. Samuel Easterling for his continuous support, guidance and
friendship throughout my graduate study at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Virginia Tech). I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of the
research committee, Dr. R. M. Barker, Dr. E. G. Henneke, Dr. S. M. Holzer and Dr. T. M.
Murray. Special thanks goes to Dr. R. M. Barker for his valuable discussion on the resistance
factors and to Dr. T. M. Murray for his valuable discussion on floor vibrations.
I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National Science Foundation, under
research grant no. MSS-9222064, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American
Iron and Steel Institute, Vulcraft and Consolidated System Incorporated. Further, material for
test specimens was supplied by BHP of America, TRW Nelson Stud Welding Division and
United Steel Deck. My sincere thanks is also for the Steel Deck Institute for the Scholarship
Award that I received for my research and very special thanks to Mr. and Mrs. R. B. Heagler for
their very warm hospitality during my visit at the SDI annual meeting in Florida. Mr. Heagler
also keeps me updated with new technical issues and developments in the SDI.
I would also like to thank to Dr. M. Crisinel and Dr. B. J. Daniels for the access to use
the COMPCAL program at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland. They
also allowed me to use the drawings for the elemental tests.
To all my friends in the Civil Engineering Department and especially those at the
Structures and Materials Laboratory of Virginia Tech, I extend my appreciation for their support,
discussion and friendship. I am particularly indebted to Joseph N. Howard for his immeasurable
help in performing the vibration tests on the long span slabs. Special thanks goes to Dennis W.
Huffman and Brett N. Farmer for their constant help and cheerful support during my research
work at the Structures Lab.
Last but certainly not the least, I am thankful to my wife, Surjani, for being a constant
source of inspiration and encouragement. She is a wonderful wife and friend.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATIONS.................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ xi
LIST OF NOTATIONS ........................................................................................................ xii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation and Scope of the Research ......................................................................... 1
1.2. Organization of this Report .......................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2. Elemental Tests

2.1. General.......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Review of Research on Elemental Tests for Shear Bond and End Anchorages........... 4
2.3. Shear Bond Elemental Tests......................................................................................... 6
2.3.1. Specimen Description and Test Set Up............................................................. 6
2.3.2. Test Procedure................................................................................................... 10
2.3.3. Test Results ....................................................................................................... 10
2.4. End Anchorage Elemental Tests................................................................................... 13
2.4.1. Specimen Description and Test Set Up............................................................. 13
2.4.2. Test Procedure................................................................................................... 15
2.4.3. Test Results ....................................................................................................... 15
2.5. Concluding Remarks..................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 3. Strength and Stiffness Prediction of Composite Slabs by Simple

Mechanical Model
3.1. General.......................................................................................................................... 18
vi
3.2. Review of Methods of Prediction of Composite Slab Strength by Means of
Semi-Empirical Formulations and Simple Mechanical Models ................................... 19
3.3. SDI-M Method.............................................................................................................. 27
3.4. Iterative Method............................................................................................................ 27
3.5. Direct Method............................................................................................................... 34
3.6. Comparison of Calculated and Test Results................................................................. 35
3.7 Concluding Remarks..................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 4. Strength and Stiffness Prediction of Composite Slab by Finite

Element Model
4.1. General.......................................................................................................................... 41
4.2. Review of Finite Element Method for Composite Slabs .............................................. 42
4.3. Finite Element Model ................................................................................................... 43
4.3.1. Structure Model................................................................................................. 43
4.3.2. Material Model.................................................................................................. 45
4.4. Method of Analysis....................................................................................................... 48
4.5. Results of Analysis and Discussion.............................................................................. 49
4.6 Concluding Remarks..................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 5. Long Span Composite Slab Systems

5.1. General.......................................................................................................................... 53
5.2. Construction Phase ....................................................................................................... 57
5.3. Service Phase ................................................................................................................ 60
5.4. Specimen Description and Instrumentation.................................................................. 60
5.5. Load Test Procedure ..................................................................................................... 64
5.6. Test vs. Analysis Results .............................................................................................. 65
5.7. Evaluation of the Floor Vibrations ............................................................................... 67
5.8. Proposed Detailed Connection ..................................................................................... 69
vii
Chapter 6. Reduction Factor, ϕ
6.1. General.......................................................................................................................... 71
6.2. Review of Probabilistic Concepts of Load and Resistance Factor Design .................. 71
6.2.1. Reliability Index ................................................................................................ 72
6.2.2. AISC LRFD Approach for the Resistance Factor ............................................. 74
6.2.3. AISI LRFD Approach for the Resistance Factor .............................................. 75
6.3. Statistical Data.............................................................................................................. 76
6.3.1. Material Factor, M ............................................................................................ 77
6.3.2. Fabrication Factor F .......................................................................................... 78
6.3.3. Professional Factor, P........................................................................................ 79
6.3.4. Load Statistic..................................................................................................... 79
6.4. The Resistance Factor................................................................................................... 80
Chapter 7. Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................. 83
References............................................................................................................................. 85
VITA ..................................................................................................................................... 96
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1. Profile shapes .............................................................................................................. 8

2-2. Embossment types....................................................................................................... 8
2-3. Shear bond test ............................................................................................................ 9
2-4. Shear bond specimen with frames for lateral force .................................................... 9
2-5. Shear stress vs. slip of specimen SB2-2-A.................................................................. 12
2-6. Shear stress vs. slip of specimen SB6-1-B.................................................................. 12
2-7. Details of the end anchorage specimens ..................................................................... 13
2-8. End anchorage test ...................................................................................................... 14
2-9. Load vs. deck to concrete slip of specimen EA1-1-B ................................................. 16
2-10. Load vs. deck to concrete slip of specimen EA2-1-A................................................. 16
3-1. m and k shear bond regression line ............................................................................. 20

3-2. Partial interaction theory (Stark and Brekelmans 1990)............................................. 22
3-3. Simplified relation between M p ' and N b (Stark and Brekelmans 1990) ................. 22
3-4. Boundary curve based on the partial interaction theory ............................................. 24
3-5. Free body diagram of the forces action in the composite slab section
(Patrick 1990, Patrick and Bridge 1994)..................................................................... 25
3-6. Plot of M u vs. T (Patrick 1990, Patrick and Bridge 1994)........................................ 26
3-7. Boundary curve for the ultimate bending moment capacity (Patrick 1990,
Patrick and Bridge 1994) ............................................................................................ 26
3-8. Reinforcing effects of some devices ........................................................................... 27
3-9. Forces acting on the cross section............................................................................... 28
3-10. Shear bond interaction ................................................................................................ 29
3-11. Concrete bottom fiber elongation, dL, and slip diagrams........................................... 31
3-12. Additional load carrying capacity from the deck........................................................ 32
3-13. Forces acting on the cross section for the direct method ............................................ 34
3-14. Test setup .................................................................................................................... 37
3-15. Test vs. predicted strength .......................................................................................... 38
3-16. Load vs. mid-span deflection: (a) slab-4, (b) slab-15, (c) slab-21 .............................. 39
4-1. Schematic model of steel deck to concrete slip .......................................................... 44

4-2. Typical finite element model ...................................................................................... 44
4-3. Von Mises yield surface in the principal stress space ................................................ 45
4-4. Concrete failure surface in principal stress space....................................................... 46
4-5. Concrete uniaxial compressive stress-strain relation.................................................. 47
4-6. Typical shear bond shear stress vs. slip ...................................................................... 47
4-7. (a) Shear stud to steel deck interaction, and (b) puddle weld to steel deck
interaction.................................................................................................................... 48
4-8. General arc-length method.......................................................................................... 49
4-9. Slab-4: (a) Load vs. mid-span deflection. (b) Load vs. end-slip................................. 50
ix
4-10. Slab-15: (a) Load vs. mid-span deflection. (b) Load vs. end-slip............................... 50
4-11. Slab-21: (a) Load vs. mid-span deflection. (b) Load vs. end-slip............................... 51
4-12. Composite slab strength: FEM vs. experimental ........................................................ 51
5-1. Prototype 1 and prototype 2 of Ramsden (1987) deck profiles .................................. 54

5-2. Innovative light weight and long-span composite floor (Hillman 1990,
Hillman and Murray 1994).......................................................................................... 54
5-3. Slimflor system (British Steel, Steel Construction Institute 1997)............................. 55
5-4. 6 in, 4.5 in and 3 in deep profiles................................................................................ 56
5-5. Yield strength and deflection limit states of the construction
(non-composite) phase ................................................................................................ 58
5-6. Steel deck weight vs. span length of single span systems........................................... 59
5-7. Steel deck weight vs. span length of double span systems ......................................... 59
5-8. System configuration of LSS1 and LSS2.................................................................... 61
5-9. Strain gage and shear stud schedules of LSS1............................................................ 62
5-10. Strain gage and shear stud schedules of LSS2............................................................ 63
5-11. Test set-up ................................................................................................................... 64
5-12. Map of cracks in LSS1................................................................................................ 65
5-13. Map of cracks in LSS2................................................................................................ 65
5-14. Load vs. mid-span deflection of LSS1........................................................................ 66
5-15. Load vs. mid-span deflection of LSS2........................................................................ 66
5-16. Normalized relative power vs. frequency of LSS1 ..................................................... 68
5-17. Normalized relative power vs. frequency of LSS2 ..................................................... 68
5-18. Proposed beam to girder connection to reduce slab-beam height............................... 70
x
LIST OF TABLES
2-1. Test parameters ........................................................................................................... 7

2-2. Summary of shear bond test results ............................................................................ 11
2-3. Test parameters ........................................................................................................... 14
2-4. Summary of the end anchorage test results................................................................. 15
3-1. Test parameters ........................................................................................................... 36

3-2. Prediction vs. test results............................................................................................. 37
4-1. Finite element vs. test results ...................................................................................... 49
5-1. Ratios of actual load capacities and permissible load based on

allowable deflection to 50 and 150 psf design live loads ........................................... 57
5-2. Section properties of profiles 1, 2 and 3 ..................................................................... 58
5-3. Summary of ultimate load capacity and permissible load based on
allowable deflection .................................................................................................... 67
6-1. β vs. p f ....................................................................................................................... 73

6-2. Statistical data of f c ' , f y , f s,max and f s,min .............................................................. 77
6-3. Statistical data of t....................................................................................................... 78
6-4. Statistical data of P...................................................................................................... 79
6-5. Statistical data of dead and live loads ......................................................................... 79
6-6. Calculated φ factors for SDI-M method (AISI-LRFD Approach) .............................. 81
6-7. Calculated φ factors for direct method (AISI-LRFD Approach) ................................ 81
6-8. Calculated φ factors for SDI-M method (AISC-LRFD Approach)............................. 81
6-9. Calculated φ factors for direct method (AISC-LRFD Approach)............................... 81
xi
LIST OF NOTATIONS
A bf = area of steel deck bottom flange / unit width of slab
As = steel deck cross sectional area
A webs = area of steel deck webs / unit width of slab

a = depth of concrete stress block
A sfy
= (Eqn.(3-6))
0.85 f c ' b
Fs + Fst
= (Eqn.(3-24))
0.85 f c ' b
b = section width
C = resultant of concrete compressive force
c = depth of the neutral axis of composite section
Dn = nominal value of dead load
d = distance of the steel deck centroid to the top surface of the slab (effective depth)
= length of each segment
dL, dL i = elongation of the bottom fiber of concrete slab of segment i
dL c = elongation of the segment at the mid-span
dc = deflection of the partially composite section
ds = deflection of the steel deck
Es = elastic modulus of steel deck
E o , E sc = initial and secant modulus of concrete
e1 , e 2 , e 3 = moment arms of T1 , T2 , T3 (Eqn.(3-9))
 A 
F = minimum anchorage force (Chapter 3) = f y  A s − webs − A bf  , (Eqn.(3-8))
 2 
= fabrication factor (Chapter 6)

Fm = mean of fabrication factor
xii
Fs , Fst = tensile force in the steel deck resulted from the effect of shear bond and end
anchorages respectively
Fs,lim it = upper limit of Fs
f anchorage = stress in the steel deck induced by end anchorages
f bond = stress in the steel deck induced by shear bond force, f b
fc ' = concrete compressive strength
f c ' ,m = mean of concrete compressive strength = µ fc '
f cast = stress in the steel deck induced by concrete casting
fs = shear bond force per unit length
f shore = stress in the steel deck induced by shore removal
f s,max , f s,min
= maximum and minimum of f s
ft = concrete tensile strength
fw = stress in the steel deck induced by puddle welds
fy = steel deck yield stress
f yc = corrected steel deck yield stress due to concrete casting and shoring
fy* = remaining strength of the steel deck
f y,m = mean of steel deck yield stress = µ f y
f1 , f2 = elastic concrete compressive and tensile stress at the extreme fiber
hb = concrete depth above steel deck rib
h1 = depth of the concrete flange (concrete above steel deck rib)

I eff = effective cross sectional inertia of the slab
Ii = effective cross sectional inertia of a segment

i = sequence number of a segment
L = span length of the slab
L’ = shear span length
Lc = cantilever length
xiii
Ln = nominal value of live load
Ls = shear bond length

M = bending moment, general (Chapter 3)
= material factor (Chapter 6)
M et = first yield bending moment
Mm = mean of material factor
M m,SDI , M m,Direct
= means of material factor with regard to the SDI and Direct method, respectively
M nc , M nd = nominal moment capacity: phase-1 and phase-2, respectively
Mp = steel deck plastic moment capacity
Mu , Mn = nominal bending moment

m = bending moment caused by a unit load
Nb = k f c ' h b b (Eqn.(3-3))
Nr = number of shear studs / unit width of slab

n = number of segment from the support to the mid-span
P = professional factor
Pm = mean of professional factor
pf = probability of failure
Qi , Q m = load effect, mean of load effect
Qn = nominal strength of single shear stud
q, q c , q d = load carrying capacity: total, phase-1, phase-2, respectively

R = reduction factor due to insufficient number of shear studs
NrQn
to provide anchorage =
F
= support reaction
Rn, Rm = nominal resistance, mean of resistance
S = steel deck section modulus
si = total slip at a section
T = resultant of tensile force in steel deck
xiv
T1 , T2 , T3 = forces acting in top flange, web and bottom flange of steel deck
t = steel deck thickness
tm = mean of steel deck thickness = µ t
u1d = nodal displacement of steel deck beam element in d.o.f.-1 direction (horizontal)
u1c = nodal displacement of concrete beam element in d.o.f.-1 direction (horizontal)
V, VR , VQ
= coefficients of variation: general, resistance, load effect

VM , VF , VP , Vfc ' , Vfy , Vt
= coefficients of variation of: material, fabrication, professional factors,

concrete compressive strength, steel deck yield stress, steel deck thickness
VM ,SDI , VM,Direct
= coefficients of variation of material factor with regard to the SDI and Direct
method, respectively
Vu = ultimate shear capacity
x, x i = distance from the support to the section being investigated
yc = horizontal projection of y d
yd = depth of deck c.g. from concrete c.g.
ys = horizontal slip of steel deck relative to the concrete
y1 , y 2 = moment arm of Fs and Fst , respectively
β = reliability index
ε , ε cu = concrete strain, concrete strain at the peak compressive stress
εs = steel deck strain
Φ = standard normal probability function

φ = design resistance factor
γ D, γ L = dead and live load factors
γi = design load factor

γD = correction due to diagonal shear cracking
κ = fraction of the support reaction, R in Eqn.(3-11)
xv
λ , λ R , λ Q = log-normal mean: general, resistance, load effect
µ = coefficient of friction between the deck and concrete
µ fc ' = mean of concrete compressive strength = f c ' ,m
µ fy = mean of steel deck yield stress = f y,m
µt = mean of steel deck thickness = t m
θ = rotation of cross sectional plane (Chapter 4)

= central safety factor (Chapter 6)
ρ = reinforcement ratio = A s / bd
σ , σ P , σ t = standard deviations: general, professional factor, steel deck thickness
τ shear bond = shear bond strength
 D   D 
Ψ =  γ D n + γ L  / 1.05 n + 1 , (Eqn.(6-18))
 Ln   Ln 
ζ, ζ R , ζ Q = log-normal standard of deviation: general, resistance, load effect
∫ M m ds
Ωi = i (Eqn.(3-22))
∫ M m ds
L
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Motivation and Scope of the Research

Cold-formed steel decks have been widely used in composite slab systems in steel-
framed structures. The system has proven to be very attractive to structural designers because of
many advantages it has over conventional systems of reinforced concrete slabs. These
advantages have been listed by Finzi (1968), Oudheusden (1971), Hogan (1976), Porter and
Ekberg (1976), Fisher and Buettner (1979), Porter (1985), Wright et al. (1987), Evans and
Wright (1988). Among them, elimination or significant reduction of the positive moment
reinforcement and form work for concrete casting are two of the most important ones. This is in
contrast to the early use (before 1950) of the steel deck-concrete floor, where the concrete is used
only as a filling material (Dallaire 1971).
The knowledge of this composite interaction as well as elemental behavior involved in
the system has progressed rapidly during the past two decades. Much effort has been put forth to
better understand and model the behavior of the system. Research on the subject has been
conducted worldwide (U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia). Motivations for the research can be
summarized as follows:
1. To develop an efficient composite floor system that optimally utilizes the material and thus
yields an economical design.
2. To avoid the dependency on many full-scale experiments which are expensive and time
consuming.
Chapter 1 . Introduction 1
3. To provide structural designers with analytical means by which they can verify design
calculations.
Efficient composite floor systems can be obtained by optimally utilizing materials, which
includes the possibility of developing long span composite slab systems. These long span
systems require investigation of new deck profiles that can be used to provide an adequate
interaction with the concrete slab. However, with the dependency of steel manufacturers on full-
scale slab tests, a substantial number of tests have to be performed to develop a new deck profile.
Therefore, from the manufacturer point of view, an alternative that can reduce the required
number of full-scale tests is desirable. This can be achieved by using analytical means supported
by elemental tests that are less expensive than the full-scale tests. Many kinds of analytical
means are now being made available due to development in the past decade, particularly in the
area of nonlinear analysis. By the same means, structural designers will have analytical tools to
cross-examine the design calculations. Current design formulations, such as the m and k method
(Schuster 1970, Porter et al 1976), do not sufficiently describe the physical behavior of
composite slabs. The only way structural designers can verify the design calculation based on
load tables generated by the m and k method is to look back into the experimental test results.
Depending upon the application, these analytical tools may range from a simple hand calculation
to a special purpose nonlinear finite element code.
As a continuation of on-going research in the area of composite slabs, with the same
motivations as mentioned above, this study has been conducted. New deck profiles, which
enable the deck to span longer than the typical spans currently used, are investigated. By
introducing a longer span floor system some filler beams can be eliminated along with their
connections to the girders. This results in more economical floor systems.
To establish a profile suitable for long spans, analytical models are developed to predict
the behavior of the new slab prior to any experimental tests. Two mechanical based models and
a finite element model are introduced. These models require knowledge of interaction properties
of some components of composite slabs. Hence, elemental tests for the shear bond and end
anchorages are performed. These analytical models, along with the elemental tests, offer an
alternate solution to the full scale tests that are required for the current design procedures.
Additionally, resistant factors, φ, for flexure design of composite slabs are also sought. The
current resistant factors, φ, for composite slab design (Standard for 1992) were taken from the
steel or concrete design specifications. Therefore, it is desired to obtain these factors based on
test results and refined analytical studies of composite slabs.
1.2. Organization of this report

This report is organized as follows. Following Chapter 1, elemental tests for shear bond
and end anchorages that were performed are described in Chapter 2. Results of these elemental
tests were used in the analytical methods of prediction for the composite slab strength and
stiffness using simple mechanical and finite element models that are presented in Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4, respectively. In these chapters, by using the afore-mentioned methods, predicted
strength and stiffness of experimentally tested composite slabs were compared to test results.
Chapter 5 discusses the investigation toward the long span composite slab systems. New deck
profiles are introduced for these long span systems and the methods described in Chapter 3 were
applied to predict the strength and behavior of the slab. In Chapter 6, φ factors for flexural
design of composite slabs are derived and discussed. Finally, conclusions and recommendations
for future research are presented in Chapter 7. Note that pertinent literature is reviewed in each
chapter.
CHAPTER 2
ELEMENTAL TESTS
2.1. General
Composite slab behavior is a function of interactions among the components of the slab.
Two of the most important interactions that significantly affect the slab behavior are: (1) the
shear bond interaction at the interface of steel deck and concrete and (2) the interaction among
the concrete, steel deck and end anchorages at the supports. Therefore, two types of elemental
tests were conducted in this study: shear bond and end anchorage. The purpose of these tests is
to study more closely the strength and behavior of shear bond interaction and end anchorages.
These tests will also provide interaction data required for the numerical analysis that will be
described in detail in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. Elemental tests used in this study are similar to
the push-out and pull-out tests by Daniels (1988).
2.2. Review of Research on Elemental Tests for Shear Bond and End Anchorages
The shear bond, or m-k, method requires a substantial number of performance tests for
the shear bond regression line, plus additional flexure tests if flexural failure occurs within the
range of parameters tested. The problem becomes more pronounced with the recent findings of
other parameters that have significant impact on the strength of composite slabs, such as load
pattern, end anchorages and additional reinforcing bars. This finding drastically increases the
number of performance tests the manufacturers have to perform (Daniels and Crisinel 1987,
1993; Patrick 1990; Patrick and Bridge 1990; Patrick and Poh 1990; Bode and Sauerborn 1992).
Chapter 2 . Elemental Tests 4

This fact motivates research toward an alternative solution which can reduce the number of
performance tests required or replace them with smaller elemental tests that are less expensive.
Such elemental tests were set forth, such as the pull-out test (Daniels 1988; Daniels and Crisinel
1993; Sonoda et al. 1994), slip-block test (Patrick 1990; Patrick and Poh 1990), concrete-block
bending test (An and Cederwall 1992; An 1993), push-test (Veljkovic 1993), push-out test
(Tagawa et al. 1994). These elemental test results are to be used in the analysis for the slab
strength and stiffness. One may argue that these elemental test results may not directly represent
the actual behavior of the composite slabs because all the affecting parameters are inseparable
with each other, such as clamping force and curvature of the slab. Analytical models using shear
bond elemental test results, however, have shown good agreement with the full-scale test results,
which indicates that those elemental tests are applicable.
Another parameter that significantly affects the strength of composite slab systems is the
end anchorage. The presence of end anchorages over the support has a favorable effect on the
strength of the composite slabs because these end anchorages tend to block the relative slippage
of the concrete to the steel sheeting (Stark 1978; Crisinel et al. 1986a, 1986b; O’Leary et al.
1987; Jolly and Lawson 1992). End anchorages can be in one of the following forms: headed
shear studs welded through the deck to the supporting beams, hot rolled angles welded to the
beams, or cold formed members, such as pour stops. Porter and Greimann (1984) reported an
increase of 8% to 33% in composite slab strength when stud end anchorages are used.
The strength expression for the headed shear studs has been established by Ollgaard et
al. (1971) and has been used in the AISC Specification. This expression, however, was derived
in conjunction with composite beam design in which both the concrete and the steel deck slip
toward the same direction relative to the supporting beam. This is not the case with composite
slab action in which the concrete moves relatively to the steel sheeting. Therefore, elemental
tests for this type of end anchorages are of interest.
When a longitudinal slip occurs in the composite slabs, the steel deck is being pulled-out
from between the supporting beam and the concrete. The strength of the anchorage for the steel
sheeting is therefore a function of the sheeting strength and thickness, and also the clamping
force provided by the concrete and the steel beam due to the support reaction. Hence, elemental
tests for the end anchorage are needed to determine the force provided by the anchorage to the
steel deck. Very detailed and extensive elemental tests for the end anchorages were carried out

by Daniels (1988). The results from both the pull-out (shear bond) tests and the push-out (end
anchorage) tests were input to finite element analyses. The analytical results were reported to
compare favorably to the results of full-scale slab tests.
2.3. Shear Bond Elemental Tests

The shear bond interaction at the interface of steel deck and concrete can be separated
into three components, namely, the chemical bonding, mechanical interlocking, and friction
between the two materials. The first component is the type of bond that is developed through a
chemical process as the concrete cured. This component of interaction is brittle in nature, and
once it is broken it can not be restored. The mechanical interlocking gains its strength from the
interlocking action between the concrete and the steel deck due to the embossments. This action
is directly affected by the embossment shape and steel deck thickness. Finally, the presence of
the friction between the concrete and the steel deck is due to the presence of internal pressure
between the two materials. Unlike the first, the last two components are always present although
they may change in magnitude. The shear bond elemental tests were designed to obtain as much
information as possible about these three components.
2.3.1. Specimen Description and Test Set Up

The specimens were cast in a horizontal position so as to simulate the actual casting
position for a composite slab. The size of the specimen was made 1 ft wide by 2 ft long such that
it has at least one complete typical shape of the deck profile. To prevent the deck from being
bent during handling, which may result in the loss of the chemical bonding, each piece of deck
was fastened to a steel plate. Concrete cover above the deck was at least 2 in. to provide enough
bearing area for testing. After the concrete had cured, the specimens were coupled back to back.
Finally, banding strips were used to keep the concrete from falling off from the deck during
handling and storing. These strips were removed before the test.
Test parameters considered were concrete compressive strength, steel deck strength,
thickness, rib height, profile shape and embossment type as given in Table 2-1. The profile
shapes and embossment types that were used are illustrated in Fig. 2-1 and Fig. 2-2, respectively.
A single test frame was designed to handle both the shear bond and end anchorage tests.
The test set up for the shear bond test as shown in Fig 2-3, is intended to apply axial force, i.e., to

pull the steel deck out from the concrete. This axial force was applied through a ram that was
operated manually. The magnitude of the load applied was measured through a loading rod that
was instrumented with strain gages and calibrated as a tensile load cell.
Table 2-1. Test Parameters

ID# Concrete Steel Deck Internal
fc' fy Thicknss Rib ht. Profile Emboss. Pressure
(psi) (ksi) (in) (in) Shape type (psf) **
SB1-1 3850 50.3 0.031 2.00 1 3 500
SB1-2 3850 50.3 0.031 2.00 1 3 300
SB1-3 3850 50.3 0.031 2.00 1 3 100
SB2-1 3850 45.4 0.034 2.00 1 1 500
SB2-2 3850 45.4 0.034 2.00 1 1 300
SB2-3 3850 45.4 0.034 2.00 1 1 100
SB2-4 3850 45.4 0.034 2.00 1 1 300*
SB2-5 3850 45.4 0.034 2.00 1 1 100*
SB3-1 3850 46.5 0.047 2.00 1 2 500
SB3-2 3850 46.5 0.047 2.00 1 2 300
SB3-3 3850 46.5 0.047 2.00 1 2 100
SB3-4 3850 46.5 0.047 2.00 1 2 300*
SB4-1 4710 55.5 0.034 3.00 2 3 500
SB4-2 4710 55.5 0.034 3.00 2 3 300
SB4-3 4710 55.5 0.034 3.00 2 3 100
SB5-1 4710 52.1 0.056 3.00 2 3 500
SB5-2 4710 52.1 0.056 3.00 2 3 300
SB5-3 4710 52.1 0.056 3.00 2 3 100
SB6-1 4710 50.8 0.034 2.00 3 _ 500
SB6-2 4710 50.8 0.034 2.00 3 _ 300
SB6-3 4710 50.8 0.034 2.00 3 _ 100
SB7-1 3840 48.2 0.056 6.00 4 _ 300
SB7-2 3840 48.2 0.056 6.00 4 _ 100
SB8-1 3840 49.6 0.057 4.50 5 _ 300
SB8-2 3840 49.6 0.057 4.50 5 _ 200
SB8-3 3840 49.6 0.057 4.50 5 _ 128
* initial pressure, no further adjustment
** internal pressure at the interface of steel deck-concrete
F or profile s hapes and embos s ment types , refer to F ig. 2-1 and F ig. 2-2,
res pectively
For shear bond tests, a pair of additional frames is added to induced lateral force (Fig. 2-
4). The lateral force is applied by tightening the nuts in the rods. This lateral force is to simulate
internal pressure that is developed on the interface between the deck and the concrete. Load
cells were installed in the lateral frames, as indicated in Fig. 2-4, to measure the magnitude of the
lateral load applied.

2.5
(1) 2
5
7
12
2.5
(2) 3
4.75
7.25
12
1.5 2.5
(3) 2
0.5
6
12
9.25 3
(4)
6
1
3.75 7.125 1.5 0.5
12.875
9 2.5
(5) 4.5
1
1.5 9 1.125 0.375

12
Figure 2-1. Profile shapes (all dimensions are in inches)
type 1 type 2 type 3
Figure 2-2. Embossment types

hydraulic ram
tension rod
instrumented with
strain gages
clevis
specimen
Load cells
Figure 2-3. Shear bond test
nuts to adjust
internal pressure
specimen
load cell
Figure 2-4. Shear bond specimen with frames for lateral force

2.3.2. Test Procedure
The test was performed by applying lateral and axial forces simultaneously. The lateral
force is to produce internal pressure between the steel deck and concrete. The values of these
internal pressures are listed in Table 2-1. These internal pressures were obtained by adjusting
the nuts on the threaded rod of the lateral frame. The pressures were monitored from the load
reading obtained from the load cells placed in the lateral frame as shown in Fig. 2-5.
The axial force was applied by using a hydraulic ram. This axial force pulls the steel
deck out of the specimen, and therefore produces shearing stress on the interface between the
concrete and steel deck.
At the bottom side of the specimen, slip transducers were placed to measure the slip
between the concrete and the steel deck. The loads applied along with the corresponding slip
were recorded. The tests were stopped after 1 in. of slip was reached where a relatively constant
plateau was achieved.
2.3.3. Test Results

A summary of the test results is listed in Table 2-2. Plots of shear stress vs. slip for
specimen SB2-2-A and SB6-1-B are shown in Figs. 2-5 and 2-6. In specimen SB2-2-A, as shown
in Fig. 2-5, chemical bond can be observed as the vertical line at zero slip. At a shear stress level
of 6.86 psi, this chemical bond failed which caused a sharp drop in the shear stress value.
Beyond this point, the strength was due to the mechanical interlocking and friction. Some
specimens, however, did not show a clear chemical bond response. This has been caused by a
loss of chemical bond during handling.
The typical characteristic of this shear bond interaction is that after the loss of the
chemical bond, the strength increases until the ultimate (peak) shear stress value and it is
followed by a descending curve until it reaches a relatively long horizontal plateau at the end of
the descending curve. The ascending and the descending curve represent the action of the
mechanical interlocking, when the concrete tries to over-ride the embossment. In this action, the
steel deck stiffness that is characterized by the thickness and rib height plays an important role.
After the concrete completely over-rides the embossment of the deck, the resistant to the slip is
relatively constant, in which case a horizontal plateau is resulted.
In the case with un-embossed deck, the response is very brittle as shown in Fig. 2-6. A

horizontal plateau was obtained directly after the failure of chemical bond. This is because of
the absence of mechanical interlocking due to the lack of embossments. The plateau is due to
friction between the steel deck and concrete as observed from the test results that an increase in
the lateral pressure results in a higher shear bond strength, in particular, in the plateau portion of
the response. This fact is due to the friction between the two materials.
Table 2-2. Summary of shear bond test results

ID# Max. Shear Constant Slip at Max. Shear
before slip (psi) after Shear
(chemical bond) slip (plateau) (in)
A B (psi) (psi) A B
SB1-1 6.87 8.10 8.25 5.95 0.160 0.102
SB1-2 6.03 5.81 6.67 4.32 0.124 0.154
SB1-3 7.07 7.07 6.23 2.25 0.208 0.041
SB2-1 4.44 5.75 7.19 3.92 0.094 0.093
SB2-2 6.86 5.09 6.49 3.60 0.119 0.167
SB2-3 2.85 3.22 5.02 2.03 0.159 0.067
SB2-4 4.40 4.15 5.60 3.19 0.151 0.129
SB2-5 4.87 2.87 4.80 2.73 0.085 0.142
SB3-1 9.78 9.36 12.17 8.78 0.064 0.104
SB3-2 9.88 6.81 11.92 6.10 0.062 0.166
SB3-3 7.97 9.83 8.67 3.27 0.126 0.226
SB3-4 7.07 6.02 10.45 6.21 0.094 0.103
SB4-1 7.05 9.18 10.59 6.20 0.031 0.072
SB4-2 6.91 7.03 8.79 3.70 0.057 0.057
SB4-3 3.38 5.53 6.93 1.50 0.061 0.088
SB5-1 4.46 5.43 15.17 6.00 0.064 0.067
SB5-2 3.88 8.06 15.44 4.50 0.078 0.095
SB5-3 3.73 2.89 12.76 2.00 0.112 0.062
SB6-1 11.59 10.54 10.54 6.50 0.102 0.004
SB6-2 9.50 8.91 10.00 5.00 0.699 1.001
SB6-3 7.48 7.38 7.38 5.80 0.005 0.216
SB7-1 10.78 17.66 21.12 7.66 0.431 0.235
SB7-2 17.99 12.49 17.99 8.70 0.195 0.476
SB8-1 11.34 13.18 11.34 5.27 0.108 0.082
SB8-2 11.65 11.40 11.40 4.06 0.065 0.106
SB8-3 10.30 14.53 15.55 3.99 0.004 0.204
A and B indicate the two s pecimen halves

8.0
7.0
SHEAR STRESS (psi)

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
SLIP (in)
Figure 2-5. Shear stress vs. slip of specimen SB2-2-A
14.0
12.0
SHEAR STRESS (psi)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
SLIP (in)
Figure 2-6. Shear stress vs. slip of specimen SB6-1-B

2.4. End Anchorage Elemental Tests
Three types of end anchorages were tested: headed shear studs, pour stops, and a
combination of the two.
2.4.1. Specimen Description and Test Set Up

Similar to the shear bond specimens, the end anchorage specimens were cast in a
horizontal position. The width of the specimens was 3 ft and the concrete cover above the deck
was at least 2 in. to provide enough bearing area for testing. Details of end anchorage tested are
illustrated in Fig. 2-7. In specimens EA2 and EA3, the deck was puddle welded to the beam and
fillet welds were used for the pour stop. After the concrete had cured, the specimens were
coupled back to back. Parameters of the tests are listed in Table 2-3.
For end anchorage tests, the shear bond test frame was used with a slight modification.
A pair of rods was used to pull the deck out from the specimens. Figure 2-8 shows the test set
up. A hydraulic ram, operated by an electric powered hydraulic pump, was put on top of the load
cells and an additional frame, as shown in Fig. 2-8, was added to hold the ram. A load beam,
made from a box section, was placed on top of the ram. In the space between the two specimens,
several displacement transducers were placed to measure the relative slip of the concrete to the
deck, and the deck to the beam.
puddle
welds
EA1 EA2 EA3

Figure 2-7. Details of the end anchorage specimens

load beam
hydraulic ram
load cell
tension rod
specimen
Figure 2-8. End anchorage test
Table 2-3. Test Parameters

ID# Concrete Deck End No. of No. of Fillet Weld
fc' fy Thicknss Emboss. Rib ht. Profile Anchor. Studs Puddle Welds on pour stop
(psi) (ksi) (in) Type (in) Type Type /side on deck*
EA1-1 4050 45.4 0.034 2 2.00 1 S 2 _ _
EA1-2 4050 45.4 0.034 2 2.00 1 S 2 _ _
EA2-1 4050 45.4 0.034 2 2.00 1 PS 2 4 1" - 12"
EA2-2 4050 45.4 0.034 2 2.00 1 PS 2 4 1" - 12"
EA3-1 4050 45.4 0.034 2 2.00 1 P _ 4 1" - 12"
EA3-2 4050 45.4 0.034 2 2.00 1 P _ 4 1" - 12"
End anchorage types: S=shear studs, P=pour stop, PS=pour stop and shear studs
Embossment and profile type, refer to Fig. 2-2 and 2-1, respectively
* Puddle weld: 3/4" visible diameter

2.4.2. Test Procedure
In this test, there was no lateral force applied to the specimens. The axial force from the
ram was incremented with an interval of 5 minutes to allow the system to settle. The load and
the corresponding slips were recorded and the test was stopped when failure occurred as
indicated by a consistently decreasing resistance to load.
As shown in Fig. 2-8, the ram pushes the load beam upward during the load test and the
two rods held by this beam will pull the steel deck out of the specimens. The concrete part of the
specimen is sustained by the frame.
2.4.3. Test Results

A summary of the test results is given in Table 2-4. Figure 2-9 and 2-10 show load vs.
deck to concrete slip for specimen EA1-1-B (shear stud end anchorages) and specimen EA2-1-A
(shear stud and pour stop). The failure mode in the later specimen is deck tearing around the
weld, which is typical for other specimens with deck welded to the beam. The shear studs in this
case do not give significant contribution to the strength because they were not welded through
the deck.
Table 2-4. Summary of the end anchorage test results

ID# Max. Load Computed Strength
per Stud or Stud Weld
Weld (k) (k) (k)
EA1-1 10.45 26.59 _
EA1-2 9.90 26.59 _
EA2-1 6.87 26.59 3.03
EA2-2 7.16 26.59 3.03
EA3-1 5.86 _ 3.03
EA3-2 5.70 _ 3.03
In EA1 group of specimens, in which the studs were welded through the deck, the typical
response of load vs. slip shows relatively ductile plateau. The failure was due to steel deck
tearing and pilling in front and behind the studs, respectively. In EA2 group of specimens, the
fact that strength of the specimens was considerably lower than in the EA1 was because the studs
were not welded through the deck. Another cause was the relatively short distance of the steel
deck puddle weld to the end of the deck (1.5 in). Therefore, the behavior of EA2 specimens are
similar to those of EA3, where ductile plateau can not be maintained as soon as the deck tearing

propagates to the edge.
12.0
10.0
8.0
LOAD (kips)
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
SLIP (in)
Figure 2-9. Load vs. deck to concrete slip of specimen EA1-1-B
7.0
6.0
5.0
LOAD (kips)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
SLIP (in)
Figure 2-10. Load vs. deck to concrete slip of specimen EA2-1-A

2.5. Concluding Remarks
Based on the results of the shear bond test, it can be concluded that the shear bond
strength is influenced by the internal pressure developed between the deck and the concrete. A
more accurate determination of the internal pressure will lead to a more accurate shear bond
strength prediction. This raises new issues on the relation of the internal pressure to the shear
bond strength as well as the determination of the internal pressure.
From the comparison shown in Table 2-4, it can be noted that the strength of the puddle
welds that were resulted from the tests are approximately double to the computed single weld
strength values (LRFD Cold-Formed, 1991). The strength of the anchorage by the shear stud,
however, is less than half of the single stud strength computed by using the AISC (1993)
specifications. In the first case, the higher strength was suspected due to the clamping effect on
the deck between the concrete and the steel beam. In the later case, the lower strength was
caused by the deck tearing rather than the stud shearing.

CHAPTER 3
STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS PREDICTIONS OF
COMPOSITE SLABS BY SIMPLE MECHANICAL MODEL
3.1. General
One of the purposes of developing simple mechanical based methods for composite slab
strength is to provide tools suitable for design purposes. Methods based on this model have been
developed worldwide in the past two decades (Stark 1978, Patrick 1990, Stark and Brekelmans
1990, Heagler et al. 1991, Bode & Sauerborn 1992, Easterling and Young 1992, Patrick and
Bridge 1994). Despite the complex nature of interactions inside composite slab systems, the
methods have demonstrated good performance in predicting the slab strength. In contrast to the
so-called m-k method, these methods do not rely heavily on full-scale test results, which becomes
the main advantage of the methods.
In this study, two new methods based on simple mechanical model are developed. The
methods are based on partial connection theory. Unified formulation for the studded and non-
studded slabs and inclusion of shear bond strength at the steel deck-concrete interface offer
advancements to the SDI method (Heagler et al. 1991). In comparison to the method developed
by Patrick (1990), the remaining strength of the steel deck beyond the shear bond transfer
strength is considered. On the other hand, clamping forces at the supports are neglected due to
the fact that at the supports, the slab rests on the tip of the supporting beams.
The first of the two new methods is an iterative procedure, in which the slab strength is
calculated based on the location of the critical cross section, i.e., the location of the concrete
crack that initiates shear bond failure. With this method, the ultimate strength and response
Chapter 3 . Strength and Stiffness Prediction - Simple Mechanical Model 18

history of the slab can be obtained. A computer program is required to perform the iterations.
The method is referred to as the iterative method.
The second method is one in which simple expressions are used in the formulation.
Thus, it is suitable for hand computation. The method is referred to as the direct method.
Along with these two new methods, a modified version of the SDI method is presented.
This method is referred to as the SDI-M method. The modifications include a corrected yield
stress due to concrete casting and omission of the shoring effect to the steel deck yield stress.
Modifications were introduced because the SDI method often yields unconservative results if the
casting stresses are not introduced and it may give very unconservative results if the shoring
stresses are included using the simple approach.
3.2. Review of Methods for Prediction of Composite Slab Strength by Means of

Semi-Empirical Formulations and Simple Mechanical Models
Although the use of cold-formed steel decks in the U.S. began as early as the 1920’s, the
standard design procedures for composite steel deck-concrete slabs were not formulated until
much later. A landmark research program that led to a design specification for composite slabs
was initiated in 1966 at Iowa State University (ISU) under the sponsorship of the American Iron
and Steel Institute (Ekberg and Schuster 1968; Porter and Ekberg 1971, 1972). The results of the
research led to design recommendations for composite slabs, which later became the basis for an
American Society of Civil Engineers design standard for composite slabs (Standard for 1992).
These design recommendations were based on two limit states, namely, the flexural and the shear
bond limit states. Determination of the slab strength based on shear bond requires a series of full
scale-tests.
The flexure limit state is characterized by the achievement of the flexural capacity, M u
(ASCE nomenclature), of the cross section at the maximum positive bending moment location,
although slip between the steel deck and concrete may occur anywhere in the slab including at
the end of the slab. The shear bond limit state is characterized by the occurrence of slip such that
it limits the capability of a section to reach its flexural capacity. Yielding of the steel deck
section, however, may occur prior to the failure.
The shear bond limit state was found to be the governing limit state in most composite
slab tests conducted at ISU, as well as in other research programs. The formulation of the design

method, which is commonly referred to as the m-k method, was chosen to follow the shear
equation from the ACI Building Code (Building Code 1995). The expression was developed by
Schuster (1970) and refined by Porter and Ekberg (1971). The equation for the limit state is
given by:
 mρd 
Vu = bd  + k fc ' (3-1)
 L' 
where Vu = ultimate shear capacity obtained from experimental test, b = unit width of the slab, d
= slab effective depth, measured from the compression fiber to the centroid of the steel deck,
ρ = A s bd , L' = shear span length, f c ' = concrete compressive strength, A s = steel deck
cross sectional area per unit width, m and k are parameters shown in Fig. 3-1, obtained by
regression on the values obtained from full scale tests.
REGRESSION
LINE
m
REDUCED
REGRESSION
LINE
m’
Vu
bd f c '
k’
ρd
L fc '
Figure 3-1. m and k shear bond regression line

Because shear bond was found to be the predominant failure mode of composite slabs,
the focus of recent research in this area has been to study more closely the behavior of this shear
bond action and to improve the performance of this action with or without adding other devices
such as end anchorages. Three components were identified in the shear bond action: chemical or
adhesion bonding, mechanical interlocking, and surface friction. The afore-mentioned m-k
method does not explicitly reflect the action of these components. To substantiate the effects of
these actions, tests have been performed and semi-empirical formulations have been developed
separately by Schuster and Ling (1980), Luttrell and Prasanan (1984), and Luttrell (1987a,
1987b).
The natures of those design procedures previously described are semi-empirical which
rely heavily on full-scale tests. This fact raises some problems as to how to incorporate more
parameters without significantly increase the number of full-scale test required and how to cross-
examine the design calculations analytically. In 1978, Stark introduced a partial interaction
theory similar to that used for composite beam design. The method was developed further by
Stark and Brekelmans (1990), in which they view the ultimate bending moment capacity of the
slab as built up from two components: (1) the contribution of the normal force of the steel sheet
and (2) the contribution of the reduced plastic moment M p ' of the deck. The formulation is
given by:
Mu = N b.d + Mp ' (3-2)
N b = k. f c '. h b . b (3-3)
 N b 
M p ' = 1.25M p 1 - ≤ Mp (3-4)
 A s . f y 
where M u = ultimate bending moment capacity, M p = steel deck plastic moment capacity, b =
slab unit width, f y = steel deck yield stress, d = repeat definition, k, and h b are explained in
Fig. 3-2. Equation (3-4) is a bi-linear simplification of a nonlinear relation between M p ' and

N b illustrated in Fig. 3-3.
k. f c '
hb Nb
z
fy
Na Mp '
fy
Figure 3-2. Partial interaction theory (Stark and Brekelmans 1990)
Mp '
Mp
1.0
 Nb 
M p ' = 1.25 M p 1 -  ≤ Mp

0.8  A sfy 
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Nb

A sfy
Figure 3-3. Simplified relation between M p ' and N b

(Stark and Brekelmans 1990)
In 1991, the Steel Deck Institute (SDI) launched an alternative formulation to predict the
strength of composite slabs for design purposes (Heagler et al. 1991, 1992, 1997, Easterling and
Young 1992). These design procedures were based on research conducted at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University and West Virginia University sponsored by the SDI.

The advantage of the SDI procedure is that the effect of end anchorages can be taken into
account in a simple manner. In the procedure, there is no distinction between ductile and brittle
behavior of the slab, however, it recognizes the studded and non-studded slab condition in which
generally, the studded shows ductile behavior and the non-studded sometimes has brittle
behavior. The nominal moment capacity is calculated based on the expression for a singly
reinforced concrete section, given by:
 a
M n = R.A s . f y  d -  (3-5)
 2
where
A sf y
a = (3-6)
0.85f c' b
N rQn
R = (3-7)
F
 A 
F = f y  A s − webs − A bf  (3-8)
 2 
with M n = nominal moment, A s , f c ' , f y , b, and d are previously defined, N r = number of
studs per unit width of the slab, Q n = nominal shear stud strength, A webs , A bf = area of the
webs and bottom flange of the steel deck, respectively, per unit width of the slab. In the non-
studded slabs, the bending capacity of the slabs is predicted by using the moment at first yield,
which is given by:
M et = (T1e1 + T2 e 2 + T3 e 3 ) (3-9)
where T1 , T2 , T3 are the total forces of the top flange, web and bottom flange of the deck,

respectively, and e1 , e 2 , e 3 are the corresponding moment arms of Ti ’s to the centroid of the
compression side of concrete.
Linear interpolation between the full nominal moment capacity and the first yield
moment for slabs that do not have sufficient number of shear studs to provide full anchorage was
introduced to the method based on the research by Terry and Easterling (1994). With this
interpolation, the studded and non-studded cases can be unified.
Following the development by Stark and Brekelmans (1990), Bode and Sauerborn (1992)
developed a method based on the same partial interaction theory that can include the shear bond
effect explicitly. To determine the strength of a composite slab, a boundary curve of the slab
nominal bending moment resistance vs. the shear bond length for the particular slab for various
degree of partial interaction need to be generated (see Fig. 3-4). The expression for the shear
bond length is given by:
Nb
Ls = (3-10)
b. τ shear bond
where L s = shear bond length, N b = normal force developed in the concrete slab (see Fig. 3-4),
b = slab unit width, τ shear bond = shear bond strength at the interface between the steel deck and
concrete. In this case, the shear bond strength is determined from full-scale composite slab tests.
M Nb N b max
Nb = 0 LA
LB
LA LB Ls
Figure 3-4. Boundary curve based on the partial interaction theory
(Bode & Sauerborn 1992)

Patrick and Bridge (1990, 1994) developed a partial shear connection method, which is
also based on partial interaction theory. In this method, the effect of the end anchorages and
clamping forces over the support as well as the shear bond strength can be taken into account.
Similar to the ASCE procedure, the principle of a singly reinforced rectangular concrete section
is used to obtain the nominal bending moment, M n . The normal force, T, in the steel deck,
which can be viewed as the reinforcing force in a concrete section, can be determined from the
free body diagram shown in Fig. 3-5:
T = f s (x + L c − γD) + µκR ≤ f y A s (3-11)
where f s = shear bond force per unit length, x = distance from the support to the section being
investigated, L c = cantilever length, γ D = correction due to diagonal shear cracking, µ =

coefficient of friction between the deck and concrete, R = support reaction, and κ = fraction of R
that has some contribution in T through a frictional action. With the T value calculated from
Eqn. (3-11), the corresponding M n value can be determined. However, because the shear bond
force varies along the slab, then a plot of M n vs. T (reinforcing force provided by the shear
bond, end anchorages, etc.) needs to be generated, as shown in Fig. 3-6, in order to form the
boundary curve for the slab load carrying capacity (Fig. 3-7). This concept is very similar to the
one introduced by Stark and Brekelmans (1990) (compare Fig. 3-6 to Fig 3-3) and Bode and
Sauerborn (1992) (compare Fig. 3-7 to Fig. 3-4). The critical section is then found by matching
up the boundary curve to the bending moment diagram due to the applied load, and the first point
to intersect with the bending moment capacity diagram is the critical location.
fs C
M M
T T
µκ R
x
Figure 3-5. Free body diagram of the forces acting in the composite slab section
(Patrick 1990, Patrick and Bridge 1994)

δ = 0.0
Mn
δ = 10
.
Figure 3-6. Plot of M n vs. T (Patrick 1990, Patrick and Bridge 1994)
B
A
M
A
Distance from the support, x
Figure 3-7. Boundary curve for the ultimate bending moment capacity
(Patrick 1990, Patrick and Bridge 1994)
The procedure offers a good means that can take into account the shear bond and end
anchorage effect in the determination of the bending moment capacity based on the critical cross

section. In the procedure, however, the remaining strength in the steel deck, i.e. the reduced
plastic moment of the deck in the method by Stark and Brekelmans (1990), is omitted and on the
other hand, as can be noted from Eqn. (3-11), the clamping force at the support due to support
reaction is accounted for. In their research, the shear bond strength used for the procedure was
obtained from the slip block test instead of the full-scale tests.
3.3. SDI-M Method

The SDI-M method is a modified version of the SDI design procedure. All the equations
given by Eqns. (3-5) to (3-9) apply. The modifications are introduced by: (1) replacing f y
(original steel deck yield stress) in Eqns. (3-5) to (3-9) with f yc (corrected steel deck yield stress
due to concrete casting), and (2) omission of the construction shoring effect in the f yc , thus in
this case, the slab is treated as if it were unshored. Tests on shored composite slabs revealed that
unconservative predictions using the SDI method could be resulted when the shoring effect was
included in this simple model.
3.4. Iterative Method

The method utilizes a singly reinforced concrete beam section as the basis for the
approach. All effects that help the concrete resists cracking in the positive moment regime are
considered as reinforcement as indicated in Fig. 3-8. Such effects come from shear bond action
( f s ), end anchorages ( Fst ), reinforcing bars, etc.
qc
fs Fst
Figure 3-8. Reinforcing effects of some devices
Two phases are considered in the analysis: phase-1, analysis of a composite cross section
in which the steel deck acts as a tensile member reinforcing the slab, and phase-2, analysis of the
steel deck as a flexural member. Phase-1 can be regarded as the composite action while phase-2

as the non-composite action of the system.
In phase-1, analysis is performed exactly in the same manner as one treats a singly
reinforced concrete section. Two equilibrium equations are considered: equilibrium of forces
and equilibrium of moments on the cross section. Assumptions used in the procedure therefore
follow directly from the concrete beam section procedure, with one exception. Because in this
procedure one wants to obtain the response of the slab through the entire loading history, the
Whitney stress block (equivalent rectangular stress block) for the concrete is replaced by an
elasto-plastic model of the stress distribution. This is illustrated in Fig. 3-9 in which, Fs and Fst
are forces resulting from the effect of shear bond and end anchorages, respectively. Additional
effects of welds or pour stop can be added in a way similar to Fs and Fst .
f1
fc '
c
h1 C(c, f1)
M
T(c, f1)
Fs (c, f1)
Fst (c, f1)
ft
f2 (c, f1)
Figure 3-9. Forces acting on the cross section
Two independent variables have to be solved to determine the stress distribution on the
cross section. In Fig. 3-9, c and f1 are chosen as the independent variables. They can be solved
from the two equilibrium equations on the cross section: equilibrium of forces and equilibrium of
moments. The magnitude of Fs and Fst , however, depends upon the value of slip between the
concrete and steel deck which in turn depends on concrete strain at locations where these two
forces are acting. The result is a nonlinear relation between Fs or Fst and the concrete strain,
such that c and f1 are coupled together in a nonlinear system of equations. Therefore, an iterative
procedure is needed to solve for c and f1 . The iterations are performed for each cross section for
a given load level. The greater the number of cross sections considered the more accurate the
prediction of the location of the critical section.

The afore-mentioned shear bond force, Fs , is computed as follows. Consider the
schematic illustration of the shear bond interaction in Fig. 3-10. Figure 3-10a shows a typical
relation between shear bond force per-unit length, f s , versus slip at the interface of steel deck-
concrete. This relationship is obtained from elemental tests. In general, at a certain load level,
the distribution of f s along the slab is not uniform due to the difference in the amount of slip at
different cross sections. This is illustrated by different values of f s,A and f s,B in Fig. 3-10b.
The shear bond force, Fs , acting on a cross section is the sum of f s from the end of the slab to
the particular cross section (represented by the shaded area in Fig. 3-10b). Figure 3-10c shows
the distribution of Fs along the slab. In the case of high strength shear bond, Fs can not be
greater than the strength of the steel deck, f yc A s .
fs f s,A
(a)
fs,B
slip
fs,A fs,B
(b) Fs
fs diagram
(c) f yc . A s
Fs limit
Figure 3-10. Shear bond interaction
Partial interaction between the deck and the concrete is accounted for by limiting the
deck contribution to the capacity of the shear bond, such that after a certain phase, the steel deck
and concrete no longer have the same amount of strain at the interface. Hence, at any loading
point, strength contribution of the deck can not be greater than Fs as shown in Fig. 3-10c, so
that, as reinforcement for the concrete, the steel deck strength can be expressed as:

Fs = ε s . E s . A s ≤ Fs,limit (3-12)
where Fs = shear bond force, ε s , E s and A s are, respectively, the strain, elastic modulus and
cross sectional area of the steel deck, Fs,lim it = limitation on the shear bond force based on the
shear bond force per unit length vs. slip data obtained from the elemental tests. Note that Fs,lim it
for a cross section does not have a constant value through the loading history, rather, forms a
function of slip at that location. Once the maximum normal stress in the steel deck reaches a
value of Fs,lim it / A s , slip starts to occur. Again, Fs,lim it can not exceed the strength of the steel
deck, and hence we can state:
Fs,lim it ≤ f yc .A s (3-13)
with f yc as the corrected steel deck yield stress.
The effect of the end anchorages, Fst , can be obtained upon the determination of the slip
of the slab relative to the beam at the location of the anchorages, i.e., at the support. Slip values
can be obtained by summing the elongation of the bottom fiber of the concrete for each element
or segment from the mid-span to the support, neglecting axial deformation of the steel deck.
To this end, both shear bond and end anchorage forces require determination of slip
along the slab. This creates a problem because the slip is not known in advance. Two
approaches can be pursued to overcome the problem. One is to apply a forward iteration
scheme, in which, the analysis proceeds by utilizing the values obtained from the last convergent
state. These values might not be correct for the current state, however, the forward iteration
scheme does not require additional iteration. The second approach is to use a backward iteration
scheme. In this scheme an additional iteration loop is introduced inside the current iteration loop
for c and f1 . Computationally, the approach is expensive.
In this study, a forward iteration scheme is applied with an assumed distribution of
bottom fiber elongation of the concrete slab along the length to reduce error introduced by this
integration scheme. The actual distribution of this elongation will have a parabolic shape as
shown in Fig. 3-11b. A simplified distribution by using a linear distribution as shown in Fig. 3-

11d is used. In this case, the elongation of the bottom fiber of a segment located at x i from the
support can be written as:
xi
dL i = dL c (3-14)
L/2
in which, L = the span of the slab, dL i = elongation of bottom fiber of segment-i and dL c =
elongation of bottom fiber at the mid-span. Using Eqn. (3-14), the total slip at location x i can be
expressed as:
(a) L
L+dL
(b) dL diagram
(c) slip diagram
(d) simplified
xi dL diagram
L/2 dLi dLc
Figure 3-11. Concrete bottom fiber elongation, dL, and slip diagrams
n dL c dL c
s i = ∑ dL i = (x i + x i +1 +...+ x n ) = (i + (i + 1)+...+n) d (3-15)
i=1 L/2 L/2
where s i = slip at location x i , n = total number of segments from the support to the mid-span, i
= sequence number of segment counted from the support, and d = length of each segment.
Substituting Eqn. (3-14) into Eqn. (3-15) for dL c , and replacing (i + (i + 1) +...+ n) in Eqn. (3-

[ ]
15) by (1 + 2 +...+ n) − (1 + 2 +...+(i − 1)) , the slip at a cross section can be expressed in terms of
elongation of that particular segment as follow:
 n(n + 1) i(i − 1)  1
si =  −  dL i (3-16)
 2 2 i
In phase-2 of the analysis, the remaining strength of the deck beyond its strength that has
been used for shear bond transfer is considered. This strength of the deck contributes additional
load carrying capacity and it is assumed that this action occurs through a non-composite type of
action. For this purpose, a deflection compatibility condition is assumed between the deck and
the concrete as illustrated in Fig. 3-12:
qc
dc
(a) composite action
qd
ds
(b) non-composite action
Figure 3-12. Additional load carrying capacity from the deck
ds = dc (3-17)
in which, d s = steel deck deflection, and d c = composite slab deflection. Additional strength
stemming from phase-2 of the analysis is contributed from the flexural strength of the deck and it
can be significant. The stress developed in the steel deck in conjunction with this additional
strength, however, can not be greater than the remaining strength available in the steel deck given
by:
f y* = f y − f cast − f shore − f bond - f anchorage − f w (3-18)

where f cast , f shore , f bond , f anchorage , f w = stress in the steel deck induced by concrete casting,
shore removal, Fs (shear bond force), Fst (end anchorage force), and weld force, respectively. If
q d denotes the additional load carrying capacity, then the total load carrying capacity is simply:
q = qc + qd (3-19)
in which q c = load carrying capacity from phase-1 of the analysis (partially composite action).
Beyond this value, the deck is yielded and it deforms plastically without adding any contribution
on the load capacity.
Deflection of the slab can be computed simultaneously with the strength calculation. In
this part of analysis, however, there are additional assumptions required. The modulus of
elasticity of concrete is assumed unchanged and equal to its initial value, even though the
concrete is in an inelastic state in certain cross sections. Similar to the strength procedure, the
portion of the concrete stressed beyond the tensile stress limit is considered to be ineffective.
Therefore, the cross sectional inertia of the concrete varies along the slab. The contribution of
steel deck stiffness to the slab stiffness is proportional to the degree of interaction between the
deck and the concrete. This degree of interaction is represented by the ratio of steel deck stress
to the corrected steel deck yield stress at the beginning of the analysis (after concrete casting and
shore removal). With this, the slab will have a non-prismatic effective cross section. The
deflection can then be computed by utilizing the unit load method for which the integration can
be performed numerically. The effective cross sectional inertia can be computed from:
Mm M m M m M m
δ = ∫L ds = ∫1 1 1 ds + ∫2 2 2 ds + ... + ∫n n n ds (3-20)
EI eff EI 1 EI 2 EI n
where δ is the mid-span deflection of the slab, M and M i ’s are moment functions along the slab
and at segment-i, respectively, due to the applied load, m and m i are moment functions along the
slab and at segment-i, respectively, due to a unit load at the mid-span, I i is the effective inertia
of segment-i and I eff is the average of the effective inertia of the slab. By assuming that the
cross sectional inertia does not vary within each segment, then Eqn. (3-20) can be reduced to:

1 Ω Ω Ω
= 1 + 2 +...+ n (3-21)
I eff I1 I2 In
where
∫ M m ds
Ωi = i (3-22)
∫ M m ds
L
with ∫ = integration over the segment, ∫ = integration over the entire length of the slab, M =
i L
bending moment function along the slab, and m = weighting function (bending moment caused
by the unit load).
3.5. Direct Method

The direct method shares the same basic concept as the iterative method. In fact, the
direct method is just one point, namely the ultimate load point of the iterative analysis, therefore,
all assumptions of the iterative method are applicable. In this case, a fully plastic condition of
the cross section is assumed and the Whitney stress block for the concrete is utilized. The stress
distribution is illustrated in Fig. 3-13.
0.85 fc '
C
y1 y2
M
Fst
Fs
Figure 3-13. Forces acting on the cross section for

the direct method
The main advantage of the direct method is that the procedure of computation is non-iterative,
thus it is convenient for hand computation. The effects of shear bond and end anchorages can

still be taken into account. Partial interaction between the deck and concrete is also considered
as in the iterative procedure. The nominal moment capacity provided by the composite action of
the steel deck and the concrete is expressed as:
M nc = Fs y1 + Fst y 2 (3-23)
where y1 , y 2 = the moment arm length of Fs and Fst , respectively, to the center of the
compressive stress block. The depth of the stress block is obtained from:
Fs + Fst
a = (3-24)
0.85f c' b
Equation (3-23) constitutes phase-1 of the analysis. Phase-2 of the analysis, the effect of the
flexural deck strength, is given by:
M nd = f y*S (3-25)
where fy* = the remaining deck strength, defined by Eqn. (3-18), and S = section modulus of the
steel deck. In contrast to the iterative method, the response history of the system can not be
obtained. The result only gives the nominal moment capacity. From Eqns. (3-23) to (3-25), it
can be noted that there is no distinction in the formulations whether the slab is studded or not.
The fact that the steel deck strength is limited to the shear bond action in the composite action
(phase-1) and the inclusion of the remaining strength of the deck represent a more realistic
physical interaction in composite slab. This gives a more accurate account for the changes in
steel deck strength such as shoring effect during the construction, etc.
3.6. Comparison of Calculated vs. Test Results

Predicted values of the slab strength were made by using the iterative, direct and SDI-M
methods. They were compared to experimental results. The tests were performed using several
different deck profiles, embossment patterns and steel thicknesses. Different span lengths, slab

depths, end anchorages and concrete strengths were also incorporated in the tests. The width of
the specimens was 6 ft. Loading was applied through an air bag to the top surface of the concrete
slab to produce a uniformly distributed load. The test setup is shown in Fig. 3-14. Table 3-1 lists
main parameters of the specimens and computed values using previously described methods are
listed in Table 3-2. Test data are taken from Terry and Easterling (1994), and Widjaja and
Easterling (1995, 1996).
Table 3-1. Test parameters
SLAB DECK RIB STEEL EMBSM. OVER- SPAN END TOTAL DECK SHORING CONCR
# PROF. HT. THCK. TYPE HANG LENGTH ANCHR. DEPTH CONT. fc'
(in) (in) (ft) (ft) TYPE (in)
1 1 2 0.0345 1 1 9 S-5 4.5 C N 3180
2 1 2 0.0345 1 1 9 S-4 4.5 C N 3180
3 1 2 0.0345 1 1 9 S-3 4.5 C N 5170
4 1 2 0.0345 1 1 9 S-2 4.5 C N 5170
5 1 2 0.0345 1 1 9 W-7 4.5 C N 3340
6 1 2 0.0345 1 _ 9 W-7,P 4.5 C N 3340
7 1 2 0.0345 1 1 9 W-7 4.5 D N 3770
8 1 2 0.0345 1 _ 9 W-7,P 4.5 D N 3770
9 1 2 0.0470 2 1 9 S-3 4.5 C N 5300
10 1 2 0.0470 2 1 9 S-5 4.5 C N 5300
11 2 3 0.0355 3 1 10 S-3 5.5 C N 3750
12 2 3 0.0355 3 1 10 S-5 5.5 C N 3750
13 2 3 0.0355 3 1 10 W-7 5.5 D N 3370
14 1 2 0.0470 2 1 9 W-7 4.5 D N 3370
15 3 2 0.0335 _ 1 9 S-3 5.0 C Y 3800
16 3 2 0.0335 _ 1 9 S-6 5.0 C Y 3800
17 3 2 0.0335 _ 1 13 S-4 6.0 C Y 2780
18 3 2 0.0335 _ 1 13 W-6 6.0 D Y 2780
19 2 3 0.0339 3 1 9 W-7 5.5 D Y 3900
20 2 3 0.0339 3 1 9 W-7 5.5 D N 3900
21 2 3 0.0558 3 1 12 W-7 5.5 D Y 5120
22 2 3 0.0558 3 1 12 W-7 5.5 D Y 4550
23 2 3 0.0558 3 1 12 W-7 5.5 D N 4550
24 4 6 0.0560 _ 1 20 S-6 8.5 D N 3070
25 4 6 0.0560 _ 1 20 S-6 8.5 D N 3070
26 5 4.5 0.0570 _ 1 20 S-6 7.0 C N 2330
27 5 4.5 0.0570 _ 1 20 S-6 7.0 C N 2330
Note
* End anchorages: S=stud, P=pour stop, W=puddle weld
* The number following S and W is the number of studs or welds installed
* Deck continuity: C=continuous over the support, D=discontinuous
* Deck profiles and embossment types: refer to Fig. 2-1 and 2-2, respectively
From Table 3-2, it can be observed that the iterative and direct methods predicted the
capacity of the slab reasonably well. The SDI-M method tends to give conservative predictions.
A graphical comparison of the test vs. predicted strengths using the iterative and direct methods
are shown in Fig. 3-15.
A comparison of the experimental and iterative method response histories for slab-4
(studded slab with trapezoidal deck profile), slab-15 (studded slab with re-entrant deck profile)

and slab-21 (non-studded slab) are shown in Fig. 3-16.
AIR BAG
Figure 3-14. Test Setup
Table 3-2. Prediction vs. test results

SLAB SDI-M ITER. DIRECT TEST RATIO OF SLAB SDI-M ITER. DIRECT TEST RATIO OF
# TEST/PREDICTED # TEST/PREDICTED
psf psf psf psf SDI-M ITER. DIRECT psf psf psf psf SDI-M ITER. DIRECT
1 503 673 755 730 1.45 1.08 0.97 15 1153 798 908 1017 0.88 1.27 1.12
2 503 637 657 700 1.39 1.10 1.07 16 1158 1218 1256 1185 1.02 0.97 0.94
3 521 633 657 600 1.15 0.95 0.91 17 627 411 572 565 0.90 1.37 0.99
4 515 507 519 600 1.16 1.18 1.16 18 353 251 352 368 1.04 1.47 1.05
5 351 366 337 490 1.40 1.34 1.45 19 507 515 533 523 1.03 1.01 0.98
6 348 510 534 590 1.69 1.16 1.11 20 507 495 478 523 1.03 1.06 1.09
7 297 346 321 375 1.26 1.08 1.17 21 425 510 486 467 1.10 0.91 0.96
8 293 487 519 490 1.67 1.01 0.94 22 422 421 485 494 1.17 1.17 1.02
9 751 766 802 900 1.20 1.18 1.12 23 422 421 431 507 1.20 1.20 1.18
10 753 1008 1060 900 1.20 0.89 0.85 24 476 638 654 621 1.30 0.97 0.95
11 595 672 658 750 1.26 1.12 1.14 25 476 638 654 559 1.17 0.88 0.85
12 595 876 881 870 1.46 0.99 0.99 26 294 445 464 498 1.69 1.12 1.07
13 357 443 388 480 1.34 1.08 1.24 27 294 445 464 455 1.54 1.02 0.98
14 461 457 528 500 1.08 1.09 0.95

-15% -15%
1400 1400
1200 15% 1200 15%
1000 1000
TEST (psf)
TEST (psf)
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 non-studded 200 non-studded

studded studded
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
ITERATIVE (psf) DIRECT (psf)
-15%
1400
1200 15%
1000
TEST (psf)
800
600
400
200 non-studded
studded
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
SDI-M (psf)
Figure 3-15. Test vs. predicted strength

600 1200
500 1000
400 800
LOAD (psf)
LOAD (psf)
300 600
200 400
test test
100 200
iterative analysis iterative analysis
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
MID-SPAN DEFLECTION (in) MID-SPAN DEFLECTION (in)
(a) (b)
500
400
LOAD (psf)
300
200
100 test
iterative analysis
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
MID-SPAN DEFLECTION (in)
(c)
Figure 3-16. Load vs. mid-span deflection: (a) slab-4, (b) slab-15, (c) slab-21

From the comparison and discussion presented, it can be concluded that the iterative and
direct methods generally predict the slab strength reasonably well. The methods are simple to
perform and because they are based on a mechanical model rather than an empirical one, they are
able to take into account parameters such as shear bond interaction and end-anchorages.
Therefore, the methods can offer an alternate solution to performing full size slab tests. The
SDI-M method, while not as accurate, provides a conservative design approach that is very
simple to apply.

CHAPTER 4
STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS PREDICTIONS OF
COMPOSITE SLABS BY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
4.1. General
Successful use of the finite element method in many studies involving complex
structures or interactions among structural members has been one of the motivations for applying
the method in this study. To compare with simple mechanical models discussed in the previous
chapter, finite element models may offer more accurate analyses because of the ability to model
the material and interaction of each part of the system in more detail. Further, the response
history of virtually any part of the model can be obtained. In this method, element and material
model types play an important role for the entire analysis. Selection of element and material
model types for the analysis is based on the structural system and any specific need or emphasis
of the study.
In this study, because the main concern is behavior of one-way composite slabs with a
large ratio of length to the cross sectional dimensions in a typical width of the slab, then the
choice of beam and spring elements for a finite element model is the most effective one. The
model is similar to the one proposed by An (1993) with modifications such as the inclusion of
end anchorages and a concrete fracture model for concrete in tension. With this concrete fracture
model, the mesh sensitivity problem in finite element analysis involving concrete (brittle)
material can be removed (Fracture 1992; Karihaloo 1995). Descending curves of end anchorages
and shear bond interaction are also included. ABAQUS is used to conduct the analyses.
Chapter 4 . Strength and Stiffness Prediction - Finite Element Model 41

4.2. Review of Finite Element Method for Composite Slabs
Due to the complex nature of interactions within composite slab systems, finite element
modeling has become a powerful tool in predicting the slab strength and stiffness. The power
rests in the ability to locally model each different part or interaction of the system and
systematically integrate contributions of those parts or interactions to represent the whole system.
For composite slabs, various models have been proposed. The selection of model types depends
on the physical system of the slabs and specific need of the study.
Daniels et al. (1989, 1990), Ren and Crisinel (1992) and Ren et al. (1993) used plane-
beam elements to model one-way composite slabs. Special ten-degree of freedom beam elements
that can take into account nonlinear slip behavior between the steel deck and concrete slab was
used. For this purpose, a special finite element code was developed.
By using ABAQUS, a commercial general-purpose finite element code, two-node plane
Timoshenko beam elements were used by An (1993) for one-way slab systems. Two series of
beam elements were generated, one for the concrete slab and the other for the steel deck. Shear
bond interaction was modeled by using series of spring elements and additional set of equations
to the stiffness equations to prescribe imposed relations among the degree of freedoms of the
spring, concrete beam and steel deck beam nodes.
Three dimensional brick elements were used for a two-way composite slab system.
Some difficulties concerning numerical convergence was reported in the 3D model (An 1993).
The problem was thought to be due to mesh sensitivity in relation to the tension-stiffening model
of the concrete material. Because of this problem, the concrete material model was replaced by
two different J 2 (metal) plasticity models, each of which is representing the tension and
compression parts of the concrete separately.
Other 3D models using brick elements were proposed by Veljkovic (1993, 1994, 1996)
and Oloffsson et al. (1994). In their study, DIANA, a general-purpose finite element code was
used. It was reported that some trials for concrete tension stiffening functions were needed in
some cases before a stable numerical result can be obtained.

4.3. Finite Element Model
4.3.1. Structure Model
A simply supported beam configuration is chosen as a typical model of the system. In
the case with continuous deck over an interior support, a rotational spring element is added to the
continuous end. The stiffness of this spring represents an elastic rotational stiffness of the
adjacent span at the common support. This type of configuration (simply supported beam) is
based on observations during experimental tests. Because of the absence of negative
reinforcement over interior supports, negative cracks along these supports were developed at a
relatively low load level. Therefore, the assumption that the concrete slab is discontinuous over
the interior support will not have any significant effect to the analysis.
Two series of Euler-Bernoulli beam elements with 12 in. typical length were generated.
One series is for the concrete slab and the other is for the steel deck. Only a single typical
longitudinal slice of the slab is considered in the model. Vertical nodal displacements of these
two series of beam elements are forced to be the same. This is based on previous study (An and
Cederwall 1994) which concluded that the effect of vertical separation between the two parts is
minor.
End anchorages and shear bond interactions at the interface of the concrete and steel
deck are modeled by using horizontal spring elements. In the case of the shear bond interaction,
the spring elements are placed along the slab. One end of each spring element is attached to the
steel deck beam element and the other to the concrete beam element. Both are at the steel deck
centroid elevation. This means that the attachment of the spring elements to the concrete beam
element is not at the centroid of concrete beam elements. In ABAQUS, this can be assigned by
using the EQUATION option in which the magnitude of a certain degree of freedom can be made
equal to scalar multiplications of any other degree of freedoms. This compatibility condition is
shown schematically in Fig. 4-1 and can be expressed as:
y c = y d sin θ ≅ y d θ (4-1)
y s = u 1d − u1c + y d θ (4-2)

u1c yc
yd θ
Plane
of
reference
c.g.c
ys c.g.s
u1d
Figure 4-1. Schematic model of steel deck to concrete relative slip
where y c = horizontal projection of y d , y d = depth of deck c.g. from concrete c.g., θ = rotation
of cross sectional plane, y s = horizontal slip of steel deck relative to the concrete, u1d = nodal
displacement of steel deck beam element in d.o.f.-1 direction (horizontal), u1c = nodal
displacement of concrete beam in d.o.f.-1 direction (horizontal).
For end anchorages, spring elements are placed at the supports to produce resistance to
horizontal movements of the concrete slab and steel deck relative to the support. The spring is
attached to the bottom surface of the deck. A schematic diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 4-
2.
STUD-CONCRETE
INTERACTION
CONCRETE
IMPOSED EQUATION
FOR HORIZONTAL SLIP
IMPOSED EQUATION
SHEAR BOND
FOR VERTICAL DSPL.
STEEL DECK
STUD-DECK
INTERACTION
WELD-DECK
INTERACTION
Figure 4-2. Typical finite element model

4.3.2. Material Model
Incremental plastic flow theory is applied for the steel and concrete materials whereas
nonlinear elasticity theory is applied for end anchorages and shear bond interaction. J2 -
plasticity (von Mises) with associative flow rule is used for the steel material of the steel deck.
In this case, the yield surface is independent of the hydrostatic component of the stress vector as
shown in Fig. 4-3. Although top flange buckling at the maximum positive moment region was
observed in some specimens, no buckling is assumed in the model.
hydrostatic axis
σ3
π plane
failure surface
σ2
Figure 4-3. Von Mises yield surface in the principal stress space
The concrete material on the other hand, is pressure dependent. The general shape of
failure surface for concrete material is illustrated in Fig. 4-4. ABAQUS uses the Drucker-Prager
failure surface, a two-parameter model, for concrete material (Drucker and Prager 1952). This
model is valid only for problems with low confining pressures (Hibbitt 1987). For a high
confining pressure, many finer models of concrete failure surfaces are available, such as the
Ottosen four parameter model (Ottosen 1977), Hsieh-Ting-Chen four parameter model (Hsieh et
al. 1982), Willam-Warnke five parameter model (Chen 1982), etc. The Drucker-Prager model,
however, is sufficient for one-way composite slabs. Moreover, because of the conical shape of
the failure surface, singularity is only at the apex. Multi-vector return stress based on Koiter’s
(1953) approach is a common method to handle such singularity. Other methods such as a
multiple single vector return (Widjaja 1997b) may improve the accuracy of the former method.
Recent developments in the application of fracture mechanics to concrete, in particular,

concrete in tension, enabled a fracture mechanics model to be used for the tensile portion of the
concrete. This model can avoid the mesh sensitivity effect of a tension-stiffening model.
Further, in this study, an associative flow and isotropic work hardening rule is assumed.
σ1
ε
θ hydrostatic axis
ρ σ3
deviatoric plane
π plane
σ2
failure surface
Figure 4-4. Concrete failure surface in principal stress space
The uniaxial stress-strain relation for concrete in compression is modeled using the
Saenz equation up to the peak value (Saenz 1964). This model has been successfully used by
Razaqpur and Nofal (1990) to model a composite bridge. The expression of Saenz equation is
given by:
Eoε
σ = (4-3)
2
E  ε  ε 
1 +  o − 2 + 
 E sc  ε cu  ε cu 
where σ and ε are the stress and the corresponding strain of the concrete respectively, E o and
E sc are the initial and the secant modulus of elasticity, respectively, ε cu = concrete strain at the
peak compressive stress. The descending branch of concrete-stress-strain relation is omitted in
this beam model configuration to preserve stability of the system when compressive strength of
concrete is approached. Figure 4-5 shows the concrete stress strain relation.

σ
Eo
E sc
ε cu ε
Figure 4-5. Concrete uniaxial compressive stress-strain relation
The backward Euler integration scheme is used in the plastic analysis. The scheme
assumes that the return of the stress state to the yield surface is normal to the final yield surface
(note that the yield surface keeps changing to follow the work hardening rule when plastic flow
occurs).
Finally, a nonlinear elastic model is used to model end anchorages (welds or shear studs)
and shear bond interaction. The force-displacement relation of these end anchorages and shear
bond interactions were obtained from elemental tests as presented in Chapter 2. Typical shear
bond interaction is shown in Fig. 4-6 and typical shear stud to steel deck and puddle weld to steel
deck interactions, respectively, are shown in Figs. 4-7(a) and (b).
7.0
6.0
SHEAR STRESS (psi)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
ACTUAL
1.0 SIMPLIFIED
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
SLIP (in)
Figure 4-6. Typical shear bond shear stress vs. slip

12.0 3.5
10.0 3.0
2.5
FORCE (kips)
FORCE (kips)
8.0
2.0
6.0
1.5
4.0
1.0
2.0 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
SLIP (in) SLIP (in)

(a) (b)
Figure 4-7. (a) Shear stud to steel deck interaction,

and (b) puddle weld to steel deck interaction
4.4. Method of Analysis

Among the three sources of nonlinearity: material, geometrical and boundary, only the
first two are applicable to composite slab problems in this study. Both the material and
geometrical nonlinearity were applied in the analyses. The integration scheme used to trace the
equilibrium path was the arclength method with a cylindrical constraint surface as suggested by
Crisfield (1981). The cylindrical constraint surface converges much faster than the general
spherical one. Despite the problem with inconsistency in the physical units used in its constraint
equations (Yang and McGuire 1985; Chen and Blandford 1993), no serious problem related to
this inconsistency was reported. However, Widjaja (1997a) shows that the method is sensitive to
the selection of physical units used. A choice of units that make the order of magnitude of each
d.o.f. type (rotation, translational, etc.) comparable may improve the performance of the method.
Other problems were indicated by Carrera (1994), such as no convergence due to a relatively
large load step, very slow or no convergence due to oscillation near the equilibrium path, or no
real root that satisfies the constraint surface. These later problems can be overcome by avoiding
the use of large step sizes. Figure 4-8 illustrates the method with a general constraint surface.

load, F
λ1F equilibrium path

∆L
λnF
λ = load proportionality factor
u1 displacement, u
un
Figure 4-8. General arclength method
4.5. Results of Analysis and Discussion

Finite element analyses have been performed to simulate composite slab tests and results
are listed in Table 4-1. Parameters of each slab specimens are listed in Table 3-1. Among the
analysis results, load vs. mid-span deflection and load vs. end-slip response histories of slab-4
(studded slab with trapezoidal deck profile), slab-15 (studded slab with re-entrant deck profile)
and slab-21 (welded slab, shored during the construction) are shown in Figs. 4-9, 4-10 and 4-11,
respectively.
Table 4-1. Ultimate slab capacity: finite element vs. test results
SLAB FEM TEST RATIO SLAB FEM TEST RATIO
# TEST/ # TEST/
psf psf FEM psf psf FEM
1 627 730 1.16 15 985 1017 1.03
2 617 700 1.13 16 1037 1185 1.14
3 577 600 1.04 17 506 565 1.12
4 543 600 1.10 18 264 368 1.40
5 480 490 1.02 19 537 523 0.97
6 565 590 1.04 20 496 523 1.05
7 293 375 1.28 21 456 467 1.03
8 480 490 1.02 22 441 494 1.12
9 775 900 1.16 23 408 507 1.24
10 790 900 1.14 24 534 621 1.16
11 733 750 1.02 25 534 559 1.05
12 799 870 1.09 26 353 498 1.41
13 409 480 1.17 27 353 455 1.29
14 364 500 1.37

600 600
500 500
400 400
LOAD (psf)
LOAD (psf)
300 300
200 200
test
test
finite element
100 finite element 100
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
MID-SPAN DEFLECTION (in) END SLIP (in)
(a) (b)
Figure 4-9. Slab-4: (a) Load vs. mid-span deflection. (b) Load vs. end-slip
1200 1200
1000 1000
800 800
LOAD (psf)
LOAD (psf)
600 600
400 400
200 test 200 test

finite element finite element
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
(a) (b)

500 500
450
400 400
350
LOAD (psf)
LOAD (psf)
300 300
250
200 200
150
100 100
test test
finite element 50 finite element
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
(a) (b)
Figure 4-12 shows graphical comparison of predicted vs. test values of slab strength. It
can be seen from the figure, the predicted values for studded slabs fall within ±15% margin.
For non-studded slabs, predicted values tend to be more conservative. This fact may be caused
by the exclusion of clamping force to the steel deck and friction at steel deck-concrete interface
at the supports.
-15%
1400
1200 15%
1000
TEST (psf)
800
600
400
200 non-studded
studded
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
FEM (psf)
Figure 4-12. Composite slab strength: FEM vs. experimental

Comparison of the finite element results to those of the tests for a relatively wide range
of parameters demonstrates the ability of the method in predicting composite slab strength and
behavior. This ability may reduce the number of expensive full-scale experimental tests for
composite slabs. Further, the stress-strain response history of virtually any point in the system
can be obtained.
In comparison to the iterative method, the nonlinear finite element method offers some
advantages, such as the possibility to obtain stresses and strains at virtually any location of the
slab. The method, however, requires more advanced user’s knowledge than the iterative method.
Therefore, the iterative method is more suitable for design purposes.

CHAPTER 5
LONG SPAN COMPOSITE SLAB SYSTEMS
5.1. General
The maximum span length of unshored single span composite slabs used in the U.S.
based on available steel deck floor in the market is around 13 ft. The choice of unshored systems
is very common because these systems can save construction cost and time. If the span length
can be increased by a factor of, for example, 1.5 or 2, significant cost savings can be expected
from elimination of some intermediate beams and their connections to the girders. These
potential advantages have motivated research in the area of long span slab systems. In this case,
long span slab systems that do not cause any significant increase in the depth and weight of the
slabs compared to regular span slabs are particularly attractive. This has been one of the main
objectives of this part of the study.
Research in this area has been carried out by other researchers. Notable among these
are, the investigations by Ramsden (1987), the innovative lightweight floor system by Hillman
and Murray (Hillman 1990, Hillman and Murray 1990, 1994) and the slimflor system (British
Steel, Lawson et al. 1997). Ramsden (1987) conducted a study on two new prototypes of deck
profiles that can span a distance up to about 24 ft (7.5 m). The prototypes have holes in the web
to ensure the composite action between the deck and the concrete. The second prototype is an
improved version of the first one. These two prototypes are shown in Fig. 5-1. Because of the
shape of the profile, the concrete slab is virtually a solid slab with a thickness of 5 in. to 6 in.,
which is disadvantageous because of it selfweight. There is no mention in the paper whether
shoring of the slab during the construction was provided.
Chapter 5 . Long Span Composite Slab Systems 53

Prototype 1
Prototype 2
Figure 5-1. Prototype 1 and prototype 2 of Ramsden (1987) deck profiles
An innovative composite slab floor system design was developed and reported by
Hillman (1990) and Hillman and Murray (1990, 1994). The floor system developed was not only
lightweight but also able to span up to 30 ft without any intermediate beams. Figure 5-2 shows
schematically the design of the composite slab.
Concrete slab
Perpendicular
steel decks
Figure 5-2. Innovative light weight and long-span composite floor

(Hillman 1990, Hillman and Murray 1990, 1994)

The slimflor system, marketed by the British Steel, utilizes deep deck sections of
ComFlor 210 (210 mm, approximately 8.25 in. deep) and SlimDek 225 (225 mm, approximately
8.86 in. deep) sections. With lightweight concrete, the ComFlor 210 deck section can span up to
6 m (approximately 19.7 ft). Figure 5-3 shows schematic view of this slimflor system.
Concrete
Support beam
Steel deck
Figure 5-3. Slimflor system (British Steel, Steel Construction Institute 1997)
In the current study, two 16 ga, deep steel deck profiles are investigated. The first
profile, referred to as profile 1, has a 6 in. rib height. The profile is currently not available in the
market so it was designed and manufactured by a press-brake process for this project. Because
of this, the length of the deck was limited to 25 ft. For long span slab specimens, the length is
only enough for a single span configuration. The second profile, i.e. profile 2, is a currently
available roof deck profile whose stiffness, as discussed later in this chapter, satisfies the
requirements for a long span slab in a double span configuration. This section was manufactured
through a cold-rolling process. Profile shapes of these sections are shown in Fig. 5-4. Note that
neither of these shapes incorporated embossments. This is because neither are currently
available composite deck profiles. For comparison, a 3 in. deep trapezoidal section is also
included in the figure.
Two design phases have to be considered in the development of these new deck profiles
for long span composite slab systems, namely the construction (non-composite) phase and
service (composite) phase. The construction phase considers the strength and stiffness of the
steel deck as a working platform that is subject to concrete self-weight and construction loads.
This phase is important in the determination of the required deck stiffness. It is shown later that

when a long span system is involved, the deflection (stiffness) limit state becomes very crucial.
9.25
6
profile 1
1
3.75 7.125 1.5 0.5
12.875
profile 2 4.5
1
1.5 9 1.125 0.375

12
profile 3
3
4.75
7.25
12
Figure 5-4. 6 in., 4.5 in. and 3 in. deep profiles
The service phase deals with a composite section of steel deck-concrete slab that is
subject to occupancy loads. Studies on composite slabs with typical span lengths (Terry and
Easterling 1994, Widjaja and Easterling 1995, 1996, 1997) revealed that the actual load capacity
of the slabs are very high compared to the standard design live loads (50 to 150 psf). Table 5-1
shows that the ratios of actual load capacities (from the tests) to a 150 psf design live load range
from 2.45 to 7.90. At these (ultimate) load capacities, however, the slabs have undergone
excessive deflections. If the allowable deflection is limited to L/360 (SDI 1992), then, the
permissible loads based on this allowable deflection will be much lower than the ultimate load
capacities. The ratios of these permissible loads to a 150 psf design live load, as shown in Table
5-1, range from 1.37 to 3.11.
These ratios suggest that the service phase rarely governs the design of composite slabs.
However, this is not always the case for long span composite slabs as latter shown by the
analysis and test results. For long span slabs, both the construction and service phase have an
equal change to govern the design.

Table 5-1. Ratios of actual load capacities and permissible load based on
allowable deflection to 50 and 150 psf design live loads.
slab ultimate load load at allow. test load / 50 test load / 150
# capacity deflection *) ultimate load load at allow. ultimate load load at allow.
(psf) (psf) capacity deflection capacity deflection
1 730 345 14.60 6.91 4.87 2.30
2 700 326 14.00 6.52 4.67 2.17
3 600 238 12.00 4.76 4.00 1.59
4 600 223 12.00 4.47 4.00 1.49
5 490 310 9.80 6.20 3.27 2.07
6 590 316 11.80 6.32 3.93 2.11
7 375 301 7.50 6.01 2.50 2.00
8 490 320 9.80 6.41 3.27 2.14
9 900 374 18.00 7.49 6.00 2.50
10 900 388 18.00 7.76 6.00 2.59
11 750 352 15.00 7.04 5.00 2.35
12 870 418 17.40 8.36 5.80 2.79
13 480 399 9.60 7.98 3.20 2.66
14 500 389 10.00 7.78 3.33 2.59
15 1017 407 20.34 8.14 6.78 2.71
16 1185 466 23.70 9.32 7.90 3.11
17 565 301 11.30 6.02 3.77 2.01
18 368 303 7.36 6.07 2.45 2.02
19 523 396 10.46 7.93 3.49 2.64
20 523 445 10.46 8.91 3.49 2.97
21 467 229 9.34 4.57 3.11 1.52
22 494 206 9.88 4.11 3.29 1.37
23 507 246 10.14 4.92 3.38 1.64
*) based on L/360
5.2. Construction Phase

As previously mentioned, this design phase considers the strength and stiffness of steel
deck due to the fresh concrete weight. For typical span lengths, the flexural strength limit state is
generally the governing condition in the design. For a longer span length, the governing
condition is shifted toward the stiffness or deflection limit state. This condition is schematically
shown in Fig. 5-5. The deflection is limited to l/180, as required in the SDI Composite Deck
Design Handbook (Heagler et al 1997). The 0.75 in. maximum deflection limitation was not
used because it is considered to be to restrictive for long span slabs.
For the purpose of this study, the construction phase is utilized to determine the profile
shape of the steel deck that can be used for a desired span length. This was performed by
generating charts of steel deck weight vs. span length as shown in Fig. 5-4, for various types of

profile shapes. For the profiles shown in Fig. 5-4 with a 2.5 in. concrete cover in a single span
system, Fig. 5-6 gives the plots of the steel deck weight vs. span length. Figure 5-7 shows similar
plots for double span (continuous) condition. The steel deck weight was calculated based on the
deck thickness that corresponds to the required moment of inertia for a certain span length with a
given concrete self-weight plus the construction load.
30
YIELD STRENGTH
LIMIT STATE
25 DEFLECTION
LIMIT STATE
STEEL DECK WEIGHT (lb/ft2)
20
15
10
0
6 9 12 15 18 21 24
SPAN LENGTH (ft)
Figure 5-5. Yield strength and deflection limit states

of the construction (non-composite) phase
It can be observed from Figs. 5-6 and 5-7, that for a same weight of steel deck, profiles 1
and 2 allow one to have a longer span than that of profile 3. This indicates that profiles 1 and 2
are more efficient than profile 3. Therefore, for a long span slab system of 20 ft, only the 4.5 in.
(profile 2) and 6 in. (profile 1) sections are considered in this study.
Table 5-2. Section properties of profiles 1, 2 and 3

Profile Thickness Area Inertia yp weight slab
# weight
(in) (in2/ft) (in4/ft) (in) (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2)
1 0.056 1.694 10.54 3.197 5.8 61.8
2 0.056 1.380 4.70 2.610 4.8 48.6
3 0.056 0.895 1.49 1.500 3.1 51.4

10
profile 1
profile 2
profile 3
8

6
16 ga
16 ga
18 ga
18 ga
4
20 ga 20 ga
16ga
18 ga
20 ga
2
0
6 9 12 15 18 21 24
SPAN LENGTH (ft)
Figure 5-6. Steel deck weight vs. span length of

single span systems
10
profile 1
profile 2
profile 3
8
6
16 ga
16 ga
18 ga
18 ga
4
20 ga
16ga 20 ga
18 ga
20 ga
2
0
6 9 12 15 18 21 24
SPAN LENGTH (ft)
Figure 5-7. Steel Deck weight vs. span length of

double span systems

From Table 5-2, by comparing values of profiles 1 and 3, it can be seen that the steel
deck moment of inertia of profile 1 is approximately 7 times higher than that of profile 3, which
corresponds to an ability to span 1.6 (= 4 7 ) times further. The steel deck self-weight is almost
double the one of profile 3. For a 20 ft long piece of deck with only one typical rib of profile 1,
the piece weighs about 116 lb and it can be handled by two people in the construction site.
For profile 2, the increase of the moment of inertia is about 3 times of that of profile 3,
and it corresponds to an ability to span 1.3 times further. The total weight of the slab, for the
same 2.5 in concrete cover above the rib, is slightly lighter than the slab with profile 3 as the
steel deck.
5.3. Service Phase

In the service phase, predicted maximum test loads of composite slabs can be calculated
using various ways. The iterative, direct, SDI-M and finite element methods were used to predict
the capacities of the specimens built using profiles 1 and 2 in this study. However, only the
iterative and finite element methods can provide response histories of load vs. deflection of the
slabs. In the SDI-M and direct methods, I avg is used with an elastic analysis to obtain
permissible loads based on deflection limit state. The analysis was performed in the same ways
as those with typical span length.
5.4. Specimen Descriptions and Instrumentation

Long span slab 1 (LSS1) has a configuration of two single deck spans of 20 ft each and 1
ft cantilever as shown in Fig. 5-8 (a). The total slab depth was 8.5 in. (2.5 in. concrete cover
above the 6 in. deck rib height). Six 3/4 in. diameter, 8-3/16 in. tall shear studs were used at each
end of the slab, spaced at 1 ft on center as shown in Fig. 5-9.
For long span slab 2 (LSS2), a two-span system was used with 20 ft span lengths. The
configuration is shown in Fig. 5-8 (b). The total depth of the slab was 7 in. (2.5 in. concrete
cover above 4.5 in. rib height). Six 3/4 in. diameter, 6-3/16 in. tall shear studs were used at the
support, spaced at 1 ft on center as shown in Fig. 5-10.

SLAB 1
concrete slab
steel deck steel deck
SLAB 2
concrete slab
steel deck
1′ 20′ 20′ 1′
Figure 5-8. System configurations of LSS1 and LSS2
Strain gages were placed at the bottom surface of the deck to measure the steel deck
strain during concrete casting and the load test. Three cross sections were monitored in each
span of the slab: the exterior support, interior support and mid-span. A set of six strain gages
was used at each of those cross sections. The schedules of these strain gage and shear stud
locations are shown in Figs. 5-9 and 5-10 for LSS1 and LSS2, respectively. In addition to these
strain gages, potentiometers were also placed at each end of the slab to measure the slip between
the concrete and the deck. Several displacement transducers were also used to measure vertical
displacements.
No shoring was provided during the construction of the slabs. The measured mid-span
deflections of the steel deck during concrete casting were 0.695 in. and 0.685 in. for LSS1 and
LSS2, respectively. Concrete compressive strength at 28 days were 3060 psi and 2330 psi for
LSS1 and LSS2, respectively.

strain gage locations
Section A-A
A A A A A A
A A A A A A
12 9 111 111 9 9 111 111 9 12
Strain gage locations
8.5
Section B-B
B BB B
B BB B
12 240 240 12
Shear stud locations
Figure 5-9. Strain gage and shear stud schedules of LSS1

strain gage locations
Section A-A
A A A A A A
A A A A A A
12 9 111 111 9 9 111 111 9 12
Strain gage locations
Section B-B
B B B
B B B
12 240 240 12
Shear stud locations
Figure 5-10. Strain gage and shear stud schedules of LSS2

5.5. Load Test Procedure
A uniform load configuration was used for the load tests. An air bag, placed on the top
surface of the slab, was used for this purpose, and the load was applied by gradually increasing
the pressure in the air bag. The air bag has a capacity of 20 psi in a fully constrained condition.
The view of the test set-up is shown in Fig. 5-11. Each span was tested separately and in an
attempt to prevent development of negative cracks into the adjacent span, crack inducers were
placed along the interior supports of LSS1 and LSS2. The crack inducers were groves,
approximated 0.5 in. deep, and made along the interior supports on the top surface of the
concrete when it was still wet after the casting.
air bag
Figure 5-11. Test set-up
At the beginning of each load test, the tested span was preloaded with approximately
0.35 psi (50 psf) to settle the system and check the instrumentations. The slab was unloaded
afterward and the loading was restarted and continued until a permanent set in the system was
obtained. This permanent set can be observed from the presence of the nonlinear relation of the
load versus mid-span displacement. Load increments of approximately 0.25 psi (36 psf) was
applied with a pause, of approximately two minutes before any data recording, to allow the
system to settle. When a permanent set had been noted, the system was once again unloaded
completely. The loading was then restarted until failure or excessive deflection was obtained.
In the inelastic region where the stiffness of the slab had decreased considerably,
displacement control loading was used with a displacement increment of approximately 0.5 in.

The test was terminated after 7 in. (LSS1) or 8 in. (LSS2) deflection was obtained.
5.6. Test vs. Analysis Results

Before the load tests, fine cracks through the depth of the concrete were observed on the
sides of the slabs over the interior supports. During the load test, as the load was increased,
flexural cracks developed within the tested span. In LSS2, because of the continuity of the steel
deck over the interior support, cracks appeared in the adjacent span on the top surface of the slab.
Maps of the cracks of LSS1 and LSS2 after the test are shown in Figs. 5-12 and 5-13. In Fig. 5-
13, cracks indicated by x are cracks that were developed during the test of the adjacent span.
1st test 2nd test
Figure 5-12. Map of cracks in LSS1
x x x x
2nd test x x x x 1st test
x x x x
Figure 5-13. Map of cracks in LSS2

Flexural cracks in the positive moment regime appeared on the side of the slabs tend to
turn horizontally approximately at the level of the top flange of the steel deck. This may indicate
some separation of the slab portion (concrete cover) from the beam portion (concrete rib) of the
concrete.
Load vs. mid-span deflection response from the tests and analyses of LSS1 and LSS2 are
compared in Figs. 5-14 and 5-15. It can be observed from these figures, that the response of the
second test of each LSS was relatively weaker and softer compared to the first. This may be
caused by damage that occurred in the adjacent span (first test), so that less (horizontal) restraint
was resulted. In LSS2, the occurrence of the negative cracks before the test on the second span
may have increased this effect.
700 700
Direct Direct
600 600
Test Iterative
Iterative
500 500
SDI-M SDI-M
LOAD (psf)
LOAD (psf)
400 400 Test
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
(a) 1st test (b) 2nd test

Figure 5-14. Load vs. mid-span deflection of LSS1
500 500
450 Direct 450 Direct

Test Iterative Test
400 400
Iterative
350 350
SDI-M SDI-M
300 300
LOAD (psf)
LOAD (psf)
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
(a) 1st test (b) 2nd test

Figure 5-15. Load vs. mid-span deflection of LSS2

Predicted responses using the iterative method, as shown in Figs. 5-14 and 5-15, show
reasonable agreement to those of the tests, particularly the first test of each slab. In terms of the
slab strength, the direct method also shows relatively good agreement to the test results. The
SDI-M method, however, predicted rather low strength (very conservative). This is due to the
very low values of the reduction factor, R, based on the required anchorage forces. These were
0.545 and 0.447 for LSS1 and LSS2, respectively. Finally, a summary of the maximum test load
capacity and permissible load based on the allowable deflection is given in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Summary of maximum test load and permissible load

based on allowable deflection
slab ultimate load load at allow. test load / 50 test load / 150
# capacity deflection *) ultimate load load at allow. ultimate load load at allow.
(psf) (psf) capacity deflection capacity deflection
LSS1a 621 245 12.42 4.90 4.14 1.63
LSS1b 559 210 11.18 4.20 3.73 1.40
LSS2a 498 163 9.96 3.26 3.32 1.09
LSS2b 455 121 9.10 2.43 3.03 0.81
*) based on L/360
From the above table, it can be noted that for LSS2, the permissible loads based on the
allowable deflection are relatively low compared to those of typical span slabs and LSS1.
Therefore, in the case of long span composite slab, it is important to check the deflection limit
state.
5.7. Evaluation of the Floor Vibrations

Vibration tests on LSS1 and LSS2 were conducted prior to the load tests to determine the
frequency of the fundamental mode of these slabs. For LSS1, the frequency of the fundamental
mode was 10.63 Hz., and it was 8.13 Hz. for LSS2. Plots of the frequency spectra in terms of the
normalized relative power vs. the frequency resulting from the tests are shown in Figs. 5-16 and
5-17.

1.2
1.0
NORMALIZED RELATIVE POWER

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
FREQUENCY (Hz)
Figure 5-16. Normalized relative power vs. frequency of LSS1
1.2
1.0
NORMALIZED RELATIVE POWER
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
FREQUENCY (Hz)
Figure 5-17. Normalized relative power vs. frequency of LSS2

Analytical calculations were made to determine if the frequencies satisfy the acceptance
criteria for human comfort (Murray et al. 1997). Two criteria were considered in this case.
LSS1 was classified as a footbridge with 6 ft effective width. The estimated peak acceleration
was 3.13% g. This estimated peak acceleration is higher than the specified value of 1.5% g and
thus the slab can not be considered satisfactory. The effective width and the occupational load of
the slab influence the vibration performance of the slab. For an effective width of 15 ft and for
office and residential use of the same slab, the estimated peak acceleration becomes 0.31% g,
which is lower than the maximum peak acceleration limit of 0.50% g. The slab stiffness
requirement was also satisfactory (5.89 k/in, experimental, compared to the minimum
requirement of 5.70 k/in). Therefore, in the later case, the slab can be considered satisfactory.
These estimations, however, are rather approximate, and further investigation is necessary.
The vibration response of LSS2 was not as good as those of LSS1. The estimated peak
acceleration for a footbridge condition is 10.2% g compared to the maximum peak acceleration
limit of 1.5% g and the experimental slab stiffness was 2.48 k/in which is below the minimum
required stiffness of 5.7 k/in. For the condition with an effective width of 15 ft for office and
residential purpose, the estimated peak acceleration is 0.95%, and again is greater than the
specified value of 0.50% g. Further evaluations are necessary based on these preliminary
evaluations of the composite slabs.
5.8. Proposed Detail Connection

The total depth of composite floor system using steel deck profiles as described in this
study is relatively shallow. In comparison with the 3 in. trapezoidal deck profile using a same
thickness of concrete cover, profiles 1 and 2 will result in 3 in. and 1.5 in., respectively, of
additional slab depth. Therefore, typical beam to girder connection for composite slabs with
regular span length can be used without adding any significant height to most structures.
However, should this additional structure height be objectionable, it can be reduced or eliminated
by using a beam to girder connection as shown in Fig. 5-18.

beam girder
Figure 5-18. Proposed beam to girder connection to reduce slab-beam height.

A study on long span composite slab systems has been presented and two steel deck
profiles have been investigated. The study, verified by experimental tests, shows very promising
results on the use of relatively slim slabs (8.5 in. and 7 in. total slab depth), with almost the same
concrete volume or weight as of the typical span slabs. With the proposed beam to girder
connection, the slab-beam depth may be reduced to a total floor depth comparable to currently
used floors. This feature of slab depth and weight promise potential advantages over the slimflor
systems that are now used in European countries.
The design method for the development of the deck profile by generating charts of the
steel deck weight vs. the span length, and the analytical methods for the prediction of the
composite strength and stiffness of the slab were shown to be good tools. These methods of
analyses are very promising for the development of new deck profiles before any experimental
tests. They can also reduce the number of full-scale tests needed.
Permissible loads based on the deflection limit state of the service phase may become the
governing limit state in the case of long span composite slabs. This limit state rarely governs the
design in typical span slab systems. Therefore, in the case of long span slab systems, both the
construction (non-composite) and service (composite) phases have to be evaluated carefully.
Results of the evaluation of floor vibrations suggest further study be required to improve
the performance of the slabs with respect to the floor vibration criteria. A deeper slab thickness
with a little sacrifice in span length could be considered to give higher slab stiffness, which may
improve the vibration characteristics.

CHAPTER 6
RESISTANCE FACTOR FOR
THE DESIGN OF COMPOSITE SLABS
6.1. General
Probability-based design criteria in the form of load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
are now applied for most construction materials. The design requirements have to insure
satisfactory performance of structures. The main advantage of the approach is the ability to
achieve a uniform level of reliability for structural members, or to impose a certain level of
reliability (higher or lower) of some certain parts of the structures. This gives a strong rationale
to the load and resistance factors as compared to the design safety factors of the allowable stress
design. Additionally, a unified design strategy as to setting up common load combinations and
load factors can be obtained.
In this part of the study, resistance factors, φ, for the flexural design of composite slabs
were evaluated based on test data of 39 full scale composite slab specimens. The tests were
performed at the Structures and Materials Laboratory of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia. The φ factors evaluated correspond to the SDI-M method and
direct method described in Section 3.
6.2. Review of Probabilistic Concepts of Load and Resistance Factor Design

Discussions on the probabilistic concepts of the LRFD approach are given in detail by
many sources (Cornell 1969, Lind 1971, Ang and Cornell 1974, Galambos and Ravindra 1977,
Ravindra and Galambos 1978, Ellingwood et al. 1980, Load and 1986, Hsiao et al. 1990,
Chapter 6 . Resistance Factor 71

Geschwindner et al. 1994, Commentary on 1996, Barker and Puckett 1997).
In principle the following inequality applies:
φ R n ≥ ∑ γ i Qi (6-1)
i
in which, R n = nominal resistance, Q i = load effect, φ = resistance factor and γ i = load factor.
The probability of failure can be expressed by:
p f = 1 − Φ(β) (6-2)
where Φ is the standard normal probability function, and β is the reliability index.
6.2.1. Reliability Index

The reliability index, β, used in Eqn. (6-2), in a log-normal format, can be expressed by:
R 
ln  m 
λR − λQ  Qm 
β = ≈ (6-3)
ζ 2R + ζ 2Q VR2 + VQ2
where λ, ζ and V, respectively, denote the log-normal mean, log-normal standard deviation and
the coefficient of variation. Subscript R and Q denote the resistance and the load effect,
respectively. R m and Q m are the means of resistance and load, respectively. Introduce a
linearization given by:
VR2 + VQ2 = α VR + VQ ( ) (6-4)
then Eqn. (6-3) can further be approximated as:

R 
ln  m 
 Qm 
β =
( )
(6-5)
α VR + VQ
where according to Lind (1971), for 1 / 3 ≤ VQ / VR ≤ 3 , α = 0.75 gives a good approximation
with ±6% maximum error. Equation (6-5) forms the basis equation for the AISC and AISI load
and resistance factor design specification for structural steel and cold-formed steel. From Eqn.
(6-5), the central safety factor can be expressed as:
Rm αβ (VR + VQ )
θ = = e (6-6)
Qm
By minimizing the error of this central safety factor, Galambos and Ravindra (1977) suggested a
value of α = 0.55 which was later adopted in AISC LRFD. The reliability index, β , can be
determined from Eqn. (6-5). As an illustration, the following table shows some β values and
the corresponding probability of failure, pf .
Table 6-1. β vs. pf
β pf
5.0 2.9 x 10 -7
4.0 3.2 x 10-5
3.0 1.4 x 10-3
2.0 2.3 x 10-2
AISC-LRFD uses the following β values:

β = 3.0, for members, under DL + LL or Snow
β = 4.5, for connections, under DL + LL or Snow
β = 2.5, for members, under DL + LL + Wind
β = 1.75, for members, under DL + Earthquake

whereas the AISI-LRFD uses the following β values:
β = 2.5, for members
β = 3.5, for connections
Galambos et al. (1982) give β values for various structural members under conditions of ratio of
basic specific live load to normal value of dead load equal to 1, 2 and 5. Ranges of β values
were also given by Ellingwood et al. (1980). These values of β range between 1.9 - 3.5 for
reinforced concrete members and 3.0 - 4.5 for steel members.
6.2.2. AISC LRFD Approach for the Resistance Factor

Using the central safety factor given in Eqn. (6-6), the following inequality can be written:
R m ≥ θ Qm (6-7)
which leads to:
αβVQ
Rm e− αβVR ≥ Qm e (6-8)
or,
φ R n ≥ γ Qn (6-9)
in which, R n and Q n are nominal values of resistance and load,
R m − αβVR
φ = e (6-10)
Rn
Qm αβVQ
γ = e (6-11)
Qn
Further, the mean resistance, R m , can be expressed in terms of the nominal resistance and
statistical parameters that represent the variability of material strength and stiffness, M,

fabrication, F, and the uncertainties involved in the assumptions of the engineering design
equation, P (Ravindra and Galambos 1978):
R m = R n (M m Fm Pm ) (6-12)
where M m , Fm and Pm are the means of M, F, and P, respectively. Accordingly, the coefficient
of variation of the resistance can be approximated by using:
VR ≈ ( VM ) 2 + ( VF ) 2 + ( VP ) 2 (6-13)
in which, VM , VF and VP are, respectively, the coefficients of variation of M, F and P. Here,

Eqn. (6-13) assumes independent relations among M, F and P variables. By using Eqn. (6-12),
the resistance factor given by Eqn. (6-10) can be modified to:
φ = (M m Fm Pm ) e − αβVR (6-14)
6.2.3. AISI LRFD Approach for the Resistance Factor

The AISI specification for cold-formed steel structures follows a different approach in
determining the resistance factor, φ. The approach is based on the research by Hsiao et al.
(1990). Instead of using Eqn. (6-10), it starts by expressing the effective resistance in terms of
the nominal loads and load factors multiplied by a deterministic coefficient, c, that relates the
load intensities to the load effect and is given by:
 D 
φ R n = c (γ D D n + γ L L n ) =  γ D n + γ L  c L n (6-15)
 Ln 
where γ D and γ L are the dead and live load factors, and D n and L n are the nominal values of
the dead and live load. Similarly, the mean of the load effect can be expressed as:

 D 
Q m = 1.05 n + 1 c L n (6-16)
 Ln 
Notice that in the last equation, D m = 105

. D n and L m = L n were used (based on load statistic
by Ellingwood et al. 1980). From Eqns. (6-15) and (6-16), one obtains:
Rm ψ Rm
= (6-17)
Qm φ Rn
with,
 D   D 
ψ =  γ D n + γ L  / 1.05 n + 1 (6-18)
 Ln   Ln 
By combining Eqns. (6-3), (6-12) and (6-17), an expression of the resistance factor can be
obtained:
2 + V2
-β VR
φ = ψ (M m Fm Pm ) e Q
(6-19)
Using this equation, determination of the α coefficient can be avoided. However, the coefficient
of variation of the load has to be known.
6.3. Statistical Data

Evaluation of the resistance factor, φ, as given by Eqn. (6-14) or (6-19) requires
statistical values of the parameters involved. These data are available from the lab tests
conducted on the composite slab specimens previously mentioned. However, larger sets of
database are preferred to give more representative values of means, standard deviations, and
coefficients of variation of the afore-mentioned parameters. Therefore, statistical values from
other sources that were based on larger sets of database were used. These values are the
statistical values of the concrete compressive strength, f c ' , which was based on the study by

MacGregor (1997), and steel deck yield stress, f y , which was based on the study on cold-formed
steel members by Hsiao et al. (1990). For these two parameters, the data obtained from the lab
tests from the composite slab specimens were used as a comparison only.
Data obtained from the lab tests, which are not available elsewhere from larger sets of
database, were used for the determination of the resistance factor. These data are the statistical
data of deck thickness, t, maximum and minimum shear bond strength at the interface of steel
deck - concrete, f s,max and f s,min , respectively.
6.3.1. Material Factor, M

The material factor, M, represents the variability of the strength and stiffness of the
material. In this case, M is affected by the variability of f c ' , f y , f s,max and f s,min . Statistical
data of these parameters are listed in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Statistical data of f c ' , f y , f s,max and f s,min
µ σ V
fc' (MacGregor, 1997) 3940 psi 615 psi 0.156
fc' (test) 3867 psi 878 psi 0.227
fy (Hsiao et al. 1990) 1.100 fy 0.121 fy 0.110
fy (test) 1.002 fy 0.058 fy 0.058
fs,max 0.999 fs,max 0.035 fs,max 0.035
fs,min 1.001 fs,min 0.073 fs,min 0.073
Note: µ = mean, σ = standard of deviation, V = coefficient of variation
Assuming that those parameters are statistically independent, coefficients of variation of

the material factor can be approximated by:
VM ,SDI = Vf2 ' + Vf2 = 0.191 (6-20)

c y
for the SDI-M method while for the Direct method:
VM ,Direct = Vf2 ' + Vf2 + Vf2 + Vf2 = 0.208 (6-21)

c y s, max s,min

for the SDI-M or direct design procedure, respectively. The mean values of M for the SDI-M
and direct design procedures can be evaluated from:
 f c ' ,m   f y,m   µf '   µ fy 

M m,SDI =     =  c    = 1.445 (6-22)
 fc '   f   fc '   f 
 y   y 
 f c ' ,m   f y,m 
  ( )
m 
(
 f s,max   f s,min 
m
)
M m,Direct =    f 
 fc '   y   f s,max   f s,min 
   
 µf '   µ fy   µ fs,max   µ fs,min 

M m,Direct =  c        = 1.397 (6-23)
 fc '   f  f   f 
 y   s,max '   s,min 
6.3.2. Fabrication Factor, F

The fabrication factor, F, represents the variability of the manufacturing process. In this
case, the variability of the steel deck thickness, t, is considered. The statistical data for this steel
deck thickness are listed in Table 6-3. These data were based on the measurement conducted on
the steel decks that were used for the composite slab specimen tests.
Table 6-3. Statistical data of t

µt σt Vt
0.966 t 0.030 t 0.313
Based on the above statistical values, VF and Fm can be computed as follow:
VF = Vt = 0.313 (6-24)
t ,m µt
Fm = = = 0.966 (6-25)
t t
6.3.3. Professional Factor, P

The professional factor, P, takes into account the uncertainties of the design equation.
This professional factor is defined as (Ravindra and Galambos 1978, Geschwindner et al. 1994):

test
P = (6-25)
prediction
The prediction is the resistance of the slab as predicted by the design equation based on the
measured (actual) values of its parameters. Based on the lab tests performed on the afore-
mentioned full-scale composite slab specimens, the following statistical data is obtained:
Table 6-4. Statistical data of P

µ p = Pm σp Vp
SDI 1.193 0.244 0.205
Direct 1.071 0.183 0.172
6.3.4. Load Statistic

Information regarding statistical data of the load in terms of the coefficient of variation,
VQ , is needed for the AISI approach as shown in Eqn. (6-19). For this reason, statistical data of
dead and live loads were taken from a special publication of the National Bureau of Standards
(Ellingwood et al. 1980). These data are summarized in Table 6-5. D n and L n denote the
nominal dead and live loads.
Table 6-5. Statistical data of dead and live loads

µ σ V
D 1.05 Dn 0.105 Dn 0.10
L 1.00 Ln 0.250 Ln 0.25
For the combination of the dead and live loads given by:
Q = γD D + γL L (6-26)
the mean and standard of deviation of this combination can be expressed by:
µQ = γ D µD + γ L µ L (6-27)

σQ = Var(Q) = γ 2D σ 2D + γ 2L σ 2L (6-28)
assuming that the distribution of D and L are statistically independent. In Eqn. (6-28), Var(Q)
denotes the variance of Q. By substituting values from Table 6-5 into Eqn. (6-27) and Eqn. (6-
28), the coefficient of variation of Q can be obtained as:
2
D   D  
VQ = 0.011 γ 2D  n  + 0.063 γ 2L / 1.05 γ D  n  + γ L  (6-29)
 Ln    Ln  
6.4. The Resistance Factor

In this study, the AISI-LRFD approach is adopted. The AISC-LRFD approach is used to
give a comparison. Considering the fact that composite slabs are generally used in steel framed
structures, a β (reliability index) value greater than 3.0 is not considered necessary (β=3.0 for
steel members). Therefore, β=3.0 is chosen as the target reliability index (AISI uses β=2.5 as the
basic case). The final result of φ factors, however, is rounded to the closest 0.05 and hence, the
actual β values used will not be exactly 3.0. A minimum limit of β=2.5 is used.
A load combination with γ D = 1.2 and γ L = 1.6 as given in the SDI Composite Deck
Design Handbook (Heagler et al. 1997) is used as the basic load case. The combination using
γ D = 1.4 and γ L = 1.0 is not considered because the ratio of dead to live load is typically < 3.0
for composite slabs. A range of dead to live load ratios between 0.5 (short to normal span slabs
with relatively heavy live load, approximately 100 psf) and 1.5 (long span slabs up to 20 ft with
relatively light live load, approximately 50 psf) is considered.
Based on the statistical data presented in section 6.3 and equations given in section 6.2, φ
factors for several values of D/L (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5) were computed and the results are listed in
Table 6-6 and Table 6-7 for the SDI-M and direct design procedures, respectively. Again, these
results are based on the AISI-LRFD approach presented in section 6.2.3.

Table 6-6. Calculated φ factors for SDI-M method
(AISI-LRFD Approach)
β
D/L 3.00 2.75 2.50
0.5 0.8790 0.9558 1.0393
1.0 0.8773 0.9497 1.0282
1.5 0.8704 0.9403 1.0158
Table 6-7. Calculated φ factors for direct method

(AISI-LRFD Approach)
β
D/L 3.00 2.75 2.50
0.5 0.8112 0.8801 0.9548
1.0 0.8109 0.8757 0.9458
1.5 0.8052 0.8677 0.9350
Based on the results in Tables 6-6 and 6-7, φ = 0.90 is chosen for the SDI-M method and φ = 0.85
is selected for the direct method. For comparison, φ factors computed by using the AISC-LRFD
approach are listed in Table 6-8 for the SDI-M method and Table 6-9 for the direct method for
several combinations of α and β values. This later approach is not influenced by the ratio of the
dead to live load (D/L). As shown in these tables, the choice of α between 0.65 to 0.75 show
relatively close results to the AISI approach.
Table 6-8. Calculated φ factors for SDI-M method

(AISC-LRFD Approach)
α
β 0.55 0.65 0.75
3.00 1.046 0.961 0.883
2.75 1.087 1.006 0.931
2.50 1.130 1.053 0.982
Table 6-9. Calculated φ factors for direct method

(AISC-LRFD Approach)
α
β 0.55 0.65 0.75
3.00 0.957 0.882 0.813
2.75 0.993 0.922 0.856
2.50 1.031 0.963 0.900

Resistance factors for the flexural design of composite slabs based on the SDI-M and
direct methods have been presented. The AISI LRFD approach for evaluating the resistance
factor was adopted. By this approach, the determination of the α coefficient is not necessary. A
target reliability index β=3.0 and minimum limit of β=2.5 were used. This choice was based on
the target reliability β=3.0 for steel members (AISC-LRFD), and the lower bound β=2.5 used in
AISI-LRFD for the basic load case. The resulting resistance factors are φ=0.90 for the SDI-M
method and φ=0.85 for the direct method. These φ values were based on a range of dead to live
load ratios between 0.5 and 1.5, which is representative of typical composite slab designs.

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A study of the strength and behavior of composite slabs in general, with a particular
investigation of the use of long span composite slab systems, has been carried out analytically
and experimentally. Two new methods of predicting composite slab strength and stiffness based
on simple mechanical models have been developed. The methods, which are supported by
experimental data obtained from elemental tests of shear bond and end anchorages, offer an
alternative solution to the m-k method, which requires a number of full-scale tests. Experimental
test results conducted on full-scale composite slab specimens reveal that the methods predict the
slab strength more accurately than the SDI-M method. This is due to the ability of these methods
to include the effects of shear bond strength, weld strength, end anchorage strength and any
remaining strength of the deck.
The nonlinear finite element method was used to model the complex nature of composite
slabs. From this analysis, a response history of virtually any point of the system can be obtained.
The development and use of a special purpose finite element code, which is particularly designed
for composite slabs and incorporates a concrete plasticity model with three or higher number of
parameters for the concrete failure surface and an energy based path following technique is
recommended. This is based on the fact that the concrete material is one of the most sensitive
aspects of the composite slab analysis, particularly when the concrete is in tension. The
suggested energy based path following technique is due to the inconsistency of the physical units
in the arc length method, which may lead to numerical problems.
Chapter 7 . Conclusions and Recommendations 83

Application of the methods of analysis described earlier shows a promising ability in
providing analytical tools and an alternate solution to performing a large number of full-scale
tests. These later tests can be replaced by elemental tests of shear bond and end anchorages,
which are less expensive.
The study on the long span composite slab systems indicates that the system can be used
without significantly increasing the depth or weight of a floor system. This promises a potential
advantage over the slimflor systems that are now used in European countries. With the long span
systems, more efficient use of the material can be expected as some of the filler beams and their
connection to the girders can be eliminated, and therefore, less construction work is required.
More detailed study regarding the economy of the system is recommended for future research.
Further study on the vibration behavior of the long span system is also recommended for future
research.
Finally, the study on the resistance factor, φ, for flexure design of composite slabs
concluded that φ=0.90 and φ=0.85 can be used for the SDI-M and direct method, respectively.
As more databases on the shear bond strength become available, further study of these φ factors
is suggested. It is also recommended to extend the study to φ factors for other limit states of the
design used for composite slab.
Chapter 7 . Conclusions and Recommendations 84

REFERENCES
An, L. (1993). “Load Bearing Capacity and Behavior of Composite Slabs with Profiled Steel
Sheet.” Ph.D.-Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Division of Concrete
Structures, Goteborg, Sweden.
An, L. and Cederwall, K. (1992). “Composite slabs analyzed by block bending test.” Proc.
11th. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. Ed.: W. W. Yu, 268-
282.
An, L. and Cederwall, K. (1994). “Slip and separation at interface of composite slabs.”
Proceedings of the 12th. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures.
Ed.: W. W. Yu. 385-397.
Ang, A. H. S. and Cornell, C. A. (1974). “Reliability bases of structural safety and design.”
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 100, ST9, 1755-1769.
ASCE Task Committee on Structural Safety of the Administrative Committee on Analysis and
Design of the Structural Division. (1972). “Structural safety - a literature review.” ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division, 98, ST4, 845-885.
Barker, R. M. and Puckett, J.A. (1997). “Design of highway bridges.” J. Wiley.
85
Bode, H. and Sauerborn, J. (1992). “Modern design concept for composite slabs with ductile
behavior.” Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete II, Proceedings of an Engineering
Foundation Conference, ASCE. Ed.: W. S. Easterling, W. K. M. Roddis, 125-141.
British Steel. “Design in Steel 3 Fast Track Slimflor.”
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-
95). (1995). American Concrete Institute, Michigan.
Carrera, E. (1994). “A study on arc-length -type methods and their operation failures illustrated
by simple model.” Computers and Structures, 50, 2, 217-229.
Chen, H. and Blandford, G. (1993). “Work-increment-control method for non-linear analysis.”

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 36, 909-930.
Chen, W. F. (1982). “Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete.” McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
“Commentary on the 1996 specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members.”
(1996). American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D. C.
Cornell, A. C. (1969). “A probability based structural code.” ACI Journal, 66, 12, 974-985.
Crisfield, M. A. (1981). “A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that handles "snap-

through".” Computers and Structures, 13, 55-62.
Crisinel, M., Fidler, M. J. and Daniels, B. J. (1986a). “Behavior of steel deck reinforced
composite floors.” IABSE Colloquium, Stockholm.
Crisinel, M., Fidler, M. J. and Daniels, B. J. (1986b). “Flexure Tests on Composite Floors with
Profiled Steel Sheeting.” ICOM 158, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
86
Dallaire, E. E. (1971). “Cellular steel floors mature.” Civil Engineering, ASCE, 41, 7, 70-74.
Daniels, B. J. (1988). “Shear Bond Pull-Out Tests for Cold Formed Steel Composite Slabs.”
ICOM 194, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Daniels, B. J. and Crisinel, M. (1987). “Composite slabs with profiled sheeting.” Composite
Construction in Steel and Concrete, Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference,
ASCE. Eds.: C. D. Buckner and I. M. Viest, 656-662.
Daniels, B. J. and Crisinel, M. (1993). “Composite slab behavior and strength analysis. Part I:
calculation procedure.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119, 1, 16-35.
Daniels, B. J., Nussbaumer, A. and Crisinel, M. (1989). “Nonlinear Analysis of Composite

Members in Bending and Shear.” ICOM 223, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Daniels, B. J., Isler, A. and Crisinel, M. (1990). “Modeling of Composite Slab with Thin Walled
Cold-Formed Decking.” ICOM 235, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Drucker, D. C. and Prager, W. (1952). “Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design.”
Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 10, 2, 157-165.
Easterling, W. S. and Young, C. S. (1992). “Strength of Composite Slabs.” Journal of

Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118, 9, 2370-2389.
Ekberg, C. E. and Schuster, R. M. (1968). “Floor Systems with Composite Form Reinforced
Concrete Slabs.” IABSE New York, Final Report, 385-394.
Ellingwood, B. and Ang, A. H. S. (1974). “Risk-based evaluation of design criteria.” ASCE

87
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G. and Cornell, C. A. (1980). “Development of
a probability based load criterion for American National Standard A58: Building code
requirements for minimum design loads in buildings and other structures.” National Bureau of
Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Evans, H. R. and Wright, H. D. (1988). “Steel-concrete composite flooring deck structures.”

Steel-Concrete Composite Structures: Stability and Strength. Ed.: Narayanan, 21-52.
Finzi, L. (1968). “Light gage steel floor systems provided to include utilities - proposal and
experiments.” IABSE New York, Final Report, 367-374.
Fisher, J. M. and Buettner, D. R. (1979). “Application of light gauge steel in composite

construction.” Handbook of Composite Construction Engineering. Ed.: G. M. Sabnis, 80-96.
“Fracture mechanics of concrete: concepts, models and determination of material properties.

state of the art report by ACI Committee 446.” (1992). Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures. Ed.: Zdenek P. Bazant.
Galambos, T. V., Ellingwood, B., MacGregor, J. G. and Cornell, C. A. (1982). “Probability

based load criteria: Assessment of current design practice.” ASCE Journal of the Structural
Division, 108, ST5, 959-977.
Galambos, T. V. and Ravindra, M. K. (1977). “The basis for load and resistance factor design
criteria of steel building structures.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 4, 178-189.
Geschwindner, L. F., Disque, R. O. and Bjorhovde, R. (1994). “Load and resistance factor
design of steel structures.” Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Heagler, R. B., Luttrell, L. D. and Easterling, W. S. (1991). “Composite Deck Design

Handbook.” Steel Deck Institute, Canton, Ohio.
88
Heagler, R. B., Luttrell, L. D. and Easterling, W. S. (1992). “The Steel Deck Institute method
for composite slab design.” Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete II, Proceedings of an
Engineering Foundation Conference, ASCE. Ed.: W. S. Easterling, W. K. M. Roddis.
Heagler, R. B., Luttrell, L. D. and Easterling, W. S. (1997). “Composite Deck Design

Handbook.” Steel Deck Institute, Canton, Ohio.
Hibbitt, H. D. (1987). “A simplified model for concrete at low confining pressures.” Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 104, 313-320.
Hillman, J. R. (1990). “Innovative Lightweight Floor System for Steel Framed Buildings.” M.S.
Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Hillman, J. R. and Murray, T. M. (1990). “Innovative floor systems.” Proc. 1990 National Steel
Construction Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, American Institute of Steel Constructions,
12/1-12/21.
Hillman, J. R. and Murray, T. M. (1994). “An innovative cold-formed floor system.” Proc.
12th. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, ed.:W. W. Yu, 513-
521.
Hogan, T. J. (1976). “Composite Steel Beams in Buildings.” Australian Institute of Steel

Construction.
Hsiao, L. E., Yu, W. W. and Galambos, T. V. (1990). “AISI LRFD method for cold-formed
steel structural members.” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 116, 2, 500-517.
Hsieh, S. S., Ting, E. C., and Chen, W. F. (1982). “A plastic-fracture model for concrete.”
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 18, 3, 181-197.
Jolly, C. K. and Lawson, R. M. (1992). “End anchorage in composite slabs: An increased load
89
carrying capacity.” The Structural Engineer, 70, 11/2, 202-205.
Karihaloo, B. L. (1995). “Fracture Mechanics and Structural Concrete.” Longman Scientific

and Technical, England.
Koiter, W. T. (1953). “Stress-strain relations, uniqueness and variational theorems for elastic-
plastic materials with a singular yield surface.” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 11, 3, 350-
354.
Lawson, R. M., Mullett, D. L. and Rackham, J. W. (1997). “Design of Asymmetric ‘Slimflor’

Beams Using Deep Composite Decking.” Steel Construction Institute, Berkshire.
“Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings.” (1986).
American Institute of Steel Constructions, Chicago, Illinois.
Lind, N. C. (1971). “Consistent partial safety factors.” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
97, ST6, 1651-1669.
LRFD Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual. (1991). American Iron and Steel Institute,
Washington, D. C.
Luttrell, L. D. (1987a). “Flexural strength of composite slabs.” Composite Steel Structures.

Ed.: R. Narayanan, 106-116.
Luttrell, L. D. (1987b). “Methods for predicting strength in composite slabs.” Building

Structures. Ed. : D. R. Sherman, 425-437.
Luttrell, L. D. and Prasannan, S. (1984). “Strength formulations for composite slabs.” Proc.
7th. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel. Ed.: W. W. Yu, 307-326.
MacGregor, J. G. (1997). “Reinforced concrete mechanics and design.” Prentice Hall, New
90
Jersey.
Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E. and Ungar, E. E. (1997). “Floor Vibrations due to Human Activity.”
American Institute of Steel Construction and Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
Illinois.
O’Leary, D., El-Dharat, A. and Duffy, C. (1987). “Composite reinforced end-anchored concrete
floors.” Composite Steel Structures. Ed.: R. Narayanan, 117-126.
Ollgaard, J. G., Slutter, R. G. and Fisher, J. W. (1971). “Shear strength of stud connectors in
light-weight and normal-weight concrete.” AISC Engineering Journal, 8, 2, 55-64.
Olofsson, T., Noghabai, K. and Veljkovic, M. (1994). “Computational modeling of interaction

between concrete and steel.” Diana World, 1, Diana Analysis bv.
Ottosen, N. S. (1977). “A failure criterion for concrete.” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division, 103, EM4, 527-535.
Oudheusden, A. J. (1971). “Composite construction-applications.” Proc. 1st. International

Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. Ed.: W. W. Yu, 173-178.
Patrick, M. (1990). “A new partial shear connection strength model for composite slabs.” Steel
Construction, 24, 3, 2-17.
Patrick, M. and Bridge, R. Q. (1990). “Parameters affecting the design and behavior of
composite slabs.” IABSE Symposium, Brussels, 221-225.
Patrick, M. and Bridge, R. Q. (1994). “Partial shear connection design of composite slabs.”
Patrick, M. and Poh, K. W. (1990). “Controlled test for composite slab design parameters.”
IABSE Symposium, Brussels, 227-231.
91
Porter, M. L. (1985). “Proposed design criteria for composite steel deck slabs.” Composite and
Mixed Construction. Ed.: C. W. Roeder, 28-41.
Porter, M. L. and Ekberg, C. E. (1971). “Investigation of cold-formed steel-deck-reinforced-

concrete floor slabs.” Proc. 1st. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures. Ed.: W. W. Yu, 179-185.
Porter, M. L. and Ekberg, C. E. (1972). “Summary of full scale laboratory tests of concrete
slabs reinforced with cold-formed steel decking.” International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering (IABSE), Amsterdam, Preliminary Report, 173-183.
Porter, M. L. and Ekberg, C. E. (1976). “Design recommendations for steel deck floor slabs.”
Porter, M. L., Ekberg, C. E., Greimann, F. and Elleby, H. A. (1976). “Shear bond analysis of
steel deck reinforced slabs.” Journal of the Structural Division, 102, ST12, 2255-2267.
Porter, M. L. and Greimann, L. F. (1984). “Shear bond strength of studded steel deck slabs.”
Proc. 7th. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. Ed.: W. W. Yu,
285-306.
Ramsden, J. A. (1987). “A light gauge structural panel for composite flooring.” Composite
Construction in Steel and Concrete, Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference,
ASCE, Eds.:C. D. Buckner, I.M. Viest, 374-386.
Ravindra, M. K. and Galambos, T. V. (1978). “Load and resistance factor design for steel.”
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 104, ST9, 1337-1353.
Razaqpur, A. G. and Nofal, M. (1990). “Analytical modeling of nonlinear behavior of

composite bridges.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 116, 6, 1715-1733.
92
Ren, P. and Crisinel, M. (1992). “Nonlinear Analysis of Composite Members.” ICOM 280,
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Ren, P., Couchman, G. and Crisinel, M. (1993). “Comparison Between Theoretical Model
COMPCAL and Test Results.” ICOM 286, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Saenz, L. P. (1964). “Discussion of the paper: equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete.”
ACI Journal, 61, 1229-1235.
Schuster, R. M. (1970). “Strength and Behavior of Cold-Rolled Steel-Deck-Reinforced

Concrete Floor Slabs.” PhD Dissertation, Iowa State University.
Schuster, R. M. and Ling, W. C. (1980). “Mechanical interlocking capacity of composite slabs.”

Proc. 5th. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. Ed.: W. W. Yu,
387-407.
SDI Specifications and Commentary for Composite Steel Floor Deck. (1992). “Steel Deck
Institute Design Manual.” Publication no. 28, SDI, Canton, Ohio.
Sonoda, K., Kitoh, H. and Horikawa, T. (1994). “Shear bond characteristic of embossed steel
plate with or without stud connectors under a constant lateral pressure.” Steel-Concrete
Composite Structures, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference by ACCS, 307-310.
“Standard for the Structural Design of Composite Slabs.” (1992). ANSI/ASCE 3-91, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Stark, J. (1978). “Design of composite floors with profiled steel sheet.” Proc. 4th. International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. Ed.:W. W. Yu, 893-922.
Stark, J. W. B. and Brekelmans, J. W. P. M. (1990). “Plastic design of continuous composite

slabs.” Journal of Construction Steel Research, 15, 23-47.
93
Tagawa, Y., Suko, M. and Tsushima, A. (1994). “Push-out test of composite slab.” Steel-
Concrete Composite Structures, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference by ACCS, 316-
319.
Terry, A. S. and Easterling, W. S. (1994). “The Effects of Typical Construction Details on The
Strength of Composite Slabs.” Report No. CE/VPI-ST 94/05, Department of Civil Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Veljkovic, M. (1993). “Development of a New Sheeting Profile for Composite Floors.”

Research Report Tulea 1993:47, Division of Steel Structures, Lulea University of Technology.
Veljkovic, M. (1994). “3D nonlinear analysis of composite slabs.” Diana Computational

Mechanics ‘94. Eds.: G. M. A. Kusters, M. A. N. Hendriks, 395-404.
Veljkovic, M. (1996). “Behavior and Resistance of Composite Slabs.” Doctoral Thesis, Lulea
University of Technology, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, Division of Steel
Structures, Sweden.
Widjaja, B. R. (1997a). “Path-following technique based on residual energy suppression for

nonlinear finite element analysis.” To appear in Computers and Structures.
Widjaja, B. R. (1997b). “Numerical integration of stress return for singular loading surface of
concrete.” Submitted for publication.
Widjaja, B. R. and Easterling, W. S. (1995). “Evaluation of Composite Slabs Using Versa-Dek

Profile.” Report No. CE/VPI-ST 95/02, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Widjaja, B. R. and Easterling, W. S. (1996). “Strength and stiffness calculation procedures for
composite slabs.” Proc. 13th. International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures. Ed.:W. W. Yu, 389-401.
94
Widjaja, B. R. and Easterling, W. S. (1996). “Vulcraft 3VLI Composite Deck Tests.” Report
No. CE/VPI-ST 96/18, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Widjaja, B. R. and Easterling, W. S. (1997). “Vulcraft 2VLI Composite Deck Tests.” Report
No. CE/VPI-ST 97/09, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Wright, H. D., Evans, H. R. and Harding, P. W. (1987). “The used of profiled steel sheeting in
floor construction.” Journal of Construction Steel Research, 7, 279-295.
Yang, Y. B. and McGuire, W. (1985). “A work control method for geometrically nonlinear
analysis.” Proceedings of the NUMETA’85 Conference. Eds.: J. Middleton, G. N. Pande, 913-
921.
95
VITA
Budi R. Widjaja was born on May 9, 1961 in Semarang, Indonesia. He obtained his B. S. degree
in civil engineering from Parahyangan Catholic University in Bandung, Indonesia, in April 1985.
After a year working in a contracting company, he joined with Parahyangan Catholic University
as a part time teaching assistant. Simultaneously he worked as a structural engineer in a
consulting firm in Bandung, Indonesia, until Fall of 1990, at which time he entered the graduate
program in civil engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He
completed his Master of Science degree in May 1993 and continued pursuing a Ph.D. degree in
civil engineering. He worked as a research assistant at the Structures and Materials Laboratory
during his doctoral study.
96

4 Analysis and Design of Steel Deck - Concrete Composite Slabs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Analysis and Design of Steel Deck - Concrete Composite Slabs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF

STEEL DECK – CONCRETE COMPOSITE SLABS

Budi Ryanto Widjaja

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the

Chapter 2. Elemental Tests

Chapter 3. Strength and Stiffness Prediction of Composite Slabs by Simple

Chapter 4. Strength and Stiffness Prediction of Composite Slab by Finite

Chapter 5. Long Span Composite Slab Systems

Chapter 7. Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................. 83

2-1. Profile shapes .............................................................................................................. 8

3-1. m and k shear bond regression line ............................................................................. 20

4-1. Schematic model of steel deck to concrete slip .......................................................... 44

5-1. Prototype 1 and prototype 2 of Ramsden (1987) deck profiles .................................. 54

2-1. Test parameters ........................................................................................................... 7

3-1. Test parameters ........................................................................................................... 36

4-1. Finite element vs. test results ...................................................................................... 49

5-1. Ratios of actual load capacities and permissible load based on

6-1. β vs. p f ....................................................................................................................... 73

A bf = area of steel deck bottom flange / unit width of slab

As = steel deck cross sectional area

A webs = area of steel deck webs / unit width of slab

dL c = elongation of the segment at the mid-span

dc = deflection of the partially composite section

ds = deflection of the steel deck

Es = elastic modulus of steel deck

E o , E sc = initial and secant modulus of concrete

e1 , e 2 , e 3 = moment arms of T1 , T2 , T3 (Eqn.(3-9))

= fabrication factor (Chapter 6)

f anchorage = stress in the steel deck induced by end anchorages

f bond = stress in the steel deck induced by shear bond force, f b

fc ' = concrete compressive strength

f c ' ,m = mean of concrete compressive strength = µ fc '

f cast = stress in the steel deck induced by concrete casting

fs = shear bond force per unit length

f shore = stress in the steel deck induced by shore removal

= maximum and minimum of f s

ft = concrete tensile strength

fw = stress in the steel deck induced by puddle welds

fy = steel deck yield stress

fy* = remaining strength of the steel deck

f y,m = mean of steel deck yield stress = µ f y

f1 , f2 = elastic concrete compressive and tensile stress at the extreme fiber

hb = concrete depth above steel deck rib

h1 = depth of the concrete flange (concrete above steel deck rib)

Ii = effective cross sectional inertia of a segment

Ls = shear bond length

Mm = mean of material factor

Mp = steel deck plastic moment capacity

Mu , Mn = nominal bending moment

Nr = number of shear studs / unit width of slab

Qi , Q m = load effect, mean of load effect

Qn = nominal strength of single shear stud

q, q c , q d = load carrying capacity: total, phase-1, phase-2, respectively

u1c = nodal displacement of concrete beam element in d.o.f.-1 direction (horizontal)

= coefficients of variation: general, resistance, load effect

= coefficients of variation of: material, fabrication, professional factors,

x, x i = distance from the support to the section being investigated

yd = depth of deck c.g. from concrete c.g.

ys = horizontal slip of steel deck relative to the concrete

y1 , y 2 = moment arm of Fs and Fst , respectively

εs = steel deck strain

Φ = standard normal probability function