Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine

International Specialty Conference on Cold- (1990) - 10th International Specialty Conference

Formed Steel Structures on Cold-Formed Steel Structures

Oct 23rd, 12:00 AM

A Review of Composite Slab Design

Howard D. Wright

H. Roy Evans

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/isccss

Part of the Structural Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Wright, Howard D. and Evans, H. Roy, "A Review of Composite Slab Design" (1990). International Specialty
Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. 6.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/isccss/10iccfss/10iccfss-session1/6

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been
accepted for inclusion in International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures by an authorized
administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including
reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please
contact scholarsmine@mst.edu.
 Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures
St Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., October 23-24, 1990

A REVIEW OF COMPOSITE SLAB DESIGN

Dr Howard D. Wright
Lecturer University of Wales College of Cardiff
Prof H. Roy Evans
Head of School University of Wales College of Cardiff
SUMMARY
64 composite slab tests are described and evaluated using 5
methods of analysis. One, a new plastic method, requires the imput
of only one performance coefficient derived from relatively few
tests. This offers significant economy over the current methods.
INTRODUCTION
Composite slabs are an efficient and economical method of
providing flooring in steel framed buildings. Their popularity is
largely due to the ease and speed with which the slab can be
constructed and the efficiency of structural action developed.
The system is formed using profiled steel decking as permanent
formwork and reinforcement to a concrete slab. The two materials
act together as a composite system due, largely, to the action of
shear embossments or keys pressed into the steel decking. The
shear bond transferred between the steel deck and concrete depends
upon parameters such as embossment size and depth, deck profile,
steel sheet thickness and concrete grade and type.
Although it is possible for the keys or embossments to carryall
the shear forces required to develop the full moment capacity of a
slab it is more likely that a breakdown of shear bond will
precipitate failure in most common deck profiles. The actual
failure mode of the slab, in this case, is complex involving a
shear failure in the concrete, local yield or buckling in the
steel deck and excessive amounts of slip displacement between the
concrete and steel deck (figure 1).
The complexity of the failure coupled with the number and
variability of the parameters affecting the shear bond resistance
of the deck has meant that purely analytical methods of predicting
the ultimate load capacity of composite slabs have not been
developed. Instead most methods of analysis rely upon performance
coefficients that are derived from full scale slab tests specific
to the deck under consideration. Consequently manufacturers are
forced to car.F¥ out expensive performance tests on each deck
profile in th~r product range.
A full scale test will give information on the failure load for a
particular set of parameters such as span, depth, concrete grade,
steel sheet thickness etc. The number of variable parameters may,
therefore, define the number of tests required. A common situation
occurs when a manufacturer of a particular deck wishes to evaluate
the performance for variations in slab thickness, concrete
strength and span length. A relationship between each parameter
and the strength of the slab can be found from the tests. This
indicates that three sets of three tests are needed giving
information on the three parameters under consideration. (It is
assumed here that at least three tests should be performed in each

27
 28

set to eliminate the possibility of rogue results affecting the

outcome). In fact it is often the case that two or more parameters
are interlinked or can be treated analytically and fewer tests
will therefore be required.
Unfortunately the complexity of the failure mode and the
interlinking of parameters means that the coefficients derived
from the tests cannot then be definitely attributed to a
particular parameter or failure mode. The analysis methods that
use test derived coefficients are, therefore, rarely logically
based on fundamental principles.
The authors have carried out 64 composite slab tests to determine
5 sets of design coefficients for various manufacturers. These
tests have enabled a study of the behaviour of composite slabs of
varying thickness and deck geometry, embossments of varying size,
shape and depth and the suitability of various analytical methods
in predicting slab strength.
This study is described in this paper and has led to an
alternative method of analysis being proposed. This method is
derived, in a logical and analytical way, from the failure
mechanism observed. This, in turn, has led to the conclusion that
only one test derived coefficient is necessary to reliably predict
the behaviour of slabs. Many of the parameters thought to affect
shear bond strength either do not do so, can be evaluated without
the requirement of testing, or can be incorporated in a single
test value.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Most of the tests carried out by the authors have been as a result
of requests by manufacturers for load/span information for
inclusion in brochures. The British Code of Practice for the
design of composite slabs defines a test procedure from which two
coefficients mr and kr can be determined. These coefficients are
similar to those developed by Schuster and by Porter and Ekberg.
The coefficients may then be used to determine loads and spans for
slabs formed with the same deck but with various slab depths and
concrete strengths.
The tests were all carried out on simple spans loaded with a
symmetrical arrangement of either two or four line loads. The four
line load arrangement approximated a uniformly distributed load
which is considered to be the normal design situation for these
slabs. Two line loads were only used for short slabs where four
line loads would have proved difficult to arrange.
Most slabs were cast with a lightweight aggregate concrete and
included a light mesh reinforcement just below the slab surface.
In most cases the slabs were cast unpropped, that is they were
supported only at each end and the deck was allowed to deform
under the load of wet concrete. In addition thin steel sheet crack
inducers were incuded at the inner load points. These ensured that
the tensile capacity of the concrete would not beneficially affect
the behaviour.
An initial dynamic load test was carried out during which the slab
was cyclically loaded ten thousand times between one and a half
 29

times and a half of the assumed working load. A static load test
to failure was then carried out.
According to the Code each deck type requires at least six and
preferably eight tests for the determination of the coefficients.
Half of these should be carried out on as short a slab span as
possible and the remaining half on as long a span as possib~e.
Consequently, a considerable number of slabs need to be cast and
cured. The constraints of a busy laboratory led to many of the
slabs being cast in the open at a field testing station some way
from the university campus. A mobile purpose made trailer rig was
constructed so that the load tests could also be carried out at
the field station. This rig is shown in figure 2. and further
details can be found in a paper by Wright and Peetham-Baran.
Although the British code recommends that six or eight tests are
sufficient to determine the relevant coefficients several of the
test series involved up to twelve slabs. The additional tests were
commissioned to investigate extra long spans or very deep slabs.
Several of the test series involved just three tests carried out
to confirm the behaviour of a slab at a particular span or in a
particular situation. Consequently, a much fuller picture of
behaviour has been built up over the test period.
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
This bank of test information has led the authors to several
conclusions with regard to the nehaviour of composite slabs. Some
of these have already been recorded in previous papers. The major
conclusions are, however, itemised below.
1) All of the slabs failed by loss of shear bond between the deck
and concrete with a diagonal tension crack forming at
approximately one quarter of the slab span. This occured in slabs
loaded with two line loads and four line loads although in the
latter case vertical cracks were also noted immediately below the
outer load position.
2) Long thin slabs failed in a ductile manner with considerable
slip occuring between the deck and concrete prior to failure.
Short thick slabs tend to fail in a sudden brittle manner. This
change in ductility between long and short slabs of the same deck
type has been observed in two of the five test series.
3) Concrete strength does not appear to affect the strength of the
slabs. Slabs with measured concrete strengths of only 2322 psi (16
N/mm 2 ) behaved in a similar way and gave similar ultimate loads to
identical specimens with much higher concrete strengths. It is,
however, prudent to assume that there is a lower bound to this
observation!
4) The depth of the embossment or shear key is critical to the
strength of the slab. Two series of tests were conducted on slabs
with decks identical apart from embossment depth. It was found
that a reduction in embossment protrusion from .098 in. (2.5mm) to
0.067 in. (l.7mm) caused a 66% reduction in load capacity.
5) Shallow decks have a tendency to separate and curl away from
the concrete slab during testing. This reduces the observed.
strength of the slab in the test but may not be of importance in
 30

practical situations where the breadth of the slab formed by

several sheets side by side is effectively very wide.
6) The fact that slabs have been dynamically loaded before a
static test to failure will only affect the ultimate load capacity
of the slab if a critical amount of slip between deck and concrete
has occured. Many of the slabs tested displayed end slip between
the deck and concrete during the dynamic loading and in certain
cases this slip increased progressively during this stage. If the
slip increased to a value and then stabilised a much higher
ultimate load could be expected during the static test. If, on the
other hand, the slip was still increasing as the 10,000 cycles
were completed only marginal increase in load capacity could be
obtained.
These observations accord well with those of other researchers and
it is believed that the qualitative behaviour of the slab at
failure is now well established. Establishing a method of
quantitatively predicting the ultimate load capacity of composite
slabs has not been as successful.
DESIGN METHODS

As stated earlier each test series was carried out as a result of

a request by a manufacturer for specific load span information.
Most of the test series were, in fact, carried out in order to
evaluate mr and kr coefficients as defined in the British Code of
Practice. The two coefficients are obtained from tests with
extreme slab spans and slab depths and can therefore be used to
calculate the ultimate loads for the same deck and any
intermediate slab span and slab depth and also, since concrete
grade is included in the method, for any concrete grade.
It is difficult to assess the validity of the design method when
the tests themselves have been used to obtain coefficients upon
which the accuracy of the method depends. A suitable measure of
whether the method is accurate is a value of standard deviation
obtained in the following manner:-
1) The test results are used to evaluate the coefficients relating
to the deck type.
2) These coefficients are used to evaluate the theoretical load
capacity of each slab using this deck.
3) The test load capacity is expressed as a percentage of the
theoretical load capacity for each slab.
4) The standard deviation of the values obtained in 3 is
evaluated.
This standard deviation gives the likely error in percentage terms
between test and theory.
Table 1 presents these standard deviation values for each of the
test series. Values are given for several methods of analysis as
well as the British Code method (denoted in the table as the mr kr
method).
 31

In two of the eight groups tests were carried out on only three
slabs and it is realised that representative coefficients cannot
be obtained with so few results. However, in test series two the
deck was nominally identical to that used in series one apart from
the fact that production rather than prototype specimens were
used. In the case of series 5 the deck used was identical to the
series 4 deck although the tests were carried out on specimens
cast with a single temporary prop. The standard deviations
recorded for these decks have been evaluated assuming the deck
coefficients for the combined test series on the same deck type.
Each of the design methods will now be discussed in turn.
a) The mr kr method
The mr kr method can be seen to predict the ultimate load to a
standard deviation of 16.4% in the worst case. This is quite large
and some explanation regarding the scatter of results must be
given. Test series three and six were carried out on specimens
with considerable variation in slab thickness. As mentioned in the
test observations thick slabs tend to fail in a more brittle and
less predictable way. This is thought to be the reason for the
large standard deviations recorded in test series 3 and 6. Deck 7
was a prototype deck that was formed by folding rather than
rolling the steel sheet. In this deck no stiffeners were
incorporated in the flanges and the deck flexed considerably
during testing. For the remaining tests the standard deviation
recorded is less than 5.2.
It can be concluded that the mr kr method will give acceptably
accurate results when only the slab span is varied appreciably. It
is also interesting to note that the inclusion of concrete grade
in the method may affect the results. This is contrary to
observation 3. The equation, upon which the method is based, is
given below.
v = Bd
where V is the shear resistance.
B is the breadth of the slab.
d is the effective depth of the slab.
A is the cross section area of the steel deck.
Lv is the shear span.
fcu is the concrete crushing strength.
mr and kr are test derived coefficients.
It can be seen that increasing the concrete grade will affect the
shear resistance V. If this is done for the short spans but not
the long spans a higher value of mr will result. Consequently a
manufacturer who specifies high strength concrete for short span
tests and weak concrete for long span tests will get a higher mr
coefficient. This is despite the fact that several authors have
shown that concrete strength has no influence on the load capacity
of the slab.
b) The Seliem Shuster method.
The British code does not make specific reference to the steel
sheet thickness and it is has been assumed that the mr kr
coefficients determined from the performance tests are valid for
 32

any thickness. This may not be the case and American and Canadian
codes require decks to be tested separately even though the only
parameter variation may be steel sheet thickness. Consequently a
manufacturer who uses the same roll former for several steel sheet
thicknesses will be required to carry out seperate sets of tests
for each thickness even though the geometry of the deck will
otherwise be identical.
Seliem and Shuster addressed this problem and proposed the design
formula given below.

where V, B, d and Lv have the same meaning as before

t is the thickness of the steel sheeting.
k 1 , k2, k3 and k4 are test derived coefficients.
Each of the factors kl to k4 have to be determined from a multi-
linear regression analysis. It can be seen from this formula that
concrete grade is omitted with slab thickness, slab span and steel
sheet thickness being the variable parameters. This significantly
reduces the number of tests required for many manufacturers
product ranges.
The fourth column of table 1 shows the standard deviations,
obtained in the same way as before, for the slabs tested and
analysed using the Seliem Shuster formula. A very similar pattern
of results to those obtained using the mr kr method can be seen.
This is to be expected as most of the test series were carried out
on decks of one thickness.
Test series six was, however, carried out with three tests with a
steel sheet thickness of 0.9mm (approximately equal to 20 gauge)
and the remaining tests with a steel sheet thickness of 1.2mm
(approximately equal to 18 gauge). The Seliem and Shuster method
does appear to be more accurate than the mr kr method for this
deck.
Test series two was carried out on only three specimens with decks
of 0.9mm (approximately equal to gauge 20) steel thickness and
could, therefore, not be used to evaluate the performance
coefficients. The actual coefficients used were obtained in test
series one, the deck for which was identical apart from being a
prototype of 1.2mm (approximately equal to gauge 18) steel
thickness. If the Seliem Shuster method is of better accuracy then
the standard deviations recorded in test series one and two should
be similar. This is clearly not the case and this would indicate
that the method is inaccurate although in this case the variation
may be due in part to the difference between prototype and
production decks.
c) Prasannan and Luttrell method
In both the previous methods tests on sample decks are required to
establish empirical coefficients that are then used to evaluate
slab performance in the general case. The tests are expensive and
a design method that reduces the requirement of testing has long
been the aim of researchers. As stated previously the complexity
of the parameters effecting the behaviour means that a purely
 33

analytical solution is some way off. However Prasannan and

Luttrell have suggested an alternative.
From a considerable nUITlber of tests on many deck types they
identified trends in behaviour associated with a number of
parameters. They were then able to produce empirical coefficients
that, based on a very large test sample, were able to predict the
performance of decks without the need for testing.
The method proposed by Prasannan and Luttrell is unusual in that,
rather than evaluating coefficients that modify the shear capacity
of the slab, they devised relaxation coefficients which were
applied to the ultimate moment of resistance. The basic formula is
presented below.

where Mt is the moment capacity of the slab.

Mf is the moment capacity of the slab based on a full
plastic section.
k 1 , k2, k3 and k4 are empirical coefficients.
This formula can be seen to give a moment capacity as a proportion
of the maximum moment capacity of the slab. The factors kl to k3
relate to the properties of the deck; factor kl is dependent upon
the deck geometry, factor k2 on the steel sheet thickness and slab
depth and k3 on the width of slab and pitch of the profiling.
Factor k4 is dependent upon the shear span of the slab.
Each of these factors were evaluated by Prasannan and Luttrell
from the considerable test data available to them and have been
presented in empirical equations and design graphs. It was
therefore possible to apply these factors to the tests recorded
here.
As the load capacity of the test slabs can be evaluated directly a
comparison based on standard deviations is misleading. The
variation of load capacities calculated may be small but the mean
load capacity may be substantially different from the test value.
This is shown clearly in column 5 of Table 1. Column 5 shows the
percentage difference between the mean test result and mean result
computed from the Prasannan Luttrell method in brackets after the
standard deviation value. This can vary by as much as 57.4% and
clearly indicates that the method is highly inaccurate.
Two conclusions may be drawn from these observations. Firstly the
coefficients derived from American testing by Prasannan and
Luttrell do not appear to describe the behaviour of the deck
profiles tested by the authors. It is, however, possible that with
different coefficients the mean of the computed values could be
much closer to the mean of the test results. Secondly as the
computed standard deviations are high the formula itself would
appear to be inaccurate.
Although this is a severe critisism of the method the authors
believe that the approach used is worthy of further work. It may
well be possible to correlate the test results of a large number
of tests and derive improved coefficients that will predict
behaviour well. However the base formula used to describe the
coefficients is critical and a version based upon shear bond
 34

resistance rather than moment capacity may be more suitable. Once

an analytically sound formula has been derived it will then be'
possible to isolate particular parameter variations and ascribe
particular coefficients.
d) The Partial Interaction Method
This method has been proposed by Bode and Stork as an alternative
to the mr kr method for the draft E.C.4. code of practice. The
method is based upon the development of a plastic stress block at
the maximum moment position along the slab span. It is assumed
that this may be the full plastic moment capacity of the section
if sufficient connection is provided between the load point and
the support. In most cases the shear bond capacity of the
embossments or keys is not sufficient for this to occur and
partial connection results. If no connection is provided then the
moment capacity is only the plastic moment capacity of the steel
deck alone.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between the minimum and maximum
moment capacity for a typical slab. The curve shown can be
approximated as a straight line and, as the moment capacity of the
sheeting alone is often very small, it is sufficiently accurate to
assume that the line will pass through the origin.
For any slab type it is necessary to carry out tests to determine
the slope of the line. As only one coefficient, the slope of the
line, is neccessary very few tests are required. In practice
manufacturers would probably wish to carry out more tests and use
a more accurate curve based on the actual stress block rather than
the straight line.
Once again the authors have back analysed the slabs tested by them
using this method. In this case the straight line approximation
passing through the point on the vertical axis equivalent to the
moment capacity of the steel deck has been used. It can be seen
from column 6 of Table 1 that the standard deviations recorded
range to a maximum value of 27.5. There is some consistency with
the mr kr method although the numerical values of the deviations
are higher and this indicates that the method is less accurate.
The method does, however, hold two advantages over the other
methods discussed so far. Firstly it is a logical derivation from
observed structural behaviour that involves a meaningfull
coefficient i.e. the degree of interaction. Secondly it is
possible that relatively few tests will be required to determine
the degree of interaction for a particular profile.
Each of the methods described above has been developed to reduce
the requirements for performance testing. It is clear from the
comparisons between the methods that many hold little advantage
over the original mr kr method. It is only the last of the
methods, the partial interaction method, that offers a reduced
number of tests, a logical analytical base and a test derived
performance coefficient that has physical meaning. Unfortunately
the accuracy is less than that of the mr kr method and the
coefficient derived in the tests can only apply to identical deck
types.
 35

DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW PLASTIC COLLAPSE METHOD

The authors have also developed a new method based upon their
experimental observations. The main observation has been the
ductile collapse mechanism of most of the slabs. This indicates
that a plastic method of analysis is a suitable alternative to the
more normal equilibrium method.
It has already been stated that all the slabs failed in a shear
bond mode with a diagonal tension crack forming at a position
defined by the shear span and horizontal slip occuring between the
steel sheet and the concrete. The slab collapses as a hinge forms
at the shear span as shown in figure 4. It is interesting to note
that in the tests the plastic hinge always occured at the quarter
span for slabs loaded with either the two point or four point load
system.
The authors reason that the energy applied to the slab in
deforming the hinge must be equal to the energy resisting the
rotation of the hinge. The external energy can easily be
calculated as the applied load multiplied by the distance through
which it moves. This is shown in figure 4 for both a two point and
four point load system. The energy resisting the rotation of the
hinge has two components: the plastic moment capacity of the steel
deck multiplied by the rotation of the hinge and the force
resisted by the shear keys multiplied by the distance over which
the concrete has to move in relation to the deck (the slip).
Figure 5 shows diagramatically the energy resisting the rotation
of the hinge.
The externally applied energy and the internally resisted energy
can be equated and for the simple case of a slab subject to a two
point load gives the following expression:-
(W L) / 8 =m + F d
where W is the applied load.
L is the slab span.
m is the moment capacity of the steel deck.
F is the connection force.
d is the effective depth.
The connection force, can be assumed to act over the surface area
of the steel deck and it is therefore possible to evaluate a value
of shear bond for each deck type.

where fsb is the shear bond

Bfull is the total breadth of steel sheet.
Lv is the shear span.
For the case of a four point load the external energy needed to
create a unit deformation of the hinge position can be seen, from
figure 4, to be less than in the case of the two point load. In
addition the shear bond is unlikely to develop uniformly over the
entire shear span but will be highest over that eighth of the
span length, closest to the support, which has the highest
vertical shear load as shown in figure 6. This has been confirmed
in tests where small vertical cracks are found immediately under
 36

the outer load point in the four point load system (see figure 7).
Had the whole quarter span length been carrying vertical shear
this crack is unlikely to have occured.
This gives rise to the following relationships between load and
shear bond in each of the two cases.
For a two point load:-

(w L) / 8 =m + fsb (Lv Bfull)

For a four point load case:-

(3 W L) / 32 =m + fsb (Lv Bfull / 2)

where all terms are as defined before.
These expressions have been used to back analyse the 64 slab tests
and standard deviations, evaluated as before, are shown in column
7 of Table 1. These results are comparable with the mr kr method
with generally only marginal loss of accuracy. One particular
anomolous result, that for test series 7, deserves comment. This
test series was carried out on prototype decks with no
longitudinal rib stiffeners and considerable curling of the edges
of the deck occurred during the tests. This is thought to have
influenced the shear bond between steel and concrete more for long
spans than short spans and has given rise to a consequent
discrepancy.
The plastic method has some similarity with the partial
interaction method. The test results may be used to evaluate
either a degree of interaction in the case of the partial
interaction method or a value of shear bond in the case of the
plastic method. This value may then be used to evaluate moment
capacity at the position of highest moment which, in the case of
the plastic method, is assumed to be at the shear span.
In both cases, only one coefficient is required and it is
therefore acceptable to carry out only three tests for its
evaluation. This fact has been confirmed by evaluating a
coefficient for each of the decks using only three of the tests.
The degree of interaction and the value of shear bond was found to
be only marginally different from the mean value derived from all
of the tests in each series.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors have carried out 64 composite slab tests and have been
able to identify the characteristic behaviour of the system. Five
separate methods of analysis have been used to evaluate the
performance of the decks and the results have been compared. One
of the analyses has been developed by the authors and provides a
simple and accurate method of evaluating the performance of
composite decks using a minimum number of qualification tests.
Detailed conclusions are listed below:-
1) Composite slabs normally fail as a result of a critical loss of
shear bond between the steel decking and concrete. This manifests
itself by a diagonal crack at a position known as the shear span
and interface slip between the steel and concrete.
 37

2) Most slabs fail in a ductile and predictable way with around

2mm of measured slip occurring before failure. The concrete
strength does not appear to affect the slab strength as long as it
is over a certain minimum value. Embossment protrusion has a
significant effect on slab strength.
3) Most methods of predicting slab strength depend upon factors
evaluated from performance tests. The number of tests will vary
depending upon the number of variable parameters included. The
most popular method known as the mr kr method in Britain requires
a minimum of six tests for each profile type. -
4) Several methods of analysis have been developed in order to try
and reduce the reliance on test information. Generally these offer
no benefit in terms of accuracy and may involve considerable
computational effort.
5) A plastic method developed by the authors follows a simple
logical failure mechanism and gives equivalent results to the mr
kr method with only three rather than six tests. This may offer a
significant saving on the costs of preparing load span tables.
 38

APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES

1 Bode H and Stork I. Draft Annex to E.C. 4. Composite slab d

esign and partial interaction theory. Submitted to technical c
ommittee TC7.6 of the E.C.C.S. January 1990.

2 British Standards Institution. B.S.5950 Structural Use of

Steelwork in Building, Part 4, Code of Practice for design of f
loors with profiled steel sheeting. 1982.

3 Porter M.L. and Ekberg C.E. Investigation of Cold Formed

Steel Deck Reinforced Concrete Floor Slabs. Proceedings of the
First Speciality Conference on Cold Formed Steel Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Mo, 1971.

4 Parasannam S. and Luttrell L.D. Flexural Strength

formulations for Steel-deck Composite Slabs. Report from the
University of west Virginia 1984.
5 Seliem S.S. and Schuster R.M. Shear-bond Capacity of
Composite Slabs. Proceedings of the 6th Speciality Conference on
Cold Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Mo,
1982.

6 Schuster R.M. Composite Steel-deck Concrete Floor Systems.

Journal of the Structures Division, ASCE No ST5 May 1976.

7 Wright H.D. and Evans H.R. Observations on the Design and

Testing of Composite Floor Slabs. Steel Construction Today
1(1987).

8 Wright H.D. Evans H.R. and Harding P.W. Composite Floors: A

Comparison of Performance Testing and Methods of Analysis.
Proceedings of IABSE-ECCS Symposium Steel in Buildings Luxembourg
1985.

9 Wright H.D. and Peetham-Baran S. A mobile Testing Frame for

Beams and Slabs. Steel Construction Today 3 1989.
 39
APPENDIX 2 NOTATION
A Cross sectional area of the steel sheeting.
B Breadth of slab.
~fUll Full width of steel in sheeting.
Effective depth of slab.
F Connection force.
fCU Concrete crushing strength.
fsb Shear bond.
kl -k 4 Coefficients.
kr Test derived coefficient.
L Slab span.
LV Shear span.
Mf Moment capacity of full plastic section.
Mt Moment capacity of slab.
m Moment capacity of steel deck.
mr Test derived coefficient.
t Steel sheet thickness.
V Shear resistance.
W Load on slab.
 40
Table 1
Comparison of Composite Slab Analyses
Test No. of mr kr Seliem Paras annan Parti.H Plastic
Series slabs Shuster Luttrell Interaction Method

1 10 5.2 4.9 14.1 (1. 6) 6.9 5.4

2 3 13.2 10.4 15.6(23.7) 10.3 9.3
3 10 16.4 17.2 13.7(-24.3) 19.4 15.2
4 6 4.8 3.7 42.6(18.8) 8.6 6.5
5 3 11. 4 9.9 20.0(47.5) 11.1 15.3
6 12 12.6 7.8 12.5(38.7) 20.4 6.3
7 12 15.3 15.6 12.6(-27.0) 27.5 22.2
8 8 3.2 3.4 24.8(57.4) 13.3 5.3
42

C\
L.

L.
01

o
L.
~
 ~
Mf
1.0
~
Exact stress ./
block method .,/-<
o·a ~ /~ ~pprox. used
Y In paper
/

0·6 ///; Simplification (ref 1)

/ '

0·4 /
/~
. ....
C/.:)

//
/.
,0
0·2

Inh?raction

02 0·4 0·6 o·a 1·0

Figure 3 Partial intC2raction

 44

2/3The unit deflection

LOAD
-------,--r-
f
Unit deflection r-- --- I
C ___ I________ t- __

1/2 The unit deflaction

--------,-l
LOAD I f
C
Unit deflection
r -
I -
-=...-.=-1-·~~L
- -,

Figure 4 External load movement

 45

Plastic moment
capacity

FigurQ 5 Internal energy

 46

Beam
centreline

j
---
Cracks

Figure 6 Vertical shear forces

47

"0
o
o