A New Design Proposal For Secondary Composite Beam Shear Connections Incorporating Trapezoidal Steel Decking

215
A new design proposal for secondary

composite beam shear connections
incorporating trapezoidal steel decking *
S Ernst
MPN Group Pty, Sydney, NSW
RQ Bridge and A Wheeler
Construction Technology and Research Group,
University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW
SUMMARY: An extensive experimental program was undertaken to investigate the behaviour

of secondary composite beam shear connections incorporating trapezoidal steel decking. Based on the
test results, a new design proposal to determine the shear connection strength was developed, which
also incorporates the application of stud reinforcing devices that have been found to significantly
improve the behaviour of the shear connection. The new proposal has been coupled with a reliability
analysis that has been calibrated to provide a safety index similar to stud applications currently in
use. Simple strength reduction factors for the types of trapezoidal steel decking available in Australia
are presented, and can be applied to the current shear connection strength as given in AS 2327.1
(Standards Australia, 2003) for a fast and simplified design.
NOTATION
beff
besh
bewb, bewt
brt
dbs
dbr
e
= effective transverse width of stud pullout or rib shearing failure surface

= effective transverse width over which
steel sheeting is assumed to contribute to
rib punch-through capacity
= effective width of rib punch-through
concrete wedge at bottom and top of
concrete rib
= width of concrete rib between top edges
of the steel ribs
= nominal stud diameter of a headed stud
= nominal diameter of reinforcement bar
= longitudinal distance from the shear
connection to the edge of the concrete rib
Paper S07-975 submitted 18/08/07; accepted for

publication after review and revision 15/01/08.
Published in AJSE Online 2008, pp. 27-40.
Corresponding author Dr Stefan Ernst can be
contacted at stefan.ernst@mpn.com.au. Research
work and writing of paper was undertaken while
author was with the Construction Technology and
Research Group, University of Western Sydney,
Penrith, NSW.
Institution of Engineers Australia, 2008
S07-975 Ernst.indd 215
eb, et
ecrit
Ec
fc
ft
fuc
fvs
fysh
Gm, Gn
hec
hr
kbs
at mid-height in the concrete bearing zone

direction
= longitudinal distance from the shear
connection to the bottom and top edge of
the concrete rib
= critical longitudinal distance of peak
tensile stress from the shear connection at
which the concrete wedge breaks out
= elastic modulus of slab concrete
= 28 day characteristic compressive
cylinder strength of concrete
= tensile strength of concrete
= tensile strength of shear connector
material
= nominal shear capacity of a shear
connector
= yield strength of steel sheeting
= mean and nominal dead loads
= effective stud height over which the
shear forces are transferred into the
surrounding concrete
= height of concrete rib
= correction factor considering
the beneficial effects of transverse
reinforcement in concrete ribs
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:10 PM
216
A new design proposal for secondary composite beam shear connections ... Ernst, Bridge & Wheeler
kec
= correction factor considering the

embedment depth of the stud into the
cover slab
kt
= reduction factor for determining the

nominal strength of secondary composite
beam shear connections
kRPT,max,
kRPT,min,
kRS/SP
= correction factors for the various failure

modes to apply a uniform design
resistance factor of = Solid
= reduction factor considering the

non-linear stress distribution along the
proposed rib shearing/stud pull-out
failure surface
Lm, Ln
= mean and nominal load effects
nx
= number of shear connectors in a

group at a transverse cross-section of a
composite beam
Pwed
= capacity of a concrete rib against a

wedge break-out
Pwed,bs
= capacity of a concrete rib including

transverse rib reinforcement against a
wedge break-out
PRPT,max
= stud capacity of a shear connection

against rib punch-through failure
PRPT,min
= stud capacity that can be guaranteed

at any given slip up to the required
slip capacity for a shear connection
experiencing rib punch-through failure
PRS

against rib shearing failure
Psh
= force component transferred by the steel

decking
psh,t
= load component transferred by the steel

decking tensile mechanism
PSolid
= stud capacity of a shear connection in a

solid slab
PSP

against stud pull-out failure
Qm, Qn
= mean and nominal live loads
Rm, Rn
= mean and nominal resistance
Rt
= theoretical strength function used to

determine the resistance
sx
= transverse centre-to-centre spacing of

shear connectors in a concrete rib
= thickness of steel sheeting
Tsh
= longitudinal tensile forces in the steel

decking
= coefficient of variation, subscripts are

the variables studied
= angle of failed concrete wedge to the

transverse of the steel beam
0
c
= reliability index
= target reliability index
= longitudinal slip of a shear connection
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
sh
G, Q
Solid
= mid-span deflection of steel decking in

concrete rib
= load factors for dead and life load
= resistance factor for a strength limit
state
= resistance factor for a strength limit
state for stud shearing failure
INTRODUCTION
While many different types of trapezoidal profiles

have been used extensively overseas for a number
of years, open rib steel decks with a trapezoidal
profile have only recently been introduced into the
Australian composite steel-frame buildings industry.
It is widely recognised that the use of trapezoidal steel
decking in composite beams may lead to a significant
reduction in shear connection strength and a lack of
ductility due to premature concrete-related failure
modes (Ernst et al, 2007; Hawkins & Mitchell, 1984;
Johnson & Yuan, 1998; Lloyd & Wright, 1990). In
secondary composite beam applications where the
steel decking runs transverse to the steel section,
these failure modes are particularly dominant. A
number of these failure modes have been identified
as a result of 71 small-scale push-out tests and two
full-scale composite beam tests on Australian types
of trapezoidal steel decking, and have been classified
as rib punch-through, rib shearing and stud pull-out
(Ernst et al, 2006).
Rib punch-through failure is a localised failure of
the concrete rib in the direction of the longitudinal
shear, which leaves the base of the shear connector
unsupported. The failure is a result of the high
stresses being developed in the bearing zone of a
stud connector and, due to its proximity to a free
concrete edge, a wedge of concrete is broken out of
the concrete rib (figure 1). This behaviour is normally
associated with a sudden drop-off in shear strength as
the stud loses its confinement at its base. The onset of
the failure was found to be influenced by a number of
issues, including the position of the shear connector
in the concrete rib, the geometry of the concrete rib,
the bearing stresses experienced and the resistance
provided by the concrete surrounding the shear
connection (Ernst, 2006). In work carried out by the
authors (Ernst et al, 2006; 2004b), it was shown that
the application of round steel ring or spiral wire stud
performance-enhancing devices placed around the
base of stud connectors reduces the bearing stresses,
while, at the same time, increasing the stiffness of
the shear connection base, which enables a shear
force transfer directly into the higher regions of the
concrete slab (Ernst et al; 2006; 2004b). The placement
of a bottom layer of transverse rib reinforcement low
in the concrete rib was also shown to be advantageous
as it minimised the effects of transverse splitting and
strengthened the bearing zone directly in front of the
shear connection (Ernst, 2006).
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:10 PM
Figure 2:
Figure 1:
Breakout of a concrete wedge

characterising rib punch-through
failure test specimen cut after
failure.
The rib shearing and stud pull-out failures are

characterised by the concrete ribs delaminating
from the concrete cover slab for which the failure
surface propagates between the upper corners of the
concrete ribs, while locally passing over the heads of
the stud shear connectors. The embedment length
of the studs into the concrete cover slab and the
width of the concrete rib affect this type of failure. If
the studs impede only little into the cover slab, the
failure surface can be near-horizontal, which makes
the application of conventional horizontal mesh
reinforcement ineffective (figure 2). Other factors
influencing the onset of these failures were found to
be the concrete tensile strength, the number of shear
connectors per group and the height of the concrete
rib (Ernst, 2006). For shear connections with relatively
narrow concrete flanges, rib shearing failures were
dominate. However, as the concrete flange became
wider, the failures tended to stud pull-out failures,
with the failure planes still passing over the studs,
but not extending towards the edges of the slabs. The
application of vertical reinforcement bars, as part of
a waveform reinforcement element that crosses the
failure surface, was found to suppress the effects of
the two failure modes (Ernst et al, 2006).
While reduction factors in the stud strength formulae
exist in many overseas standards, such as in
Eurocode 4: Part 1.1 (CEN, 2004) and BS 5950: Part
3 (BSI, 1990) for secondary beam applications, these
factors do not sufficiently account for the variety
of failure modes. Furthermore, it has been well
established that the strengths predicted by these
provisions may significantly overestimate the shear
connection strength, particularly when ductility
of the connection is considered (Ernst et al, 2007;
Johnson & Yuan, 1998; Kuhlmann & Raichle, 2006).
To date, neither of the design approaches available
distinguishes between brittle and sufficiently ductile
shear connections. Hence, a new design method that
differentiates between the various failure modes and
specifies suitable reinforcing measures to ensure
ductile shear connection behaviour is proposed. This
method is then calibrated against the results of recent
217
Horizontal rib shearing cracks in

composite beam tests.
push-out and composite beam tests. The majority of

these tests have been performed at the University
of Western Sydney over the past five years (Ernst,
2006). As part of this extensive research program,
a purpose-built, single-sided push-out test method
was developed in order to overcome some of the
problems associated with conventional push-out
testing. This method has since been verified against
full-scale composite beam tests and is believed
to provide very reliable test results. Additionally,
the limited amount of other available test data on
the Australian types of trapezoidal steel decking
(Oehlers & Lucas, 2001) was incorporated into this
analysis were applicable.
2
PROPOSED NEW METHOD
In the proposed method, the expected shear

connection behaviour for each potential failure mode
is classified in table 1 as either a ductile or brittle
connection type. It should be noted that AS2327.1
(Standards Australia, 2003) currently provides no
guidance on the ductility requirement of a shear
connection. Therefore, the definition of a ductile
shear connection of Eurocode 4 (CEN, 2004) has been
adopted in deriving table 1 from the large number
of the authors push-out and composite beam test
results, as well as the enormous amount of test data
published over the years. In Eurocode 4, a ductile
shear connector is defined as having sufficient
deformation capacity to justify the assumption of
ideal plastic behaviour of the shear connection in
the structure considered, which can be deemed to
be fulfilled if the characteristic slip capacity of the
connector is at least 6 mm. In accordance with this
definition, the new method further proposes that
when a brittle connection is identified, it shall not be
used for plastic composite beam design. However,
a seemingly brittle shear connection response
might be assumed to provide sufficient ductility
if its capacity is reduced to an amount that can be
guaranteed at any given slip up to the required
slip capacity. This measure is only applicable for
specimens experiencing rib punch-through failures
where continuous load transfer is still existent after
the occurrence of the initial failure (figure 3).
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:10 PM
218
Table 1:
Differentiation of failure modes and shear connection behaviour in new design proposal.
Shear connection behaviour
Failure mode
Stud capacity Conventionally

reinforced2
Stud
enhancement
device
Waveform
element
Stud enhancement
device + waveform
element
Rip punchthrough
PRPT,max /
PRPT,min1
brittle /
ductile
brittle /
ductile
ductile /
N/A
ductile /
N/A
Rib shearing
PRS
brittle
brittle
ductile
ductile
Stud pull-out
PSP
brittle
brittle
ductile
ductile
Stud shearing
PSolid
ductile
N/A
N/A
N/A
PRPT,min: capacity that can be guaranteed at any given slip up to the required slip capacity.
Top and bottom layer of either meshed horizontal reinforcement bars or horizontal mesh reinforcement.
2.1
P
PRPT,max
PRPT,min
Gu
Figure 3:
Gc
Definition of PRPT,max and PRPT,min for

shear connections experiencing rib
punch-through behaviour.
Stud shearing
To determine the shear connection strength against

stud shearing, the typical failure mode for shear
connection in solid slabs, the nominal strength shear
capacity provision of AS2327.1 (Standards Australia,
2003) can be applied. In accordance with Clause
8.3.2.1 of AS2327.1, the shear connection strength in
a solid slab PSolid is given as the lesser value of:
PSolid
0.31dbs2 f c'Ec
(1)
PSolid
0.63 dbs2 f uc
(2)
When using the proposed method the following steps

are to be followed:
2.2
Rib punch-through
Determination of the shear connection

capacities for the various failure modes using
the appropriate model (PRPT,max, PRS, PSP, PSolid)
and selection of the governing failure mode.
In the work carried out by Ernst (2006), it was shown

that the steel decking transferred a significant amount
of the horizontal shear forces for this type of failure.
Consequently, the shear connector strength against
rib punch-through can be written as:
From table 1, the expected shear connection

behaviour can be obtained.
If the expected shear connection behaviour
is ductile, the shear connection is suitable for
application and the predicted shear connector
strength is given as fvs = min(PRPT,max, PRS, PSP,
PSolid).
For an expected rib punch-through failure and
an initial brittle response, a ductile behaviour
can be modelled by reducing the predicted
shear connector strength to fvs = PRPT,min.
For all other failure modes where the expected
shear connection behaviour is brittle, the
connection requires redesign either by changing
its layout or by applying suitable reinforcing
measures.
The capacities for the various failure modes are
derived in detail by Ernst (2006) and for brevity
summarised in the following:
PRPT
1
Pconc Psh
nx
(3)
where nx is the number of shear connectors per

concrete rib, Pconc is the force component transferred
directly into the concrete slab, and P sh is the
component indirectly transferred into the slab via
the steel decking.
The concrete forces directly transferred into the
concrete slab itself can be split into two components:
one that is transferred into the concrete rib, Pwed;
and the other one that is transferred into the cover
slab, Pcover (see figure 4). When rib punch-through
failure occurs and a concrete wedge breaks out of
the rib, the total shear force is immediately reduced
by the amount of shear force acting in the concrete
rib, whereas the cover slab component still ensures
continuous load transfer.
By integrating a triangular stress distribution where
ecrit/e = 0.35 across the failure surfaces of the concrete
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:10 PM
219
Where a stud enhancing device is used, the base of

the studs are stiffened over the effective height and
diameter of the device, hence the effective connector
height, hec in equation (6), and its diameter, dbs in
equation (7), are replaced by the effective height and
diameter of the enhancing device.
Splitting of horizontal shear force in

two components.
Figure 4:
wedge (figure 5) and by approximating the mean

concrete tensile strength ft to be
ft
1
2
f 'c
(4),
the following concrete force components for the two

cases of prior and post breakout of the failure wedge
are now obtained:
Pconc
1
for PRPT , max
4 heff f 'c so 0.9b0, side
(5)
1 heff hr
f 'c (s0 0.9b0, side ) for PRPT , min
4
where
heff = hec + 1.5et
(6),
so = sx + dbs
(7),
b0, side
et e b
tan(D )
2e0
tan(D )
(8).
For single studs, or double studs where the

individual concrete failure surfaces do not overlap, ie.
sx > 2et/tan(), the capacity of the concrete component
can be calculated from equation (7) with sx set to 0.
Figure 5:
Pconc,bs = kbsPconc
(9)
with kbs = 1.2 for dbs = 19 mm and dbr 6 mm

= 1.0 for dbs 19 mm
The transverse reinforcement bar should be placed as
low as possible in the concrete rib and a minimum of
40 mm in front of the stud in the region where the rib
punch-through wedge forms. If this direction is not
known, a bar should be placed on both sides of the
stud as is the case for the waveform component.
The indirect load-transfer mechanism of the steel
decking, which is thought to increase the shear
connection strength when rib punch-through failures
are experienced, is shown in figure 6a. Once the
concrete wedge in the bearing zone starts to develop,
the steel decking restricts the longitudinal movement
of the failure wedge and ensures an additional load
transfer Psh, which is characterised by the bulging
of the steel decking. The upper and lower edges
of the steel decking are considered to serve as stiff
horizontal supports, whereby a reaction tensile force,
Tsh, develops in the steel decking. The strengthening
Assumed failure surfaces of concrete wedge and assumed stress distribution at time of
failure.
In the experimental program (Ernst, 2006), it was

shown that for shear connections where sufficient
transverse bottom reinforcement is provided in
the bearing zone of the shear connector along the
concrete rib, suppressing the effects of longitudinal
splitting in the rib, the rib capacity is increased.
There, a transverse bottom reinforcement diameter
of dbr = 6 mm, placed at around mid-height of the
concrete rib was sufficient to increase the rib punchthrough strength by at least 20%. However, as this
effect was only investigated on shear connections
comprising of 19 mm diameter stud connectors, the
beneficial effects are initially restricted to these types
of applications. Hence:
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:11 PM
220
C1
Psh
Tsh
(a)
psh
Psh
(b)
The forces applied to the steel decking can be divided

into a component acting normal to the steel decking
surface psh and a longitudinal shear component,
sh (figure 6b). As the angle of the steel decking to
the vertical, , remained relatively small for the
steel decking geometries investigated, any effects
due to the shear force component where ignored.
Furthermore, any load transfer in the transverse
steel decking direction was also neglected. The load
transfer that is realised by the steel tensile force
mechanism psh,t is shown in figure 6c. Now assuming
that the horizontal component of the sheeting
deformation, shcos(), is of the same magnitude as
the slip experienced by the shear connection c, the
additional force component transferred by the steel
decking Psh can be determined as:
psh ,t A
psh,t
T
J
Gsh Gsh
Tsh
et - eb
(c)
Model for load transfer mechanisms of steel decking in shear connections experiencing rib
punch-through failure a) load transfer by steel decking into concrete slab; b) forces on
concrete wedge after cracking; c) steel decking tensile force mechanism.
effect of the steel decking ceases eventually when this

tensile force exceeds the tensile capacity of the steel
decking and the concrete is able to punch through
the fractured steel decking as observed in some of
the test specimens.
Psh
J
J
C2
Figure 6:
Tsh
Wsh
Tsh
4G 0.25A 2
2
sh
Gc
(10)
Experimental work demonstrated that the maximum

and minimum loads occurred at around 2 mm slip
and 3 mm slip, respectively. Considering the tensile
stresses at these point it was found that:
Tsh Tysh = fyshbesht
(11)
The effective width of the steel decking besh is assumed

to be similar to the width of the concrete wedge at
the base of the concrete rib, hence:
be , sh
2eb
dbs sx
tan D
2.3
Rib shearing and stud pull-out
so bb , side
(12)
When considering the rib shearing and stud pullout modes, it is thought that they are initiated by a
near-horizontal cracking between the concrete rib
and the cover slab, which originates at the rear side
of the concrete rib. A rib shearing approach already
exists (Patrick & Bridge, 2002), which takes this
behaviour into account by defining the rib shearing
capacity as the point when the vertical tensile stress
at the rear of the concrete rib from rib rotation exceed
the tensile capacity ft of the concrete acting over an
effective width beff (see figure 7). A refined version
of this approach also considering the relation given
by equation (4) is proposed to obtain both the rib
shearing and stud pull-out capacity:
PRS/SP ,t
1 1
k ec kV beff brt 2 f 'c
12 nx
(13)
where beff is the effective width of the failure surface

given by:
beff
0.9 so bt , side for PRS
for PSP
so bt , side
(14)
for specimens of sufficient concrete flange width.

Figure 7:
Rib shearing approach according to

Patrick & Bridge (2002).
Further, kec is a correction factor taking the embedment

depth of the stud into account and k is a reduction
factor considering the non-linear stress distribution
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:11 PM
across the failure surface. These factors are given

elsewhere (Ernst, 2006). The geometry of the concrete
rib is defined by its height, hr, and its width at the
top of the rib, brt.
Where waveform reinforcement elements were
applied to shear connections incorporating the
concrete rib geometries investigated, rib shearing and
stud pull-out failures were successfully suppressed
for the specimens with the waveform bars sufficiently
anchored in the concrete cover slab, ie. tied to the top
face reinforcement. Hence, if this specific element is
provided in the current Australian types of profiled
steel decking, the failure modes rib shearing and stud
pull-out no longer need to be considered. However,
where other types of reinforcement solutions or
rib geometries are used, the strength of the shear
connection can be determined in a manner similar
to that for a reinforced concrete corbel application.
The vertical reinforcing bars should be detailed
in accordance with the provisions given for Type
4 longitudinal shear reinforcement in AS2327.1
(Standards Australia, 2003), eg. the concrete rib must
be reinforced over at least a 400 mm width, whereas
the spacing between the individual longitudinal
bars should not be greater than 150 mm. However,
it should be noted that the waveform reinforcement
must include transverse bottom bars to prevent pullout failures between the longitudinal waveform bars
(as described in Ernst et al, 2004a).
3
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
In order to apply the new stud capacities for

secondary composite beams to the design provisions
given in AS2327.1 (Standards Australia, 2003), a
statistical reliability analysis of the new method is
required. The current resistance (capacity) factor Solid
for shear connectors used in accordance with Table
3.1 of AS2327.1 (Standards Australia, 2003) is 0.85.
This factor is re-evaluated as part of the reliability
analysis for the stud shearing capacity P Solid by
additionally considering the results of more recent
solid slab tests. As it is deemed to be favourable to
have a uniform capacity factor for all types of shear
connection, correction factors k for the different
types of failure modes in the form of equation (15),
below, are introduced. Note that while the influence
of the load-sharing factor kn given in Clause 8.3.4 of
AS2327.1 (Standards Australia, 2003) is not part of
this investigation, it is still considered to be valid for
the shear connection design regardless of the type of
failure mode experienced.
Concept
The limit state design is generally characterised by

the design resistance of the member exceeding the
design actions for the strength limit state, which is
typically a sum of the applied factored load effects,
hence:
I Rn t J i Li
(16)
where Rn represents the nominal resistance and

Li the load effects including potential overloads.
The resistance factor reflects the uncertainties
associated with the nominal resistance while the
load factors i account for the uncertainties of the
load effects. The reliability and safety of structural
design procedures is commonly described in terms
of a reliability (safety) index , which is based on
the computed theoretical probability of failure. In
general, this can be a complex and lengthy process
although good approximations can be obtained using
simple methods (Leicester, 1985). Assuming that the
load effects are statistically independent from the
resistance and both reliabilities are log-normally
distributed, then, using first-order probability, the
reliability index can be expressed as (Ravindra &
Galambos, 1978):
R
ln m
Lm
VR2 VL2
(17)
where Rm and Lm are the mean values of the resistance

and load effects, and VR and VL are the corresponding
coefficients of variation.
The relationship between the mean resistance Rm and
its specified nominal resistance Rn can be written
as:
Rm
Rm Rt
Rn
Rt Rn
(18)
where the ratio R m /R t takes into account the

variability between mean strength as measured
in the laboratory specimens (which are assumed
to reflect the exact strength), and the theoretical
strength function Rt using test measured dimensions
and material properties. The ratio Rt/Rn takes into
account the variability between the variables of the
theoretical strength function and its nominal values.
The relationship for the corresponding coefficients of
variation can be obtained as:
VR
f ds
min ISolid PSolid , IRPT , max PRPT , max , IRPT , min PRPT , min , IRS/SP PRS/SP
f ds
ISolid min(PSolid , k RPT , max PRPT , max , k RPT , min PRPT , min , kRS/SP PRS/SP )
3.1
221
VG2 Vr2t
(19)
(15)
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:12 PM
222
where V is the coefficient of variation for the ratio

of test results to theoretical strength prediction, ie.
the scatter of the test results, and Vrt the coefficient of
variation of the variables of the theoretical strength
function.
The mean load effect Lm and the corresponding
coefficient of variation VL are generally dependent
on the ratio of dead load G to live load Q. The mean
load effect Lm can be expressed as the sum of the mean
dead and live loads, Gm and Qm, where:
Lm = Gm + Qm
(20)
The nominal load effects given in limit state designs

are typically of the form:
Ln = GGn + QQn
(21)
where G and Q are determined for the appropriate

combination of action investigated at the ultimate
limit state. If a factor r for the ratio of the nominal
dead load to the combined total load is introduced,
ie.
Gn
Gn Qn
(22),
the mean load effect can be written as a function of

this ratio:
Lm
Lm
Ln
Ln
Gm
Q
1 r m
r
G
Qn
n
L
rJ G 1 r J Q n
(23)
The coefficient of variation can also be expressed as a

function of the independent coefficients of variation
for dead loads VG and live loads VQ using the ratio
r of dead to total load given by equation (22) gives
equation (24), below.
A detailed investigation into the load combination
formulae for Australian Limit State Codes (Pham,
1985a) found that the dead loads are typically
underestimated and their statistical parameters to
be the following:
Gm
Gn
1.05 ; VG = 0.10.
For the live loads effects on office floors, the following

statistical parameters were given for floor sizes
typical for composite beam applications:
2
GmVG QmVQ
2
VL
Lm
0.70; VQ = 0.26.
For floor applications, the load factors to be considered

for the ultimate limit state in accordance with AS/
NZS1170.0 (Standards Australia, 2002) are:
J G 1.35; J Q 0
r o 1
for
J Q 1.2; J Q 1.5
all other r
3.2
(25)
Determination of design resistance factors
In the following, the resistance factors and correction

factors k are determined for the individual failure
modes in order to provide an appropriate target
reliability index 0. The relation between resistance
factor and target reliability index is obtained by
substituting the condition of equations (16) and (21)
into equation (17) so that:
R / Rn
ln m
I Lm / Ln t E
0
VR2 VL2
(26)
No target reliability index is given in the design

provisions of AS2327.1 (Standards Australia, 2003).
In an earlier reliability study on shear connections in
simply supported beams, reliability indices ranging
from = 4.5-5.5 were established (Pham, 1984).
However, the study was based on an earlier shear
connection design method (Pham, 1979), which
provided significantly lower stud strengths. Other
Australian target index reliabilities were set to 0
= 3.5 for steel members (Pham, 1985b), 0 = 2.5 for
members of cold-formed steel structures (Standards
Australia, 1998), and 0 = 3.5 for joints and fasteners
in cold formed steel structures (Standards Australia,
1998). Overseas, target indices of 0 = 3.8 for the
determination of the various Eurocode models (see
Johnson & Huang, 1994) or 0 = 3.0 for composite
members in the AISC specifications (see RamboRoddenberry, 2002) were used. It was decided to
calibrate the design resistance factors against a
target reliability index of 0 = 3.5, which represents
a probability of failure of 2.3 x 104. It should be
noted that a different target reliability index would
obviously lead to other design capacity factors than
the ones presented below.
3.2.1 Solid slab applications
The comparison of the test results of a total of 163
Gm

Q
VG 1 r m VQ
r
Qn
Gn

Gm
Qm
(1 r )
r
Qn
Gn
Qm
Qn
(24)
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:13 PM
solid slab push-out test published in Ernst (2006) with

the theoretical strength functions given by equations
(1) and (2) was carried out. This study used either
measured material properties or mean values for
all variables provided and resulted in the statistical
parameters shown in table 2. Assuming all basic
variables Xi of the theoretical strength functions to
be mutually uncorrelated, thereby yielded values
of the means of the theoretical functions over the
nominal functions, Pt/Pn. Further, the coefficients of
variation Vrt were determined by using the first order
Taylor expansion of the theoretical strength function
about the mean:
Vrt2
1
Pt2, m
wPt
VXi X i , m
w
X
i 1
i
(27)
The means and coefficients of variation of the

individual variables were generally determined from
measurements on test specimens or material property
tests. However, the statistical parameters for the
concrete strength were chosen in accordance with the
assessment undertaken in Pham (1983), which also
accounted for the influences of curing procedures,
workmanship, and the differences between cylinder
strength and strength of the concrete cores taken from
the finished structure.
It can be seen that the parameters are much more
favourable for equation (2), ie. the provision
considering the stud shank strength. The results
of the calculated reliability indices assuming the
load factors given by equation (25) are shown for
the different ratios of dead load to total combined
load r in figure 8. Considering the design resistance
factor of Solid = 0.85 as given in AS2327.1 (Standards
Australia, 2003), the target reliability index of 0 =
3.5 for equation (1) is not always reached for the
typical loading ratios of composite beams (r 0.4-0.6).
Table 2:
Statistical parameters for evaluation

of equations (1) and (2).
Equation
Pm/Pt
Pt/Pn
Vrt
(1)
87
1.22
0.135
0.99
0.136
(2)
76
1.23
0.102
1.13
0.063
Table 3:
Strength
function
PRPT,max
PRPT,min
PRS/SP
3
Variation of reliability indices for the

solid slab strength.
A smaller design resistance factor of Solid = 0.80,

which generally exceeds the target reliability index
for equation (1) in this range, is proposed for shear
connections experiencing stud shearing failures,
eg. solid slab shear connections. This new design
resistance factor aligns well with the stud strength
design of BS5950.3 (BSI, 1990) and Eurocode 4 (CEN,
2004), where design capacity factors of 1/1.25 (= 0.8)
are applied.
3.2.2 Composite slab applications
The statistical parameters (including the sample size
n) for the comparison of a total of 84 push-out tests
on composite slab specimens given in Ernst (2006),
which experienced premature concrete-related
failure modes with the theoretical strength functions
given by equations (3), (5), (10) and (13), are shown
in table 3. It was decided to divide the analysis
into two groups, one being for the configuration of
single studs in a concrete rib, and the other being
for stud pairs for each failure mode experienced.
As the new method does not distinguish between
shear connections where the studs have been directly
welded through the steel decking and those where
the decking was pre-holed, no further differentiation
of the test results, which included both layouts, was
deemed to be necessary.
The parameters of the strength functions given in
table 3 account for shear connections of 19 mm stud
diameter; stud enhancing devices of 76 mm diameter;
steel decking heights of 50 mm hr 80 mm; stud
Statistical parameters of shear connections in composite slab applications.

Studs in
pan
Pm/Pt
Pt/Pn
Vrt
k3
Singles
15
1.08
0.141
1.02-1.09
0.141-0.230
0.70
Pairs
22
1.02
0.132
1.22
0.121-0.213
0.85
Singles
12
1.20
0.147
1.07-1.15
0.145-0.221
0.85
Pairs
1.20
0.239
1.28-1.32
0.123-0.206
0.85
Singles
1.08
0.136
0.92-0.93
0.214-0.269
0.60
Pairs
19
1.04
0.129
1.06-1.11
0.187-0.253
0.70
correction factor to be used in combination with resistance capacity factor of = 0.8
Figure 8:
223
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:13 PM
224
positions in the sheeting pan being in the range of

30 mm eb 110 mm, and 60 mm et 140 mm; and,
where applicable, transverse stud spacings between
80 mm sx 120 mm. In the specimens investigated,
it was found that the proportion of the loads directly
transferred into the concrete slabs to the total shear
capacity was in the range of 0.60 Pconc/(nxPRPT,max)
0.85 for the maximum rib punch-through strength,
and in the range of 0.30 Pconc/(nxPRPT,min) 0.60
for the minimum strength. These limits are also
considered in the determination of the strength
function parameters.
The applications of the design resistance factor in
combination with the corresponding correction
factor k in accordance with equation (15) provide
safety levels similar to solid slab applications. The
correction factors were generally chosen so that
the safety indices of the lower limits exceeded the
target reliability index in the composite beam load
application range of r = 0.4-0.6. It can be seen that the
coefficients of variation representing the scatter of the
strength function are significantly larger compared to
the stud shearing provisions. This can be attributed
to the more irregular effects of concrete cracking,
which are considered in these functions. Hence, the
nominal strength functions need to be significantly
reduced, ie. relatively low correction factors need
to be applied to ensure a similar level of safety. The
correction factors for rib shearing and stud pullout
failures were generally lower than those for rib
punch-through failure.
4
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN FOR

AUSTRALIAN TRAPEZOIDAL
STEEL DECKING GEOMETRIES
It is acknowledged that the new design method

proposed is rather complex to use, and that reduction
factors applied to the solid slab shear connections
strength provide by far the most convenient approach
to take into account the influence of steel decking.
Table 4:
Psimp = fvs = ktPSolid
(28)
where kt is the reduction factor given in table 4. This

reduction factor was also calibrated against the target
reliability index considering the solid slab design
resistance factor = Solid = 0.80.
The values given in table 4 are only applicable for
the use of studs that extend at least 40 mm above the
top of the ribs of the profiled steel decking, hence
hc 100 mm for the KF70 geometry and hc 120 mm
for the W-Dek geometry, unless stated otherwise.
Preferably, the studs should be placed in the central
position of the pan that can be ensured by pre-holing
the steel decking as has been common practice in
several European countries for years, eg. Germany.
This would also overcome the quality concerns raised
recently of some of the stud welds when fast welded
through the steel decking (Ernst et al, 2006). Where
pairs of studs are used, a diagonal lay-out could
alternatively be applied where the studs are placed
on either side of the lap joint or stiffener. In any case,
the minimum clear distance between the head of
the studs in transverse direction, as given in Clause
8.4.2 of AS2327.1 (Standards Australia, 2003), must
be increased to 2.5 times its shank diameter. Where
single studs in combination with the waveform
element are used, the studs could also be placed on
the favourable side of the lap joint or stiffener as
the effects of rib shearing or stud pull-out failures
are suppressed. However, the practicability and
quality control of such a shear connector design onsite might prove to be a problem. If the single studs
are placed in alternating positions on either side
Reduction factor kt for secondary composite beam applications for the determination of the
nominal stud capacity in accordance with equation (28).
Number
Geometry of studs
nx
KF70
Hence, reduction factors have been derived by

applying the new proposed method to the most
common applications of the Australian types of
trapezoidal steel decking and configurations, and
comparing the results to the solid slab provisions as
given by equations (1) and (2). The shear capacity of a
headed stud of 19 mm diameter in a secondary beam
application Psimp can then be determined as:
Concrete compressive strength fc

< 32MPa
CR
N/A
ED
N/A
WR
32MPa
6
0.80
ED + WR
0.85
CR
ED
0.75
0.90
WR 6
ED + WR
0.90
1.00
W-Dek
N/A
N/A
0.70
0.85
0.65
N/A
0.90
1.00
KF70
N/A
N/A
0.50
0.60
N/A
N/A
0.60
0.70
W-Dek
N/A
N/A
0.45
0.55
N/A
N/A
0.55
0.65
CR: conventional reinforced specimens.
ED: stud enhancing device.
WR: waveform reinforcement element.
only applicable for sheeting thickness of t 0.75 mm, otherwise N/A.
only applicable for central positioned studs with a height of hc 150 mm, otherwise N/A.
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:14 PM
of the lap joint, as suggested by Eurocode 4 (CEN,

2004), the reduction factors of table 4 should not be
applied as the shear connectors positioned on the
unfavourable side might experience a significantly
reduced strength or slip capacity. The values given in
table 4 were derived for high strength G550 sheeting
material with nominal thicknesses ranging from 0.6
to 1.0 mm.
The Type 4 longitudinal shear reinforcement
provisions of Chapter 9.8 of AS2327.1 (Standards
Australia, 2003) additionally need be considered
where the shear connection is close to a free concrete
edge in transverse direction. They are generally
deemed to be satisfied where the waveform element
is provided. In all other cases where the reduction
factors of table 4 are applied, additional Type 4
shear reinforcement needs to be provided where the
distance of the transverse edge of the concrete slab
to the nearest shear connector is less than 2.5 times
the height of the shear connector.
5
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of an extensive evaluation of available

test data on the behaviour of shear connections
incorporating Australian types of profiled steel
decking, a new design method has been proposed
that differentiates between the various failure modes
identified and specifies the suitable reinforcing
measures to ensure ductile shear connection
behaviour. One of the features of this new proposal
is to allow for the occurrence of some of the brittle
failure modes as long as a minimum capacity can
be guaranteed at any given slip up to the required
slip capacity. The new method was found to provide
increased reliability and much reduced scatter for the
strength prediction of stud connectors. However, as
a large number of parameters need to be considered,
the practicality of this method is somewhat restricted.
Based on this method, simple strength reduction
factors have been determined for the most common
applications of existing types of trapezoidal
Australian decking geometries. It should be noted
that tight limits for the application of these reduction
factors apply, and their application should strictly be
restricted to the specified types of shear connections.
Both, the general and the simplified method were
calibrated to provide a similar level of safety as the
current AS2327.1 (Standards Australia, 2003) design
provisions for stud connectors. Based on the reliability
analysis performed, it is recommended to reduce the
resistance factor for stud shear connectors designed
to AS2327.1 (Standards Australia, 2003) from 0.850.80 to obtain an appropriate level of safety.
REFERENCES
British Standards Institution (BSI), 1990, Structural
225
use of steelwork in building, Part 3. Design in

composite construction, BS 5950, Part 3.
CEN, 2004, Design of composite steel and concrete
structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings, Eurocode 4, European Committee for
Standardization (CEN).
Ernst, S. 2006, Factors affecting the behaviour of the
shear connection of steel-concrete composite beams,
PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
Ernst, S., Patrick, M., Bridge, R. Q. & Wheeler, A.
2004a, Reinforcement requirements for secondary
composite beams incorporating trapezoidal decking,
Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V, Kruger
National Park, South Africa, pp. 236-246.
Ernst, S., Patrick, M. & Wheeler, A. 2004b, Novel
shear stud component for secondary composite
beams, 18th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials, Perth, Australia, pp. 63-69.
Ernst, S., Bridge, R. Q. & Patrick, M. 2006, Behaviour
of the longitudinal shear connection in secondary
composite beams incorporating trapezoidal steel
decking, 19th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics
of Structures and Materials, Christchurch, New
Zealand, pp. 49-56.
Ernst, S., Bridge, R. Q. & Wheeler, A. 2007, Strength
of headed stud shear connection in composite
beams, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 111-122.
Hawkins, N. M. & Mitchell, D. 1984, Seismic response
of composite shear connections, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 9, pp. 2120-2136.
Johnson, R. P. & Huang, D. 1994, Calibration of
safety factors m for composite steel and concrete
beams in bending, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings, Vol. 104, pp.
193-203.
Johnson, R. P. & Yuan, H. 1998, Existing rules and
new tests for stud shear connectors in throughs of
profiled steel sheeting, Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers: Structures & Buildings, Vol. 128,
pp. 244-251.
Kuhlmann, U. & Raichle, J. 2006, Schubtragfhigkeit
von Verbundtrgern mit Profilblechen nach Eurocode
4 Teil 1-1, Nr. 2006-9X, Universitt Stuttgart, Institut
fr Konstruktion und Entwurf.
Leicester, R. H. 1985, Computation of a safety index
Civil Engineering Transactions, IEAust., Vol. CE27, No.
1, pp. 55-61.
Lloyd, R. M. & Wright, H. D. 1990, Shear connection
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:14 PM
226
between composite slabs and steel beams, Journal

Construct. Steel Research, Vol. 15, pp. 255-285.
Oehlers, D. J. & Lucas, B. 2001, KingFloor-70
Stud Shear Connector Tests, C200505, Adelaide
University, Adelaide.
Patrick, M. & Bridge, R. Q. 2002, Shear connection
in composite beams incorporating open-through
profile decks, Advances in Steel Structures, Hong
Kong, China, pp. 519-526.
Pham, L. 1979, Design strength of stud shear
connectors, Australian Road Research, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp. 16-22.
Pham, L. 1983, Reliability analysis of reinforced
concrete and composite column sections, Symposium
on Concrete: The Material for Tomorrows Demands,
Perth, pp. 100-104.
Pham, L. 1984, Reliability analysis of simplysupported composite beams, Civil Engineering
Transactions, Vol. CE26, No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Pham, L. 1985b, Safety indices for steel beams and

columns designed to AS 1250-1981, Civil Engineering
Transactions, IEAust., Vol. CE27, No. 1, pp. 105-110.
Rambo-Roddenberry, 2002, Behaviour and strength
of welded stud shear connectors, PhD thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, USA.
Ravindra, M. K. & Galambos, T. V. 1978, Load
and resistance factor design for steel, Journal
of the Structural Division, Vol. 104, No. ST9, pp.
1337-1353.
S t a n d a rd s A u s t r a l i a , 1 9 9 8 , C o l d - f o r m e d
steel structures-Commentary, AS/NZS 4600
Supp1:1998.
Standards Australia, 2002, Structural design actions,
Part 0: General principles, AS/NZS 1170.0:2002.
Standards Australia, 2003, Composite Structures,
Part 1: Simply Supported Beams, AS 2327.1-2003.
Pham, L. 1985a, Load combinations and probabilistic

load models for limit state codes, Civil Engineering
Transactions, IEAust., Vol. CE27, No. 1, pp. 62-67.
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:14 PM
227
STEFAN ERNST
After Dr Stefan Ernst (Dipl-Ing, PhD) graduated from Darmstadt University of
Technology in 2002, he gained experience as a structural design and consulting
engineer at stahl+verbundbau gmbh in his native Germany. From 2003-2007,
he worked as a research assistant at the Construction Technology and Research
Group at the University of Western Sydney, where he completed his PhD degree
in 2007. His research focused on the fields of steel and composite steel-concrete
structures. Stefan is currently working as a structural design engineer for the
Sydney consulting firm MPN Group Pty Ltd.
RUSSELL BRIDGE
Emeritus Professor Russell Bridge (BE, PhD, FIEAust, FASCE, FICE, FIABSE) is
both a structural engineer and a university academic/researcher. He has a wide
experience in steel, concrete and composite steel-concrete structures, and has
published over 240 research papers. His interests have covered a wide range
of topics in the field of structural engineering. This is reflected in the direct
and major contributions that he has made to the recent Australian limit states
codes AS2327 Composite Structures, AS3600 Concrete Structures, AS4100 Steel
Structures and AS5100 Bridge Design.
Russells research areas have included the behaviour of composite steel and
concrete construction; the stability of steel members and frames; the reliability
basis of design; buckling of thin-walled steel elements; the modelling of
reinforced and prestressed concrete structures; advanced methods of analysis
and design; and the influence of imperfections on structural behaviour. He has
been extensively consulted by both private industry and government authorities
on a wide range of structural engineering problems.
ANDREW WHEELER
Dr Andrew Wheeler (BE, PhD) has worked in the structural engineering
community as both a design engineer and a researcher. He has worked primarily
in the fields of steel, concrete and composite steel concrete structures, and has
published over 40 research papers. His work in the field of composite and
concrete structures has led to significant contributions to both national and
international design standards, including AS 3600 Concrete Structures. His
research areas include design and behaviour of concrete/composite columns,
composite slabs/beams, crack control in reinforced concrete structures, the
behaviour of high strength steel members, and advance methods of structural
analysis.
Vol 8 No 3
15/8/08 4:20:14 PM

A New Design Proposal For Secondary Composite Beam Shear Connections Incorporating Trapezoidal Steel Decking

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A New Design Proposal For Secondary Composite Beam Shear Connections Incorporating Trapezoidal Steel Decking

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

215

A new design proposal for secondary

SUMMARY: An extensive experimental program was undertaken to investigate the behaviour

= effective transverse width of stud pullout or rib shearing failure surface

Paper S07-975 submitted 18/08/07; accepted for

S07-975 Ernst.indd 215

at mid-height in the concrete bearing zone

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 8 No 3

= correction factor considering the

= reduction factor for determining the

= correction factors for the various failure

= reduction factor considering the

= mean and nominal load effects

= number of shear connectors in a

= capacity of a concrete rib against a

= capacity of a concrete rib including

= stud capacity of a shear connection

= stud capacity that can be guaranteed

= stud capacity of a shear connection

= force component transferred by the steel

= load component transferred by the steel

= stud capacity of a shear connection in a

= stud capacity of a shear connection

= mean and nominal live loads

= mean and nominal resistance

= theoretical strength function used to

= transverse centre-to-centre spacing of

= thickness of steel sheeting

= longitudinal tensile forces in the steel

= coefficient of variation, subscripts are

= angle of failed concrete wedge to the

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

S07-975 Ernst.indd 216

= mid-span deflection of steel decking in

While many different types of trapezoidal profiles

Breakout of a concrete wedge

The rib shearing and stud pull-out failures are

S07-975 Ernst.indd 217

Horizontal rib shearing cracks in

push-out and composite beam tests. The majority of

PROPOSED NEW METHOD

In the proposed method, the expected shear

Stud capacity Conventionally

Definition of PRPT,max and PRPT,min for

To determine the shear connection strength against

When using the proposed method the following steps

Determination of the shear connection

In the work carried out by Ernst (2006), it was shown

From table 1, the expected shear connection

S07-975 Ernst.indd 218

where nx is the number of shear connectors per

Where a stud enhancing device is used, the base of

Splitting of horizontal shear force in

wedge (figure 5) and by approximating the mean

the following concrete force components for the two

For single studs, or double studs where the

with kbs = 1.2 for dbs = 19 mm and dbr 6 mm

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

S07-975 Ernst.indd 219

In the experimental program (Ernst, 2006), it was

The forces applied to the steel decking can be divided

effect of the steel decking ceases eventually when this

Experimental work demonstrated that the maximum

0.9 so bt , side for PRS