F

StttTe. •. PL~"T. C.\\I'''' Rs. 60/-

,
e I V I LEN G I 'N E E R I N G &

CONSTRue
India's Leading Monthly On Methods, Materials & Machinery. January 2007
 Information For Subscribers
CE&CR
I
ilRussa
Ie
Dm
N.
R
shi
R
.S.
G,S.
:Som
,300
ty
iI:
der
Sanguly,
V,M.
Surlaker,
Jain,
'.N.
V.V.S.
inan
bai
Istant
selvacom@vsnl.com
Communications
ta : C/o
98300
-Shivalaya,
022-2824 700033,
Datta
Road 60814
Chatterjee
Road,Dutt
_6184049,26187120,
rge,
.Reddi,
~isory
arge,
ribution Rao,
Singh,
JANUARY
Bishnoi,
Bhide,
Executive
Swarup,
.
Gammon
Editor
Publisher
d-set :Editor:
aging
Sher
CIDC
Engineers
S. Datta
&
South,
5316,Ph:
ce_cr@hotmail.com
word
Verma,
Raikar, L&Tsynopsis
Trend-set
Seehra,
Dharwadker,
Dhillon,
Lakshmanan, IC&T 24722513
Fax:
Natwar
Chambers
Jogeshwari 3rd
for
Engineers
Pvt.
Consultant
SERC
Continental
StructwelDesigners
Subramanian,
Sharma,
Grasim (ECC)
MC-Bauchemie
ATES
Industries
Nagadi
Advertisement: Compo
Consultant
Representative:
Editorial
Circulation:
ofIIBE Board
articles
2007
Complete India
B.P.
(Tech.):
(Kolkata
Mktg.
and
Lane,
•022-2826
Nagar
(E)IILtd.
Ltd. No.2,
Mumbai 4560
400
cecrad@yahoo.co,in
review toConsult.
Pvt. Chief
Ltd.
Construction
(India)
Design
Fax:
Consultants
M.S. &
Naithani
papers:
Dewatering
H.S.
Bureau):
Head:
Pvt. Ltd.
Sangeeta Prabir
Datta
Pvt.
Systems
Ambwani
060Ltd.
Editor;
Ltd.
Consultants
Ltd.
Pvt.
011-26195465
Bist Pvt. Ltd.
Bhattacharya Name of Publication Civil Engineering & Construction Review (CE&CR)

tr'
~kajiSuryanarayana,
Cama Place, New
Office:
MANIT, DelhiBhopal
- 110 066 Launched 1988 Size : 27 x 20 cm
h Tandon, Tandon Consultants Pvt. Lid
Periodicity Monthly Pages: 72 to 100

Availability By mail only

Subscription Period One yearfThree years/Five years

Special Features Free replacement of issue lost in mail (limited

period), money back guarantee (no questions asked)

How to Subscribe Ask for SUBSCRIPTION FORM from:

Circulation Manager, CE&CR

Trend-set Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
B-10, Somdutt Chambers II,
o .9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066
Tel: 2618 4049,26187120, Fax: 011-26195465

Nepal, Bhutan: Rs. 1500.00 for ~

one Other
year by
720/-
630/-
120/- Cover
You
Rs.
Rs.
\Rs.
Rs.
Rs._600/-
Price
Save
Rs.
1350/-
1~3600/-
2160/-
2250/-
You Pay
air mail. Rs. 3500.00 (US$ Subscription
Countries:
v'
Rates
78) for one year by air mail .
Period All payments in favour ofPlease
"Trend-set
add Rs.Engineers
30.00 for
Pvt.outstation
Ltd." payable
cheque
at New Delhi

COMPUTERISED MAILING & FREE REPLACEMENT

Dear Subscriber,
CE&CR is maintaining a computerised mailing list of its subscribers.

r - -'-~-.-~-.- - - - -~->-- - - - - - _o_~_-,

The address slip on your mailed copy reads as follows.
Line 1 Subscription Nu'mber
I Line 2 Last month of Subscription I
I Line 3 Name I
I Line 4-7 Organisation & Address I
I
L __ --o-~-_:
Line 8 t>in Code
Line 9 State
: .J
Kindly note that CE&CR is posted on 6th of each month. If you do not receive
I

your copy by 15th of the month, you can ask for a free replacement upto 30th
of the month. Free replacements are not sent thereafter.
Please quote your subscription number in all your correspondence.
Publisher, CE&CR

Civil Engineering & Construction Review is edited by O.P.Datta, owned by Trend-Set Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,
printed and published by Ms. S. Datta from B-10, Somdutt Chambers II, 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-
110066. Printed at Tara Art Press, B-4, Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
Subscription, Circulation and Marketing:
Trend-set Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
B-10, Somdutt Chambers II, 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066
Tel: 26184049,26187120, Fax: 011-26195465
E-mail: ce_cr@hotmail.com.cecrad@yahoo.co.in
All payments in favour of "Trend-set Engineers Pvt. Ltd." payable at New Delhi
The information and views expressed in articles published in CE&CR are those of the authors and the
publisher takes no responsibility regarding the same. Advertisements in CE&CR are published for information
of the subscribers. CE&CR does not authenticate, endorse or guarantee any of the products or services or
claims made by the Advertisers. Readers are advised to themselves verify the details.
No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without prior written permission from the Chief
Editor. Permission is normally granted wherever sufficient acknowledgement is given to CE&CR.

7
__________
Composite Floor System - A Cost Effective Study
N. A. Hedaoo, Lecturer & D. S. Athare, M. Tech-Construction Management Student, Civil Engineering Department.
Composite floor using profiled sheet
decking consists of steel beams, steel
Cleck,shear connectors, steel mesh and
cast in-situ concrete in such a manner
that they would act monolithically
(Fig 1). Composite floor comprises
profiled steel decking as the permanent
formwork to the underside of concrete
floor spanning between support beams.
The decking acts compQSitelywith the
concrete under service loading. It also
supports the loads applied to it before
the concrete has gained adequate
strength. A steel mesh is placed in the
concrete floor to avoid effect of cracks
and shrinkage.
In 2004, S. J. Hicks & R. M. Lawson
[10] in their study for construction of a
G+3 floor building in Manchester, (UK)
having 650 m2 of floor area and 2600 m2
total floor area found that there is 6.23
% direct cost saving and 2.33 % overall
time saving due to use of composite floor
system. And for construction of a G+7
floor building in London (UK) having
2250 m2 of floor area and 18000 m2 total
floor area they observed that there is
5.93 % direct cost saving and 12.84 %
overall time saving due to use of
composite floor system.
In 2004, Davis Langdon [4] found in
his study for construction of a G+5 floor
M25 IN-SITU
CONCRETE
STEEL MESH @ 300 CiG AT
CENTRE OF CONCRETE TOP
Fig 1: Gomposite Floor Using Trapezoidal Gril Deckspan
68
1 NEW TECHNIQUES
College of Engineering, Pune
building in London, (UK) having 1010
m2 of floor area and 6060 m2 total floor
area that there is 1.94 % direct cost
saving and 1.45 % overall time saving
due to use of composite floor system.
Historical Background
Around 1905 concept of composite
construction started in the United
States, Canada & UK. In early
developments only comP9site columns
and beams were used. Steel decking was
first used to support a concrete floor in
1920. By 1938, engineers were using a
composite floor system in two and three
storey industrial buildings. The first
composite slabs i.e. concrete reinforced
by steel deck, appeared in the 1950s
(known as 'Cofar') which was a
trapezoidal deck section. This deck was
conceived and designed by Friberg
(1954) and initially manufactured by
Granite City Steel Co. In 1961, the
Inland-Ryerson Company produced a
trapezoidal metal deck with
indentations rolled into the profile to
achieve horizontal shear transfer
between concrete and steel (known as
"Hi-bond").
By 1967, a number of manufacturers
were producing composite metal decks,
which were examined by Bryl. In 1967,
1 _
the American Iron and Steel Institute
initiated a research project at Iowa State
University to develop a design approach
for composite slabs. This research is
briefly outlined by one of the
co-investigator (Schuster, 1976). Design
recommendations were developed
(Porter and Ekberg, 1976) which form a
basis for the American Society of Civil
Engineers Standards on composite slabs
(ASCE, 1985) and other National
Standards (British Standard Institution,
1994; CED, 2001).
When we look at the scenario of
composite floor construction in India,
efforts are underway. There are some
organizations like Cril, Tata Bluescope
steel etc. that have taken interest in
producing metal decking sheets which
is most important element in the
composite floor system.
The increased popularity of steel-
framed construction over the last two
decades is due to the advantages arising
from the use of composite floor.
Composite Floor System
Composite floors with profiled decking
consist of structural elements such as
profiled steel decks, shear connectors
and steel mesh along with in-situ
concrete and steel beams.
PROFILED STEEL SHEEl (DECKSPAN)
9.5 mm DEEP IN-BUILD
SHEAR CONNECTION
STEEL BEAM
CE&CR JANuARY 2007
I~~ ~ I NEW TECHNIQUES I_==-- ==-- ---.J

46 --I ~-"'. L ~"~C""':.1 eo ",:r L.¥~:..~~~

I' 22. ~- -._--1 to •••~
.:r
'JO" ••• ".:.*----
---- 50
M rnrn~- / SI .•••.,.inog ind"' •.•.I,."

60 m:J_ [-.~I~~"~IOki d .•.••.

,•.•. ~ [-~.~;:.,U'M~
..J f-<~----

VR'~. /
1.6 •.•••-::::.L

6Om:I ~oJ 70~:r-./ ~~~:.~

"" ..J I- ----.--.---j

Fig 2: Trapezoidal Deck Profiles

+ 840 or
Shear Connectors
Shear connectors are steel elements such
;I'
as headed studs ranging typically
between 13 & 25 mm in diameter [2]and
variable in length, welded to the top
flange of the steel section and intended
to transmit the horizontal shear between
the steel section and the cast in-situ
concrete and also to prevent vertical
separation at the interface.
Fig 3: Cdl Deckspan (Manufactured In India)
Steel Mesh
~
The steel mesh of 6 mm <I>with 200 to
51 mol S pour •...J,~IOr •• )-
300 mm C/C is provided bothway to avoid
'52";n .•nl
~------~
effect of cracks & shrinkage but it does
not act as a structural element of
'-',"'''1 L_ 0.-;;'~~~~i
~.' -=-l composite floor.
\-c-- 1 52. 51_"--"~~':.. ~
'"
5 1 '''''1. C_~~,~~.~_F_~~~~-=] Study Methodology
k--- }_50n ••ll __ . __._~ A G+5 commercial building considered
for study is a rectangular (48 x 13.5 m)
fig 4: Dovetail Deck Profiles in plan with nominal height of 16.2 m
(2.7 m floor to floor) and gross floor area
Profiled Steel Deck (i) trapezoidal deck profile (Fig. 2 & 3) of 3900 m2 (650 m2 area at each floor)
The steel deck is normally rolled into the & (ii) dovetail deck profile (Fig. 4). constructed at Pune (Fig. 5). By
desired profile from 0.7 mm to 1.5 mm Their shapes are generally chosen as considering same total floor area; height
galvanized coil. It is profiled such that a compromise between enhancing the and loading condition, this building is
the profile heights are usually in the bond at the steel-concrete interface and designed and constructed by two
range of 45 to 80 mm with trough spaced providing stability while supporting wet different methods.
at 150 mm and 350 mm. Spans for concrete and other construction loads. In the first case, all the structural
conventional shallow decks are typically Indentations and protrusions into the rib members of the building like columns,
in the range of 3 to 4 m and deep decks mobilize the bearing resistance in beams & slabs are designed as a limit
can span more than 6 m. There are two addition to adhesion and also provide the state and constructed as a reinforced
well known types of profiles: shear transfer in composite floors. cement concrete (RCC) material and in
the second case the structural members
COLLMNS

TOIlET
T
LIFT
=
=
~
L I L
'-"010 FOR
SER'v'ICES

000

Fig 5: Plan Of The Building (For Both RCC And Composite Floor)

70 CE&CR JANUARY 2007

L-- I NEW TECHNIQUES 1 _

m ~ ~
817
~"22
~
czr
820~
2l
"---,.
.2l
"---,.
C2<
C23
858
/85
B7m
B6
B
818
B22
2!.
S1
B39
B4B49
B55
B53
B47
B33
B27
848
B3
821
854
850
840
834
844
21.-
S1
"" B30
856
2..2-
B23 co
B45
819B51
B29
846
833
2:!..
C12
C2B31
....2B35
B23
832
842
2836
824
1-
C7 , '"
S1
12
C23B11
C21
B52
B37
B2
B9
B'1
cS1
51
B3
C22
O[]
oo
cS1
cs
2.:!.
...B
..§1.
2!....
E2.-
.21...-
843:1.-
C~
~,.
815
B16
'15
B14
B10
813
....2 ~ ~ H
'-BOOT3OOo----.,j ~57
,I - 00--1
B41 Ie,

Fig 6: Typical Structural Layout Of RCC Slab & Beams (G+5)

. -f1
<'
~-
~ 8@200ele "k
1200
"t-

1
120
"", " .. '" .

r
-----{. 300 't:---
6000
'k +-

Fig 7: Cross-section Of RCC Floor

like columns & beams are designed and not considered in design. concrete slabs & beams is shown in
constructed as a steel member and the Dead load includes self-weight and Fig. 6. Cross-section of RCC floor is
construction of slab as a composite floor floor finish load. Self-weight of slab and shown in Fig. 7.
with trapezoidal profiled steel sheeting beam is calculated as per IS: 456-2000
(deckspan type) (Fig. 1). considering 25 kN/m2 as unit weight The Composite Floor System
Floor to floor cost comparison of the of reinforced concrete and floor finish of The composite floor is designed as per
reinforced cement concrete floor (RCC 1 kN/m2• Imposed load of 5 kN/m2 is Eurocode 4 (CEN, 2001) and data from
beam & RCC slab) and composite floor assumed for commercial building in deckspan manufacturer (Cril) for the
(steel beam & composite slab) is done. accordance with'IS: 875 (Part 2). Wall loads arising from the weight of the
The results obtained in terms of total concrete, self- weight of steel deck,
loading is calculated considering
floor cost and time savings for the two construction loads (operatives &
cases is discussed. 20 kN/m2 unit weight of brick masonry.
M 25 grade concrete & Fe-415 grade equipment), live load & floor finish load.
steel is used for design and construction M 25 grade concrete, cold rolled (CR)
The RCC Floor System deckspan & Fe-415 grade steel beams
RCC flooris designed as per IS: 456-2000 of RCC floor. The one way continuous
are used for design and construction of
& IS: 800-1984 for a load combinations slabs are designed for ultimate load of
composite floor.
13.50 kN/m2 & 120 mm thickness.
of dead load and live load by limit state Deckspan is of trapezoidal shape
method. Wind & earthquake loads are The structural layout of reinforced made from 1.00 mm cold rolled steel as

m (ISMB~ ~~~=I=
----,
.,~ ----,
"'-----...
"---7
.,4,-
""--
""--
""--
""--
'-----...
---,.
----,
""---,.
"----,.
'----T
"----,.
'----T
'----T
"----,.
'----T
'-----...
''-----...
"'----.
"'----.
'----.
"'----.
'-----...'-----...
'-----...
'-----...
'-----...
'-----...
'-----... ~~
en
•'-----...
"'----.-----...
••••••••
"'----.
"----0-
""----T
400) ..--,
"'----.
""--
\ 0 CZI
'-----... coCZ4co
CZ5
C8C""
""----T
C7
450)//
"'::-"CISMB
/
C22
co
DIRECTION
eZI OF
(31 OOX840::;:?
~
"------6000---
~300G-
DECK
800 ~300G-
INST ALLA
DECK8P.A1'~
nON

Fig 8: Typical Layout Of Cdl Deckspan & Steel Beam Of Composite Floor (G+5)

72 CE&CR JANUARY 2007

 1 1 NEW TECHNIQUES 1 _

6mm 0000 C\C aOTHWAY$

@24mm FROM TOP

T
<1 ..
LJ.·oC . ...a -6'
l'
48
100
Lo-4
.-"
+
1 PROFIL...E: CECI-<"JHG SHEET
'>'
. <1
52
-4,-

"'--:2J':I, rnm LONG STSD

XT'LA.N COATED SCREVV @BCO C\C

Fig 9: Cross-section Of Composite Floor

323900 356350 38

} Construction Cost

1200000 1600000
1400000 Materia I Cost
1000ODD 1313000 Rs
1200000
800 ODD Material Cost 1000000
Rs.791000
Cost (Rs) 800000
Cost (Rs) 600ODD
600000 .Co115tIU~1ionCost
4D0ODD II Construction Cost 400000 EHhtellilCost
200000 EJMateri!'!1Cost 200000
o
2 3 4 5 6
3 4
Level of slab
(a) RCC Construction Level of Slab (b) Composite Construction

Fig 10: Floor To Floor Material and Construction Cost For RCC & Composite Floor Construction

per IS: 277 and yield strength of 250 NI
mm2• It is profiled such that the profile
height is 52 mm with trough spaced at
271 mm c/c. These deckspans are
3100 mm long and 840 mm wide which
support and act as reinforcement in the
composite floor. Lapping during
deckspan placing is; along length 100
mm & along width 30 mm. Spans for
these deckspans are typical.lY in the
range of 3 to 4 m. The interlocking is
achieved through a system of
embossments rolled into the web &
flutes of the deck and these decks are
installed over steel beam using 25 mm
long self-drilling self-tapping screws.
The beams are designed as a
continuous steel beam by assuming
0.4 kN/m2 self-weight of main beam and
0.3 kN/m2 self-weight ofsecondary beam.
Ceiling and services load of 0.50 kN/m2
is considered in beam design. The slabs
are designed for ultimate load of 13.06
kN/m2 and 100 mm thickness. Layout of
deeckspans & steel beams ofa composite
floor is shown in Fig 8. The cross-section
of 100 mm thick composite floor is
shown in Fig 9.
Quantity And Cost
Estimation
Quantities of the items are calculated
for both RCC and composite floor to
asses the total cost from above design
schedules. While carrying out the cost
estimation, item rates as applicable to

27.64
27.91
Cost
Extra
26.68
29.21
28.61
26.15
27.35
(10 477
493
497
473
487
Material
Total
C
7,91,000
(8 Construction
Cost
485
483Total
onstruction
=Cost
(11) Total
14,40,110
14,29,380
=(4 (9)
Cost
Cost
(6)(7)
2,216
2,265
2,199
9-5)
3,28,900
3,15,250
6+7)
(Rs)
(2)(3)
78,78,000
14,83,020
2,282
2,240
14,50,840
2,232
2,249
47,46,000
(Rs/m2)
(Rslm2) Total
RCC
11,06,250
1,723
1,702
1,27,110
1,16,380
(Rs)
Cost
3,84,800
21,00,150
=11,75,800
68,46,150
1,809
8,59,210
1,70,020
3,43,200
1,745
1,37,840
3,71,150
3,56,850
11,62,150
1,48,565
11,19,900
(Rs)
13,13,0002+3)
(5)
87,37,210
11,34,200
1,755
14,61,565
11,47,850
1,788
1,59,295
1,766
(Rs/m2)
(%)
14,72,295 . & Beam ConstructionExtraComposite Slab &Total
(Rs) Slab
Cost Beam
Cost Construction
Cost 2,240
Rs. 87,37,210
of =composite construction Cost
Table 1: Floor To Floor Cost Comparison Between RCC & Composite Floor= Construction
(Rslm2)
ab

74 CE&CR JANUARY 2007

 1 1 NEW TECHNIQUES IL..... _--'-- _

25CO

20CO

30
15CO 29 .'
Cost (Rs./m')
DRCC '------
% oi Extra Cost Requied 28
10CO I!IiCol,!,o,ite
ior Compos'e Floor ol'er 27
RCC Floor .---- •.... -----....
26
500 25
24
o 3 4 6
2 3 4 5 6 Levelof,J.a],

level of, lib

Fig 11: Floor To Floor Cost Comparison & Percentage Extra Cost Required For Composite Floor Over RCC Floor Construction
Composite Floor Construction
987(Days)
24
21
15
13
19
17
11
Lifting
Placing2Laying
Duration
11
27
10 431Reinforcement
Erection
Total duration
21Lifting
Reinforcement
Decks 1Concreting
3(Days)
Decks
Of
Installation 216Steel
10
Steel11
7(Days)
298(Days)
Total
Cleaning
Concreting
(Days)
Table
Steel
Of Steel
OfRCC
(Days)
Of
Lifing
Placing &&& Floor
for RCC2: Floor
Construction
Duration .
(Days) (Days)
To Floor=Time
floor constrution
Deck Total duration for composite floor construction = 55 days
Comparison Between RCC & Composite Floor Construction
123 days
Slab

sites at Pune (January 2006) have been composite floor ·construction. (Table 1 & required for lifting and placing of steel
considered. Fig 10). Extra cost of construction of beams is not considered because steel
Material cost and floor to floor composite floor system is shown columns and beams are erected
construction cost for both RCC and graphically in Fig. 11. simultaneously in composite
composite floor are calculated. It may be construction. The scheduling of RCC &
noted that material cost is constant Time Scheduling For RCC composite floor construction considering
while construction cost is variable. The relevant activities is shown in Table 2
total cost at each floor level is obtained
& Composite Floor
Construction & Fig. 12.
by adding material cost and floorto floor
construction cost for both RCC & In composite floor construction, time
,', Time Related Savings
78952.94
10
11
Composite
52.63 52,38
58.33
59.26
53.33
Duration 55 10
15
19
55.29
14
16
17927
12321
24
868
11
(%)
Time For
RCC
Duration
(Days)
TimeFloor Floor
For
Savings
Savings
(Days) As per above scheduling, composite floor
Table 3: Floor To Floor Time Savings construction results in overall 55.29 %
of time savings over RCC floor
construction (Table 3). The time savings
(in days) increases from 1" slab to 6th slab
(Fig. 13) which is due to use ofcomposite
floor construction in the G+5 floor
commercial building.

Overall Effectiveness Of Composite

Floor Over RCC Floor Construction
Following assumptions are made while
comparing overall effectiveness of
composite floor construction vis a vis
76 CE&CR JANUARY 2007

~
 NEW TECHNIQUES

Task Name Duration M T Iw I T I F I s I s I M IT IW IT F S SIM T Iwi T F S SIM T IWI T

Composite slab (1st) 7 day» '" '"
Lifting 01
~~"_m~",,,,,,,,,,
steel decks
""""'''''''''''~~"'~''m~' __ '_'''_' ."__ •
1 day
Placing .& indallation 01 rt~el deck:s.~ 3 days

----- --
-_ Erection
~
Cleaning of-Steel deck
Lifting 8. piecing 01 reinforcement
Concreting
RCC slab (1st)
------~---_.
..
of slab
__ .--~_.-
-- ~

& beam fonnwork

1 day
1 delY
i day
15 days
-".~"~~~
8 days f~%:%"W£F'~,,<\';;;"'m~';~,«,-;"~wW%.~

r~~).j

i
cOrTiPO-SiteSiab(ilr1d~---'- + 8davs ~

"
Lifting of steel decks ! 2 days
Placing & Installation 01 steel decks:••4- 3 days
-~--------------I~
Cleaning of steel deck . I ---
1 day
I- ~ i'"-'

Lifting .& piecing of reinforcement ~ day

,''''''~P~,::,~~,i~ ','_.,',
__ f.m".. "'''~"da~
RCCErection
slab ("Old)
of slab & beam 1ormwork I 179 day
days••
Lifting .& laying of steel reinforcemer j 7 days
--Concreting f 2 days ,;;;..
fe'

Composite slab (IIIrd) 9 days

Lifli~"g ot-mste;~1dec.k's 2 d.ays
--Placing-s. inStaJieii'on""o1""sieeid~eck'8A' ---3-days
Cle-anlng o'1steefdeck~ 1 d"y
Lifting & p"i"ac·j·ng 01 rej·r;·forcement 2 days
C.;r:;creting ~ 1 day "--~
..
~"""~"W~ BE
RCC slab (lII •..d) "19 days '"
E..-ection 01 slab a beam 1o..-mvvork 10

Task Name I Duration I M I T Iw I T M I T IW I T I F

Composite Sl'~ (IVth) __ j 10 days
Lifti~~_~!.~~_d_e~.
. ,. ~ 3 _~_~s
PI~cing.&instollationof steel decks~ 3 d,=,ys
Cleaningof steel deck 1 day

--_ Lifting & placing of reinforcement

..•.
Concreting
_~-...:....~--- 2 days
-"-_._-
1 clay
RCCSrab(Mti) -- 2'"d".;ys
Erecti~of slab.& b;;amformw~k 1'1'd;ys
Lifting 8.laying of steel reinforcemer 9 days
Concreting 2 days

Composite slab (vth)____ mmm_ ••••• _~._

10 days '"
Lifting of steel decks 3doys
Placing & installation of
Clean-i'ngo·i'$t~ 1 day
Lifting & placing of reinforcement 2 days
Concreting 1 day
RCC slab (Vth) 24days '" '"
13 days ~
'·io days

r'-L
"2 days

Composite slab (Vlth)

Lifting of steel decks
11days
4 days
·~-----~;;"-------!"h"'·i".;-~·
i:,','
Pla-cing
& inStaliation of steel decks~ -3d--;ys ,,
CI~ of steeldeck -- - - 1 dElY
Lifting 8.placing of reinforcement 2 days
···---Concretlno 1 day
liEE"iab (Vlth) 27 days '" '"
- Erectionof- i-i8b· B bel:lm formwork 15 days
.Lifting 8. I~ying
Concreting
of steel reinto..-cemer
.
,
I
~d-ays
2 days ~
Placing and installation of steel decks activity includes; deck placing; deck installation & fixing of edge trim.

Fig 12: Floor To Floor Scheduling. For Construction Of RCC & Composite Floor Construction

RCC floor construction: (i) 40% on sell day (D Days saved due to use of composite
(a)Total capital amount raised from loan (ii) 30% after 20 days from sell day floor,directly saves same number of days
with 11% interest rate. (iii) 30% after 40 days from sell day. in total building construction time.
(b) Selling price of Rs. 4000/sq.ft. is (d) Total saleable floor area (3360 m2) The margin between the direct cost
considered sold on next day after completion of ofthe reinforced concrete option and the
(c) Selling amount collected in three building composite option is closer once the time
installments: (e) 10% interest rate on selling price related preliminaries and extra savings
78 CE&CR JANUARY 2007
 I, I NEW TECHNIQUES 1 _

6~,
4 2053.33
53. 810
30 52,94%% % II Composite
52.38
, 'I c'5
52.63 %
, 0
14 ~-------
Level 4of slab 32 59.26 %
18 EIRCC '16 58.33 % Dura.tion oTime savings(%)
(days)
0
8 ~ ___ ~ 1

Fig 13: Time Savings In Days Due To Composite Floor Over RCC Floor ConstructIOn

ction
Total
Construction
2,277.50
88,82,035
1,44,825
87,37,210
Composite .
2,267.50 RCC Floor
-- Floor
Table 4: Net Costs For RCC & Composite Floor Cons~ruction
net
2,13,952.40
4,51,677
88,43,246
10,77,686.30
68,46,150 1039,000)
.30 (Rs.
0.45
2.,53,780 for composite floor using profiled steel
sheet is nearly same as that ofRCC floor
Extra costcost
10 % interest Costs
(Rs)3rd
required
on 1" installment
2nd for compositeof
installment selling
ofover
selling amount
RCC
amount
floor
considering time related savings.

in finance cost are taken into account.
These times related savings include:
a) Reduced cost of preliminaries
b) Reduced cost of borrowings
c) Early rental/early sale.
Net costs for RCC & composite floor
construction are tabulated in Table 4.
Although direct cost of composite
floor construction is much more than
RCC floorbut overall the net cost ofthese
two options is nearly same i.e. composite
floor construction requires only
Rs.10/m2 (0.45 %) higher cost than the
RCC floor construction.
Conclusions
The study ofcomparison is between RCC
and composite floor construction for a
G+5 commercial building of size 48 x
13.5 m (rectangular in plan) with a
nominal height of 16.2 m and total floor
area of 3900 m2• However, the study is
restricted to slab & beam only.
From study, it is found that direct
construction cost required for composite
floor is 27.64 % higher than RCC floor.
But overall the net cost required for
composite floor is only 0.45 % more than
RCC floor considering time related
savings. The time savings of 55.29 % is
achieved due to use of composite floor
construction rather than RCC floor.
The construction of multi storied
commercial building with composite
floor saves time which leads to an overall
savings in net cost. The net cost required
References
1. Cril (2005): "Cril deckspan booklet ",
Mumbai.
2. David A. Nethercot (2003): "Composite
'Construction ", Spon Press; Taylor & Francis
Group, London.
3. Debashis Datta & Goutam Chakraborty
(2003): "B+G+20 Storeyed residential
building with steel-concrete composite
.option ", INS / PUB / 047, Institute for Steel
Development & Growth (lNSDAG).
4. Davis Langdon (2004): "Multi-Storey
Residential Buildings, The cost benefits of
steel", Corus.'
5. Eurocode 4 (1994): "Design of composite
steel & concrete structure", EN 1994 -Part 1-
1, Technical Committee CEN / TC250 of
Structural Eurocode, BSI.
6. E.Y.L. Chien & J. K. Ritchie (1993):
"Composite floor systems - A mature design
option ", Journal of construction steel research
25 107-139, Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.
7. IS: 456-2000 (2000): "Indian Standard
Code of Practice for Plain & Reinforced
Concrete", Fourth Revision, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
8. IS: 800-1984 (2001): "Indian Standard
Code of Practice for General Construction in
Steel", Second Revision, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
9. Murunde Celikag (2004): "Economic aspects
of using steel framed buildings with composite
floors: case studies from United Arab
Emirates ", Construction & Building
Materials 18 383-390, Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd.
10. S. J. Hicks; R. M. Lawson; J. W. Rackham
& P Fordham (2004): "Comparative Structure
Cost of Modern Commercial Buildings", Ilnd
Edition, SCI P137, Steel Construction
Institute.

80 CE&CR JANUARY 2007