Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Composite slab structure - A general design overview

Presented

by

Dr. Longshithung Patton

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
NIT Meghalaya

July 2017
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

CONTENTS:

 Introduction
 Design Guidelines on composite slab

1
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Introduction:
Concrete Steel
Advantages: Advantages:
 Materials are readily available and cheap.  High strength-to-weight ratio.
 High compressive stress.  Design flexibility and ease of fabrication.
Disadvantages:  Faster construction and good aesthetic features.
 Susceptible to drying shrinkage and  Permits large span construction.
moisture expansion and creep.  High stiffness and ductility
 Concrete is weak in tension.  Environmental friendly
 Efflorescence. Disadvantages:
 Deeper beams for large spans.  Fire.
 Corrosion.
A diverse benefit can be drawn by combining both
 completely compatible and complementary
 same thermal expansion
 ideal combination of strengths
 Concrete give thermal insulation and corrosion insulation to steel
 restrain slender steel from local or lateral-torsional buckling.
2
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Introduction:

3rd 3rd

1st 1st

Data as per
3
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Introduction:

Composite 53 %

Concrete 45 %

Worldwide tall building completions

Others in 2016, by structural material
2%

Courtesy: Statistics Portal

4
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Introduction:
Conventional Composite construction

RCC Columns/Beams

RCC slab over steel beam

RCC slab 5
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Introduction:
Other Composite construction gaining popularity worldwide

More than 20 % increased

load carrying capacity
Concrete filled steel
tubular (CFST)
beams or columns
Composite Floor system with profile sheeting

6
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Introduction:
IS Codal design specification
Conventional RCC structures: Steel structures:

 On loads: IS 875 (Part 1 to 5) : 1987  On loads: IS 875 (Part 1 to 5) : 1987

 IS456:2000: plain & reinf. Concrete  IS800:2007: Gen. Const. in steel
 IS1893:2002–criteria for earthquake  IS1893:2002–criteria for earthquake
resistant design of structure. resistant design of structure.
 IS13920:1993–ductile detailing of  IS : 11384 – 1985 - composite const. in
reinf. concrete struct. to seismic forces. struct. steel & concrete.
 Design Handbooks:  etc...
SP 16 – 1980; SP 24: 1983;
SP34: 1987
 etc...
There is presently no Indian Standards covering the
design of composite floor systems using profiled sheeting
7
 Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Design Guidelines: (BS5950 Part 4 or Eurocode)

G+3 storey prefabricated steel building

located at Laitumkhrah, Shillong

some of the commonly

available steel profile deck
A typical Example of
Composite Deck Slab

8
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Design Guidelines: (BS5950 Part 4 or Eurocode)

Why composite deck slab?
 biggest revolution for high rise buildings due to introduction of hot-rolled steel
& cold-formed decks.
 lifetime overall cost economy (Murunde and Celikag, 2014).
reason for popularity of steel frame construction since last 2 decade.
 lightweight, strong, building services friendly.
 deck slab as shuttering Composite Deck slab
Without props
 Many researchers found that it is found to be
better earthquake resistant and more
economical in comparison to RCC structures
(Mahuhre, 2016)

 disadvantage at structures with heaving

concentrated loading or dynamic loading (eg.
bridges)

RCC slab without props

9
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Design Guidelines: (BS5950 Part 4 or Eurocode)

Guidance notes:

 Load calculation: i) Construction stage

ii) Composite stage

 Temporary Propping

 Check for adequacy: i) Construction stage: Steel beam section

ii) Composite stage : composite beam

 Reinforcement in the slab

 Mechanical connectors

10
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Design Guidelines: (BS5950 Part 4 or Eurocode)

Load calculations:
Construction stage:
 Self weight, floor finish, live load
 Construction load should be restricted to 1.5 kN/m2
Composite stage:
 Self weight, floor finish, live load
 Partition load
a) Actual load (mostly practiced in RCC structures)
b) Equivalent uniform load factor of 1.5 kN/m2
(most preferred in composite deck slab due to ease of calculation)
Temporary Propping:
 Decking is usually designed un-propped.
 Required to spans exceeding 4.0 m.
 Removed only the concrete has achieved 75% strength.

11
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Design Guidelines: (BS5950 Part 4 or Eurocode)

Cantilevers: For decking and Edge Trim

< 450 mm > 6φ (or 114mm)

Cantilever Deck detail Edge Trim overhang detail

12
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Design Guidelines: (BS5950 Part 4 or Eurocode)

Reinforcement:
 Crack control and distribution
reinforcement
 As per BS5950 Part 4.
Durability:
 Internal, Dry & Unpolluted: 20 – 50 Yrs
(most common application)
 Suburban & Rural: 5 – 10 Yrs
 Coastal: 5-10 Yrs
 Industrial & Urban: 2-5 Yrs

The above years may be increased depending

on the protection applied.

13
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Design Guidelines: (BS5950 Part 4 or Eurocode)

Mechanical connectors:

 Headed shear studs most commonly used.

 Strength of shear connection:
a) shear stud shear strength
b) composite slab against longitudinal Headed shear studs
cracking. (example)
 Shear connection capacity test:
Push-test a very cost-effective as compared to
full-scale composite beam test.

 For connections with throu-welding, the steel

deck thickness should be <1.2 mm thick

14
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Effect of Shear connector spacing and layout on the shear connector capacity in
composite beams:
Qureshi et. al. (2011)

15
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Effect of Shear connector spacing and layout on the shear connector capacity in
composite beams:
Nature of study: Qureshi et. al. (2011)

 To study the behaviour of a push test with profiled sheeting.

 A dynamic analysis was employed.
 Did a parametric study of 64 double stud push test placed at “favourable” and “Unfavourable”
location.
 Transverse spacing of studs at 40 – 400 mm were tried.

Conclusion:
 It was found that shear connector resistance remains unchanged for transverse
spacings less than 80mmand more than 200 mm.

 The Eurocode 4 relation of strength of double stud test being 71% of the single stud
was found to be valid for transverse spacings of 80 mm or lower.

 All push tests failed by concrete conical failure for concrete strength <M40.

1
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

Effect of Shear connector spacing and layout on the shear connector capacity in
composite beams:
Qureshi et. al. (2011)
Conclusion:

It is concluded that the shear connector resistance of pairs of shear connectors placed
in a favourable position is 94% of the strength of a single shear stud on average, when
the transverse spacing between studs is 200 mm or more.

 On the other hand, the resistance of staggered pairs of studs is only 86% of the
strength of a single stud.

 The strength of double shear studs in a favourable position is generally more than the
staggered pairs of
shear connectors.

1
Civil Engineering Department Structural Engineering

THANK YOU