Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DURING the past forty years, formed steel deck has become
the most common floor system used in high rise steel frame
structures. 1 A natural consequence of this floor system was
the development of composite action between the steel beam
and the concrete slab by means of shear connectors welded
through the deck to the beam flange.
There are two conditions to be considered. The first
condition is when the corrugations of the deck run parallel to
the beam. It seems reasonable to assume that this condition
can be modeled as a composite beam with a haunched slab.
The limited experimental work available for this case
indicates that the shear connection is not significantly
affected by the ribs. 2,3 A check may be warranted to insure
that shearing of the concrete will not occur on a failure plane
over the top of the connectors.
The second condition is when the corrugations of the
deck run perpendicular to the beam. Initial studies of this
latter condition were made on a proprietary basis for specific
products in building applications and thus were
uncoordinated. Consequently, considerable variance among
controlled parameters existed, making it difficult to draw any
general conclusions. In 1967 a detailed study by Robinson 4
showed that for high, narrow ribs the shear capacity of the
connector is a function of the rib geometry and is
substantially less than the capacity of connectors embedded
in a composite beam with a solid slab. However, this study,
as well as others, indicated that for decking with small
corrugations the shear capacity of the connector, and thus the
behavior of the composite beam, is unaffected. In 1970,
Fisher 5 summarized the investigations that had been
conducted to date and proposed design criteria. Fisher
concluded that composite beams could be modeled as having
a haunched slab, equal in thickness to the solid part of the
slab above the rib, except that the shear capacity of the
connector is reduced. He modeled this reduction in shear
capacity by the following formula:
w
Qrib = A Qsol Qsol
h
(1)
where
Qrib
A
w
h
Qsol
=
=
=
=
=
24
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
1B
1C
1D
Rib Ht.
h (in.)
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
Rib Width
w1 = 1.5h
w2 = 2.0h
Spec 1A1R
Spec 1A5R
Spec 1A2
Spec 1A6R
Spec 1A3R
Spec 1A7
Spec 1B2
Spec 1B1
Spec 1C1
Spec 1C3
Spec 1C2a
Spec 1C4
Spec 1C2b
Spec 1D1
Spec 1D2
Spec 1D3
Spec 1D4
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Beam
1A1R
1A2
1A3R
1A5R
1A6R
1A7
1B1
1B2
1C1
1C2A
1C2B
1C3
1C4
1D1
1D2
1D3
1D4
Steel
Section
W16 40
W16 40
W16 40
W16 45
W16 45
W16 40
W16 58
W16 58
W16 40
W16 40
W16 40
W16 40
W16 45
W16 40
W16 40
W16 45
W16 40
Beam
Span
(ft)
24.0
24.0
32.0
20.0
24.0
32.0
32.0
24.0
24.0
32.0
32.0
24.0
32.0
24.0
24.0
32.0
32.0
Slab Slab
Width Depth
(in.)
(in.)
72.0
4.0
80.0
4.5
96.0
5.5
72.0
4.0
80.0
4.5
96.0
5.5
96.0
5.5
72.0
4.0
72.0
4.0
96.0
5.5
96.0
5.5
80.0
4.5
96.0
5.5
72.0
4.0
72.0
4.0
96.0
5.5
96.0
5.5
Avg.
Studsc
Rib
Rib Stud Stud per
Studd
Ht. Width Dia. Ht. Shear Space
(in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) Span (in.)
1.5 2.25
3/4
3.0
24
12.0
2.0 3.0
3/4
3.5
24
12.0
3.0 4.5
3/4
4.5
26
24.0
1.5 3.0
3/4
3.0
18
12.0
2.0 4.0
3/4
3.5
20
12.0
3.0 6.0
3/4
4.5
18
24.0
3.0 4.5
3/4
4.5
25
24.0
1.5 3.0
3/4
3.0
19
12.0
1.5 2.25
3/4
3.0
11
12.0
3.0 4.5
3/4
4.5
9
24.0
3.0 4.5
3/4
4.5
12
24.0
2.0 4.0
3/4
3.5
8
12.0
3.0 6.0
3/4
4.5
14
24.0
1.5 2.25
3/4
3.0
24
12.0
1.5 2.25
3/4
3.0
24
12.0
3.0 6.0
3/4
4.5
18
24.0
3.0 6.0
3/4
4.5
18
24.0
wc
(pcf)
114.6
117.9
115.0
117.9
126.0
119.4
122.8
115.1
116.6
113.3
113.3
117.8
118.7
114.8
115.1
122.4
124.8
Ec
(ksi)
2030.
2170.
1990.
2170.
2520.
2290.
1810.
2160.
2490.
2480.a
2510.a
2500.
2090.
2030.
2170.
2200.
2580.
f yh
(ksi)
Flange Web
68.8
74.9
57.5
61.7
65.6
68.2
66.1
68.3
66.2
67.5
63.3
65.8
32.2
34.9
37.1
39.1
57.7
62.4
66.0
67.2
66.2
69.1
69.2
74.7
64.9
68.2
69.0
73.8
55.4
60.6
64.9
67.9
64.3
68.7
f c
(ksi)
3.470
3.710
3.250
3.710
4.930
4.200
3.750
4.830
4.350
4.130
3.990
4.840
3.250
3.470
4.610
3.960
4.850
Beam
71-17(A1)
71-17(A2)
71-17(A3)
71-17(A4)
71-17(A5)
71-17(B1)
71-17(B2)
71-17(B3)
71-17(B4)
70-4
70-3(A)
70-3(B)
66-11(42)
66-11(56)
66-11(B)
66-11(W)
Steel
Section
W12 19
W12 19
W12 19
W12 19
W12 19
W12 19
W12 19
W12 19
W12 19
W16 26
W12 27
W12 27
W8 15
W8 15
W12 24
W14 30
Avg.
Rib
Rib Stud Stud
Studsc per
Studd
Ht. Width Dia. Ht.
Shear Span
Space
(in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (1) (2) (3) (T) (in.)
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0
6 0 0
6 24.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0
0 6 0
12 24.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0
9 0 0
9 24.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0
0 6 0
12 36.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 4.0
0 6 0
12 36.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0 21 0 0
21
6.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0 11 0 0
11 12.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0 16 0 0
16 12.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0 21 0 0
21
6.0
1.50 2.13 3/4 3.0 14 0 0
14a 12.0
1.50 1.94 3/4 4.5
9 3 0
15
6.0
1.50 1.94 3/4 4.5
9 3 0
15
6.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0
4 0 0
4 24.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0
5 0 0
5 12.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0
9 0 0
9 12.0
1.50 2.25 3/4 3.0 13 0 0
13 12.0
wc
(pcf)
145.0a
145.0a
145.0a
145.0a
145.0a
145.0a
145.0a
145.0a
145.0a
113.3i
118.0i
118.0i
145.0a
145.0
144.6
145.2
Ec
(ksi)
3780.
4340.
4340.
3600.
3600.
3940.
3395.
3370.
3430.
2243.
2933.
2933.
2850.
3219.
2825.
3270.
fc
(ksi)
4.290
5.670
5.670
3.890
3.890
4.650
3.457
3.410
3.530
3.175
4.808
4.808
3.325
3.265
3.470
4.030
g
f yh
(ksi)
Flange Web
41.6 46.7
41.6 46.7
40.7 46.3
40.7 46.3
40.7 46.3
41.2 46.4
41.2 46.4
41.2 46.4
41.2 46.4
39.5j 42.3j
35.3k 39.5k
35.3k 39.5k
49.6n,o
46.2n,o
49.1n,o
39.3n,o
Beam
64-15(H1)
64-15(E1)
64-15(E2)
67-38
71(EPIC)
72-12(75)
73(RF)
Steel
Section
W12 27
W12 27
W12 27
W14 30
W12 27
W12 58
W14 30
Beam
Span
(ft)
15.0
15.0
15.0
24.0
15.0
25.0
25.0
67-11(B1)
67-11(B2)
68-4(1)
68-5(2)
69-1(3)
69-12(4)
70-31(A)
70-31(D)
70-31(C)
69-2(HR)
67-36(CU3)
70-5(C2)
65-19(BS12)
65-19(BS11)
67-36(CU2)
67-36(CU1)
TEX-1
TEX-2
TEX-3
TEX-4
TEX-5
TEX-6
TEX-7
TEX-8
HHR-1-76
IR-1-76
HHR-2-76
IR-2-76
RF-1-76
RF-2-76
72-12(80)
75-16
175-75
174-75
16-76
W12 27
W12 27
W14 30
B16 26
W14 30
W18 45
W14 30
W14 30
W18 60
W10 21
W12 27
B14 22
W12 27
W12 27
W12 27
W12 27
W16 50
W16 50
W16 50
W16 50
W16 50
W16 50
W16 50
W16 50
W16 45
W16 45
W16 45
W16 45
W16 45
W16 45
W12 65
W16 40
W24 55
W24 61
W21 44
15.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
20.0
36.5
19.0
19.0
35.5
21.0
24.0
24.0
15.0
15.0
24.0
24.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
25.0
30.0
34.9
34.9
40.0
Slab Slabb
Width Depth
(in.)
(in.)
48.0 4.00
48.0 4.00
48.0 4.00
58.0 4.75
60.0 5.25
72.0 6.23
96.0 6.25
48.0
48.0
47.0
45.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.0
72.0
50.0
62.5
60.0
48.0
48.0
62.5
62.5
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
72.0
87.0
103.0
103.0
94.5
5.50
5.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.20
3.50
6.00
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.50
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
7.00
5.00
6.25
9.00
5.50
Avg.
Rib
Rib
Ht. Width
(in.) (in.)
1.50 4.50
1.50 4.50
1.50 4.50
1.75 6.00
2.00 5.00
3.00 7.25
3.00 4.00 l
6.00
3.00 4.06
3.00 4.06
1.50 2.25
1.50 2.25
1.50 2.25
1.50 2.25
1.50 2.25
1.50 2.25
3.00 5.63
3.00 2.63
1.50 2.25
2.00 3.00
1.31 2.25
.88 1.75
1.50 3.63
1.50 5.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 7.25
3.00 6.00
3.00 7.25
3.00 6.00
3.00 6.00
3.00 7.25
3.00 6.00
3.00 7.25
3.00 7.25
3.00 6.75 l
7.25
Stud
Dia.
(in.)
3/4
3/4
3/4
7/8
3/4
3/4
3/4
Stud
Ht.
(in.)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.5
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
3/4
3/4
5/8
3/4
3/4
3/4
5/8
5/8
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
4.5
5.5
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
7.0
4.9
Studsc per
Shear Span
(1) (2) (3) (T)
12
0 0
12
5
4 0
13
0
8 0
16
0
5 0
10a
11
0 0
11
0
7 0
14
0
8 0
16
0
0
13
14
12
18
8
5
16
6
12
11
14
14
18
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
4
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
5
9
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
7
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
8
8
13
14
12
18
18
23
18
6
18
11
14
14
18
18
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
12
12
12
12
12
12
21
12
18
28
20
Studd
Space
(in.)
12.0
12.0
24.0
30.0
6.0
16.0
24.0
wc
(pcf)
115.0 a
115.0 a
114.7
114.0 a
109.8
116.0 i
109.2
Ec
(ksi)
2519.
2566.
2872.
2230. a
2116.
2628.
2620.
f c
(ksi)
3.860
4.010
5.020
3.100
3.090
4.063
4.740
f yh
(ksi)
Flange Web
37.4 k
45.6 k
k
34.4
39.3 k
k
34.1
40.5 k
j
37.8
41.9 j
35.8 k
55.5 j
61.8 j
37.4 k
39.2 k
26.0
26.0
12.0
24.0 a
12.0
12.0
12.0
16.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
6.0
9.0
6.75
12.0
15.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
24.0
32.0
24.0
32.0
24.0
24.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
16.0
30.0
116.0
116.0
116.9
111.0
115.3
111.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
109.0
108.0
106.0
102.4
102.4
102.1
106.6
105.0
144.0
144.0
145.0
144.0
145.0
143.0
115.6 i
145.0
116.0 i
144.0 i
145.0
2170. m
2170. m
2590. m
2483. m
2230. m
2756. m
2370. m
2370. m
2370. m
3490. m
3250.
3640.
3640.
3640.
3730.
3770.
2057.
2283.
2220.
2023.
2023.
2042.
2268.
2259.
3232.
3112.
3540.
3610.
3065.
3142.
2548.
2375.
2622.
3716.
3394.
4.400
4.900
4.300
3.400
4.600
5.100
3.300
3.300
3.300
4.800
3.200
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.200
4.300
3.000
3.800
3.800
3.500
3.500
3.600
3.900
4.050
4.260 m
4.180 m
4.590 m
4.730 m
4.400 m
4.310 m
3.860
3.290 m
4.040
4.246
3.470
36.7 k
36.7 k
36.2 k
41.2 k
36.4 k
37.3 j
36.5 k
36.5 k
32.4 k
37.5 k
36.4 o
36.0 a
36.0 k
35.6 k
40.5 o
36.1 o
38.4 k
35.7 k
35.8 k
36.4 k
38.9 k
38.0 k
39.7 k
39.8 k
37.1 k
37.0 k
36.8 k
37.3 k
36.8 k
36.9 k
33.5 j
41.7 n
38.9 j
35.8 j
40.6 j
41.4 k
41.4 k
40.3 k
50.9 k
38.7 k
44.2 j
36.5 k
36.5 k
37.5 k
38.8 k
36.4 o
36.0 a
41.3 k
42.0 k
40.5 o
36.1 o
36.5 k
45.2 k
36.7 k
36.4 k
36.6 k
37.4 k
39.0 k
39.0 k
42.2 k
39.6 k
41.3 k
39.9 k
42.2 k
40.9 k
37.5 j
48.8 n
38.1 j
36.7 j
42.4 j
Estimated
Total thickness including height of rib
c
Number of studs between point of maximum moment acting on the composite section and the nearest point of zero moment: (1) No. of ribs
with 1 stud; (2) No. of ribs with 2 studs; (3) No. of ribs with 3 studs; (T) Total no. of studs
d
Maximum spacing between two connector groups in a shear span
e
Concrete density (dry weight)
f
Modulus of elasticity of concrete, computed by ACl formula
g
Compressive strength of concrete at test
h
Yield point of steel beam
i
Wet weight
j
0.2% offset yield stress
k
Static yield stress
l
Two types of deck used
m
Measured by cylinder tests
n
Dynamic yield stress
o
Averaged, flange and web
27
FIRST QUARTER / 1977
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Elastic Behavior The theoretical basis of elastic behavior
for composite beams is essentially that outlined in Ref. 8,
with modifications as adapted in Ref. 9 for beams with
formed steel deck.
Equal curvatures are assumed for the slab and the steel
beam. The horizontal forces, F, transferred between the slab
and the beam by the connectors, are assumed to act at the
centroids of the solid part of the slab and the beam cross
sections as shown in Fig. 4. The total internal moment is
equal to the sum of the individual moments in the slab and
beam, Mc and Ms, respectively, plus the additional couple
produced by the horizontal forces, F. Thus,
M = Mc + Ms + Fz
(2)
(3)
(4)
where
n
Es,Ec
=
=
Is,Ic
Md
Pmax
16.6
21.0
42.8
12.8
23.8
49.3
47.4
18.9
16.8
42.2
22.1
49.7
16.6
50.9
51.2
50.9
51.2
169.4
142.4
107.7
270.5
192.4
93.2
86.4
138.4
140.6
96.4
99.0
158.6
114.2
166.6
142.4
114.6
95.6
Mmax
609.5
519.9
581.3
756.7
697.2
515.3
479.5
503.3
508.9
524.2
537.2
577.2
620.7
599.7
515.0
623.9
529.2
max d
W.
Vh
8.6
10.3
13.1
10.0
12.6
11.0
17.0
17.7
17.6
10.7
14.3
14.5
14.1
7.8
13.9
11.2
11.2
e,f
437.4
344.7
230.3
383.0
445.4
244.2
221.7
436.6
234.7
94.4
125.2
176.6
168.9
437.4
490.5
235.7
268.7
V ' h e, f
Vh
0.824
0.546
0.347
0.675
0.531
0.314
0.402
0.685
0.353
0.117
0.154
0.215
0.255
0.824
0.716
0.292
0.336
Mu
Mmax
Mu
f,g
659.1
551.8
591.7
679.3
709.2
585.6
434.3
518.7
509.4
493.9
527.7
569.5
602.7
656.2
566.9
646.8
612.6
0.93
0.94
0.98
1.11
0.98
0.88
1.10
0.97
1.00
1.06
1.02
1.01
1.03
0.91
0.91
0.97
0.86
Vh
e,g
445.9
369.3
230.9
383.0
446.2
267.5
226.1
436.6
260.6
116.9
134.1
195.5
168.9
445.9
500.8
257.5
294.3
V' h e, h
Vh
0.840
0.585
0.348
0.675
0.532
0.344
0.410
0.685
0.392
0.145
0.165
0.238
0.255
0.840
0.731
0.319
0.368
Mu
g,h
661.4
559.3
591.9
679.3
709.4
597.8
435.9
518.7
518.7
512.2
534.7
581.4
602.9
658.5
569.3
660.3
624.8
Mmax
Mu
0.92
0.93
0.98
1.11
0.98
0.86
1.10
0.97
0.98
1.02
1.01
0.99
1.03
0.91
0.91
0.95
0.85
H h w s
s
Q Qu
h h u
f Qu = 0.6
where
H
= height of stud
h
= height of rib
w
= average width of rib
0.3
0.44
Qu Qu
N h h
where N = number of studs in a rib (other parameters same as above)
Mmax
144.3
165.2
168.5
167.5
191.5
195.8
156.0
181.8
199.3
266.4
223.5
233.9
102.5
108.7
127.8
281.8
V ' h e, f
Vh
0.621
1.000
0.957
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.782
1.000
1.000
0.381
0.535
0.938
0.882
Mu
f,g
159.1
181.6
176.5
178.9
189.1
180.2
180.2
180.2
180.2
260.2
230.8
230.8
91.3
93.4
143.8
270.1
Mmax
Mu
V' h e, h
Vh
0.91
0.91
0.96
0.94
1.01
1.09
0.87
1.01
1.11
1.02
0.97
1.01
1.12
1.16
0.89
1.04
0.690
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.920
1.000
1.000
0.423
0.595
1.000
0.980
Mu
g,h
163.3
181.6
178.9
178.9
189.1
180.2
180.2
180.2
180.2
270.5
230.8
230.8
93.9
96.4
146.7
278.0
Mmax
Mu
0.88
0.91
0.94
0.94
1.01
1.09
0.87
1.01
1.11
0.99
0.97
1.01
1.09
1.13
0.87
1.01
Ref.
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
18
19
19
20
20
20
20
V ' h e,h
Vh
243.9
238.1
243.4
303.0
241.3
528.2
306.2
186.1
181.9
242.3
283.7
252.0
441.2
263.8
252.8
264.3
129.7
199.1
238.3
220.9
228.8
233.9
250.7
499.5
663.2
634.2
554.8
582.8
534.7
604.6
639.9
437.1
475.9
435.4
471.0
447.2
450.6
423.4
404.0
790.6
1084.0
687.3
0.862
1.000
1.000
0.796
0.770
0.301
0.985
0.318
0.329
0.840
0.843
0.752
0.818
1.000
0.610
0.476
0.253
0.630
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.550
0.982
1.000
0.788
0.755
0.577
0.790
0.996
0.481
0.579
0.517
0.637
0.472
0.479
0.534
0.316
0.650
1.000
0.824
Beam
64-15 (H1)
64-15 (E1)
64-15 (E2)
67-38
71 (EPIC)
72-12 (75)
73 (RF)
67-11 (B1)
67-11 (B2)
68-4 (1)
68-5 (2)
69-1
69-12 (4)
70-31 (A)
70-31 (D)
70-31 (C)
69-2 (HR)
67-36 (CU3)
70-5 (C2)
65-19 (BS12)
65-19 (BS11)
67-36 (CU2)
67-36 (CU1)
TEX-1
TEX-2
TEX-3
TEX-4
TEX-5
TEX-6
TEX-7
TEX-8
HHR-1-76
IR-1-76
HHR-2-76
IR-2-76
RF-1-76
RF-2-76
72-12 (80)
75-16
175-75
174-75
16-76
Mu
f,g
222.5
208.7
209.9
276.2
207.6
568.7
322.4
182.8
184.1
257.9
293.5
247.4
491.0
260.0
229.8
563.4
115.5
181.2
211.4
216.4
210.9
227.5
202.8
487.2
612.3
564.7
523.8
539.2
495.0
567.8
615.8
438.2
448.5
440.8
463.4
441.0
436.0
474.2
390.9
782.8
967.7
622.5
Mmax
Mu
V' h e, h
Vh
1.10
1.14
1.16
1.10
1.16
0.93
0.95
1.02
0.99
0.94
0.97
1.02
0.90
1.02
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.10
1.13
1.02
1.09
1.03
1.24
1.03
1.08
1.12
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.00
1.06
0.99
1.02
1.01
1.03
0.89
1.03
1.01
1.12
1.10
0.862
1.000
1.000
0.796
0.770
0.301
0.986
0.319
0.329
0.934
0.937
0.836
0.909
1.000
0.625
0.617
0.359
0.805
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.551
0.982
1.000
0.789
0.756
0.578
0.792
0.996
0.482
0.580
0.518
0.639
0.473
0.480
0.437
0.448
0.656
1.000
0.825
Mu
g,h
222.5
208.7
209.9
276.2
207.6
568.9
322.6
182.9
184.1
265.0
300.9
253.8
502.6
260.0
231.1
599.4
127.3
192.5
211.4
216.4
210.9
227.5
202.8
487.4
612.3
564.7
524.1
539.5
495.3
568.1
615.8
438.4
448.7
441.0
463.6
441.2
436.1
445.3
417.3
784.4
967.7
622.8
Mmax
Mu
1.10
1.14
1.16
1.10
1.16
0.93
0.95
1.02
0.99
0.91
0.94
0.99
0.88
1.02
1.09
1.04
1.02
1.03
1.13
1.02
1.09
1.03
1.24
1.03
1.08
1.12
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.00
1.06
0.99
1.02
1.01
1.03
0.95
0.97
1.01
1.12
1.10
Ref.
21
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
31
9
32
33
34
34
32
32
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
38
38
38
38
38
38
24
39
40
40
41
H h w s
s
Q Qu
h h u
where
H
h
w
= height of stud
= height of rib
= average width of rib
0.3
0.44
= 1.106 As f'c Ec
= capacity of shear connection in solid slab, kips (Ref. 11)
g Predicted flexural capacity, kip-ft
Qu s
h Qu =
0.85 H h w
N
Qu
h
Qu
31
FIRST QUARTER / 1977
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
32
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
through the slab to the top of the rib. From there, the failure
surface propagates through the rib along a path of least
resistance to a natural termination. With narrow slabs, the
failure surface is smaller (a horizontal plane at the top of the
rib), resulting in a weaker connection. With the wide slabs,
there were very few incidents of horizontal rib cracking as
shown in Fig. 9. The predominant connector failure mode
was a punch-through failure, as shown in Fig.
33
Fig. 12. Moment ratio us. degree of partial shear connection for Eq.
(1)
Fig. 14. Moment ratio vs. rib height for Eq. (1) with Ref. 5 data base
Fig. 13. Moment ratio vs. rib height for Eq. (1)
34
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Fig. 16. Moment ratio vs. degree of partial shear connection for Eq.
(5)
Fig. 15. Moment ratio vs. rib height for Eq. (5)
(5)
where
Qrib
w
h
H
Qsol
A
=
=
=
=
=
=
shows the test data replotted, and indicates about the same
degree of correlation as provided by Eq. (5) (see Fig. 15).
Many beams with single connectors in a rib were not
significantly affected, as they had more than enough
connectors to ensure full composite action. Also, there is no
difference between Eqs. (5) and (6) for two studs in a rib, as
0.6. Only one test is available with three studs in
0.85/ 2 ~
a rib; however, Eq. (6) gave a better prediction of flexural
capacity than Eq. (5). A second test with a combination of
two and three connectors in a rib was also in agreement with
Eq. (6). Push-off tests reported in Ref. 14 with as many as
five studs per rib depict a variation in connector capacity due
to the number of studs in a rib similar to that indicated by Eq.
(6). Thus it appears that Eq. (6) provides a reasonable
prediction of connector capacity for varying numbers of shear
connectors in a rib.
A variable whose effect may be questioned is the
embedment length of the connector above the rib. This
variable, as mentioned previously, was not considered in the
Lehigh test program. Beams with an embedment length
greater than 1 in. generally have higher test moments than
predicted. Thus, Eq. (5) or (6) provides a conservative
estimate of capacity. Additional tests carried out at the
University of Texas and at Lehigh have verified the effect of
embedment length above the rib. 36,38
Despite the scatter in Figs. 12 through 17 due to material
properties and the indeterminate location of the stress
resultant in the slab, Eqs. (5) or (6) enable one to reasonably
predict the flexural capacity of a beam with formed steel
deck. The key variables are the rib geometry and stud
embedment length above the rib. No other variables were
found to affect the scatter band of the test data uniformly,
including three of the additional variables considered in the
Lehigh test program: yield strength of steel, degree of partial
shear connection, and rib slope. The mean value of the ratio
of test moment to predicted moment in Fig. 15 was 1.024,
with a standard deviation of 0.082. Thus only a few beams
exhibited less capacity and a substantial number provided
more capacity than predicted. For Fig. 17, these values were
1.015 and 0.081, respectively.
A concern is the fact that Eqs. (5) and (6) imply a
reduced capacity of systems constructed with 3-in. decks with
connectors proportioned by Eq. (1). Although a reduced
shear connector capacity results with 3-in. ribs and 1-in.
embedment, no adverse behavior or failures have resulted.
Such systems have given satisfactory performance to date
because there is structural benefit gained by a composite
beam in a building due to the diaphragm action of the slabfloor system and other inherent redundancies. In addition,
most composite beams were designed at or near full
composite action. Having a reduced shear connection
capacity results in a beam with partial shear connection. It
has been well established from this study and others 6,15 that
the reduction in flexural capacity is small compared to the
corresponding reduction in the degree of partial shear
connection for beams at or near full composite action.
Fig. 17. Moment ratio vs. rib height for Eq. (6)
0.85 H h w
Qsol Qsol
N h h
(6)
V 'h
Ieff = Is +
Vh
where
Ieff =
Is =
Itr =
(Itr Is)
(7)
37
FIRST QUARTER / 1977
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Ieff = Is +
V'h
(Itr Is)
Vh
(8)
38
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Vh
(Str Ss)
(9)
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
40
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
085
. H h w
Qsol Qsol
N h h
V'h
(Itr Is)
Vh
V ' h
Seff = Ss +
(Str Ss)
Vh
with = or
and where Ss is the section modulus of
the steel beam used in composite design referred to the
bottom flange, Str is the section modulus of the
transformed composite section, referred to the bottom
flange, and V h and Vh are the horizontal shears
mentioned previously. If =
is used, the minimum
shear connection should be about 40%.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The testing described in this report was conducted at Fritz
Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University. The tests were
carried out with the assistance of K. Harpel and his staff. R.
Blough and K. Wickham assisted in the data reduction.
41
FIRST QUARTER / 1977
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
REFERENCES
1. Dallaire, E. E. Cellular Steel Floors Mature Civil Engineering
Magazine, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 41, No. 7,
July 1971.
2. duPlessis, D. P. and J. H. Daniels Strength of Composite Beamto-Column Connections Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report
No. 374.3, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa., Nov. 1973.
3. Oestreich, M. C. Evaluation of the C2 Shear Connector
Research & Development Section, Report T1452, Part II,
Granco Steel Products Co., St. Louis, Mo., March 1969.
4. Robinson, H. Tests of Composite Beams with Cellular Deck
Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 93, No. ST4, Aug. 1967.
5. Fisher, J. W. Design of Composite Beams with Formed Metal
Deck AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1970.
6. Slutter, R. G. and G. C. Driscoll Flexural Strength of SteelConcrete Composite Beams Journal of the Structural Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No. ST2, April
1965.
7. Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of
Structural Steel for Buildings American Institute of Steel
Construction, New York, N.Y., 1969.
8. Siess, C. P., I. M. Viest, and N. M. Newmark Small-Scale Tests
of Shear Connectors and Composite T-Beams Bulletin No. 396,
Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill., 1952.
9. Robinson, H. Composite Beam Incorporating Cellular Steel
Decking Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 95, No. ST3, March 1969.
10. Supplement No. 3 to the Specification for the Design,
Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings
American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, N.Y.,
effective June 12, 1974.
11. Ollgaard, J. G., R. G. Slutter, and J. W. Fisher Shear Strength
of Stud Connectors in Lightweight and Normal Weight Concrete
AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1971.
12. Robinson, H. and I. W. Wallace Composite Beams with Partial
Connection Meeting preprint No. 1549, ASCE Annual and
National Environmental Engineering St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 18-22,
1971.
13. Grant, J. A., Jr. Tests of Composite Beams with Formed Metal
Deck M.S. Thesis, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa., Oct.
1973.
14. Iyengar, S. H. and J. J. Zils Composite Floor System for Sears
Tower AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Vol. 10, No. 3, 3rd Quarter 1973.
15. McGarraugh, J. B. and J. W. Baldwin Lightweight Concrete-onSteel Composite Beams AISC Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 1971.
16. Grant, J. A., Jr., J. W. Fisher, and R. G. Slutter Design Criteria
for Composite Beams with Formed Metal Deck presented at the
ASCE National Structural Engineering Meeting, Cincinnati,
42
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
43
FIRST QUARTER / 1977
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.