Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Optimum use of composite structures for demountable construction T

a,⁎ a,b a
Ana M. Girão Coelho , R. Mark Lawson , Eleftherios S. Aggelopoulos
a
The Steel Construction Institute, Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7QN, UK
b
Department of Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper explores the concept of the optimum span to depth ratio of reusable composite beams with de-
Composite construction mountable bolted shear connectors so that the beams may be designed most efficiently in terms of their weight
Deconstructability and the shear connector distribution along the span. Three patterns of shear connectors were evaluated by a
Demountable shear connectors simple pseudo-plastic model and calibrated by finite element modules in terms of their effect on the overall
Design optimisation
composite beam stiffness in the range of 9 to 15 m span. The optimum span to depth ratio of symmetrical and
Slip characteristics
Sustainability
asymmetrical beams was determined and compared to equivalent beams with welded shear connectors. It was
found that the optimum span to depth ratio of uniformly loaded unpropped composite beams with demountable
bolted shear connectors may be taken as 22 which allows for a utilisation factor of 0.7 at the ultimate limit state
to ensure that plasticity does not occur in the first use cycle. It was found that the effect of asymmetry on the
optimum span to depth ratio is small. For propped beams with demountable shear connectors, the optimum span
to depth ratio may be increased to 24.

1. Introduction
The concept of demounting and reuse of composite beams requires a
new way of thinking in terms of the most efficient application of these
beams with bolted shear connectors that includes their optimum dis-
tribution and a sensible range of beam span to depth ratios to be able to
create the lightest beam in the first and subsequent cycles of use. This
should take account of the different stiffness and resistance character-
istics of demountable (in this case bolted) shear connectors which af-
fects the bending resistance and overall stiffness of the beam. The re-
ference case is that of a composite beam with welded shear connectors.
This paper explores the concept of the optimum use of composite
beams with demountable bolted shear connectors so that the beams
may be designed most efficiently in terms of their weight and with the
minimum number of shear connectors, whose installation and reuse
costs will have a significant effect on the overall cost of the demoun-
table construction system.
1.1. Scope and objectives
The optimum use of a steel or composite beam occurs when the
bending resistance and the critical serviceability criteria are close to
their limiting values. This is expressed in terms of an optimum span to
depth ratio for which the minimum weight solution is obtained. (The
depth always refers to the steel beam depth.) Designs with greater span
to depth ratios are controlled by serviceability limits and the bending
resistance is not reached. Designs with smaller span to depth ratios are
relatively stiff and typically fail by bending (or shear for very short span
beams).
The limiting span to depth ratio is also dependent on the design
strength of the steel, the loading pattern, and the utilisation of the beam
at the ultimate limit state (the Utilisation Factor, or UF). Many de-
signers work to a bending UF < 1.0 (e.g. 0.8) at the Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) to allow for other effects, e.g. bolt holes, possibility of future web
openings, flange notches, etc. that will reduce the bending and shear
resistance of the steel section. In the case of beams with demountable
shear connectors, this UF has to be lower in order to ensure that plas-
ticity is not developed in the first use cycle at the ULS in order to allow
for subsequent reuse without deformation of the shear connectors. It
was found that elastic conditions hold when UF = 0.7 and so this UF is
used in a pseudo-plastic analysis of unpropped composite beams with
demountable shear connectors. For propped beams, the shear connector
forces are higher and so the limit is taken as UF = 0.6, see Fig. 1 as an
example [1].
Regarding the potential reuse of steel and composite beams in the
circular economy, the wide range of spans and beam sizes can be re-
duced considerably if designers work to a narrow range of span to depth
ratios. For beams subject to uniform loading, this should be in the range

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.girao-coelho@steel-sci.com (A.M. Girão Coelho), m.lawson@steel-sci.com (R.M. Lawson), e.aggelopoulos@steel-sci.com (E.S. Aggelopoulos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.03.005
Received 16 January 2019; Received in revised form 8 March 2019; Accepted 8 March 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

700
L/300
600 Maximum moment, Mmax

Beam moment (kNm)

500

400
0.6Mmax (UF = 0.6)
300

200

100
Elastic stiffness
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Mid-span deflection (mm)
Fig. 1. Moment versus mid-span deflection behaviour in a test of a 6 m composite in four-point bending beam using an IPE 360 section in propped construction [1].

Section area: (Same) Section

area:

a) Symmetric steel beam b) Asymmetric steel beam

Fig. 2. Generic IPE steel beams with asymmetry ratio r.

of 18 to 20 for steel beams and 22 to 25 for composite beams with
welded shear connectors. It follows that an IPE 500 beam would span 9
to 10 m as a bare steel section and 11 to 12.5 m as a composite beam.
The study extends to the use of demountable bolted shear connectors
which are a more flexible form of shear connection system and
therefore leads to higher beam deflections than welded studs. The effect
is to reduce the maximum span to depth ratio to 17–22 for demountable
shear connectors for optimum performance, and therefore the same IPE
500 beam would have an optimum span of 8.5 to 11 m.
The objectives of this study were therefore to:

117
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

1. Determine the optimum span to depth ratio of steel and composite 2. General equations for bending resistance and stiffness
beams when the design at the ULS and the controlling serviceability
limit are closely matched in terms of the beam size. 2.1. Design criteria
2. Consider the characteristics of demountable shear connectors in
terms of their resistance and stiffness on the design of composite 2.1.1. Design at ultimate limit states
beams and to determine the optimum span to depth ratio compared For a simply supported beam of span, L the design bending moment
to beams with welded shear connectors. MEd is:
3. Analyse the effect of more efficient distribution of the demountable
qEd L2
shear connectors to improve the beam stiffness and hence to in- MEd =
8 (1)
crease the optimum span to depth ratio.
4. Analyse the effect of propped construction. where qEd is the factored load per unit length, and
5. Evaluate the effect of the beam asymmetry on the optimum span to qEd = 1.35qp + 1.50qi.
depth ratio. The imposed load qi is expressed as a multiple of the permanent load
6. Make recommendations for the optimum span to depth ratio for all qp (includes self-weight of the beam) and the range of application is
the analysed cases in order to potentially improve the reuse of taken as: qi = qp to qi = 1.5qp. For a specific design load:
composite beams with shear connectors in unpropped and propped MEd ≤ UFMpl,Rd (2)
construction.
where Mpl,Rd is the plastic bending resistance of the beam.
1.2. Cases considered and basic assumptions From Eqs. (1) and (2), it follows that the beam span is determined at
the ULS from:
In order to provide accurate limiting span to depth ratios for designs 0.5
8Mpl,Rd ⎞
to EN 1994-1-1 [2], the following cases are analysed: L ≤ ⎛⎜UF ⎟

⎝ qEd ⎠ (3)
• Beams are simply supported and are subject to uniformly distributed
loading. 2.1.2. Design at serviceability limit states
• Steel beams using IPE 240 to IPE 750 sections, although the same The optimised span to depth ratio is dependent on the serviceability
general observations would apply to UB sections. criteria, which are expressed as follows for office and similar buildings:
• Composite beams using IPE 240 to IPE 750 steel sections and de-
signed for Partial Shear connection (PS) at the ULS, see Section 1) Imposed load deflection δi ≤ span/360 (also including the super-
2.2.2. imposed dead loads). This is taken as less than the Eurocode limit of
• Asymmetric composite beams with bottom to top flange areas in the span/300 in order to avoid damage to finishes. The limit span cor-
range of 1 to 3, see Fig. 2. (Asymmetric refers to the areas on the responding to serviceability verification of imposed load deflections
flanges of the steel section.) for uniformly loaded beams is given as follows for a total imposed
• Steel grade considered as a variable and is expressed as relative to load of qi + 0.25qp:
S355, which is considered to be a standard grade for composite
design. 5(qi + 0.25qp ) L4 L
δi = ≤
• The concrete grade is taken as C30/37, with a design strength in 384EIy 360 (4)
compression fcd = 30/1.5 = 20 N/mm2 [3].
• The slab depth is taken as 130 mm and the deck profile as 60 mm
where Iy is the second moment of area of the beam. Inserting the lim-
iting vale of L from Eq. (3) gives a maximum span of:
deep with deck ribs at 300 mm spacing.
• The effective slab width beff is taken as beam span/4 (≈6 × beam
L≤
6 EIy qEd 1
height, ha). 225 Mpl,Rd qi + 0.25qp UF (5)
• The Utilisation Factor (UF) is expressed as the ratio of the applied
moment to the plastic bending resistance of the section, Mpl,Rd. A 2) Total load deflection δt ≤ span/250. This limit is used to avoid
UF = 0.7 is the recommended design case for demountable shear visible deflections and to be able to install partitions and ceilings,
connectors for unpropped beams to ensure that plasticity does not etc. An upper limit is not necessary as the absolute deflection is also
occur in the first cycle of use. limited by the natural frequency of the beam.
• The data for demountable shear connectors is based on tests on the a) For steel beams, the total load deflection is calculated for the
use of M20 bolts with nuts above and below the flange (type P2.2 in unfactored design load qt, given by the sum of the permanent and
[4]) which are performed in pairs with a slab depth of 150 mm. This imposed loads qt = qi + qp. Inserting L from Eq. (3) gives:
performance is relatively insensitive to the slab depth.
• The ratio of imposed (variable) qi to permanent load qp, is taken as L≤
24 EIy qEd 1
625 Mpl,Rd qt UF (6)
qi/qp = 1.0 and 1.5 to cover the sensible range of applications, but
not industrial buildings. The ratio of 1.5 is typical of commercial
buildings and 1.0 for residential buildings. b) For unpropped composite beams, the self-weight loads act on the
• The construction condition also affects the optimum span to depth steel beam and the imposed and superimposed loads act on the
ratio. In unpropped construction, the self-weight of the slab and the composite beam. The total load deflection of an unpropped com-
beam act on the steel section. In propped beams, all loads act on the posite beam arises from (i) the deflection of the steel beam due to
composite section and therefore the shear connector forces are in- the slab weight qsw, here taken as 0.75qp, and (ii) the deflection of
creased. the composite beam due to the permanent actions 0.25qp and the
• For calculation of the self-weight deflection of unpropped composite imposed load qi. This is given by the following expression:
beams, the slab self-weight is notionally taken as qsw = 0.75qp, and
5 × 0.75qp L4 5 × (0.25qp + qi ) L4 L
so the superimposed dead load is qd = 0.25qp. δt = + ≤
384EIy,a 384EIy,comp 250 (7)
where Iy,a is the second moment of area of the steel beam, and Iy,comp is

118
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

the second moment of area of the composite beam. For asymmetric composite beams, the p.n.a. lies also in the steel
web, and the depth of the web in compression is obtained from:
c) For propped composite beams, the self-weight loads act also on the 2(r − 1)
composite beam which adds to the deflection of the composite ⎡Aw + Af ⎤ fy − ηNc,f
yw = ⎣ ⎦
r+1
ha ≥ 0
section. The composite stiffness for the self-weight loads, Iy,comp,1, is 2Aw fy (12)
computed using the modular ratio for long term loading nL, and
Iy,comp,2 is the same using as for unpropped beams. The plastic bending resistance is now given by the following ex-
pression:
3) Natural frequency of the beams, f ≥ 4 Hz for single members, which 2Af fy Aw fy ⎡ yw2 (ha − yw )2 ⎤
is a reasonable design value but may not be sufficient to satisfy Mpl,Rd = [yw + r (ha − yw )] + ⎢ + ⎥
1+r ha ⎣ 2 2
requirements for control of vibration of floors in all cases [5]. The ⎦
natural frequency of the beam is calculated from a simple expres- h
+ ηNc,f ⎛ c + h p + yw ⎞
sion: ⎝2 ⎠ (13)
18
f=
δsw (8) 2.3. Composite beam stiffness

where δsw is the deflection due to the self-weight and superimposed

2.3.1. Modular ratios
loads plus a nominal 10% imposed load, in [mm]. For a composite
Different modular ratios are defined below to calculate deflections
beam, this deflection is calculated (i) for loads applied to the composite
of composite beams based on guidance given in ref. [7]. For short term
section, (ii) rigid connectors, and (iii) using the dynamic modular ratio
loading, the secant modular ratio n0 is given by:
for the beam composite stiffness.
Ea
n0 =
2.2. Plastic bending resistance Ecm (14)
where Ea is the modulus of elasticity of structural steel, given as
2.2.1. Steel beams 210 kN/mm2 in EN 1993-1-1 [6], Ecm is the secant modulus of elasticity
For plastic design of Class 1 and 2 sections and subject to low shear, for short term loading, for concrete, given in Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1
the bending resistance is: [3].
Wpl fy For long term loading, the modular ratio nL should be calculated
Mpl,Rd = from:
γM0 (9)
nL = n 0 (1 + ψL φt ) (15)
where Wpl is the plastic modulus of the cross-section; fy is the yield
strength of steel; and γM0 is the partial factor for resistance of cross- where ψL is the creep multiplier, taken as 1.1 for permanent loads; and
sections, taken as unity in EN 1993-1-1 [6]. φt is the creep coefficient, taken as 1.5 for unpropped beams and 3.0 for
propped beams.
2.2.2. Composite beams When calculating deflections due to variable actions, the modular
Consider a composite beam with partial shear connection, in which ratio n takes account of the likely proportion of short and long term
η is the degree of shear connection. For symmetric steel beam the case loading, as follows:
where the plastic neutral axis (p.n.a.) is in the steel web, the height of 1 2
the web in compression yw is given by: n= nL + n 0
3 3 (16)
Aw fy − ηNc,f
yw = ha ≥ 0 For dynamic conditions (i.e. natural frequency calculations), the
2Aw fy (10) value of the modulus of elasticity of concrete Ec is taken as Ec = 38 kN/
m2, see [5], and the modular ratio nd is defined as:
where Aw is the area of the web of the steel cross-section;
Aw = Aa − 2Af; Af is the area of one flange of the steel cross-section; ha Ea
nd =
is the depth of the steel section; Nc,f is the compression resistance of the Ec (17)
effective area of the concrete flange acting compositely with the steel
section, =0.85fcdbeffhc ≤ Aafy; fcd is the design strength of concrete in 2.3.2. Second moment of area of composite section
compression; beff is the effective width, that is taken here as = 6ha; and The second moment of area of an asymmetric composite section
hc is the depth of the concrete above the steel sheeting profile. Eq. (10) with rigid shear connectors is given by:
assumes hw ≈ ha, in which hw is the web depth. When the p.n.a. lies in
the web, the plastic bending resistance of the composite beam is de- Iy,c beff hc Aa
Iy,comp, ∞ = Iy,a + + (h p + 0.5h c + ys )2
termined from: n nAa + beff h c (18)

Aw fy ⎡ yw2 (ha − yw )2 ⎤ where Iy,a is the second moment of area of the steel beam; Iy,c is the
Mpl,Rd = Af fy ha + + ⎛ hc ⎞ h3
⎥ + ηNc,f ⎝ 2 + h p + yw ⎠
b
⎢
ha ⎣ 2 2 second moment of area of the concrete slab = eff12 c ; Aa is the area of the
⎦
steel cross-section; hp is the depth of the steel sheeting profile; and ys is
(11)
the depth of the elastic neutral axis of the steel beam from the top
For composite beams, the concrete slab contributes to resisting the flange = ha/2 for a symmetric section.
compressive stresses in the upper portion of the cross-section, and so The second moment of area of an asymmetric composite section
asymmetric steel beams, in which the top flange has a smaller cross- with flexible shear connectors, with stiffness ksc, at a uniform long-
sectional area than the bottom flange, are more efficient. In the current itudinal spacing, ssc,eq, is given by [8] as:
study, the beam asymmetry is created by reducing the top flange
Iy,c beff hc Aa (h p + 0.5hc + ys )2
thickness and increasing the bottom flange thickness by the same Iy,comp = Iy,a + +
n π 2 Ea ssc,eq
amount, therefore keeping the total area of the section constant, see nAa + beff hc ⎡1 +
⎣
()
L k sc
Aa ⎤
⎦ (19)
Fig. 2. The asymmetry ratio r is defined as the ratio between the areas of
the bottom and top flanges. This formula reduces to Eq. (18) when ksc = ∞. It also applies to

119
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Slip

Num. res. P2.2 distrib. SC-A2

Cosine slip function

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

x/L
Fig. 3. Cosine slip function along a 12 m span IPE 500 beam, compared to finite element models for demountable shear connectors.

150 mm
/2 = 6 m

a) SC-A1: Uniform distribution at 600 mm spacing, in pairs (40 connectors; this distribution is
“equivalent” to single connectors at 300 mm)

150 mm
/6 = 1.95 m /3 = 4.05 m
b) SC-A2: Pairs at 300 mm spacing for the sixth span and singly at 600 mm spacing for the middle
two-thirds span (40 connectors)

150 mm
1.05 m 4.95 m

c) SC-A3: Pairs at 300 mm spacing for the twelfth span and singly at 600 mm spacing for the
middle part (32 connectors, 20% reduction in number of connectors)
Fig. 4. Different distributions of demountable shear connectors (in this case for 12 m beam span).

welded shear connectors, which are placed at uniform spacing based on
the centre spacing of the deck ribs (nominally 300 mm). The RFCS
project DISCCo [9] gave the following typical stiffnesses for 19 mm
diameter welded shear connectors in combination with profiled decking
of 60 to 80 mm depth:
• Single shear connectors: k = 70 kN/mm per deck rib.
sc
• Pairs of shear connectors: k = 100 kN/mm per deck rib.
sc
For a particular distribution of shear connectors, the compression
force Fc,s developed in the slab is determined by integration of the shear
connector forces over the half-span considering a cosine slip function
along the beam for uniform loading. The accuracy of the cosine func-
tion is compared to finite element results in Fig. 3 and the numerical
results are presented in Section 6.1.2. Based on this assumption, the
sum of the shear connector forces is given as follows:
L /2
Fc,s = s ∫ sscksc(x ) cos ⎛⎝ πxL ⎞⎠ dx
0 (20)
where s is the end slip; ksc is the stiffness of a shear connector; and ssc(x)
is the spacing of the shear connectors at position x from a support. The
compression force Fc,s directly determines the stiffness of the composite
section as influenced by the stiffness of the shear connectors. A non-
uniform distribution of shear connectors may be included in the ef-
fective stiffness in Eq. (19) by integrating Eq. (20) for the particular
pattern of shear connectors. Fig. 4 shows the cases of shear connector
distribution in order to determine the equivalent uniform spacing ssc,eq
for use in Eq. (19).

120
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Fig. 5. Maximum spans for IPE beams using S355 steel for all serviceability limits for UF = 0.7.

Equivalent uniform spacing for distribution SC-A1 The number of shear connectors nsc for this particular distribution is
obtained from:
For demountable shear connectors, a uniform distribution at
0.5L L
600 mm in pairs is taken equivalent to single connectors at 300 mm nsc = int ⎛ ⎞ = int ⎛ ⎞
⎝ 0.3 ⎠ ⎝ 0.6 ⎠ (21)
because it was found that the performance of demountable shear con-
nectors is not affected when they are placed in pairs due to the presence in which the span L is in [m].
of edge trim or edge angle, unlike welded shear connectors. Therefore:
Equivalent uniform spacing for distribution SC-A2
ssc,eq = 300 mm

121
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Table 1 L /11 L /2
k sc πx k sc πx
Maximum spans to depth ratios for IPE beams using S355 steel and UF = 0.7. Fc,s,SC‐A3 = s ∫ ssc,1
cos ⎛ ⎞ dx + s
⎝ L⎠
∫ 4ssc,1
cos ⎛ ⎞ dx
⎝ L⎠
0 L /11
Beam section qi = qp qi = 1.5qp
sL k sc
= 0.461
IPE240 20 21 π ssc,1 (23)
IPE300 21 21
IPE400 20 21 The equivalent uniform spacing of the shear connectors is therefore:
IPE500 19 21 ssc,1
IPE600 18 19 ssc,eq = = 325 mm
IPE750 × 134 16 17 0.461

3. Limiting span to depth ratio for steel beams

To optimise the performance of beams with demountable shear
connectors, a distribution closer to the elastic shear flow is preferred. For the simpler case of steel beams, the results of the ULS and ser-
Therefore the spacing of the shear connectors in distribution SC-A2 is viceability criteria are expressed as the limiting span for steel beam
taken at 150 mm over the outer span/6 length and at 600 mm in the sizes, IPE 240 to IPE 750 in S355 steel for a UF = 0.7 in Fig. 5. It is
middle 2/3 of the span. This leads to the same number of shear con- apparent that the imposed load limit is not critical in comparison to the
nectors as SC-A1. The compression force that is developed in the slab at total deflection limit and that the natural frequency limit becomes
mid-span is obtained from Eq. (20), as follows: critical for beam spans L > 12 m.
L /6 L /2
For a practical utilisation factor, UF = 0.7 and use of S355 steel, the
Fc,s,SC‐A2 = s ∫ sksc,1
sc πx
⎝ L⎠
k
4ssc,1
πx
cos ⎛ ⎞ dx + s ∫ sc cos ⎛ ⎞ dx
⎝ L⎠
maximum span to depth ratios (L/h) vary according to Table 1. An
approximate formula for the limiting span to depth ratio that links UF
0 L /6
sL k sc and the steel strength, fy is:
= 0.625
π ssc,1 (22) L 12 f y ⎞ 0.7
≤ 21 ⎛ ⎞ ⎛⎜ ⎟⎛ ⎞
h ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ 355 ⎠ ⎝ UF ⎠ (24)
The equivalent uniform spacing of the shear connectors is therefore:
It is apparent that the limiting L/h ratio for a steel beam using S355
ssc,1
ssc,eq = = 240 mm steel may be taken as 21 for UF = 0.7. The coefficient is taken as
0.625 21 × (12/L) for L ≥ 12 m for cases controlled by the natural frequency
limit.
Equivalent uniform spacing for distribution SC-A3
4. Limiting span to depth ratio for composite beams
The number of demountable shear connectors may be reduced by
considering the case of SC-A3. The spacing of the shear connectors is at 4.1. Shear connection characteristics for demountable shear connectors
150 mm over the outer span/11 length and at 600 mm in the middle 9/
11 of the span. This leads to 20% fewer shear connectors than SC-A1. 4.1.1. Idealised load-slip curves
The compression force that is developed in the slab at mid-span is ob- Fig. 6 shows the simplified multi-linear load slip response for the
tained from Eq. (19), as follows: demountable shear connector system P2.2 and its important char-
acteristics of design resistance and initial stiffness. This idealised curve
has been obtained from the average experimental results presented in
[4]. The average maximum value of load is Pmax,av = 72.6 kN and so the

80

60
Design resistance, PRd
Load (kN)

40 Pd,2mm

ksc,sec = 20.9 kN/mm

20

ksc,ini = 28.7 kN/mm

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slip (mm)
Fig. 6. Idealised load-slip behaviour for the demountable bolted shear connectors P2.2, [4].

122
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al.
Fig. 7. Maximum spans for symmetric composite beams using S355 steel designed for bolted shear connector, P2.2 and distribution SC-A2 using unpropped con-
struction for the serviceability limits with UF = 0.7.
Fig. 8. Maximum spans for symmetric composite beams using S355 steel designed for bolted shear connector, P2.2 and distribution SC-A2 using propped con-
struction for the serviceability limits with UF = 0.7.
characteristic value Pk is taken as:
P k = Pmax,av − 2.92σ = 72.6 − 2.92 × 2.80 = 64 kN
where σ is the standard deviation (=2.80 kN), and “2.92” is the Stu-
dent's t parameter for a sample of three replicates in the tests.
The design resistance of the shear connectors is:
Pk
PRd =
γv (25)
where γv is the partial factor, taken as 1.25 [2]. Therefore for the de-
mountable bolted shear connectors, PRd = 51 kN.
The initial stiffness ksc,ini, and the secant stiffness at the design
123
Structures 20 (2019) 116–133
resistance level ksc,sec are also shown in Fig. 6. These values are used for
further calculations of the second moment of area of the composite
section, taking into account the flexibility of the shear connectors, as
given by Eq. (19), and for both propped and unpropped construction.
The other representative load level noted in the graph of Fig. 6 is
Pd,2mm, which is a design value computed from the load value at a slip
of 2 mm, from the idealised load-slip curve. This 2 mm limit corre-
sponds to a lower bound for stud resistance. Pd,2mm is obtained from the
experimental curves [4], using the same above basic equations:
P k,2mm = P2mm,av − 2.92σ = 48.4 − 2.92 × 2.19 = 42 kN
and so,
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Fig. 9. Maximum span to depth ratios for symmetric unpropped composite beams using S355 steel for UF = 0.7, for different shear connectors arrangements.

Table 2
Comparisons of optimum span to depth ratios for symmetric composite beams using S355 steel for UF = 0.7.
Loading qi = qp Loading qi = 1.5qp

Degree of shear connection Welded studs Bolted shear connector, P2.2 Welded studs Bolted shear connector, P2.2

SC-A1 SC-A2 SC-A3 SC-A1 SC-A2 SC-A3

η= 0.35 0.26 to 0.29 0.21 to 0.23 0.35 0.26 to 0.29 0.21 to 0.23

Beam Unpropped construction

IPE240 20 20 20 21 23 21 22 22
IPE300 21 20 21 21 23 21 22 23
IPE400 22 21 21 22 24 22 23 23
IPE500 22 21 21 21 23 22 23 23
IPE600 22 21 21 22 24 22 23 23
IPE750 × 134 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 23
Beam Propped construction
IPE240 33 27 29 29 34 28 30 29
IPE300 32 27 28 28 32 27 29 28
IPE400 29 26 28 27 31 27 28 28
IPE500 25 26 27 27 28 27 28 27
IPE600 23 26 25 27 25 26 28 27
IPE750 × 134 20 23 22 23 22 25 25 26

P k,2mm 42 4.2. Analysis results for symmetric composite beams

Pd,2mm = = = 34 kN
γv 1.25
For composite beams using S355 steel and C30/37 concrete and
with UF = 0.7, the maximum spans corresponding to the three servi-
ceability criteria are shown below for the case of distribution SC-A2 for
4.1.2. Degree of shear connection demountable shear connectors, see also Fig. 4. The degree of shear
The degree of shear connection η is defined in clause 6.6.1.2 of EN connection varies between 0.26 and 0.29, in this case. The graphs are
1994-1-1 [2], and may be given as follows: presented for unpropped and propped construction.
The shear connectors behaviour is characterised by the initial
PRd nsc stiffness ksc,ini and the design resistance PRd, as shown in Fig. 6. For
η=
Nc,f (26) qi = 1.5qp, Figs. 7 and 8 show the maximum spans corresponding to the
three serviceability criteria for unpropped and propped construction,
where nsc is the number of shear connectors provided in a beam length respectively. The graphs show that all designs of unpropped beams are
between points of zero and maximum moment, and is independent of controlled by the total deflection limit. For propped construction, the
the shear connector arrangement; and Nc,f is the longitudinal force for optimum span to depth ratio increases relative to unpropped beams.
full shear connection given by the smaller of the compression resistance Fig. 9 shows the variation of the span to depth ratio for unpropped
of the concrete slab or tensile resistance of the steel beam. construction for qi = 1.5qp for the cases of demountable shear

124
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Table 3
Comparisons: span to depth ratios for asymmetric composite beams (r = 3) using S355 steel for UF = 0.7.
Degree of shear connection, Loading qi = qp Loading qi = 1.5qp
η=
Welded studs Bolted shear connector, P2.2 Welded studs Bolted shear connector, P2.2

SC-A1 SC-A2 SC-A3 SC-A1 SC-A2 SC-A3

0.35 0.26 to 0.29 0.21 to 0.23 0.35 0.26 to 0.29 0.21 to 0.23

Beam Unpropped construction

IPE240 17 17 17 18 19 18 19 20
IPE300 18 17 18 19 20 19 20 21
IPE400 19 18 19 20 21 20 21 22
IPE500 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22
IPE600 20 19 20 21 22 21 22 22
IPE750 × 134 20 20 20 21 22 21 22 23
Beam Propped construction
IPE240 32 27 29 29 33 28 30 30
IPE300 32 26 28 29 33 27 29 29
IPE400 31 27 28 29 32 27 29 29
IPE500 30 27 28 28 31 27 29 29
IPE600 27 27 28 28 30 27 29 29
IPE750 × 134 24 25 25 25 26 27 27 28

Table 4
Summary of finite element analysis results for different beam sizes and spans (unpropped construction).
Analysis case Numerical test

SCA2-400-P2.2-U SCA2-500-P2.2-U SCA2-600-P2.2-U SCA2-750-P2.2-U

Beam section IPE400 IPE500 IPE600 IPE750 × 161

Beam span (m) 9 12 15 18
L/h 22.5 24 25 24
Number of shear connectors, nsc 16 20 25 30
Degree of shear connection, η 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
Beam displacement due to imposed loads at UF = 0.5 20.6 mm 26.8 mm 34.8 mm 38.2 mm
Span/360 limit 25 mm 33 mm 42 mm 50 mm
End slip at ULS 4.2 mm (< 6 mm) 4.4 mm (< 6 mm) 5.4 mm (< 6 mm) 5.8 mm (< 6 mm)

connectors and the three shear connector distributions from Fig. 4, and
welded studs, which has 35% partial shear connection. Welded studs
were modelled in two ways: (i) as rigid connectors (data “Rigid, unif.”),
and (ii) as flexible connectors (data “WStuds”). The span to depth ratios
are higher for rigid connectors, in which the additional deflection due
to partial shear connection is not taken into account. In the second case,
the flexibility of the studs is taken as ksc = 70 kN/mm [9]. Table 2
summarises these results for the case of flexible connectors and the
following trends are apparent:
• The optimum span to depth ratios is greater for propped construc-
tion using welded studs in comparison to demountable shear con-
nectors.
• By comparing the type of rigid or flexible behaviour of welded studs,
it is evident that the span to depth ratio decreases by 14% to 7% for
unpropped construction over the range of beam depths. The
equivalent figures for propped construction are 28% and 9%, which
indicate a more significant effect of the shear connector stiffness on
the span to depth ratio for the propped case.
• For the demountable shear connectors, the span to depth ratio is
slightly greater for distribution SC-A2, particularly in the case of
beams deeper than 360 mm, which is the typical range of composite
beams. For this reason, the SC-A2 distribution of demountable shear
connectors is taken for further comparisons.
construction, the difference is 20%.
4.3. Analysis results for asymmetric composite beams
For asymmetric composite beams using S355 steel and C30/37
concrete, and with UF = 0.7, the span to depth ratios are summarised in
Tables 3 and 4 respectively for asymmetry ratios r = 2 and r = 3, the
latter being the upper limit in EN 1994-1-1 [2]. The shear connectors
behaviour is characterised by the initial stiffness, ksc,ini and the design
resistance, PRd, as in Fig. 6. The conclusions are identical to those
drawn in Section 4.2, although the optimum span to depth ratios vary
slightly.
4.4. Sensitivity analysis to shear connection load-slip characteristics
4.4.1. Parameters
The variables considered in the sensitivity analysis were the initial
and secant shear connector stiffness values, and the design resistance
and design load at a slip of 2 mm. Three cases are then studied and
compared as follows:
• Case i): Initial stiffness k and design resistance P
sc,ini Rd, for sym-
metric and asymmetric steel sections.
• Case ii): Secant stiffness k and design resistance P
sc,sec Rd, for sym-

• Comparison of the results for flexible welded studs and demountable
shear connectors with distribution SC-A2 again indicates a sig-
nificant effect of the flexibility of the shear connectors on the span to
depth ratio. For unpropped construction, the span to depth ratio
decreases by about 3%, as the beam depth increases. For propped
metric and asymmetric steel sections, and shear connector dis-
tribution SC-A2.
• Case iii): Initial stiffness ksc,ini and design load at a slip of 2 mm
Pd,2mm, for symmetric and asymmetric steel sections, and distribu-
tion SC-A2.

125
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al.
Fig. 10. Effect of changing the shear connector stiffness between 28.7 kN/mm (initial stiffness ksc,ini) and 20.9 kN/mm (secant stiffness ks,sec at the design resistance
level) on span to depth ratio for unpropped beams.
4.4.2. Principal results
Figs. 10 and 11 summarise the span to depth ratio results from the
various studies on unpropped beams for symmetric and asymmetric
(r = 3) steel sections for a ratio of imposed to permanent load of 1.5.
The shear connector arrangement SC-A2 is used for these comparisons
as it is considered to be the practical case for use of demountable
composite beams. The results are as follows:
126
Structures 20 (2019) 116–133
• Fig. 10 shows the effect of changing the shear connector stiffness
between ksc,ini = 28.7 kN/mm and ksc,sec = 20.9 kN/mm. The de-
gree of shear connection is the same in both cases. The study shows
that the variation in the span to depth ratio is not sensitive to the
imposed to permanent load ratio. The span to depth ratio decreases
by about 4% by changing from ksc,ini to ksc,sec, in the case of un-
propped construction, for both symmetric and asymmetric sections,
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of varying the shear connector resistance between 51 kN (design resistance PRd) and 34 kN (design load at 2 mm slip Pd,2mm) on span to depth ratio for
unpropped beams.
as shown in Fig. 10a and b, respectively.
• Fig. 11 shows the effect of varying the shear connector resistance for
unpropped construction. In these graphs, the left columns corre-
spond to the design resistance, PRd = 51 kN, and the right columns
correspond to the design load at 2 mm slip Pd,2mm = 34 kN. The
degree of shear connection is different in the two cases. The study
shows that the variation in the imposed and permanent load ratio,
127
Structures 20 (2019) 116–133
and the type of construction have a negligible influence on the
variation of the span to depth ratio. For symmetric steel sections, the
span to depth ratio is larger for Pd,2mm than that for PRd (by 10% for
shallow beams and 7% for deeper beams). For asymmetric sections,
the span to depth ratio is increased by about 15% when the shear
connector resistance is reduced from 51 kN to 34 kN because the
composite bending resistance is reduced.
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Fig. 12. Schematic of shear connection in finite element model of composite beams.

5. Development of equations for the optimum span to depth ratio L ⎛ 355 ⎞ ⎛ q ⎞ 0.7
for composite beams ≤ a1 ⎜ 0.79 + 0.14 i ⎟ (1.08 − 0.30η)(1.10 − 0.12r + 0.02r 2) ⎛ ⎞
h fy ⎟ ⎜ qp ⎝ UF ⎠
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
Based on the analysis and results presented in the previous sections, (28)
the following general conclusions may be made on the optimum span to
and the coefficient a1 is:
depth ratios of the beams:

• The span to depth ratio varies linearly with the ratio of imposed to
permanent load qi/qp, for unpropped construction. The parameter
a1 = {2324 for demountable shear connectors
for welded studs

qi/qp has little effect on propped construction.
• The degree of shear connection has a significant effect on the var-
iation of the span to depth ratio, and such variation can be expressed
by a linear function in the case of unpropped construction, and a
quadratic approximation for propped beams.
• The asymmetry ratio r has a smaller overall effect on the span to
depth ratio.
Therefore for simple design of demountable unpropped composite
beams, the optimum span to depth ratio may be taken as 23, see
Table 2, which is consistent with UF = 0.7 to avoid plasticity in the
beam for reuse.
• For propped construction, the optimum span to depth ratio is given
by:

The study has shown that all the above parameters can be re-
L ⎛ 355 ⎞ 0.7
presented reasonably well by the following simplified equation for the ≤ a1 ⎜ (1.14 − 0.70η + 0.70η2)(1.02 − 0.02r ) ⎛ ⎞
h fy ⎟ ⎝ UF ⎠ (29)
optimum span to depth ratio: ⎝ ⎠

L ⎛ 355 ⎞ ⎛ q ⎞ 0.7 where the coefficient a1 is:

≤ a1 ⎜ a2 + a3 i ⎟ (a4 − a5 η + a6 η2)(a7 − a8 r + a9 r 2) ⎛ ⎞
h fy ⎟ ⎜ qp ⎝ UF ⎠
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
(27) ⎧ 28 for demountable shear connectors
⎪ 30 if L < 10 m ⎫
where ai are coefficients and 1 ≤ r ≤ 3. a1 =
⎨ ⎛ 10 ⎞ for welded studs L in [m]
This equation is a reasonably good fit to all the data shown above, ⎪ 30 ⎝ L ⎠ if L ≥ 10 m ⎬
⎩ ⎭
especially to deeper beams (that are more common in composite con-
struction) and for degrees of shear connection between 25% and 50%. Therefore for simple design of demountable propped composite
The following multiple-linear regression equations were derived: beams, the optimum span to depth ratio may be taken as 28, see
Table 2, which is consistent with UF = 0.7 to avoid plasticity in the
• For unpropped construction, the optimum span to depth ratio is beam for reuse. However, this will reduce for longer span beams due to
given by: the natural frequency limit and reverts to that for unpropped beams for
L ≥ 15 m.

128
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

1.0

0.8

0.6

M/Mpl
0.4
Welded studs @ 300 mm
SC-A1
0.2
SC-A2
SC-A3
0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Beam deflection (mm)

a) Unpropped construction (considering only the loads acting on the composite section)

1.0

0.8

0.6
M/Mpl

0.4
Welded studs @ 300 mm
SC-A1
0.2
SC-A2
SC-A3
0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Beam deflection (mm)

b) Propped construction
Fig. 13. Influence of shear connector distribution for a 12 m span IPE 500 composite beam.

6. Practical implications in the design of symmetric beams
6.1. Finite element analyses of shear connector distribution
6.1.1. General model description
A fully parameterised model was developed in the context of the
DISCCo project [9,10] using ANSYS Parametric Design Language
(APDL) [11]. Beam elements were used to represent both the rectan-
gular concrete flange (the depth of slab above the decking only) and the
steel beam (using a sub-set to input different section sizes).
The beam was modelled as simply supported and the slab was re-
strained in the direction of the beam axis at the centre point. The slab
width was equal to the effective width (the minimum of beam span/4 or
the beam spacing which was chosen taking into account the span
capability of the decking). This ensured that the same contribution of
concrete was used in the model as used in design. All nodes and ele-
ments were restrained from moving out-of-plane, or rotating along any
of the in-plane axes.
Rigid elements were used to connect the beam and slab elements at
the shear connector positions, and these were broken at the interface
between the beam and slab with nonlinear springs that were con-
strained to move only parallel to the beam. These springs initially had
zero length. The load-slip behaviour of the shear connector springs was
defined using multilinear models closely representing the relevant
push-out test results [4]. A schematic of the model is shown in Fig. 12.
A bilinear material model was used for steel with the elastic mod-
ulus, E = 210 kN/mm2 and linear strain-hardening after yielding. A
slope of E/100 was used for this second portion of the model, in ac-
cordance with EN 1993-1-5 [12]. A bilinear model was also used for
concrete, with an initial gradient equal to the modulus of elasticity
(taken as 21 kN/mm2 to reflect combined short- and long-term loading)
and a plateau in compression at 0.85fck (where fck is the characteristic
cylinder strength of concrete in compression). For concrete in tension, a
percentage of the compressive plateau was used, typically 10%. A ca-
libration exercise showed that the effect of the magnitude of this pla-
teau on the load-deflection behaviour of the model was insignificant,
but limiting the strain in tension would prematurely stop the model
from converging.
The model was validated against beam tests carried out as part of
the DISCCo project [9,10] in which the beams had welded studs of
19 mm diameter and 125 mm height. Propped beams were modelled by
applying all loads to the composite section. Unpropped beams were
modelled by first applying the load corresponding to the self-weight as
a pre-stress to the steel beam and then all further loads were applied to
the composite section.
6.1.2. Principal simulation results
An initial study is performed to investigate the effect of the

129
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

10

Slip (mm) 2

-2
Welded studs @ 300 mm
SC-A1
-6
SC-A2
SC-A3
-10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

x/L

a) Unpropped construction

10

2
Slip (mm)

-2
Welded studs @ 300 mm
SC-A1
-6
SC-A2
SC-A3
-10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

x/L

b) Propped construction
Fig. 14. Slip variation along the 12 m span of an IPE 500 beam at the ULS.

demountable bolted shear connectors P2.2 in terms of arrangement
along the span of the beam (uniform and non-uniform spacing as shown
in Fig. 4). Both propped and unpropped conditions are considered. For
these analyses, a beam span of 12 m using an IPE 500 section was used
at a spacing of 3.75 m with an effective slab width of 3 m. The sig-
nificance of other parameters such as the beam section and span, load-
slip behaviour of shear connectors, solid webs and beams with web
openings, will be investigated in a separate paper [13].
The shear connector arrangement of pairs of demountable shear
connectors spaced at 600 mm, SC-A1 shown in Fig. 4a is taken as the
standard case and may be assumed to be equivalent to the case of single
connectors at 300 mm spacing. The results of the analyses for un-
propped construction are presented in Figs. 13 and 14 in terms of the
moment (normalised by the theoretical plastic moment resistance Mpl,
that also depends on the degree of shear connection) against the beam
deflection at the composite stage, and also the slip along the span. For
unpropped construction, see Figs. 13a and 14a, the steel beam stiffness
and deflection is omitted in the graphs. For propped construction, see
Figs. 13b and 14b, the graphs show that the flexibility of the shear
connection has a larger impact than in unpropped construction.
The analyses terminate when a moment of 0.95Mpl of the beam is
reached, which is the reference moment from which the current

130
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

1.0

0.8

M/Mpl 0.6

0.4
SCA2-400-P2.2-U
SCA2-500-P2.2-U
0.2
SCA2-600-P2.2-U
SCA2-750-P2.2-U
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Ratio beam deflection to span/360

a) Moment vs. beam deflection response

10.0

6.0
Slip at ULS (mm)

2.0

-2.0
SCA2-400-P2.2-U
SCA2-500-P2.2-U
-6.0
SCA2-600-P2.2-U
SCA2-750-P2.2-U
-10.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/L

b) Slip variation along the beams at ULS

Fig. 15. Finite element analysis results for slip variation at the ULS for different beam sizes and spans (notation: SCA2 is shear connector arrangement, depth of beam
section IPE, shear connector system (P2.2) for unpropped construction (U).

minimum degree of shear connection rules in EN 1994-1-1 [2] are
based. Two lines corresponding to the Serviceability Limit States (SLS)
limit are defined in terms of the limiting deflection. These are:
•A maximum deflection limit for the imposed load of span/360
(=33.3 mm in this case) for the unpropped construction (vertical
line in Fig. 13a).
• A maximum deflection limit for the total load of span/250 (=48 mm
in this case) for propped construction (vertical line in Fig. 13b).
• An assumed maximum elastic moment, corresponding to UF = 0.7,
is also shown in the upper horizontal line in the graphs in Fig. 13.
The variation of slip at the end of the analyses along the span of the
beam is presented in Fig. 14, indicating the distribution of the long-
itudinal shear force in the shear connectors based on their position in
span.
Comparing the case of non-uniform distributions SC-A2 and SC-A3,
the following general observations can be made:
1. The global beam behaviour is identical for the distributions SC-A2
and SC-A3.
2. SC-A2 uses the same number of shear connectors as SC-A1, which is
the uniform distribution, but the elastic behaviour is stiffer as shown

131
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al. Structures 20 (2019) 116–133

Table 5
Summary of finite element analysis results for asymmetric beam sections and 12 m span (unpropped construction).
Analysis case Numerical test

Symmetric Af,b/Af,t = 2 Af,b/Af,t = 3

Beam section IPE500 IPE500 r = 2 IPE500 r = 3

Beam span (m) 12 12 12
L/h 24 24 24
Number of shear connectors, nsc 20 20 20
Degree of shear connection, η 0.29 0.29 0.29
Beam displacement due to imposed loads at UF = 0.5 26.8 mm 26.8 mm 26.8 mm
Span/360 limit 33 mm 33 mm 33 mm
End slip at ULS 4.4 mm (< 6 mm) 5.0 mm (< 6 mm) 5.5 mm (< 6 mm)

Fig. 16. Layout of bolted shear connectors in push tests [4].

in Fig. 13. Table 5.

3. SC-A3 requires fewer shear connectors, but the slip at the beam ends
is significantly higher than for SC-A2, see Fig. 14. 6.2. Conclusions and design recommendations

Fig. 15 shows (i) the moment versus beam deflection results, and (ii)
the slip variation along the span of the beam at 0.95Mpl against the non-
dimensional span, x/L, for 0 ≤ x/L ≤ 1. These results are also sum-
marised in Table 4. In Fig. 15a, the normalised moment M/Mpl is
plotted against the beam deflection, that is also normalised to the SLS
limit of span/360 for unpropped construction. The analysis results in-
dicate that for the combination of parameters considered, the effect of
changes in the relative moment versus deflection behaviour is insig-
nificant. The span to depth ratio however has a significant effect in
variation in end slip, for deeper beams. The slip is 4 mm for beams with
a section depth of 500 mm and increases to 5 mm for beam depths of
600 mm with identical span to depth ratios, as can be seen in Table 4.
These results are also presented for asymmetric beams, see Fig. 2, in
The use of demountable shear connectors in composite beams de-
pends on the need to limit the deformation at the shear connectors and
to avoid plasticity in the beam in the first use cycle, so that the beams
can be demounted and reused. It is also apparent from the tests that the
stiffness of the bolted shear connectors is less than for welded stud
shear connectors and so the optimum distribution of shear connectors
should be closer to the shear force variation along the beam in order to
minimise end slip. Furthermore for the economy of demountable con-
struction, the number of demountable shear connectors should be no
more, and preferably less than the equivalent welded stud case. The
choice of distribution SC-A2 optimises the performance of the de-
mountable construction system.
Based on these principles and requirements, the following design

132
A.M. Girão Coelho, et al.
recommendations are made for the design of composite beams using
demountable bolted shear connectors for multiple cycles of use:
1. The design of the composite beam may be based on plastic analysis
principles but the UF should not exceed a certain limit to ensure that
permanent deformation does not occur. The limit ensures that the
deformation of the shear connectors does not exceed 2 mm in the
first use cycle. Therefore,
MEd
UF = ≤ 0.7 for unpropped composite beams
Mpl,Rd
MEd
UF = ≤ 0.6 for propped composite beams
Mpl,Rd
where UF is the utilisation factor of the composite beams at the ULS.
2. The design longitudinal shear resistance of a 20 mm diameter bolted
shear connector with double nuts may be taken as 51 kN. Fig. 6
shows the simplified multi-linear load versus slip response for this
demountable shear connector system.
3. The distribution of the shear connectors should approximate to the
elastic shear flow along the beam and should not exceed the number
of welded shear connectors required for a comparative design. This
case was analysed as SC-A2.
4. The initial stiffness of the bolted shear connectors may be taken as
ksc ≈ 30 kN/mm (see also Fig. 6), and the deflection of the compo-
site beam at the serviceability limit state should be calculated using
Eq. (19) for the effective second moment of area.
5. The minimum degree of shear connection is not strictly relevant for
elastic designs and for beams where behaviour is controlled by end
slip. Nevertheless, the minimum degree of shear connection based
on a pseudo-plastic design is proposed as:
η ≥ 0.4UF for unpropped beams
η ≥ 0.5UF for propped beams
6. The resistance of the bolted shear connectors depends on the use of
partial depth cold formed steel L-sections cast within the slab at the
centre-line of the beam that facilitate cutting and reuse. The L-sec-
tion should have a minimum depth of 30 mm below the slab depth
in order to allow the mesh reinforcement to be placed over it, see
Fig. 16, from ref. [4].
7. For demounting, a saw cut is made through the thin depth of solid
slab over the L-section, and the cut slab units may be unbolted and
reused. In the second use cycle, an additional 50 mm layer of con-
crete may be placed on the re-used slab units with 0.2% reinforce-
ment in two directions. The reused slab units are able to support the
additional layer of concrete, which acts compositely with the beam
via the re-used units. No further cycles of use of the re-used slab is
practical after the second cycle, although the beams can be used
133
Structures 20 (2019) 116–133
with a new concrete slab.
8. It was found that the optimum span to depth ratio of composite
beams may be taken as:
o Unpropped composite beams with welded shear connectors L/
h = 24.
o Unpropped composite beams with demountable shear connectors
L/h = 22.
o Propped composite beams with demountable shear connectors L/
h = 28.
Acknowledgments
This paper was produced in the framework of the project REuse and
Demountability Using steel structures and the Circular Economy
(REDUCE). The research was supported by the European Commission
Research Programme of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel, under
grant agreement 710040.
References
[1] Nellinger S. On the behaviour of shear stud connections in composite beams with
deep decking (PhD dissertation). University of Luxembourg; 2015http://orbilu.uni.
lu/handle/10993/24468.
[2] CEN – European Committee for Standardization. EN 1994 Eurocode 4: design of
composite steel and concrete structures, part 1–1: general rules and rules for
buildings. 2004. [Brussels].
[3] CEN – European Committee for Standardization. EN 1992 Eurocode 2: design of
concrete structures, part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. 2004. [Brussels].
[4] Dai X, Lam D, Sheehan T, Yang J, Zhou K. Use of bolted shear connectors in com-
posite construction. Proc. 12th International Conference on Advances in Steel-
Concrete Composite Structures (ASCCS 2018), València, Spain, June 27–29. 2018.
p. 475–82.
[5] Smith AL, Hicks SJ, Devine PJ. Design of floors for vibration: a new approach, SCI-
P354. Ascot: The Steel Construction Institute; 2009.
[6] CEN – European Committee for Standardization. EN 1993 Eurocode 3: design of
steel structures, part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. 2005. [Brussels].
[7] Simms WI, Hughes AF. Composite design of steel framed buildings – in accordance
with Eurocodes and the UK National Annexes, SCI-P359. Ascot: The Steel
Construction Institute; 2011.
[8] Lawson RM, Lam D, Aggelopoulos E, Nellinger S. Serviceability performance of
steel-concrete composite beams. Proc Inst Civil Eng Struct Build
2017;170(SB2):98–114.
[9] European Commission. Final report of RFCS Project DISCCo (Development of
Improved Shear Connection rules in Composite beams), RFSR-CT-2012-00030.
2016. [to be pub-lished].
[10] Aggelopoulos E, Couchman GH, Lawson RM. Minimum degree of shear connection
in composite beams in buildings. Proc. 12th International Conference on Advances
in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures (ASCCS 2018), València, Spain, June 27–29.
2018. p. 129–35.
[11] ANSYS Structures [Computer Software]. Version 16.1. https://www.ansys.com/;
2018.
[12] CEN – European Committee for Standardization. EN 1993 Eurocode 3: design of
steel structures, part 1–5: plated structural elements, Brussels. 2006.
[13] Girão Coelho AM, Aggelopoulos E, Lawson RM. Finite element evaluation of the
behaviour of composite beam systems using demountable shear connectors. 2019.
[to be published].