Copyright  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46, No.1-3. 1998, ISSN: 0143-974X
To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110

Behaviour and Strength of Composite Slabs with

Ribbed Decking
José M. Calixto1; Armando C. Lavall1; Cristina B. Melo1-2;
Roberval J. Pimenta2; Rodrigo C. Monteiro2
1
Departmento de Estruturas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 30110 -
060 - Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais BRAZIL
2
Codeme Engenharia 32662-000 - Betim - Minas Gerais BRAZIL

ABSTRACT
An experimental investigation on the behaviour and strength of full-scale one-
way single span composite slabs with ribbed decking is presented. Different
aspects were studied, including different steel deck thickness, total slab height,
as well as shear span length. The effect of connectors (stud bolt type) on the end
anchorage was also investigated. Normal procedures for baching and mixing the
concrete were used. Throughout the monotonic loading tests, midspan
deflections, end slips and strains in steel decking were measured. The test
results indicate expressively the better performance in the slabs built with the
stud bolt connectors. The behaviour and strength of the composite slabs are also
compared to the partial interaction design method specified in the Eurocode 4.
This comparison shows that some improvements can be made in the design
equations, and a modification is proposed herein.
Copyright  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

KEYWORDS
Composite slabs • Partial composite action • Ribbed decking • End
anchorage • Stud bolt connectors

INTRODUCTION
The use of composite slabs with ribbed decking has increased markedly
worldwide in the last decades. This fact can be explained by the two main
characteristics of this floor system. The first one is the ability of the steel deck
to be the formwork for the concrete during the casting stages and to carry all the
loads till the concrete hardens. The second one is the capacity of the decking to
serve in composite action as tension reinforcement of the floor system for
positive bending moment. In the composite action the horizontal shear transfer
mechanism is provided by a combination of mechanical interlock between the
embossments in the steel deck and the concrete, and chemical bond and friction
at the interface of the deck and the concrete. End anchorage in the form of stud
bolts can also be used for mechanical interlock.
The objective of this paper is to present the results and analysis of an
experimental investigation of composite slabs built with ribbed decking,
conducted by Lavall et al. 1997a, 1997b and Melo 1997. Different aspects
were studied, including different steel deck thickness, total slab height, as well
as shear span length. The effect of connectors (stud bolt type) on the end
anchorage was also investigated in composite slabs built with plain and ribbed
decking. The test results are also compared to the partial interaction design
method specified in the Eurocode 4. It is important to emphasize that the scope
of this study includes only the behaviour of the composite slab after the
hardening of the concrete.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TEST SPECIMENS

Three different series of composite slabs comprising a total of 26 specimens
were tested in the laboratory. Each specimen had the steel deck shape as
indicated in Figure 1. Two nominal deck thicknesses were employed, namely
0.80 mm and 1.25 mm. In the ribbed decks, the embossment depth was 2.4 mm
for both deck thicknesses. The stud connector employed had nominal diameter
of 19 mm and total height of 126 mm. Two stud bolts were used at each end of
the composite slabs as end anchorage.
Series 1 was composed of 12 specimens built with ribbed deck only, while
Series 2 had seven composite slabs with plain sheet and stud bolts at both ends.
The seven specimens in Series 3 were fabricated with both ribbed decking and
stud bolts. The geometrical characteristics of each specimen are presented in
Table 1.

Throughout this paper, the nomenclature of the test specimens for Series 1 will
be the prototype number shown in Table 1 with the suffix RD (ribbed deck
only). For Series 2 and 3, the suffixes will be SB (stud bolt only) and RDS
(ribbed deck + stud bolt) respectively.
The steel employed in the manufacturing of the decking had average measured
yield strength of 360 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of 205 GPa. The concrete
specified had a characteristic compressive strength of 20 MPa. At the time of
each test, the actual compressive strength of the concrete and its corresponding
secant modulus of elasticity were measured.

TEST PROCEDURE
Each specimen was tested as a simply supported beam with two line loads
equidistant of each support, as suggested by CSSBI 1988b and Eurocode 4
1992. This way the specimen had a region of constant shear force (shear span)
and a region of constant bending moment (between the line loads). Under each
line load, rubber pads were employed to distribute the loads uniformly. The
loading scheme was monotonic. Midspan deflections and end slips at both ends
were measured in each load step. Strains in the upper and lower portion of the
decking at midspan were also obtained.

TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The test results obtained in each specimen of series 1, 2 and 3 are presented in
Tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively. In the tables, Put corresponds to the ultimate load
applied by the hydraulic ram while Vut the ultimate shear force per unit length at
the supports. This ultimate shear force includes the self-weight of the specimen
as well as the weight of the loading apparatus. The load-midspan deflection
relationships for prototypes 5 are shown in Figure 2. The relationships indicated
are similar for all the other tested specimens.
The analysis of the test results indicates expressively the better performance in
the composite slabs built with the stud bolt connectors. The slabs fabricated
with plain sheet and stud bolts (Series 2) attained in all cases a higher ultimate
load when compared to the respective specimens built with ribbed deck only
(Series 1). This result illustrates the great contribution of the end anchorage
employing stud bolts to the performance of composite slabs. This finding had
been also observed by Porter et al. 1984, Jolly et al. 1992 and Bode et al.
1997.
The load-midspan deflection relationship also indicates a different behavior
when the composite slabs are fabricated with ribbed decking and stud bolts
(Series 3). In this case there was no drop in the load during the entire loading
procedure. This particular behaviour was not found in the other types of
composite slabs in which there was always a drop in the load when a major
crack occurred in the concrete.

It is interesting to point out that the failure mode in all cases was shear bond.
The plastic moment of the complete composite section was never attained even
in the specimens built with end anchorage and ribbed decking.

DESIGN METHODS FOR LONGITUDINAL SHEAR

The horizontal shear transfer mechanism between the steel deck and concrete,
according to Rondal et al. 1997, can be achieved by: a) chemical bond,
resulting from the natural adherence between concrete and steel, normally
destroyed under impact, dynamic or heavy loads; b) mechanical resistance,
provided by embossments in the steel sheeting and c) frictional resistance at
slab supports provided by clamping from the vertical reaction.
In the current design specifications, there are two methods to predict the
longitudinal shear strength of composite slabs. The first one is the well-known
m-k semi-empirical method, developed originally in North America. It is
considered the worldwide standard method. In this method, the longitudinal
shear strength of composite slabs, according to the CSSBI 1988a, is expressed
by a semi-empirical equation relating the vertical shear capacity to test-related
parameters:

The second procedure, presented in Annex E of Eurocode 4 1992, is the partial

composite method. It is based on the partial connection design for composite
beams with flexible connectors. This method, allowed in Eurocode 4 as an
alternative to the m-k method, should be used only for composite slabs with a
ductile behaviour. It can be also used to account for contributions from end
anchorage and additional reinforcements, and usually shows good correlation to
test results. According to this specification, the shear strength at concrete
sheeting interface tu is equal to the minimum value determined by the following
equation considering all tests:

This shear strength is assumed to be uniform along the total length ( Lo + Ls ),

and includes the contribution from friction at the sheeting-concrete interface at
the supports according to Johnson et al. 1993. Therefore, this shear strength
represents not only the mechanical resistance but also the frictional resistance
over supports as well. For steel decks whose embossing patterns are capable of
developing shear resistance of great magnitude, the frictional resistance does not
play an important role in the overall longitudinal shear capacity. On the other
hand, there are types of steel decks with low shear transfer efficiency such as
ASCE type II decks (with horizontal web embossments) specified in ASCE
1992, where the frictional resistance is an important part of shear strength. This
friction occurs between the concrete and the steel sheeting mainly over the slab
supports and can be considered, according to Bode et al. 1997, proportional to
vertical reaction. Considering this, it can be said that the shear strength tu is
dependent of shear span because the vertical reaction decreases with increasing
shear span for the same slab depth. ASCE type II decks exhibit tu values highly
dependent of shear span, considerably different from one extreme to another.
Selecting the smallest value of shear strength means taking tu from the test
specimens with largest shear span and smallest slab depth. Therefore, for
composite slabs built with ribbed type II decks, the current Eurocode partial
connection method does not agree consistently with the test results, leading to
very low values, especially for short shear span deep slabs as it will be seen in
the next sections.

IMPROVEMENT OF PARTIAL COMPOSITE ACTION METHOD

The current Eurocode partial connection method can be improved by
considering the effects of friction and mechanical interlock separately. The
effects of the frictional and mechanical resistance can be separated and
approximately evaluated by a linear or multilinear regression analysis of all tu
values calculated using Eqn. 2, as shown in Figure 3. In this figure the X and Y
axes are respectively:

This way the friction coefficient m corresponds to the slope of the regression
line while the mechanical shear strength tum in the intersection with the Y-axis.
A more exact determination of the frictional resistance and consequently of the
friction coefficient m is provided by the new slip-block tests as indicated by
Bode et al. 1997 and Johnson et al. 1993. Then, the expression for tum
becomes:
The verification of composite slabs by this proposed method follows essentially
the same procedures as given in sections E3 and E4 of Eurocode 4 1992. In the
determination of the partial interaction diagram, the separate contribution of the
friction is taken into account by calculating the value of Nc as follows:

In this equation the separate effects of the mechanical interlocking, end

anchorage and friction correspond to the first, second and third term
respectively of the right hand side. Analyzing the above expression, it can be
shown that the degree of the equations used to determinate the intersection
between the modified resistance curve and the load curves, in order to calculate
the maximum load that can be applied to the slab, was increased. One can also
see that the partial interaction diagram is now dependent of the type and
magnitude of loads imposed to the slab. Figure 4 shows a comparison between
the procedures of the current partial method and the proposed partial method.
Figure 4a indicates that the partial interaction diagram is not modified by the
loads while the proposed interaction diagram (Figure 4b) is affected by the load
magnitude.

COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS

In Table 5 a comparison of Vut values calculated by the current partial
composite action method, by the proposed partial connection procedure (using
multilinear regression analysis) and by the m-k method with the current test
results is presented. Table 6 shows the same comparison with the experimental
results obtained in Canada by Schuster 1984. It can be seen in both cases that
good agreement is achieved between the proposed method, the m-k method and
the test results. The comparison also indicates that the correlation of the
proposed partial method with the test results is much better than the current
partial method of Eurocode 4.

A comparison of the proposed method with the current test corresponding to

Series 2 and 3 are shown in Tables 7 and 8 respectively. Good agreement is also
achieved in these cases.

CONCLUSIONS
The results of an experimental investigation on the behaviour and strength of
full-scale one-way single span composite slabs with ribbed decking were
presented. Different aspects were studied including different steel sheeting
thickness, total slab height, shear span length as well as the effect of stud bolts
connectors on the end anchorage. The test results indicate expressively the
better performance of the composite slabs built with stud bolts connectors. In
this study the slabs fabricated with plain sheeting and stud bolts attained in all
cases a higher ultimate load when compared to the respective specimen built
with ribbed decking only. The floors constructed with ribbed decking and stud
bolts showed a different behaviour characterized by no drop in the load during
the entire monotonic loading procedure. In all cases the failure mode was by
shear bond even in the slabs fabricated with end anchorage and ribbed sheeting.
The test results were also compared to the partial interaction design method
specified in Eurocode 4. The current design equations do not separate explicitly
the resistance of the mechanical interlocking from the friction at the interface
concrete decking over the supports. Depending on the position and shape of the
embossments on the ribbed decking (ASCE type II decks for instance), the
contribution of each resistance mechanism plays a different role. Therefore a
procedure which explicitly takes into consideration the effects of the mechanical
interlocking and friction separately was proposed. This method was compared
with the current test results and those obtained in other investigations. This
comparison showed good correlation.

NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
b = width of slab;
dp = effective slab depth (distance from extreme concrete compression fiber to
the centroid axis of the full cross section of the steel deck);
k = intercept of shear bond line with the vertical axis;
Lo = overhang length;
Ls = shear span length;
Lx = variable length along the member;
m = slope of shear bond line;
Mpa = plastic resistance moment of the effective cross section of the sheeting;
Mp = plastic resistance moment of the composite slab;
Nc = actual compressive force at the concrete;
Ncf = maximum compressive force at the concrete;
Put = ultimate applied load by the hydraulic ram;
t = nominal deck thickness;
Vl = resistance of the end anchorage;
Vut = ultimate shear force per unit length at the supports;
h = Nc/Ncf , determined as specified by Eurocode 4;
m = friction coefficient;
tu = shear strength, determined as specified by Eurocode 4;
tum = mechanical shear strength.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

References

ANSI/ASCE 3 -91 1982 Standard for the Structural Design of Composite Slabs. ASCE Standards, 1982.
Bode, H. , Minas F. 1997 Composite Slabs with and without End Anchorage under Static and Dynamic
Loading. Conference Report for Composite Construction - Conventional and Innovative, Innsbruck,
Austria, 1997, 265–270.
Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute 1988a Criteria for the Design of Composite Slabs. CSSBI Standards,
1988a.
Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute 1988b Criteria for the Testing of Composite Slabs. CSSBI Standards,
1988b.
Eurocode 4 1994 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures - Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings. ENV 1994, 1992.
Johnson R. P. , Anderson D. 1993 Designers' Handbook to Eurocode 4 Part 1.1: Design of Composite Steel
and Concrete Structures , Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Jolly C. K. , Lawson R. M. 1992 End Anchorage in Composite Slabs: an Increased Load Carrying Capacity.
The Structural Engineer, 1992, 70(11), 202–205.
Lavall A. C. , Calixto J. M. 1997a Analysis of the Behaviour and Resistance of the Steel Deck - CE-75.
Structural Engineering Department Report. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1997a.
Lavall A. , Melo C. , Calixto J., Pimenta R. , Monteiro C. 1997b Analysis of the Behavior and
Resistance of Composite Slab - Steel Deck Systems. Proceedings from XXVIII Jornadas Sul-Americanas
de Engenharia Estrutural, São Carlos, Brazil, 1997b, Vol. 1, 69–78.
Melo C. B. F. 1997 Analysis of the Behaviour and Resistance of Composite Slabs Built with Steel Deck
Systems. Master's Thesis, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1997.
Porter M. L. , Greimann L. F. 1984 Shear-Bond Strength of Studded Steel Deck Slabs. Proceedings from the
Seventh International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Rolla, EUA, 1984,
285–290.
Rondal J , Moutafidou A. 1997 Study of Shear Bond in Steel Composite Slabs. Conference Report for
Composite Construction - Conventional and Innovative, Innsbruck, Austria, 1997, 259–264.
Schuster R. M. 1984 Strength and Behavior of the P - 2430 - 12HB, Composite Slab System (normal weight
concrete). Report no. WRI 110-12-02, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, 1984.

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Table 8 THEORETICAL X TEST RESULTS FOR SERIES 3

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Table 7 THEORETICAL X TEST RESULTS FOR SERIES 2

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Table 6 THEORETICAL X TEST RESULTS OBTAINED BY SCHUSTE

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Table 5 THEORETICAL X TEST RESULTS FOR SERIES 1

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Table 4 TEST RESULTS FOR SPECIMENS IN SERIES 3

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Table 3 TEST RESULTS FOR SPECIMENS IN SERIES 2

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Table 2 TEST RESULTS FOR SPECIMENS IN SERIES I

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, TABLE 1 GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEST SPECIME

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Figure 4: Comparison between the current partial method (a) and the pro

Figure 4: Comparison between the current partial method (a) and the proposed partial method (b)

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Figure 3: Multilinear Regression Analysis - Determination of um and ..

Figure 3: Multilinear Regression Analysis - Determination of τum and µ.

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Figure 2: Load versus Midspan Deflection for Prototypes 5

Figure 2: Load versus Midspan Deflection for Prototypes 5

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.
 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Paper 110, Figure 1: Geometry of the steel deck

Figure 1: Geometry of the steel deck

To cite this paper: Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46:1-3, Paper No. 110.