J. Construct.

Steel Research 25 (1993) 107-139

Composite Floor SystemsmA Mature Design Option

E. Y. L. Chien & J. K. Ritchie

Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Suite 300, 201 Consumers' Road, Willowdale,
Ontario, Canada, M2J 498

ABSTRACT

The design of composite structures in Canada can be described as being a mature

design option. Many aspects of composite structural interaction between steel beams
and concrete have been studied and reported in Canada as early as 1922. Since the
early 1930s, composite bridges and buildings have been used in this country.
Currently, composite steel-concrete floor systems are used in almost all multi-storey
steel framed buildings, as well as for floor framing systems in tube-in-tube concrete
structures. The purpose of this paper is to focus on those aspects of composite design
in Canada which have contributed to the success of the system. Where appropriate,
attention is drawn to the research work that has been required to substantiate new
and innovative techniques. Designers of composite structures elsewhere in the world
may benefit from the lessons which have been learned from the use of this design
option in Canada.
The features of composite floor framing utilizing composite deck-slabs in multi-
storey buildings that have made it economically attractive include access to
alternative structural systems, efliciency on longer spans, improved integration of
structure with mechanical systems, and superior flatness of floors with minimal
deflections under both superimposed dead and live loads.
Composite floor framing systems commonly used include conventional beam-
girder systems, composite steel trusses and the stub-girder system. Each of these
systems is evaluated and discussed, including the concomitant deck-slab system, and
slab reinforcing requirements. The quality of structural concrete, especially the
shrinkaoe and creep characteristics that affect either structural performance, ser-
viceability, or both, are noted. The problem areas of composite design and construc-
tion are also addressed. These include the tendency for slab cracking over primary
support girders and around columns, the need for understanding of beam deflections
during construction and control of same by pre-cambering, and particularly,
appropriate shoring techniques for stub-girders.

107
J. Construct. Steel Research 0143-974X/93/$06-00 © 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd,
England. Printed in Malta
108 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

It is instructive to look at some examples of comparative costs. Those embodied

in this paper include examples of cost savings using composite floor framing
compared with conventional non-composite systems.

INTRODUCTION

Early development of composite steel-concrete floor systems in Canada

Continuous improvement in the efficient utilization of steel framing in

building design has been evolutionary in nature. This evolution is the
result of an interplay of developments in several areas including welding,
bolting, connection design, design codes and standards, and fabrication-
erection methods. But most importantly, enhancement of structural ma-
terial utilization is due to continuing improvement in steel-concrete
composite design methodology. Refinement in building codes, fire protec-
tion methods and material design standards have also contributed to this
evolutionary process.
The development of composite design in Canada has focused on floor
systems. Composite beam tests were conducted as early as 1922 by
MacKay et al. 1 These tests and others conducted at the University of
Toronto 2'3 under the auspices of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construc,
tion (CISC), during the 1930s, provided evidence of the efficient combined
strength of concrete slabs with encased steel beams, with and without
shear connectors. Some research testing was also conducted on beams
with embedment of the top flange only (Type A) and encasement of the top
flange and a portion of the web (Type B). CSA S16-1940 provided design
criteria and the 1941 version of the National Building Code of Canada
recognized the design procedure. Properties for these sections were listed
in a 1947 issue of the CISC h a n d b o o k - - C a n a d i a n Steel Construction. e
While some of this early research explored the bond between steel and
concrete on both a full encasement basis and a partial encasement basis,
later research examined the use of shear connectors on the top flange of
beams for interconnection and enhancement of interface shear transfer
between steel and concrete. Although angles, channels and several proprie-
tary connectors were tried, headed studs (straight studs with upset heads)
evolved as the standard. For labour reduction and improved cost effi-
ciency in the field, a trend to the use of stay-in-place steel deck as a form
evolved. Field installation of shear connectors through stay-in-place steel
deck became common practice as a result. Both hot rolled beams and open
web steel joists (i.e. fabricator-designed truss-form members) abbreviated as
joists, were evaluated and used as composite members. Structural systems
 Composite floor systems 109

using joists with the top chord replaced by concrete through embedment
of web members in a concrete slab were also developed. For example, a
shop manufactured composite slab and joist system (Trusscrete) was
produced during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It had physical limitations
such as a maximum width of 1.22 m, length of 9.76 m and the inherent
shipping and handling limitations. This development may have overlap-
ped American developments such as the Laclede system, well known for
its use in large preassembled panels (complete deck and joists with
concrete slab placed after erection) on the World Trade Center, and the
Macomber system. In both systems, web members extended up into the
cover slab. But the most significant development of this type was the
Hambro system, a patented composite system developed in Canada. This
system utilizes high strength steel joists with a unique top chord. The cold
formed top chord is partially embedded in the concrete floor slab to
achieve composite action, while the non-embedded portion provides
connection slots for removable formwork supporting members (roll-bars),
which not only carry the removable formwork and construction loads but
also space and stabilize the joists during construction. Custom designed,
non-proprietary composite trusses built from standard steel components
also now see widespread use and will be discussed in greater detail.

Evolution of state-of-the-art long-span composite floor systems

During the mid-1960s, researchers began to link composite deck-slabs to

rolled steel members and to open web steel joists to form composite floor
framing. In Canada, this type of assembly was referred to as hollow
composite design to distinguish between ribbed deck-slabs and solid,
formed slabs. Headed stud shear connectors welded through deck flutes,
or ribs, onto top flanges of steel members became an important part of
this composite-design evolution.
There are several reasons why composite floor framing systems came to
be frequently used. Economics was the key factor, as will be discussed
later. In addition, the trend to larger buildings placed greater emphasis on
building storey height and overall building height. Larger buildings and
especially competitive leasing of buildings brought increased demand for
longer clear spans with unrestricted flexibility of office landscaping of the
interior, with perimeter offices only limited by the architectural module.
With longer spans came deeper structure and therefore increased
emphasis on structural-mechanical-electrical systems integration. Al-
though composite beams served and continue to serve these needs, two
unique composite floor systems, composite trusses and the stub-girder
110 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

framing were developed to enhance system integration. These systems

were studied, and improved following research at several Canadian
universities during the 1980s. They soon became favoured by Canadian
building designers over conventional composite beams for the creation of
competitive building frames with spans of 10-15 m. Several facets of this
research continue at the present time as will be detailed in the following
sections.
While early research projects focused more on the ultimate strength
behaviour of composite structural components, Canadian research in the
past 15 years has concentrated more on improving structural details and
overall serviceability, such as: improving the calibration of shear resistance
of single or multiple-studs, designing unreinforced web holes in composite
beams, modifying conventional stub-girder configurations to enhance
economics and mechanical-structural integration, verifying slab shrinkage
effects on deflection of typical composite members, establishing rules for
assessing deflections for shored and non-shored framing, confirming slab
crack-control serviceability details, and studying walking and rhythmic
vibration serviceability.
Design rules established by these research tests are now incorporated in
the Canadian steel design standard* and current design aids. 5'6 With easy
accessibility to member selection tables ~ and a graphical-interfaced com-
puter program, s composite floor framing utilizing composite deck-slabs is
now a mature design option in Canada.
Today, three alternative composite structural framing systems, i.e. the
conventional beam-girder system, the composite truss system, and the
stub-girder system, are commonly used. In Table 1, recent Canadian
buildings (with height in storeys) using conventional composite beam-
girder framing, composite truss framing, and stub-girder framing are
tabulated. These are typical projects processed by the Project Analysis
Division of the CISC.

Evolution of composite deck-slabs

With the evolution taking place in structural framing systems, it was

natural that this process flowed through to the deck-slab system, an
essential component in compositely designed systems. The change from
formed concrete on beams to stay-in-place steel forms came quickly.
Non-composite steel floor deck profiles evolved from steel roof deck and
were first used to serve only as a stay-in-place form. As a secondary
benefit, the deck provided an obstruction-free working platform during
frame erection, eliminated temporary supports and form stripping, and
improved trade coordination and speed of construction. In-floor electrical
 Composite floor systems 111

TABLE 1
Major Buildings with Long Span Steel Floors (Recent Construction)

Building name and location Number of Floor span Composite

storeys (typical) system

One Financial Place, Toronto 31 12 m Trusses

BCE Place Canada Trust Tower, Toronto 55 14 m Trusses
BCE Place Tower II, Toronto 44 14 m Trusses
First Century Tower, Toronto 19 13.5 m Trusses
T-D Bank Tower, Winnipeg 31 12 m Beams
1000 De La Gauchetiere, Montreal 47 15 m Trusses
Hamilton Centre, Regina 15 11 m Trusses
70 York Street, Toronto 17 up" to 13 m Beams
Ernst & Young (TD-5), Toronto 31 12 m Beams
United Centre, North York 9 12 m Stub-girders
250 Yonge Street, Toronto 33 11.5 m Beams
One London Place, London 25 11 m Stub-girders
Northern Telecom, Mississauga 9 13.5 m Stub-girders
Bay-Adelaide Centre, Toronto 57 14.5 m Trusses
(under construction)

power and communication distribution was added by utilizing cellular

decks, manufactured with flutes face to face or with flat-sheets welded to
the underside of ribbed deck panels. Standard header or trench header
ducts for cross-distribution of power and communications were installed
on top of the deck before slab placing.
By the early 1960s, both American and Canadian deck manufacturers
began to exploit the strength of the concrete cover slab by introducing
mechanical interlock between steel and concrete, usually in the form of
indentations into the deck steel surface to obtain the necessary shear-bond
connection between deck steel and concrete for composite interaction. The
steel deck was found to provide tensile reinforcement for the concrete slab
on a simple span basis, while performing as an efficient stay in place form
on a three span continuous basis. It was also found in some cases to
provide adequate reinforcement in an unprotected state under fire condi-
tions, as will be documented later.
In the early 1970s, performance specifications for deck contracts on
several large buildings in both the US and Canada sparked further
research and development. Deck flutes were widened to form wide
concrete ribs (known as wide-rib profiles) to boost the shear performance
of headed studs. Three outstanding decks evolved--outstanding in terms
of competitiveness, efficiency and spanning capability. Two were licensed
for use in Canada, the third was a solely Canadian development 9 which
!12 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

remains as the largest single Canadian application of this product. As a

result, greater composite beam or truss strength was developed with fewer
shear studs, making composite floor systems more competitive. At the
same time, floor slab concrete volumes were lessened as compared to older
deck profiles and thus building dead loads were reduced. Sprayed-on fire
protection requirements were also minimized due to the low surface
contact area of these decks as a ratio (as low as 1.33) of building plan area.
Better coordination of the blending of non-cellular segments with a
compatible cellular profile for distribution of power and communication
systems was also achieved.
With this overview of the evolutionary process, we will now explore the
development in more detail on a component by component basis. The
following text is devoted to the review of design considerations of the
state-of-the-art components of various composite floor systems. Reference
to recent and current research will be added where appropriate.

DECK-SLAB SYSTEMS

Since deck slabs are common to all systems, we will begin with them. Deck
steel profiles and shear connection considerations have been adequately
covered in the evolutionary discussion. Several other topics relating to
composite deck-slab systems are provided below.

Concrete cover slab construction

In composite floor framing systems, concrete contributes significantly to

the structural strength, stiffness and serviceability of a deck-slab, as well
as to the composite framing members themselves. Therefore, concrete must
be specified, mixed, transported, placed, finished, protected and cured for
structural uses. Mix design to control creep and shrinkage while achieving
desired strength levels is an important part of composite construction.
Aside from these important considerations, the main factors governing
selection of the cover slab strength, density and thickness are the propor-
tioning of composite steel members, the fire resistance rating required, the
dead load of the slab, and cost.

Cover slab reinforcement

Reinforcement to control slab cracking has both structural and finishing

trade implications. Appropriate slab reinforcement will minimize and
 Composite floor systems 113

Oraped ~ Two 15M barn over

doul:~ernu~1 km e a d 1 ~
over gi~ll~ \ : coamctioa

i T
Fig. 1. Bar and mesh reinforcementat beam-to-girderjoint.

control cracks caused by shrinkage, flexural action at beam-to-girder

joints, longitudinal shear, and diaphragm stresses. As special cases, stress
concentrations in cover slabs over unreinforced web openings of compo-
site beams should also be checked, with reinforcement added where
necessary. Stress concentrations around floor openings, at splices in
cantilever (Gerber) beams, at columns, at corners of concrete cores and at
other areas of high restraint, and at supports of cantilevered slabs must
also be addressed.
Uniform slab reinforcement, such as steel mesh 152 x 152-MW13-3 x
MW13.3 or greater, chaired to proper elevation, and supplemented by
additional reinforcement as recommended by Ritchie and Chien ~° at
points of tensile/shear stress concentrations, such as at beam-girder joints,
has been found to be effective, see Fig. 1. This detail was evaluated further
in a recent research test by Jent ~ using shored and unshored full-scale
specimens, each modelling three end-to-end simple spans of composite
beams supported by girders and loaded to service and ultimate loads.

Design of statically loaded composite deck-slabs

Under static load conditions, two primary failure modes are found for
composite deck-slab systems, i.e. flexural failure and shear-bond failure.
Important composite deck-slab design considerations are summarized in
a recent publication.t2 In addition, a standard for composite steel deck has
been prepared by the Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute ~3 and this
publication includes guidance on statically loaded decks.

Dynamically loaded composite deck-slabs

Although a special case, recent Canadian research ~4-~6 on the behaviour

of composite deck-slabs under repeated loads should be noted. This
research indicates that the mechanical bond due to embossment patterns
in deck steel can greatly affect the behaviour of composite deck-slabs
under cyclical loading. For example, one product may not sustain a
114 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

repeated load at the level of the first slip load, while another product may
be susceptible to fatigue failure of the sheet steel. Some manufacturers are
able to provide quantitative information on the performance of their deck
products in this regard.

STUD SHEAR CONNECTORS

The evolution from partially embedded beams to the use of mechanical

shear connectors has been discussed. Tests on studs in solid slabs were
initially carried out in the USA, leading to stud shear capacity being
expressed in terms of concrete compressive strength (see section on stud
connectors in Ref. 12).
Shear studs are now most commonly field installed through the steel
deck and onto the top flange of the support beam, using a special stud
welding gun. During this process, a stud is inserted in a ceramic ferrule,
an arc forms off the tip of the stud under a high amperage current when
the gun is fired, and the gun mechanically plunges the stud into a pool of
molten steel created by the high amperage arc. Different ferrules are used
depending on surface conditions. For example, when welding through
galvanized deck, a ferrule with large openings is used to allow zinc vapour
to vent. Somewhat different installation parameters may apply, depending
on the gauge of the steel deck, the number of layers of deck, and weather
conditions, etc.
By the early 1970s, ultimate shear capacity and behaviour of headed
stud connectors embedded in solid concrete slabs with both normal
density (ND) and light weight (or low density) concretes were well
documented. Some information was also available on semi-low density
(SLD) concrete. In applying the Canadian limit states design standard 4 in
composite design, stud connector strengths are given as apparent shear
strengths, although tension normally exists in studs, particularly as a
tested assembly approaches ultimate load. Hence, the limiting factored
shear resistance q, of a stud shear connector embedded in a solid slab is
expressed as,

qr =lesser of 0.5 4p,¢A,c x/f'¢E¢ and 415 ~b,~A,c (1)

where Ec may be expressed as w~t's 0"043 x/~¢ (2)

and 415 O,¢A,c is the factored tensile capacity of the stud material, by
taking the strength of commonly available stud steel as 415 MPa. To
 Composite floor systems 115

arrive at factored strength, the ultimate stud capacity is multiplied by the

resistance factor @,c of 0.8.
Currently, design standards stipulate that the stud diameter should be
limited to 2.5 times the thickness of the part to which it is welded, unless
a lesser thickness can be justified, or unless the stud is located over the
beam web, 17 a requirement which is, in our view, theoretical rather than
practical. This rule emanates from research by Goble, Is in which shear
studs welded to A36 beam flanges were tested as cast in solid slabs. It was
concluded from test data that a minimum ratio of stud diameter to beam
flange thickness should be observed to prevent stud tear out of the flange,
at ultimate loads. This limitation occasionally governs on beam designs
but frequently governs in composite trusses because of the sections used.
Invariably, a 75 mm square hollow structural section (HSS) top chord with
a 6.35 mm wall is sufficient on spans of 12 m. However, the wall thickness
must be increased or the stud capacity or diameter reduced to comply with
the rule. It is felt that base steel strength will have an impact on the
tear-out capacity of studs. Tests of assemblies with higher stud diameter
to flange thickness ratios are currently planned in Canada. Deck-slabs
rather than solid slabs will be used, and 300 and 350 MPa steel will be
used as the beam flange material.

Stud connectors in deck-slabs--deck flutes oriented parallel with steel girder

When steel deck flutes (or ribs) are oriented parallel with a steel girder, the
studs may be field-welded through the deck steel if a deck flute coincides
with the girder top flange. When a deck flute does not coincide with the
flange, the deck must be discontinued above the girder top flange, allowing
stud connectors to be applied directly to the flange in the shop, or in the
field. When the deck rib is wide enough or when the deck is split at the
girder, such that the ratio w,~/hd>~1.5, a solid-slab stud value is usually
appropriate. The shear value assigned for each stud is,

qr(rib) m qr when •d//hd~ 1"5 (3)

When ribs are narrower, an appropriate value is given by,

qrtrib)~-[0"6(Wd/hd)(h/hd--l)]q,~< qr when Wd/h d < 1-5 (4)

For tabulated qmib) design values, see Ref. 12.
When pairs of transversely spaced studs are installed on a steel member
distributed longitudinally in a concrete-filled deck rib, such as with a
stub-girder, stud shear connectors have been assumed to provide full solid
116 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

slab capacity if transversely spaced four diameters apart. Some researchers

have noted that stud capacity can be significantly affected by closer lateral
spacing. Research to link shear capacity of stud connectors to lateral/
longitudinal spacing of studs in deck-slabs, as influenced either by the
overlapping of pullout cones or edge distance, is currently planned by a
Canadian researcher.

Stud connectors in deck-slabs deck flutes oriented perpendicular to

steel beam

When deck flutes run perpendicular to a steel member, the behaviour

of shear studs in a concrete filled deck rib has been found to be a
direct function of stud length, placement and deck rib geometry. This
relationship was first noted by Robinson. 19 His further studies and
others 2°-23 provided information on 38mm deep narrow-rib profile
decks. These tests also provided sufficient data to illustrate that,
under working load conditions, there was no significant reduction in
beam stiffness using a 38 mm deck-slab instead of a solid concrete slab.
On the other hand, 76 mm deep decks with narrow ribs exhibited a
substantial decrease in stud shear strength and stiffness. These reductions
in strength and stiffness were attributed mainly to punch-through
or cracking of concrete ribs encasing the studs as loads approached
ultimate.
Much of the calibration of stud connector shear strength versus con-
crete rib geometry and concrete type was provided by Fisher. 24 Following
17 full-scale beam tests and the study of test results of another 58 beam
tests reported by others, an empirical stud shear capacity formula for
multiple-stud conditions with a transverse spacing of approximately four
stud diameters was provided by Grant et al. 2s
Many push-out, push-off and beam tests, using single or multiple-stud
connections in deck-slabs with ribs perpendicular to steel members, have
been reported by Canadian researchers. 26-29 A typical ultimate failure
mode was observed to be by stud or stud-group pulling a cone of concrete
out of the cover slab. Research reported by Iyengar and Zils 3° and further
tests carried out by Furlong and Henderson 31 and Allan et al. 32 also
addressed the reduction in capacity due to multiple-stud grouping and
stud embedment lengths.
Hawkins and Mitchell 33 proposed new stud shear resistance express-
ions to simulate theoretically the pullout cone failure mode of
single/multiple stud situations. These were later re-calibrated through
research by Jayas and Hosain. 29 It is felt that these results provide
greater consistency and accuracy than the earlier widely used empirical
 Composite floor systems 117

formula. Hence, design expressions are given in the Canadian steel design
standard -S16-M89 as:

Nqrtrib, = 0'35 q~scPAp~fff~c <~Nqr when hd = 75 mm (wide-rib) (5)

Nqr,rib) = 0"61 dpscpZpx//~c <~Nqr when hd = 38 mm (narrow-rib) (6)

The product Nqr(rib ) represents the factored shear capacity of a multiple-

stud connection, using N studs. These expressions take into account the
variation in concrete strength or density, as well as the total pullout cone
areas. For each stud, the apex of the pyramidal pullout concrete area, with
four faces sloping at 45°, is taken at the centre of the top surface of the stud
head. For single (or multiple-stud) conditions, the value of Ap is the total
of the sloped surface areas taking into account the reduction due to
incomplete cone formation caused by (1) proximity to a slab free edge
and/or deck rib edge, and (2) over-lapping of sloped surfaces as in a
multiple-stud layout. For an illustration of a single stud connection in a
steel deck, see Fig. 2. Use of these criteria results in a modest capacity
reduction in some cases, depending on the deck profile used. Factored
shear resistance values for studs using these criteria are tabulated in Ref. 7,
for use with popular composite decks in Canada.
In a composite beam using a wide-rib deck, the placement of shear studs
in a shear span to the side of the rib closest to the support (or nearest zero
moment location) appears to improve shear resistance 27'34 and reduce the
possibility of studs punching through the side of the concrete rib. Use of a
minimum edge distance to lessen the effect of punch-through failure of
studs is proposed in Fig. 3. We must bear in mind that, although small
amounts of interface slip may be noted at service loads, punch-through
occurs at close to ultimate load.

- Apkx

IoH "T\I
Fig. 2. Pyramidal puillOUt cone area of a single stud connection in a steel deck.
118 E. Y. L C h i e n & J. K . R i t c h i e

Approx. Lessprelecred Pre~em,ed

38 mm ofl-c~tm o~-cenlre
Comwess~on cover placingof stud ~i~c~g of
in slab due to
interfaceshear "°1 ~ /,/ stud /

Fig. 3. Minimumcover to resist punch-through (one stud-per-rib connection).

Distribution of shear studs

Figure 4 shows equilibrium diagrams for a uniformly loaded composite

member together with the ultimate stress distribution on the cross-section
at maximum moment. The horizontal shear at the steel/concrete interface
between maximum and zero moment locations can be determined from
the concrete stress block, e.g. Vh = C', is a full shear connection condition.
On the other hand, Vh<C'~ describes an incomplete or partial shear
condition. Beams with full shear connection fail by crushing of concrete or
yielding of steel, while exhibiting large deflections prior to ultimate failure.
Beams with partial shear connection are more likely to exhibit shear
connector failure but will still exhibit substantial deflections before failure.
It has been shown that inelastic load redistribution among shear
connectors 3s normally occurs in uniformly loaded beams, allowing the
beam to reach the desired ultimate strength with the studs spaced uniformly
rather than according to the shear diagram. In cases where a composite
member supports a concentrated load, the number of stud connections re-
quired between adjacent points of zero and peak moment (at a concentrated
load) shall not be less than n', see Fig. 5. The value of n is represented by
Vh/qr o r Vh/{Nqdrib) } where applicable.
I
C~lm
W12 i
i

Tr
I
W/ 2 Nemnd Ax~ ln Sleb '
i

. . . . . . . . . . 'H.n'e:
W12 i
d
ix~l~.:pn.~l:~p,&l,:i.,,Z.~.,,.,~,dt,.,pp_dr.~,i.,a~.~.~tf: •
| i Tr
I

W12 NeumDIAz~ ln ~aml

F i g . 4. F o r c e e q u i l i b r i u m in a u n i f o r m l y - l o a d e d composite member.
 Composite floor systems 119

m I
11'. , , , , r . . 3 . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A BI CI

- - Va/q, or

Eq~ ar Un~luml

n
_ Vet ~

,_ _L
~.n'.s [- --~--~.. v,lq, o, i
BC=n" ,L: - -"I Va/( N ' q , o ~ )

Fig. 5. Distribution of shear connectors.

Composite floor framing, and therefore studs, are now used on vir-
tually every multi-storey steel building in Canada. Although most shear
studs are installed with the special welding guns described earlier, a
highly recommended technique, some may be installed using stick elec-
trode welding on small or remotely located buildings. The structural
effectiveness of studs, applied with both installation methods, was con-
firmed in a recent Canadian test.11 With the advent of limit states design,
the recent change to a minimum of 40% connection, and the use of
wide-rib profile decks, fewer studs are used and they must carry large
shear loads. Consequently, a designer must specify appropriate instal-
lation and inspection procedures, such as using CSA W59.1, on plans
and in specifications to ensure stud weld quality for ultimate shear
resistance.

COMPOSITE BEAM/GIRDER FRAMING

Composite members are usually designed as simply supported flexural

members, although some designers 36 have explored the performance of
continuous composite beams. The only documented case known to the
authors, where continuous composite members were built in Canada, and
used for frame stiffness and drift control, is reported by Stringer. 37

Effective depth and width of concrete flange

A composite member is comprised of a 'T-beam' formed by a concrete top

flange and a steel web and bottom flange. In a composite floor system, the
120 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

steel shape is used primarily to resist tension and shear while the concrete
slab acts as a compression element.
Assessment of the properties of the T-beam includes an evaluation of
effective depth and width of the concrete flange. When deck flutes and
therefore the concrete ribs formed are perpendicular to a steel member,
only the slab thickness above the tops of the steel deck flutes is considered
effective for composite action. When concrete ribs are parallel with a steel
member, the entire depth of the concrete slab is effective, although
concrete below the top of deck is often neglected to facilitate computation,
except for stub-girder designs.
The effective width rules provided by current design standards are
formulated on the basis of elastic conditions and cannot be viewed as
precise rules due to simplification to account for shear lag effects within
slabs. Elkelish and Robinson a8 found that the effective width at ultimate
load is at least equal to or greater than the effective width in the elastic
range. However, an evaluation using typical ultimate strength composite
beam tables 7 shows that the bending capacity of a composite beam is
largely insensitive to the effective width of the slab used, because only a
portion of the slab depth is effective in contributing to member property.
Thus, for composite beam, truss or stub-girder design, ultimate flexural
strength and elastic composite beam deflections can be calculated using
the same empirical effective slab width rules as described below.
A recent paper by Vallenilla and Bjorhovde 39 lead to the elimination of
the '16t+b' rule (an inappropriate empirical rule) for Canadian and US
design standards. 4,4° Hence, the effective slab width for interior beams is
given as the lesser of L/4 and the actual slab width. For exterior beams, the
effective width extending from each side of a member is the lesser of L/IO,
and one half of the clear distance between steel top flanges supporting an
interior slab or the clear cantilever for an exterior slab.

CONVENTIONAL COMPOSITE BEAM/GIRDER DESIGN

Conventional composite beam/girder framing, with mostly simple W-

shapes (the North American designation for Wide Flange shapes) un-
shored during slab placing, is designed compositely with a deck-slab using
stud shear connectors for interface shear transfer. The design of the
composite member involves the assessment of its performance at various
limit states--including the evaluations of: (1) the lateral-torsional moment
resistance of the steel beam under early construction loading such as steel
deck installation, (2) the elastic stiffness of the laterally supported steel
section during later construction stages such as placing of the concrete
 Composite floor systems 121

cover slab, (3) the composite member performance both as an individual

member and as part of the overall floor system, when subjected to
unfactored dead and live loads, and (4) the ultimate strength of the
composite section.

Strength and deflection considerations

The ultimate flexural strength of the composite member, with the plastic
neutral axis (PNA) in either the concrete slab or in the steel, is a well
documented concept. 50t2 At ultimate, it is assumed that the strains across
the composite section are large enough that the steel stresses are at yield
and the concrete compressive stress is at its ultimate design strength. The
tensile strength of the concrete is ignored. With either full or partial shear
connection, the stress blocks in the composite section are rectangular and
not linear as in elastic design. Large plastic rotation (as in plastic design) in
the maximum moment region is not considered essential for composite
members of normal span to steel depth ratios (>~ 18) to reach ultimate
moment capacity. Hence, when the PNA is in the steel, class 1 or 2 rules
are generally used to limit local buckling. It is hoped to illustrate in an
upcoming Canadian research project that when the PNA falls within a
thin (class 3) steel flange, local buckling will not occur, due to restraint
from deck-slab attachments. Thus the section class limitation of 1 and 2
could be further relaxed.
The procedure for arriving at factored moment resistance, Mrc, of a
composite section, using full or partial shear connection, has been illus-
trated in detail. ~2 Composite beam design using full shear connection is
rare. Partial shear connection, rather than full shear connection, is
preferred for the following reasons: (1) Typically, composite beams using
40% shear connection can usually attain about 85% of the flexural
capacity achieved with full shear connection. 7 (2) Selection of steel beam
sizes in composite design is often governed by constroction and deflection
considerations rather than by ultimate moment capacity. Thus a section
selected to meet these criteria, particularly in the case of unshored designs,
will usually provide sufficient moment capacity with partial shear connec-
tion. And partial shear connection minimizes the required number of
studs. (3) Since flute geometry and layout of deck units on a composite
floor restricts the distribution of studs and since double or triple-stud
shear connection reduces per-stud efficiency, partial shear connection
using a single stud per flute is most desirable.
Today, most composite floor beams are constructed with shear con-
nection in the range of 40-70% of the theoretical connection required
for full composite action. Recent comprehensive surveys of Canadian
122 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

research 27'29 on composite beams with shear connection from 25 to 40%

of full connection has produced the recommendation to lower the mini-
mum value for partial shear connection to 40% in the new Canadian
standard. 4 If composite action is solely required to provide deflection
control of floor members under service loading, 2 5 0 of full connection is
recommended.
Deflection control of composite floor members has both structural and
serviceability implications. Cover slab thickness should be carefully con-
trolled and the ponding phenomenon (progressive elastic deflection under
increasing slab loads) due to beam deflection during levelling of slabs
should be avoided or controlled. Both under-thickness of slab at mid-span
of a cambered beam (reduction of composite section properties), and
over-thickness of slab of an uncambered beam (extra dead load) should be
of concern. Also, end-rotation of composite members (crack control),
flexural stiffness (short and long-term deflections), and vibration service-
ability (walking or rhythmic activities) are considerations.

Span/depth ratio and deflection limits

In order to prevent excessive deflection due to slab placing, a composite
beam is proportioned using its non-composite stiffness. Live loads and
more dead loads are then superimposed on a composite beam. A good
starting point, as established in a 1968 design aid, 41 is to control
span/depth ratios to 24 and 30 for composite section depth and steel
member depth respectively. For simple span members supporting finishes
not susceptible to cracking, a deflection limit of ~ is reasonable. Tighter
limits and measures, to reduce and distribute slab cracking or when brittle
finishes are used, may be necessary.

Short-term and creep deflection effects

It is customary to calculate the moment of inertia of a composite section,
It, by transforming an effective concrete cross-section (in compression) to
an equivalent steel-section, using the elastic modular ratio, n = E/Ec. The
estimation of member deflection is complicated by the fact that concrete
creeps under sustained loads, producing what is known as creep deflec-
t i o n - a n important consideration for long span members. In shored
construction, the total long-term loading used for design includes sus-
tained live loads as well as total dead loads. When members are unshored
during construction, as they are in most cases, the concrete load is carried
by the steel, hence only the superimposed dead loads and the sustained live
loads are considered for creep deflection. The amount of live load that
contributes to creep depends on the type of floor occupancy. For example,
 Composite floor systems 123

the sustained live load of a typical floor in an office building is a small

fraction of its specified live occupancy load, while in a file storage area of
an office or in a warehouse, a large portion of the specified load may stay
in place throughout its useful life. When the designer is aware that a high
ratio of long-term to total design loading will be experienced in the life of
the structure, provision should be made for creep deflection.

Interface slip and partial connection effects

Steel--concrete interface slip and partial shear connection may reduce the
stiffness of a composite member even under service loading. In the ease of
a hollow composite beam (ribs of slab perpendicular to the beam)
flexibility of the ribs of the deck-slab may contribute to a loss in stiffness of
the composite member. A reduction in the composite moment of inertia
(see Ref. 5) should be made to allow for these effects during deflection
calculations.

Drying shrinkage effects

Volumetric reduction of concrete due to drying shrinkage can produce
some permanent deflections of composite members. In unshored construc-
tion, these effects will have a greater influence on deflections than any
other non-load influence. Since a concrete slab shortens but the steel shape
does not, slab shrinkage is partially restrained by attachment to the steel
shape. Canadian research tests 11'42~4 have shown that the effect of the
restrained shrinkage strain may be simulated by applying equal end
moments to the composite member, see Fig. 6. To facilitate design,
restrained slab shrinkage of about 300 microstrain for W-shape interior
beams is recommended, as given by research, 1~ while a value of 200
microstrain for W-shape interior girders and spandrel members is more
appropriate because of the extra stiffness of the girder relative to second-
ary members in the former case and the reduced influence of concrete slab

Theo~Ucal axial foce cauCng

C o ~ slab slTadn In c o ~ slab equal to
~,~ ~estrlb~ned | h r ~ x l ~ e - t m E cA c

,.
A~ M IfI~L 2 . y ~ ~ A f L 2 n . ~e~b~or~m
8Elf 8nit n*,,o~.~n~

Melt= y e ~ E © A c ] M~= yt~E,A¢

Be~ ~ ~ un~lor~ momml

Fig. 6. Deflectionof composite beams due to concrete shrinkage.

124 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

area in the latter. This is similar to the recommended restrained slab

shrinkage value as proposed by Viest et al. 45

Cambering to control structural thickness and flatness of concrete slab

Cambering of longer span beams for concrete loads is a common method

of controlling flatness of floor slabs in unshored designs. Cambering of
steel members to the full theoretical dead plus live load deflection is not
done because it could create a condition opposite to the 'ponding'
condition and result in a slab thickness less than that specified. As noted
by designers 42 and also reported by Ruddy, 46 moment restraint from
simple end connections, stiffness of supporting members, undersupply of
concrete depth at mid-span of cambered members, and size of each slab
segment placed, are the reasons why one frequently finds that the theo-
retical deflections due to concrete placement are not fully realized. Thus,
sequencing of slab pours and an understanding between designer and
concrete sub-contractor of the design-construction philosophy is most
important. If the calculated member deflection during concreting is less
than 20 mm, cambering is usually not specified. When the calculated
deflection exceeds 20 mm, cambering of steel framing to slightly less than
the computed elastic deflections under these assumed concrete loads is the
method recommended by the authors for spans exceeding the 8 m range.
Support connection rigidity and the influence of slab reinforcement
continuity should also be recognized when specifying camber.

Interaction of composite members with deck-slabs

Briefly, longitudinal slab shear arises from the transfer of axial stresses in
the slab to the steel member through stud shear connectors, as illustrated
in Fig. 7. If we examine the shear transfer mechanism from a steel 'girder'
(where deck flutes run parallel with the steel member) to studs, and hence
to a deck-slab, we will find a tendency for the concrete slab to shear above
J'I'IIn$~BClIQ

L ~ ~ ~Dr~.~-~_ •
(*~KSee*,H~ [ ~ j ~ < ~ _ _ ~ - - ~ . - - -

Fig. 7. Longitudinal shear resistance of deck-slabs in hollow composite members.

 Composite floor systems 125

and adjacent to the girder at ultimate load, with the highest slab shear
stresses concentrating at the first deck flute off the girder due to an abrupt
reduction in slab area, see Fig. 7. In this case, the contributipn of steel deck
to the longitudinal shear capacity of the deck-slab is negligible, especially
where the decks are 'cut and spead' over a girder to accommodate a
particular structural module, to permit fitting of beam flanges (i.e. uncoped
beams) under the girder flanges, or to permit studs to be shop or field
welded directly to the girder top flange.
End rotation due to superimposed-load induced deflection of beams
meeting at a girder and concrete shrinkage accumulations at areas of least
restraint also contribute to a tendency for slab cracking along the girder.
This adverse effect is considered to be more acute, thus special reinforcing
as previously shown in Fig. 1 is needed, when long, shallow beams are
connected to opposite sides of a girder.
Research work by Johnson, '*70ehlers, 4s Davies, 49 E1-Ghazzi, 5° Azmi 51
and Robinson 52 have provided a satisfactory explanation of longi-
tudinal shear resistance of composite floor members, as follows: The
longitudinal shear strength of a concrete slab is affected by internal and
external forces, and by the amount of transverse reinforcement. Longi-
tudinal cracks should theoretically initiate at the base when using a
solid concrete slab. In a transversely reinforced solid slab composite
beam, there is only a minimal increase in composite beam capacity
when the amount of this reinforcement is in excess of 1% of slab area.
Also, the reduction in beam capacity is small when 0.5% is used.
Longitudinal shear cracking in deck-slabs has not been observed in
hollow composite 'beams' (where deck flutes run perpendicular to beam
span). However, flexural and shrinkage cracks may occur, depending on
concrete placing and curing techniques and concrete quality. Hollow
composite 'beam' capacity is nominally increased when transverse rein-
forcing increases from 0.1 to 0-25% due to deck acting as transverse
reinforcement.
Doubling the 152x 152-MW13.3xMW13.3 mesh and adding trans-
verse reinforcing at concentrated load points over a hollow composite
girder can improve ductile behaviour and longitudinal crack distribution
at ultimate loads, nonetheless it may not enhance its overall member
capacity. 52 Most research testing has ignored the three-dimensional aspect
of real structures. Therefore, the longitudinal slab cracking found in Ref.
52 and the precise influence of extra transverse reinforcing in the deck-slab
as noted in Ref. 42 may not be fully identified. Research on shear capacity
in reinforced deck-slabs by Buckner et al., sa and calibration of Canadian
stub-girder sub-assemblage component tests 54-56 have resulted in a CSA-
126 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

S16.1-M89 rational design method, based on the limits for longitudinal

shear stress given by Mattock 57 and Mattock et al. 58

C O M P O S I T E O P E N W E B STEEL JOISTS (JOISTS) A N D

TRUSSES

A latticed (truss-form) steel member can also be designed compositely

with a deck slab. Tests in Canada on composite long-span joists (a
member normally designed by the joist fabricator), utilizing a deck-slab
incorporating a 38 mm deep steel deck began at the mid-1960s, and were
reported by Cran, s9 by Atkinson and Cran 6° and by others. 61-63 As will
be reviewed in the later text, research efforts during the late 1970s and
throughout the 1980s had focused more on the welded composite trusses.
These trusses are sized by the designer rather than the joist fabricator,
and connected using gussetless details. Composite trusses with improved
shear strength, stiffness and through-web ducting flexibility in spans
greater than 10m, have gradually evolved into a commonly used floor
system. A large number of identical trusses can further improve efficiency
in both shop and field, and therefore the steel unit price. With the use of
wide-rib profile decks, larger spacing and spans are the main features
offered by this type of framing.
A recent article 12 describes many important aspects of composite truss
design, such as common cord and web shapes and web framing configur-
ations, design of steel chord and web members, stud shear interface
connection design, and shop camber and deflection serviceability. A
number of full-scale tests have contributed to the development of a
design methodology for composite trusses. The first recorded test of a
composite truss, by Iyengar and Zils, 3° was a prototypical development
related to the Sears Tower. The 22.8 m long (span/depth ~ 22.5) compos-
ite trusses, widely spaced at 4.5 m centre to centre, with web members
placed on one side of the T--chords except near supports, were consider-
ed the state-of-the-art for their time.
In Canada, Bjorhovde64 studied full elastic response and ultimate
strength of a 12m truss, utilizing hollow structural section chords and
double angle webs. The ultimate load in the test program exceeded the
Limit States Design prediction by about 7%. Although connection eccen-
tricity of web members intersecting at chord locations did not affect the
capacity of chord members, buckling at a first compression diagonal
precipitated failure and resulted in recommendations with regard to
design and construction procedures. Brattland and Kennedy43°44 tested
two similar full-scale composite trusses for shrinkage deflection, ser-
 Composite floor systems 127

vice/ultimate load performances, and concluded: 'ductile behaviour up to

failure can be obtained without failure of web members, provided that the
design is based on the ultimate tensile strength of the bottom chord, and
the web members and the shear connection are designed for concomitant
forces'. A design procedure for angle web members was proposed, based
on the test results. Whether the angle web members are connected to one
side or both sides of the steel chords, they resist axial loads as single angle
elements due to the absence of intermittent connectors. To study the
interaction and behaviour of member-connection failure, research tests on
single angle struts, simulating sizes of web angles commonly used in
composite trusses, connected with different degrees of unbalanced weld
designs, are now planned at a Canadian University.
Installation of field-applied shear studs to steel truss top chords deserves
special attention. To facilitate stud welding, the top chord width should
normally be 50 mm or more and should never be less than 35 mm. Double
angle top chords create the most difficulty while T--chords present the
easiest solution, with a wide uninterrupted surface. However, the most
popular chord members for conventional 12m spans are square or
rectangular HSS. A 75 mm wide member is usually specified for this and
other reasons. As a result of the Canadian experience in installing decking
to joist members, it is proposed that when a top chord flat width is
~<50mm, the location of the truss top chord should be confirmed by
marking the deck at suitable intervals during deck installation, to facilitate
deck and stud welding.

STUB--GIRDER F L O O R C O N S T R U C T I O N

The stub-girder floor system illustrated in Fig. 8 is a steel-concrete

structural system with composite action in one or both principal framing
directions. It is primarily used for office floor framing with uniform loads
ranging from 2.4 to 4.8 kPa plus partitions. It has also seen use in 'special
purpose' buildings, such as laboratories and hospitals. The system is

HVAC du~ing mqm~ees gitdoc-lo-column

"Oirop-in" beam / "

............ ~,:.-:.-,:~.:..
"'::"~" ""- 8 /

Po~e~ ~Woo m n ~ ~ ~ 1 ~on

tor~.~ ~oa~ ox~a~

Fig. g. Stub-girder floor system.

128 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

basically used to carry gravity-loads, although some adaptations to also

resist lateral forces have been used. Two typical framing components form
the stub-girder floor framing system, i.e. the primary stub-girders and the
secondary floor beams.

Stub-girders

Ideally, stub-girders span about 12 m, often from core to exterior wall in

conventional office buildings, with the secondary floor beams spanning
8-12 m, with 9 m the most common. Girder spans of up to 13.75 m have
been used. Beyond a span of about 14m, stub-girders tend to become
impractical, with the slab strength in flexure, compression and shear
becoming critical. Girder spans as low as 8 m are worthy of consideration
if openings are necessary, or if continuous beam spans are beneficial.
A stub-girder is analysed as a Vierendeel girder, with the deck-slab
acting as a flexural-compression top-chord, the full length steel girder as a
flexural-tensile bottom-chord and the steel stubs serving as shear elements
in the Vierendeel girder. Shoring of the stub-girders is required during
concrete placing since the bottom chord is too slender to support
construction loads. A note of caution is offered here. The authors have
found a number of instances where shoring has been misunderstood, most
often where a shoring (propping) concept more commonly used for flat
slabs has been applied. Note that these are shores, not 'reshores'. Reten-
tion of the shores (shores are not released or reset) till the concrete reaches
a large percentage of its design strength, is critical. Elastic redistribution of
shoring forces down through the structure appears to be the most
frequently misunderstood phenomenon. Correct calculation of shore for-
ces and the number of shored levels are specifically dependent on this
understanding. For detailed discussion on design considerations such as
deck-slab profile, beam spacing, stub arrangements, properties of rein-
forced concrete top chord, structural modelling of stub-girders for manual
and computer analyses, member strength checks, design of transverse slab
reinforcement, stud shear connection design, shear capacity of stubs and
stub stiffener design, design of weldments at stub to girder interface,
shoring and deflection cheeks, etc., see Ref. 12.

Canadian applied research on stub-girders

Since its introduction by Colaco 65 about 1970 a limited number of

proprietary load tests were performed to supplement theoretical ana-
lyses 53'65'66 of stub-girders. In Canada, this structural system has been the
subject of numerous research projects, 54-56'67-7° including comprehensive
 Composite floor systems 129

full-scale testing. Since the late 1970s, Canadian research and construction
has concentrated on a 310mm deep bottom chord with some applications
using a 250 mm girder, while most US projects have used 360 mm sections.
Unlike conventional systems, the girder steel depth is not particularly span
dependent since tension and shear govern its required properties. Main goals
such as simplifying stub stiffening, minimizing stub-to-girder welding and
improving slab reinforcing criteria have been accomplished through full-
scale lab-tests, leading to several notable changes to the original stub-girder
configuration. These changes include reduction in girder depth, use of partial
height end plate stiffeners rather than full-height fitted stiffeners, or
elimination of stub stiffening by using them only when required, reduction in
stub welding, increased emphasis on slab reinforcement, and the truncation
of girder bottom chord to accommodate services near supports.

Special design variations for stub-girders

A stub-girder is a unique composite floor member which uses a reinforced

concrete deck-slab to carry both axial and flexural loads. Several special
design variations for stub-girders are described below.

Special stub-girders (truncated stub-girders)

Research and analytical studies ~° have indicated that a variation in
stub-girder configuration provides good structural efficiency. As shown in
Fig. 9, this configuration of stub-girder also permits services, such as
sprinkler mains adjacent to a service core or mechanical ducts at the
exterior, to be integrated more easily with the structural system. Sprinkler
laterals can then be graded to mains, and the mains are high enough to
avoid interference with the ceiling system and architectural finishes.

Rigid-ended stub-girders
Low rise buildings may be built with rigid framed stub-girders to provide
lateral load resistance. When used in a rigid framework, see Ref. 5, the
deep out-to-out depth of stub-girders produces a large moment of inertia
in the girders as well as rigidity and flexural strength at the girder ends for

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . .

Fig. 9. Truncated stub-girder.

130 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

efficient resistance of wind and seismic loads and for good inter-storey
drift control.

Upgrading existing stub-girders for heavier loading

Occasionally, a designer is required to strengthen a portion of a floor for
heavier occupancy loads, after completion of construction. Like other
types of steel floor construction, a stub-girder framed floor can be
reinforced to accommodate the increase of occupancy loading. The key to
stiffening of a girder lies primarily in reducing local moments introduced
in the top compression chord, by blocking existing web holes with plates,
and, where necessary, by introducing a longitudinal plate to assist the
bottom tension chord.

Cantilever and suspended span (Gerber) floor beams

Floor beams, ranging from about 310 to 460 mm in depth, are placed over
steel stub-girders on about 2.5-3.5 m centres, depending upon the struc-
tural module and the spanning capability of the selected deck-slab system.
A typical deck-slab system usually incorporates a 75 mm deep composite
wide-rib profile deck, covered by about 75 mm of ND concrete or 85 mm
of SLD concrete.
Considerations when selecting the depth of cantilever beams should
include span, strength of stub-girder (i.e. effective composite depth), depth
of duct openings, storey height, total floor steel mass, etc. Beam sizes are
chosen based on loading and geometric requirements. For example,
mechanical ducts through a stub-girder may dictate selection of a beam
size deeper than that required for strength. Beams of an appropriate depth
should be used instead. Since the tensile component of a stub-girder is
separated from its top chord by the depth of the floor beams, the chosen
beam depth directly affects the girder capacity and the governing forces for
the deck-slab top chord as well as the steel bottom chord at the critical
design locations. Designers are cautioned against introducing complexity
such as the use of shallow beams supported on high plinthes on the girder
top flange to increase overall depth of opening through girder and effective
depth of girder assembly.
The floor beams are designed based on cantilever and suspended span
(or Gerber) construction where the cantilever spans are continuous over
girders for an appropriate length, with the suspended spans or drop-in
segments picked up at the ends of the cantilevers. The cantilever spans are
field bolted to the top flange of the steel bottom chord of the stub-girder;
while at each cantilever beam to girder joint, two shear studs are usually
specified for anchorage to the deck-slab system. The positive moment
 Composite floor systems 131

regions of the cantilever beams are often designed compositely with the
deck-slab system to produce savings in structural steel as well as to provide
stiffness. The simply supported suspended spans may be much shallower in
depth than the cantilever beams, and even more so when designed
compositely, permitting additional plenum service depth in those areas for
main ducts feeding from the core. For details of design, see Refs 5 and 12.
The following is a list of the state-of-the-art design considerations for floor
beam members: Check positive moment at mid-span using zero live load on
both cantilever arms and suspended spans. Design as conventional compos-
ite beams when applicable. Span/depth ratios should be about ~<30 and 24
for bare steel and composite section depth respectively. The ratio of
cantilever arm length to depth of steel section should be ~<5. A larger
cantilever arm length would be established by evaluating Mr of the steel
section with appropriate structural restraints. Check deflections at mid-span
and at the ends of the cantilever arms. Determine whether camber is required
for concrete placing. Knowledge gleaned from recent cantilever (Gerber)
beam tests 7t'72 in Canada can enable designers to accurately assess
cantilever beam lateral-torsional buckling strengths under construction,
although this aspect would rarely be critical if the above criteria are followed.

Cambering of floor beams and stub-girders

Long span Gerber beams and stub-girders often require shop cambering
to avoid use of excessive concrete quantities (and dead load) and to ensure
a 'flat' floor after shore removal. In general, floor beams are cambered
when the estimated deflection during slab placing approaches 20 mm. It
must be remembered that, at certain stages of floor construction, the
stub--girder deflection may be slightly negative, but when shores supported
by the girders are removed there can be significant elastic recovery. Also,
on the projects checked, actual deflections have never reached theoretical
values. Stub-girders only require a small amount of positive camber and
may be cambered during installation of the shores rather than in the shop.
The elastic self-weight deflection of girders should be removed during
placement of shoring jacks. Also, the girder should be shop or field
cambered to allow for a small amount of instantaneous elastic deflection
during slab placing and after shore removal.

Control of concrete depth over girders

Since a stub-girder relies heavily on a reinforced concrete deck-slab to

perform as a top chord, any significant deviation from cover slab thickness
132 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

at critical girder locations can affect overall girder strength and stiffness.
Therefore, screeding concrete to actual steel elevations is critical. Screed
discs attached to the top of the stub flanges, or some other positive means,
indicating the desired depth of concrete cover slab, may be used to ensure
that the cover slabs are screeded to the design thickness. Laser screeding of
any cambered and shored system to a horizontal plane would obviously
present some risk of incorrect slab thicknesses.

COST I M P L I C A T I O N S O F C O M P O S I T E C O N S T R U C T I O N

There are three significant factors to be considered in comparing non-

composite designs to composite designs. These are weight saving, the
change in labour content to weight ratio, and the cost of stud shear
connectors. A number of design examples have been reviewed to illustrate
the difference between composite and non-composite designs. Buildings of
various sizes, shapes and heights, and with several bay dimensions have
been compared. These comparisons are based primarily on projects
recently evaluated by the Project Analysis Division (PAD) of the CISC.
Steel framed buildings with braced steel cores, and gravity steel framing
with concrete core(s) were included. Total building costs, including deck-
slab and fire protection were computed.
These evaluations have been carried out using software known as
the Gravity Frame Design 3 (GFD3) program. 8 This state-of-the-art
program is the newest version of software originally introduced in the
1970s. Operating on IBM desktop hardware, graphical input is used
to generate floor geometry with appropriate criteria such as member
depth, deflection limitations, etc. Uniformly distributed superimposed
dead and live loads, and deck-slab for gravity framing design are defined,
and then applied automatically. Point loads and wall loads are added as
appropriate.
Floors of different types are stacked one above the other to create the
multi-storey model. Columns are tiered based on practical construction
considerations (i.e. three-storey tiers for example), and a cost index is
selected for use in calculating the end cost of the final steel frame design by
totalling the cost of each framing component. A constant cost index of
1400 has been used for steel costing in this instance to make results
directly comparable. The method of estimating used may be found in the
Appendix of the GFD3 manual. 8
The results of this cost comparison are listed in Table 2. To facilitate a
direct comparison of the floor framing systems and to take out the
differing height factors, cost of columns, cores, steel bracing, deck, slab and
 Composite floor systems 133

fire protection have been omitted from the tabulated data. The savings to
be achieved using composite design are clearly visible. Steel tonnages are
significantly reduced using compositely designed floor framing. Note that
the mass of composite beam framing is normalized as 1.00 in the ratios,
with non-composite showing as a higher ratio, i.e. more tonnes. Composite
truss schemes, when shown, are ratioed against composite beam scheme
weights, and therefore show ratios less than 1 indicating lower steel mass,
and on longer spans, lower costs. Stub-girders were included in one
evaluation (project 4) to show its ranking cost wise. This is an interesting
case, not easily visualized from cost data alone but illustrated in Fig. 10.
The framing is turned 90 ° compared with other schemes, placing large
stub-girder reactions either directly on columns or on the building core.
Therefore no large reactions are carried in bending, each member is
optimized for its application and overall efficiency is increased, when
compared with the beam and truss schemes for this project.
Steel framing costs are comprised of material, and shop and field labour.
Although a reduction in materials will save costs, savings will not be
proportional to steel reduction. In many cases, the number of pieces to be
handled is not changed by switching from non-composite design to
composite design for a frame with the same bay size, and shear stud costs,
and possibly camber costs must be included. A comparison of the steel
mass ratios with the cost ratios will illustrate this point. Such a compari-
son demonstrates that inclusion of shear stud and cambering costs narrow
the gap between composite and non-composite designs but still show cost
penalties of at least 15% on non-composite beam schemes, and at least
30% on larger span truss to beam comparisons. It can be clearly seen that
in order to meet the demands of modern building criteria, such as long,
clear spans, composite design must be used. Other conclusions and
obvious benefits of composite design can also be drawn from the table.

CLOSURE

The authors have traced the contribution of Canadian research in the

enhancement of knowledge, practice and economy of composite floor
design. Knowledge gleaned from this research, supported by comprehen-
sive cost-benefit studies has helped to produce competitive steel buildings
and advance the technology of steel-concrete composite floor systems in
Canada. Canadian contributions have influenced the development of
steel-concrete composite floor design elsewhere, including the UK, 73 New
Zealand, 74 Republic of South Africa 75 and Australia 76 where similar
design methods are adopted in readily available technical publications. It
 Co

TABLE 2
Composite versus Non-composite Design--Cost Comparisons

Project no. No. of Gravity Live load Bras Total Steel Steel No. of Steel Steel
Lateral floors flaming (kPa) (t) (t) wt cost studs + stud + stud
system Area Bay size Deck span Trus. Total ratio (/m 2) COSt COSt COSt
(m z) (m × m) (m) (t) ( ~g/m ~) (/m 2) (/m 2) ratio

6 Comp. bm. 3.6 n.r. 464 464 18804

IA 1.00 $51.47 $55.20 1-00
13 880 9x9 3000 33-42 $3.73
g~
Office tower
6 N.c. bin. 3.6 n.r. 668 668
cone. core 1.44 $74.14 $74.14 1-34
13 880 9x9 3000 48.14
6 Comp. bm. 3.6 n.r. 412 412 20832
IB 1-00 $45.68 $49.81 1.00
13 880 9x9 3000 29.66 $4.13
Office tower
6 N.c. bm. 3.6 n.r. 589 589
con. core 1-43 $65"40 $65.40 1.31
13 880 9x9 3000 42-47
7 Comp. bin. 2.4 179 ! 79 6058
2 1.00 $39-44 $41-82 1.00
6990 8×8 2667 25.61 $2.38
Office t o w e r
7 N.c. bm. 2.4 223 223
braced frame 1.25 $49" 13 $49.13 1.17
6990 8x8 2667 31-9
12 Comp. tr. 3-6 284 466 15 540
0-78 $42.08 $44.42 0.85
18251 12 × 6 3000 181 25-52 $2.34
3A
Of~ce tower 12 Comp. bin. 3-6 598 598 11334
18251 1.00 $50-42 $52"13 1.00
12x6 3000 32"74 $1"71
conc. c o r e
12 N.c. bin. 3"6 • 764 764
1"28 $64.47 $64-47 1 "24
18251 12×6 3000 41"86
12 Comp. tr. 3"6 284 466 15 540
0-78 $42-08 $44-42 0-85
18251 12x6 3000 181 25"52 $2"34
3B
Office tower 12 Comp. bm. 3-6 598 598 11334
1"00 $50-42 $52.13 1-00
18251 12x6 3000 32-74 $1"71
bred. core
12 N.c. bm. 3.6 764 764
1"28 $64-47 $64-47 1.24
18 251 12 x 6 3000 41.86

26 Comp. tr. 2.4 710 1600 0-74 $36-89 61464 $39"19 0-82
73543 13.75x9.15 3050 890 21-76 $2.30
4 26 Stub-girder 2.4 2036 2036 0-94 $44.57 68952 $47.15 0-99
73 543 13.75x9.15 3438 27-68 $2-58
Office tower
26 Comp. bm. 2.4 2174 2174 57600
cone. eor 1.00 $45.52 $47-68 1-00
73 543 13.75 x 9.15 3050 29-56 $2-15
26 N.c. bm. 2.4 2626 2626
1-21 $54.99 $54-99 1-15
73 543 13-75x 9-15 3050 35.71

Note: Structural steel costed using the CISC Metric Steel Cost Index of 1400 as per Appendix of GFD3. s
n.r. = not reduced (client requirement); N.c. bin. = non-composite beams.
136 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie
Canlm ~

Fig. 10. Project No. 4--typical floor-framing alternatives.

is hoped that continuing international research efforts to explore other

aspects of steel-concrete composite framing can be coordinated to mini-
mize duplication of effort and to further the evolution of composite steel
construction.

REFERENCES

I. MacKay, H. M., Gillespie, P. & Leluau, C., Report on the strength of steel
I-beams Munched with concrete. The Enoineerino Journal, 6(8) (1923) 365-9.
2. Manning, R. C., Canadian Steel Construction, Part II Composite Construction.
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, 1947, 114.
3. David, R., and Meyerhof, G. G., Composite construction of bridges using
steel and concrete. The Engineering Journal, (May 1958) 2-8.
4. Steel Structures for Buildings--Limit States Design. CAN3-SI6.1-M89, Cana-
dian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON.
5. Chien, E. Y. L. & Ritchie, J. K., Design and Construction of Composite Floor
Systems, CISC, Toronto, August, 1984.
6. Chien, E. Y. L., CISC Low Rise Building Design Aid. CISC, Toronto, May,
1991.
7. CISC Handbook of Steel Construction, 5th edn. CISC, Toronto, 1991.
8. Gravity Frame Design 3, User's Guide & Technical Manual. CISC, Toronto,
Jan., 1992.
9. Bergmann, R., The 72 storey office tower of the King/Bay Project, Toronto--
its structural concept and analysis. Canadian Steel Construction Council
(CSCC) Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, 1974.
10. Ritchie, J. K. & Chien, E. Y. L., Innovative designs in structural systems for
buildings. CSCC, Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, 1978.
11. 3ent, K. A., Effects of shrinkage, creep and applied loads on continuous
deck-slab composite beams. Masters Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Sept., 1989.
12. Constructional Steel Design: An International Guide. Elsevier, London (in
press).
13. Standard for Composite Steel Deck. Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute,
Dec., 1988.
 Composite floor systems 137

14. Temple, M. C. & Abdel-Sayed, G., Fatigue experiments on composite slab

floors. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE (July 1979) 1435-44.
15. Schuster, R. M. & Suleiman, R. E., Composite slabs subjected to repeated
point loading. Eighth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed
Steel Structures, St Louis, Missouri, Nov., 1986.
16. McCuaig, L. A. & Schuster, R. M., Repeated point loading on composite
slabs. Ninth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Struc-
tures, St Louis, Missouri, Nov., 1988.
17. AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Allowable Stress Design and
Plastic Design, June 1, 1989.
18. Goble, G. G., Shear strength of thin flange composite specimens, AISC
Enoineerino Journal (April 1968).
19. Robinson, H., Tests on composite beams with cellular deck. Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE (August 1967) 139-64.
20. Slutter, R. G., Test of Cincinnati Centre Composite Beam, Report No.
200.67.458.2, Fritz Laboratory, Lehigh University, January, 1968.
21. Robinson, H., Composite beam incorporating cellular steel decking. Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE (March 1969) 355-80.
22. Robinson, H. & Wallace, I. W., Composite beams with 1~ inch metal deck
and partial and full shear connection. Transactions of the Canadian Society
of Civil Engineering EIC Vol. 16, No. A-8, 1973, i-viii.
23. Azmi, M. H., Composite open-web trusses with metal cellular floor. Masters
thesis, McMaster University, April, 1972.
24. Fisher, J. W., Design of composite beams with formed metal deck. AISC
Engineering Journal (July 1970) 88-96.
25. Grant, J. A., Fisher, J. W. & Slutter, R. G., Composite beams with formed
steel deck. AISC Engineering Journal, First Quarter (1977) 24-43.
26. Redwood, R. G. & Wong, P. K., Web holes in composite beams with steel
deck. CSCC Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, 1982.
27. Robinson, H., Multiple stud shear connections in deep ribbed metal deck.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(4) (August 1988) 553-569.
28. Jayas, B. S. & Hosain, M. U., Behaviour of headed studs in composite beams:
push-out tests. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 15 (1988) 240-53.
29. Jayas, B. S. & Hosain, M. U., Behaviour of headed studs in composite beams:
full size tests. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 16 (1989) 712-24.
30. Iyengar, S. H. & Zils, J. J., Composite floor system for sears tower. AISC
Engineering Journal, 3rd Quarter (1973) 74-81.
31. Furlong, R. W. & Henderson, W. D., Report of load tests on composite beams
of lightweight concrete in three-inch metal deck with stud length as the
principal variable. University of Texas, Austin, August, 1975.
32. Allan, B., Yen, B. T., Slutter, R. G. & Fisher, J. W., Comparative tests on
composite beams with formed metal deck. Fritz Engineering Laboratory
Report 200.76.458.1 Lehigh University, Bethlehem, December, 1976.
33. Hawkins, N. M. & Mitchell, D., Seismic response of composite shear
connections. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 110 (1984) 2120-
36.
34. Murray, T. M., Weak position shear stud beam test. Structures and Materials
Research Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, November, 1990.
138 E. Y. L Chien & J. K. Ritchie

35. Slutter, R. G. and Driscoll, G. C., Jr, Flexural strength of steel-concrete

composite beams. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE (April 1965) 71-
99.
36. Slade, L. W. & Grittis, L. G., VANC/Houston: composite system integrates
hospital. 10th ASCE Structural Congress, Austin, Texas, 1992.
37. Stringer, D. C., Staggered truss and stub girder framing systems in. Western
Canada. CSCC Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, 1982.
38. Elkelish, S. & Robinson, H., Effective width of composite beams with
ribbed metal deck. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (October 1986) 575-
587.
39. Vallenilla, C. & Bjorhovde, R., Effective width criteria for composite beams.
AISC Engineering Journal, 4th Quarter (1985) 169-75.
40. Load and Resistance Factor Desion Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, September, 1986.
41. Composite Beam Manual. Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute, 1968.
42. Montgomery, C. J., Kulak, G. L. & Shwartsburd, G., Deflection of a
composite floor system. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 10(2) (June
1983) 192-204.
43. Brattland, A. & Kennedy, D. J. L., Flexural tests of two full-scale composite
trusses. Canadian Journal of Civil Enoineerino, (1992) 19, 279-95.
44. Kennedy, D. J. L. & Brattland, A., Shrinkage tests of two fuU-scale composite
trusses. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (1992) 19, 296-309.
45. Viest, I. M., Fountain, R. S. & Singleton, R. C., Composite Construction in
Steel and Concrete for Bridoes and Buildings. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958.
46. Ruddy, J. L., Ponding of concrete deck floors. AISC Encdineerin0 Journal, 3rd
Quarter (1986) 107-15.
47. Johnson, R. P., Longitudinal shear strength of composite beams. ACI Journal
(June 1970) 464-6.
48. Oehlers, D. I, Splitting induced by shear connectors in composite beams.
ASCE Journal of Structural Enoineerino (February 1989) 341-62.
49. Davies, C., Tests on half-scale steel-concrete composite beams with welded
stud connectors. The Structural Enoineer (January 1969) 29-40.
50. El-Ghazzi, M. N., Longitudinal shear capacity of the slabs of composite
beams. Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
McMaster University, Nov., 1972.
51. Azmi, H. H., Strength of composite beams incorporating 3-inch cellular metal
deck. Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, McMas-
ter University, June, 1975.
52. Robinson, H., Resistance to longitudinal cracking in composite girders.
McMaster University, unpublished research test report to CSCC, October,
1982.
53. Buckner C. D., Deville, D. J. & McKee, D. C., Shear strength of slabs in stub-
girders. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE. ST2 (1981) 273-80.
54. Bjorhovde, R. & Zimmerman, T. J., Some aspects of stub-girder design.
Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, Proceedings, 1980.
55. KuUman, R. B. & Hosain, M. U., Shear strength of stub-girder: full-scale tests.
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Annual Conference Proceedings, 1980.
56. Tse, W. C., An experimental and analytical investigation of stub-girders.
Masters Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, 1985.
 Compositefloor systems 139

57. Mattock, A. H., Shear transfer in concrete having reinforcement at an angle

to the shear plane. Special Publication 42, Shear in Reinforced Concrete,
American Concrete Institute, 1974.
58. Mattock, A. H., Li, W. K. & Wang, T. C., Shear transfer in lightweight
reinforced concrete. PCI Journal (January-February 1976) 22-39.
59. Cran, J. A., Design and testing composite open-web steel joists. Tech. Bulletin
11, Stelco, January, 1972.
60. Atkinson, A. H. & Cran, J. A., The design and economics of composite
open-web steel joists. Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, 1972.
61. Azmi, M. H., Composite open-web trusses with metal cellular floor. Master of
Engineering Thesis, McMaster University, April, 1972.
62. Fahmy E. H. A., Inelastic analysis of composite open-web steel joists. Master
of Engineering Thesis, McMaster University, 1974.
63. Robinson, H., Composite open-web joists with formed steel deck. Pro-
ceedinos, Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, 1978.
64. Bjorhovde, R., Full scale test of a composite truss. Structural Engineering
Report No. 97, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
(1981).
65. Colaco, J. P., A stub--girder system for highrise buildings. AISC Engineering
Journal (July 1972) 89-95.
66. Creed, M. W., Analysis and testing of stub-girders in a building structure.
Masters Thesis, North Carolina State University, 1984.
67. Matthews, C. M., Montgomery, C. J. & Murray, D. W., Designing floor
systems for dynamic response. Structural Engineering Report No. 106,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, October, 1982.
68. Ahmad, M., Tse, W. C. & Hosain, M. U., Recent research and developments
is stub--girder floor systems. Proceedings, CSCE Annual Conference, June,
1989.
69. Ahmad, M., Chien, E. Y. L. & Hosain, M. U., Displacement characteristics of
full size stub--girder floor systems under sustained in-service loading. Forth
Rail Bridge Centenary Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Aug.,
1990.
70 Ahmad, M., Chien, E. Y. L. & Hosain, M. U., Modified stub-girder floor
system: full scale tests. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering (Nov., 1992)
3222-6.
71. Albert, C., Hesham, S. E. & Kennedy, D. J. L., Stability of steel beams in
cantilever-suspended span construction. CSCE Annual Meeting Proceedings,
1991.
72. Albert, C., Hesham, S. E. & Kennedy, D. J. L., Distortional buckling of steel
beams in cantilever-suspended span construction (1992) 19, 767-80.
73. Lawson, R. M., Design of Composite Slabs and Beams with Steel Decking. The
Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, UK, 1989.
74. Code New Zealand Amendments to AS 1250:1981, Section 13 Composite
Construction & Commentary on Section 13, 1986.
75. South African Steel Construction Handbook. The South African Institute of
Steel Construction, 1987.
76. Patrick, M. & P o o n , S. L., Composite Beam Design and Safe Load Tables.
Australian Institute of Steel Construction, 1989.