Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kennytiongpingchietaa 050041 D 09 TTT
Kennytiongpingchietaa 050041 D 09 TTT
Kennytiongpingchietaa 050041 D 09 TTT
1/07)
Certified by :
NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTIAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organisation with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
Signature : ………………………………….
Name of Supervisor: PROF.IR.DR.MAHMOOD MD TAHIR
Date : 4th MAY 2009
i
MAY 2009
ii
I declare that this thesis entitled “The Comparison of Composite Beam Design
Between British Standard Part 3: Section 1 And Eurocode 4 Part 1.1” is the result of
my own research except as cited in the references. The thesis has not been accepted
for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature: …………………………….
iii
To my beloved parents and siblings
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Lastly, my sincere appreciate also extends to all my friends and all members
of STC for helping me either directly and indirectly in completion of this project.
Thank you very much to all of you.
v
ABSTRACT
In 2010 years, Eurocode are expected to replace most of the country code of
practice. There will be a general move in the industry towards using Euro codes as
conflicting British Standards will be withdrawn in early 2010. With the Eurocode
taking in place, engineers who have the knowledge of the Eurocode design will have
a better place when dealing with other country engineer and take on the project at the
country who already adopt the Eurocode. The introduction of Eurocode to replace
the old design standard, British Standard and the change of the code will benefit the
construction industry and also make the designer and other parties which involved in
the industry need to adapt to the changes. Many of designers, engineers, clients,
regulators, contractors, academics and suppliers are concern about the
implementation of the Eurocodes. Designers are unlikely to adopt the structural with
Eurocodes until they see competitive advantages. So before the design code is used,
it is good to conduct a research on both Eurocode and British standard to identify the
changes in the design code together with the performance of the composite beam
using the new design code. The results of the project can be a good reference to all
designers, engineers, researchers, and others.
vi
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THESIS TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF NOTATIONS xv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background of Project 2
1.3 Objectives 3
1.4 Scope of The Project 4
1.5 Problem Statement 5
viii
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
3 METHODOLOGY 19
3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 The procedures and steps to conduct the study 20
3.2.1 Study and understand the concepts of BS5950 20
and EN1994-1.1
3.2.2 Understand the basis of design and composite beam 21
design procedures for BS5950 and EN1994
3.2.3 Design the composite beam 23
ix
REFERENCES 61
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
4.8 The different between shear capacity and total shear force in 55
EC4 and BS5950
xii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
LIST OF NOTATIONS
Depth of slab ht Ds
Deck Profile Height hp Dp
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
According to BSI, There will be a general move in the industry towards using
Euro codes as conflicting British Standards will be withdrawn in early 2010 and they
will therefore not be maintained by BSI .With the Eurocode taking in place, Engineer
who have the knowledge of the Eurocode design will have a better place when
dealing with other country engineers who already adopt the Eurocode .
2
1.3 Objectives
1) To identify the difference in the concept of the design between BS 5950: Part
Part 3: 1990 and Eurocode 4 based on Ultimate Limit State and Serviceability
Limit State.
3) To establish composite beam design using spread sheet for BS5950-3.1 and
Eurocode 4.
4
The scope of the project covers the basis of the design for BS5950 and
Eurocode 4, which are design of the composite beam with:
Figure 1.1 Single Shear Connector Figure 1.2 Double Shear connector
5
The structural Eurocodes are a European suit of codes for structural design
that have been developed over a period of more than twenty-five years. Between
2004 and 2007 they will be published, as British Standards, initially as an alternative
to the existing Standards. By 2010 they will have effectively replaced the current
British Standards as the primary basis for designing buildings and civil engineering
structures not only in the UK but also in Malaysia.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1 History
(ii) The increased stiffness of composite beams can result in them being
shallower than non-composite beams for the same span. this can lead to lower
storey heights and a reduction to cladding costs (which is significant, as
8
cladding can represent up to 20% of the total building cost), or allowing more
room for mechanical services.
(iii)The deflection of the composite slab will decrease with the steel decking.
(iv) Composite action can better utilize the properties of each constituent
material. In steel-concrete composite beams, for example, the concrete is
assumed to take most or all of the compression while the steel takes all the
tension.
The cold formed profiled steel sheeting is an integral part of the structural system as
it performs the following roles:
(i) It acts as a safe working platform and protects the workers below.
(ii) It supports the loads during construction and may eliminate the need
for temporary propping.
By using the composite beam, the loading capacity and stiffness of the composite
construction can be increased with the composite action due to the interaction of the
steel beam and concrete slab with the shear connection. Beside that the saving in
9
steel weight and the depth of the beam can be deduced due to the composite beam
action (Tahir , 2008).
Lawson, 2001).All the shear connection should be capable of the resisting uplift
forces caused by the tendency of the slab to separable from the beam.
2.3 Eurocode
(iv) facilitate the marketing and use of structural components and kits
in Members States
(1) Eurocode 4 applies to the design of composite structures and members for
buildings and civil engineering works. It complies with the principles and
requirements for the safety and serviceability of structures, the basis of their
design and verification that are given in EN 1990 – Basis of structural design.
For this project, Eurocode 4 Part 1-1(Design of the composite steel and
concrete Part 1-1 general rules and rules for building)will be used as the one of the
design code for the design of the composite beam
Part 1-1 of Eurocode 4 gives a general basis for the design of composite
structures together with specific rules for buildings.
15
2.4.1 BS5950-3.1:1990
This Section of BS 5950 has been prepared under the direction of the Civil
Engineering and Building Structures Standards Policy Committee. BS 5950 is a
document combining codes of practice to cover the design, construction and fire
resistance of steel structures and specifications for materials, workmanship and
erection. (BS5950-3.1).As Eurocode 4, British Standard 5950,The structural use of
steel in building is divided into 9 main parts.BS5950 part 3 section 3.1 is about
Design of simple and continuous beams which will be one of the design code for the
comparison purpose.
In common with the other Eurocodes, EC4 uses a number of subscripts such
as k for characteristic values, d for design values, R for resistances (rather than
capacities) and E for applied forces or moments. Specific to EC4 is the subscript a,
which comes from the French word for steel, acier, and refers to steel components of
the composite structure; for example, the shear resistance of the steel section is
referred to as Vpl,a,Rd . The resistance of a shear connector changes from Q to PRd, and
forces in the steel and concrete used when calculating the plastic resistance of a
composite section become Na and N c. Among other changes, the depth of the
concrete slab is referred to as h, and that of the profiled steel sheeting hp .Most of the
formulae may look different with the notation but actually they are same.
18
2.5.2 Concrete
One of the most noticeable differences in EC4 is the way that concrete
strength is treated. Concrete strengths are termed according to the shape of the
moulds used to produce samples of the concrete for compression testing; in the
British Standards, the cube strength is used, whereas the cylinder strength is used in
the Eurocodes. At first glance, the strengths used in the two different Standards will
give different resistances, as concrete with a characteristic cube strength of 25
N/mm2 should have a characteristic cylinder strength of 20 N/mm2. However, when
converting from the concrete strength to the equivalent plastic stress block, the
factors (0.67 and 0.85 for the BS and EC respectively) result in virtually identical
design strengths. The modular ratios that are recommended in the Eurocodes are
similar to those in the British Standards, but are concrete strength dependant. For a
typical 25/30 concrete, the short-term modular
ratio is 6.7 and for permanent loads is 29 (with an intermediate value for the primary
and secondary effects of shrinkage).However, for frames which have αcr > 10
(meaning second order effects do not have to be taken into consideration), a value of
twice the short-term modular ratio can be used for both short term and long-term
loading to simplify the analysis.
19
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this project is to identify and compare the difference and the
similarities between British Standard BS5950 section 3.1 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-
1.1. Besides that, the comparison is focused on the design process of the composite
beam to determine the similarities and the difference for all elements between
BS5950-3.1:1990 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-1.1:2004. The computer software,
Microsoft Excel is used to establish the spread sheet to decrease the design process
time. The method used to compare BS5950 Part 3.1:1990 with Eurocode 4 is by
developing spread sheet that can calculate automatically the capacity of the
composite beam studied.
20
The procedures and steps to conduct the study for comparison the composite
beam design between BS5950-3.1 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-1.1 is listed below.
1) Study and understand the concepts and scopes of BS5950 and EN1994-
1.1
2) Understand the basis of design, design procedures and design principles
of composite beam design for BS5950 and EN1994.
3) List and identify all the formulae used and notation used in BS5950 and
EN1994-1.1 in a table.
4) Start the design process of the simply supported composite beam design
using BS5950 and EN1994-1.1 for the same case of study.
5) Establish spread sheet for the composite beam design for BS5950 and
EN1994-1.1 using Microsoft Excel.
6) Compare and identify the similarity and different between BS5950-3.1
and EN1994-1-1.
7) Conclude and summarize the finding and result.
8) Recommendations
The understanding on the British standards and Eurocode was done before
proceeding with the rest of the study. First of all, the concept and scopes of the
design code was clearly understood to know the limitation for each design code. The
history of the design code was also studied to understand about the background
information. Other than that, all the related news and articles about the design code
was studied from the internet and books to understand about the design code.
21
3.2.2 Understand the Basis of Design and Composite Beam Design Procedures
for BS5950 and EN1994
After that, the design procedures of the composite beam design for BS5950-
Part 3.1 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-1.1 was studied and understood. The study of the
procedures or the flow of design is important so that the comparison and the study on
the design code can be conducted properly. Besides that, the basis of the design such
as construction condition, shear resistance, shear connection, moment resistance for
full and partial shear connection were studied.
The following are the design procedures of the composite beam for Eurocode 4 and
British standard:
Loading :
1) Calculate Loading and choosing material and beam size
2) Getting the design load, F and Design moment, Msd for both construction
stage and composite stage design.
Before starting the design process, all the necessary data such as length and
size of the beam, loading, decking profile, material properties and other related data
were obtained from the design tables and properties tables. The composite beam was
designed as a simply supported beam with uniform loading and constructed with
profile metal decking slab placed perpendicular to the beam. The composite beam
was designed according to the Eurocode 4, EN1994-1-1 and British standard,
BS5950-3.1, using the same parametric data for both design codes so that the
comparison can be conducted. The same size of the beam was used as comparison
for these two design codes. The designs were done with different length of the beam.
For this project, 10, 12 and 15 metres beam composite beam were designed. The
steel section used for 10 metres beam was 457 x 152 x 52 UB for both design codes.
For 12 metres beam, the steel section used was 457 x 191 x 74 UB for both design
codes. For 15 metres beam, the steel section used was 533 x 210 x 109 UB. The
composite beam was also designed in an unpropped condition. Besides that, the size
of the shear stud used was the same for 10, 12, and 15 metres length of beam.
3.2.4 Establish the Spread Sheet for Design of the Composite Beam Using
Microsoft Excel
Two spread sheets were established for the design of the composite beam
according to the Eurocode 4, EN1994-1-1 and British Standard, BS5950-3.1. By
using the spread sheet, the repeated manual calculation can be avoided to decrease
the design process time. Besides that, the different data were used to design and the
results were used for comparison purpose. The spread sheet was also used as a
software or tool to check the design for reference purpose. Microsoft Excel was used
to establish the spread sheet to assist in the design calculation.
24
By using the spread sheet, The result obtained from the design of the
composite beam for 10, 12 ,& 15 metres were used to analysis and compare.
Comparison was conducted to identify the different and similarity between Eurocode
4, EN1994-1-1 and British standard, BS5950-3.1 accordingly .The comparison were
done on the load combination and safety factor, Partial safety factor for material,
Effect breath of slab, Compressive and Tensile Capacities, The Moment Resistance
with full Shear Connection, Influence of the Deck Shape, Number of stud for half
beam, Shear connection, Shear Connector Resistance, Degree of the shear
connection, Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection, Vertical Shear,
Deflection, and Transverse reinforcement. All the result were listed accordingly and
well presented by using tables and graphs.
Conclusions and recommendations were given after the comparison and the
design had been completed. Recommendations and suggestion were given for the
future studies in order to improve the quality of the research by using other method
or any limitation for this project.
25
The Flow Chart of The Composite Beam Design For Eurocode 4, EN1994 -1-1
and British Standard, BS5950 Part 3: section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS5950 Part 3: section 3.1
Design Load F = WL x spacing of beam Design Load F = WL x spacing of beam
Design Moment M sd = Design Moment M =
0.95 A
26
Moment Resistance For Full Shear Moment Resistance For Full Shear
Connector Connector
For F or
h h D
. h h D
2 2 2 2
h D
.
2 2 2 2 4
Q p = 0.8 Q k
= 0,29
Or
Q k is the shear connector obtained from
,
table 5
=
, .
1 1 1
√
27
or Or
. + , . +K
Stress Block Method
Stress Block Method
For R q > R w
No design formulae is given in
Eurocode 4, but the formulae of
Mc = M s + R q
BS5950 part 3 is based on the same
principals.
For R w > R q
Mc = Rs
. Pv = 0.6 py Av
√
Deflection Deflection
5 5
384 384
≤ 0.2Acv η
≤ 0.8 η Acv √f cu
30
CHAPTER 4
The results for the Comparison between EN 1994 -1 -1 and BS5950 Part 3.1
for composite beam design were tabulated and compiled in this sections. The results
were arranged accordingly with the flow of the composite beam design process.
Table 4.1 Safety factor and load combinations for EC4 and BS5950.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
The Dead load factor 1.35 1.4
Different in percentages
3.57 %
The live load factor 1.5 1.6
From the table 4.1, The Eurocode had a lower safety factor for both dead load
and live load compared to British Standard about 3.57% different for the dead load
factor, and about 6.25% for the live load. The reduction of the safety factor will
affect on the loading, design force and the design moment for the beam design. The
table below shows the effect of the different safety factor on the design force and the
moment with detail calculation.
Table 4.2 Loading combinations, design Force, and design moment for 10
metres beam.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
Load combination 1,35 γG + 1,5 γk 1.4Gk + 1.6 Qk
From the above table 4.2, BS5950 had a higher value of design moment and
design force which was about 4 % greater than the value from Eurocode 4 and this
was solely due to the different value of the safety factor for both design codes. The
difference was the same for both design codes with same length of beam regardless
of the length of the beam.
32
Table 4.3 Comparison of the design strength of steel between EC4 and BS5950
Part 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS5950 Part 3.1
The design strength of the steel for the Eurocode 4 was reduced to about
4.79 % with partial safety factor. The reduction of the design strength for the steel
affected the tensile resistance of the material. This was proven by the more detailed
calculation later in section 4.41. Meanwhile BS5950 did not consider any partial
factor to the steel strength and the steel strength remains 355N/mm2.The length of
the beam did not affect the design strength.
33
Table 4.4 Comparison of the effect breath of slab between EC1994 -1-1 and BS
5950 Part 3.1 with 10, 12,and 15 metres length of beam.
From table 4.4 results show that there are no difference for effective breath of
slab for the same span length of the beam between EC4 and BS5950 part 3.1. The
effective breath of slab increased as the length of the span increased and the spacing
between the beams will be the limiting factor for the value of the effect breath of slab.
From the above data presented, the effective breath of slab for span length 15 meter
is 3.75 meter which is greater than the beam spacing. Therefore 3 meter is taken as
the value for effective breath of slab instead of 3.75 meter for the calculation. The
effective breath will then affect on the compressive capacity. Detail calculation will
be show in section 4.42 for compressive capacity.
34
Table 4.5 Comparison of the tensile capacity between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS
5950 Part 3: sections 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part
3 :Section 3.1
Formulae
0.95 A Different
(%)
Result for Rs = 0.95 x 355 x 66.6 x0.1 Rs = 355 x 66.6 x 0.1
span = 10 = 2246.1 kN = 2364.3 kN 5.00
metres
Result for Rs = 0.95 x 355 x 94.6 x0.1 Rs = 355 x 94.6 x0.1
span = 12 = 3190 kN = 3358 kN 5.00
metres
Result for Rs = 0.95 x 355 x 139 x 0.1 Rs = 355 x 139 x 0.1
span = 15 = 4687.78 kN = 4934.5 kN 5.00
metres
As shown in table 4.5, the tensile capacity for the Eurocode 4 was lower than
the tensile capacity for British Standard with 5 % for 10, 12 and 15 metres length of
beam. This was due to the partial safety factor on material which is 0.95 introduced
for Eurocode 4 and reduced the design strength of the steel up to about 5 % as
proven in the table above. Meanwhile British standard did not consider any partial
safety factory on material and the design strength of the steel remain 100% which is
355 N/mm2. The tensile capacity increased as the length of the beam was increased.
This was due to the larger size of the beam used for the longer length .The larger
beam which has larger area of the steel will then affect on the tensile capacity.
As a conclusion for this section, BS5950 had a higher value of the tensile
capacity than EC4 for the same size of the beam used.
35
Table 4.6 Comparison of the compressive capacity for 10, 12, and 15 metres
length of beam composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3 :Section
3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section
3.1
Formulae use for R c = 0,45 f cu b eff h c R c=0.45 f cu Be (Ds -D p)
compressive capacity
of the steel section
Result for span = 10 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 2.5 x R c = 0.45 x 30 x 2.5 x 80
metres (130-50) = 2700kN
= 2700kN
Result for span = 12 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80
metres = 3240 kN = 3240 kN
Result for span = 15 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80
metres = 3240 kN = 3240 kN
Different in 0%
percentage
From above table 4.6, it is shown that there are no difference for the
compressive capacity with the same length of the beam between EC4 and BS5950
part 3.1. The compression capacity was influenced by the compressive strength of
concrete, f cu, the effective breadth of the slab, beff and the depth of the concrete slab
above the profiled decking, hc . For this project, the depth of the concrete slab above
the profiled decking, hc and compressive strength of concrete were the same. Thus,
the compressive capacity was affected by the effective breadth of the slab. The
compressive capacity increased with the increase of the length of the beam but
limited by the effective breath of slab as shown in the above table. Compressive
capacity for beam with 15 meter length was the same as the compressive capacity for
beam with 12 metres length which is 3240 KN due to the effect breath of the slab
which was 3 metres.
36
Table 4.7 Comparison of the moment resistance with full shear connection for
10, 12, and 15 metres length of composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950
Part 3:Section 3.1.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.11
Length Moment Resistance Design Moment Resistance Design Different
Of the with full Shear moment with full Shear moment (%)
beam Connection (kNm) Connection (kNm)
(kNm) (kNm)
Table 4.8 Comparison of the moment resistance with full shear connection and
the design moment for EN1994-1-1 and BS5950 Part 3: section 3.1
1800
1600
1400
Moment resistance(EC4)
1200
1000 Design moment (EC4)
800
Moment
600 resistance(BS5950)
400 Design moment(BS5950)
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.1 Comparison of moment resistance with full shear connector and the
design moment for EC4 and BS5950 Part 3.1
As shown in the table 4.7, there are different from 3.35% to 4.27% for the
moment resistance with full shear connection for both design codes. The percentage
of the difference decreased as the length of the beam was increased. The moment
resistance of the full shear connector depended on the tensile capacity, Rs,
compressive capacity, R c, Slab depth, and deck profile height. For this project the
steel decking used were the same and the compressive resistance is same for 10, 12,
and 15 metres beam as show in table 4.5 .Therefore, the difference of the moment
resistance for full shear connector was solely due to the different of the tensile
capacity, Rs. As a result for this section, BS5950 with the higher tensile capacity
resulted in a higher value of the moment resistance of full shear connector compared
to EC4 which has lower tensile capacity due to the influence of the partial safety
factor for the material.
From the data presented in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.1, results showed that there
was a difference with a range of 26.99% to 30.13% regarding the moment resistance
and the design moment in EC4 which was higher than the BS5950 which had a range
from 25.46% to 29.34% difference between the moment resistance and the design
38
moment. This was because of the lower value of the safety factor used for the load
combination in EC4 and also due to the different of the tensile capacity and
compressive capacity. The tensile capacity increased and was greater than the
compressive capacity due to the bigger size of the beam used for longer beam.
Table 4.9 Comparison of the influence of the deck shape for the decking placed
perpendicular to the beam with sheet thickness more than 1 mm for EN1994 1-1 and
BS5950 Part 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
Formulae for
Influence of the Deck kt = 0,7 bo (h –hp) rp = 0.85 ba (h – Dp)
shape √Nr hp hp ≤ √Nr Dp Dp ≤ 1
1
From the table 4.9, results showed that the increase of the length of span did
not affect the value of the influence of the deck shape. For this project, the thickness
of the sheet used was more than 1 mm. Thus, the value of the influence of the deck
39
shape was limited to 1 for single stud connector and 0.8 for double stud connector
which was obtained from the Table 6.2, EN1994-1-1 and BS5950, clause 5.4.7.2.
was the same for both design codes. The value k t or r p equal to 1 means no
reduction on the shear connector resistance, P Rd. Meanwhile, the value of the
influence of the deck shape 0.8 reduced the value of the shear connector resistance
up to 20 % for double stud connector. According to EC4, the constant in the equation
was reduced from 0.7 to 0.6 because the decking was placed parallel to the beam.
For BS 5950, the constant was reduced from 0.85 to 0.6 as well for the same reason.
Due to the difference of this constant between both design codes, BS 5950 showed a
higher value of the influence of the deck shape than EC4 which was more than 1.
Table 4.10 Comparisons of the shear connector capacity for single and double
stud for EC4 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
Span Stud
length per EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part
(m) trough 3 :Section 3.1
10 1 P Rd = 73.13 x 1 = 73.13 kN Q p = 1 x 80 = 80 kN
2 P Rd = 73.13 x 0.8 = 58.3 kN Q p = 0.8 x 80 = 64 kN
12 1 P Rd = 73.13 x 1 = 73.13 kN Q p = 1 x 80 = 80 kN
2 P Rd = 73.13 x 0.8 = 58.3 kN Q p = 0.8 x 80 = 64 kN
15 1 P Rd = 73.13 x 1 = 73.13 kN Q p = 1 x 80 = 80 kN
2 P Rd = 73.13 x 0.8 = 58.3 kN Q p = 0.8 x 80 = 64 kN
The calculation shown in the table 4.10 proved that there were reductions on
the shear connector with the presence of the influence of the deck shape and
regardless to the change of the length of span. There was about 8.6 % difference of
the shear connector resistance between both design codes due to the influence of the
deck shape and BS5950 give higher value than EC4.
40
Table 4.11 Comparison of the number of stud for half beam between EN1994 -1-
1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1 for single and double stud connectors
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section
3.1
Length of span Number of stud required for half beam
(m)
Nr = 1 Nr = 2 N=1 N=2
16 32 15 30
10
22 44 21 42
12
23 46 21 42
15
The number of stud for the composite beam was determined by the following
formulae
For Rs> R c
Number of stud =
For R c > Rs
Number of stud =
As shown in the table 4.11, the number of the studs required for the beam for EC4
was more than BS5950 for 10, 12 and 15 metres beam, this was because of the
smaller value of shear connector resistance P Rd in EC4 and this was proven in table
4.12.
41
Table 4.12 Calculation of the number of shear stud required for the composite
beam.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
Number of stud For 10 meter beam For 10 meter beam
Rs<R c Rs< R c
Rs = f d x A a Rs = P y x A
. . .
=
= 2246.09kN = 2364.3kN
R c = 2700 kN R c = 2700 kN
Rs< R c Rs> R c
. .
= =
.
= 31 = 30
As shown in the table 4.11, the number of stud required for BS5950 part 3.1
was lower than required in EC 4 this is due to the different of the tensile capacity Rs
and the lower value of the shear connector capacity, P Rd provided by BS5950 part
3.1. The number of stud was not affected by the length of the beam but the number
of the studs increased as the length of beam increased due to the increase of the
tensile capacity Rs with larger beam used.
42
Table 4.13 Comparison of the degree of the shear connector between EN1994-1-
1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
4.8.1 The Effect on Beam Due to Different Minimum Degree of the Shear
Connector
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 EC4
0.5 BS5950
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 12 15 20 25 m
Figure 4.2 Degree of the shear connector versus length of the beam
As shown in the figure 2,The EC4 gave some improvement for the longer
span with the minimum of the shear connection (0,25 + 0,03 L) which meant only
the beam longer 25 meter were needed to be designed for full shear connection as
shown in the figure. Meanwhile, the minimum of the shear connection was
determined using (L- 6)/10 with lower limit 0.4. This meant that the beam longer
than 16 meter was designed for full shear connection. The improvement was about
36 % with EC4 for the longer composite beam design. The intersection of both lines
was the optimum length of composite beam design for both design codes, which is
12 metres as shown in figure 2.
44
Table 4.14 Comparison of the shear connector capacity between EN 1994 -1-1
and Bs 5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 Bs 5950 Part 3.1
P Rd = 0,29 α d 2 ( √f ck E Q p = 0.8 Q k
Formulae use cm )
for Shear γv Q k is the shear
connector (A) connector obtained Different
Resistance or from table 5 (%)
Shear 81.67kN
Connector 73.13 kN 80 kN 8.59
Resistance for 73.13 kN
span length =
10 metres
Shear 81.67 kN
Connector 73.13 kN 80 kN 8.59
Resistance for 73.13 kN
span length =
12 metres
Shear 81.67 kN
Connector 73.13 kN 80 kN 8.59
Resistance for 73.13 kN
span length =
15 metres
Table 4.14 showed that there was approximately 8.59% difference for shear
connector resistance between the analyses of both codes. Clearly BS5950 resulted in
a higher value of the shear connector, regardless to the different length of the beam.
According to Eurocode 4, the shear connector resistance was defined by equations.
Equation (A) is the failure of the concrete meanwhile the equation (B) is the shear
failure of the stud. The smaller value between those two equations was used for the
calculation. From the formulae, the shear connector resistance was effected by the
different stud used and the change of the concrete used. Beside that the partial safety
45
factor, γv was taken as 1, 25 at ultimate limit state, which also contributed to the
reduction of the shear connector resistance. For this project, the normal weight
concrete was used and the shear stud with 95mm height (after welding) and diameter
19 mm was used for the design. Meanwhile BS5950 did not consider any other factor.
The value Qk was obtained from BS5950 part 3.1 and a reduction of 20 % was
applied for Qk. As a conclusion, BS 5950 had a higher value of shear connector
resistance compared to the value of shear connector resistance for EC4 with the
lower value of the shear connector resistance.
The degree of the shear connector depended very much on the value of the
tensile capacity and compressive capacity. The smaller value between the tensile
capacity and compressive capacity was the determinant for the degree of the shear
connector. From the table above, it showed that the degrees of the shear connector
increased from 0.8 to 0.83 with the increase of the length. It was because of the
different size of steel beam used and also due to the increase of the value for
compressive capacity, R c. The difference of the degree of the shear connector
between the analyses of both codes increased as the length of the span increased for
single stud due to the minimum of the shear connector. A longer beam needed a
larger value of degree of the shear connector and it was controlled by (0, 25 + 0, 03
L) in EC4 and (L-6)/10 for BS 5950. Thus, BS5950 gave a higher value of the
degree of the shear connector than EC 4 due to the higher minimum of the shear
connector. The value difference of the degree of the shear connector will then
influence the moment resistance with partial shear connection and deflection with
effect of partial shear connection at the next section.
46
Table 4.15 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connection
between EN1994 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
Two methods were used to determine the moment resistance of the composite
section with partial shear connector. They are Linear interaction method and stress
block method. According to SCI, the linear interaction is the simplest method.
Meanwhile the stress block method was accurate in the equilibrium of the section
was solved by equating the force in the concrete to the force transferred by the shear
connector, Rq. From the table, the moment resistance with partial shear connection
with linear interaction was lower compared to the moment resistance with partial
shear connection with stress block method.
47
Where Mpl.Rd is the moment resistance of the composite section for full shear
connector
M apl.,Rd is the moment resistance of the steel section
Mc = M s + R q
For R w > R q
Mc = Rs
Table 4.16 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connection
with the influence of the degree of the shear connector for 15 meter beam.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
Beam size : 533 x 210 x 109 Beam size : 533 x 210 x 109
Span length : 15 meter Span length : 15 meter
As shown in table 4.16 the same size beam were used but there were some
difference with the moment, this was solely due to the partial safety factor for the
material. However with a higher degree of the shear connection, it had increased the
moment resistance with partial shear connector about 11.43 %. Clearly BS5950
resulted in a higher value of the moment resistance with partial shear connector and
it had a high difference which was about 22.53 % with the design moment
1202.34kNm. Meanwhile, the moment resistance with partial shear connection for
EC4 was 1378kNm and the design moment 1138.22kNm for 15 metres beam. This
was about 17.4% different between the moment resistance with partial shear
connection and the design moment. Again, it has proven that the design using
BS5950 Part 3.1 was more conservative than the Eurocode 4with the same size of the
beam used.
49
4.9.1 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector using
linear interaction between Eurocode 4 and BS 5950
Table 4.17 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector for
linear interaction method
Span Stud EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
length per Moment resistance with Moment resistance with Different
(m) trough partial shear partial shear (%)
connector(kNm) connector(kNm)
10 1 565.0 576.4 1.98
2 663.9 686.5 3.29
12 1 840.4 870.1 3.41
2 928.0 978.7 5.18
15 1 1378.0 1552.0 11.21
2 1457.0 1552.0 6.12
From the table 4.17, there were differences for the moment resistance with
partial shear connector using linear interaction for single and double stud. Based on
the figure 2 and figure 3 shown, the moment resistance for partial shear connector for
BS 5950 was greater than the moment resistance given by the EC4 when the length
of the span increases for both single and double stud. For the single stud composite
beam design, the percentages of difference increased which was about 1.98% to
11.21% as the length of the beam increased. Meanwhile, the percentage of difference
for the double stud composite beam design increased from 3.29 % to 11.21% as the
length of the beam increased between BS5950 and EC4. This was because of the
difference of the moment resistance of steel beam, partial safety factor for material
and the difference of the degree of the shear connector used.
50
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 EC4
600 BS5950
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.3 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using linear
interaction method versus length of beam for single stud.
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 EC4
600 BS5950
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.4 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using linear
interaction method versus length of beam for double stud.
51
4.9.2 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector using
stress block method between Eurocode 4 and BS 5950
Table 4.18 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector
using stress block method.
Span Stud EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
length per Moment resistance Moment Different
(m) trough with partial shear resistance with (%)
connector (kNm) partial shear
connector (kNm)
10 1 640.2 668.1 4.18
2 716.6 746.3 3.98
12 1 910.2 953.6 4.55
2 1013 1059 4.34
15 1 1413 1482 4.66
2 1548 1608 3.73
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 EC4
600 BS5950
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.5 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using stress
block method versus length of beam for single stud.
52
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
EC4
800
BS5950
600
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.6 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using stress
block method versus length of beam for double stud.
From the table 4.18, there was a difference from 3.73% to 4.66% for moment
resistance with partial shear connector using linear interaction for single stud and
3.73 % to 4.37% for double stud. Based on the figure 4.5 and figure 4.6 shown, the
moment resistance for partial shear connector for BS5950 were greater than moment
resistance given by the EC4 and percentage of difference remained constant as the
length of the beam increased. The difference was due to the influence of different
moment resistance of steel beam, partial safety factor for material, and the different
of the degree of the shear connector used.
Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the linear interaction method
used to determine the moment resistance for partial shear connector with lower value
was more conservative in the design compare to the stress block method which gave
higher moment in both design code. The difference of the value in moment
resistance with partial shear connector between stress block method and linear
interaction method decreased with the increase of the degree of the shear as
illustrated in figure 6.
53
Table 4.19 Comparison of the vertical shear capacity for 10, 12, and 15 metres
length of composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3:Section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section
3.1
Formulae
use for Vpl.Rd = .Av Pv = 0.6 py Av
vertical √
As shown in the table 4.19, BS 5950 had a higher value of the shear capacity
compared to EC4. There was a difference of 8.36 % for the shear capacity for all the
lengths of beam used regardless of the length of beam. The influence of the partial
safety factor for material had reduced the steel strength to 388.1kN causing the
reduction for the shear capacity in EC4. The constant 0.58 in equation for shear
capacity in EC4 was obtained from the partial safety factor and divided with √3
which was about 3 % difference with the constant 0.6 applied to the shear capacity
for BS5950.
55
Table 4.20 Comparison between shear capacity and total shear force
Length EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
of the Total Shear Different Total Shear Different
beam(m) 0.5 Pv Force (%) 0.5 Pv Force (%)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
10 333.65 202.24 39.39 364.1 213.72 41.30
12 401.43 242.68 39.55 438.00 256.46 41.45
15 610.81 303.35 50.34 666.5 320.6 51.90
700
600
500 0.5 Pv or shear
capacity(EC4)
400 design shear or total shear
force(EC4)
300 0.5 Pv or shear
capacity(BS5950)
200
Design shear or total
vertical force(BS5950)
100
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.8 The different between shear capacity and total shear force in EC4 and
BS5950
As shown in table 4.20, the difference between the shear capacity, 0.5 Pv and
the total shear force is about 39.39 to 50.34% in EC4, which were lower than the
difference of the shear capacity, 0.5 P v and the total shear force in BS5950 part 3.1
which were about 41.30 to 51.90 % .Clearly, from figure 7, it showed that the design
of the composite beam using EC4 was more conservative compared to BS5950 part
3.1. This was because of the considerations and reductions suggested in EC4.
56
4.11 Deflection
Table 4.21 Comparison of deflections for 10, 12, and 15 metres composite beam
design using EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3:Section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
Formulae
for δ= δ=
deflection
Length of
span 10 m 12 m 15 m 10 m 12 m 15 m
Second
moment of 21370 33320 66820 21370 33320 66820
area for steel
beam(cm4)
Construction
state 24.55 32.64 39.74 24.55 32.64 39.74
deflection
(mm)
Composite
stage 15.48 22.33 29.48 16.84 24.43 32.41
deflection
(mm)
The effect of
partial shear 20.44 27.84 34.44 22.35 29.43 33.47
connection
(mm)
The total
deflection 46.69 62.80 80.27 48.76 64.52 81.76
(mm)
57
One of the benefits for composite beam was the less deflection due to the
composite action. Deflections are important in order to prevent cracking or
deformation of the partition and cladding, or avoid noticeable deviation of floor or
ceiling (SCI). The deflection were calculated using the second moment of area of the
composite section based on the elastic properties As shown in the table, the
deflection of the beams were increased as the length of the beam increased. The data
show that BS5950 had a greater deflection compared to EC4 for composite stage
deflection and the effect of partial shear connection. Meanwhile the construction
stage deflection with 10, 12, and 15 metres beam was the same for both design codes.
There were no difference for the construction stage deflection because the formulae
used for the deflection calculation for both design codes were the same and the same
second moment of area for same size of the beam were used as shown in table 4.21.
Besides that, the effect of the partial shear connection increased the deflection. There
was no difference consideration in the formulae for the effect of partial shear
connection for EC4 and BS5950. The effect of partial shear connection was
influence by the degree of the shear connector, the deflection of the composite beam
with full shear connector, δ c and the deflection of the steel beam under same load ,δ
a as shown in table 4.22
Table 4.22 The example calculation of the effect of partial shear connector for
10 metres composite beam.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
δ’ c = δ’ c + 0.3 (1 –K)(δ o –δ c)
= 1 + 0,3 1 1
=15.48[1 + 0.3(1-0.55)(52.22/15.48)-1]
= 16.84 + 0.3(1 -0.51)(54.29 – 16.84)
= 20.44mm
=22.35mm
58
≤ 0.8 η Acv √f cu
≤ 0.2Acv η
CHAPTER 5
5.1 Conclusions
From the result shown by the spread sheet that was established, it has shown
that this project has inevitable been quite successful and able to meet its objective.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
2) The design of the composite beam using Eurocode 4 had the lower
value of the moment resistance with full and partial shear connection,
shear connector capacity, deflection, and shear capacity compared to
BS 5950Part 3: section 3.1. This was because of difference
considerations and partial safety factor introduced in the composite
beam design for Eurocode 4.
3) The results obtained from the manual calculations and the spread
sheet established using Microsoft Excel for both design codes showed
60
only a slight difference. This was only due to the decimal difference
from the results obtained from the spread sheet. Thus the spread sheet
was quite accurate which produce reliable data and design calculation
for composite beam.
5.2 Recommendations
2) Comparative study for the different type of the shear connector for
BS5950: Part 3.1 and EN1994-1-1.
5) Comparative study for the different steel decking and strength of steel
beam for BS5950: Part 3.1 and EN1994-1-1.
61
REFERENCE
APPENDIX A
63
64
APPENDIX B1
Page 65
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made By Kenny tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check By Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Design Data
Floor dimension
Span L = 10 m
Beam spacing b = 3m
Slab depth Ds = 130 mm
Depth above profile Dc = 80 mm
Deck profile height Dp = 50 mm
Shear connectors : 19 mm diameter stud (100 mm overall height)
95 mm lenght after welding (h)
Materials
steel : Grade s 355
2
fy = 355 N/mm
concrete : c25/30
3
Density = 23.55 kN/m
Loading
concrete slab weight = [130000‐50(80+50+ 30 )/0.3]23.55/10⁶
2
= 2.43 kN/m
Construstion stage
2
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m
2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m
2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m
2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m
= 2.82
2
construction load = 0.5 kN/m
Page 66
Job Title Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC ,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Composite stage
2
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m
2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m
2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m
2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m
2
= 2.82 kN/m
2
ceiling & services = 0.5 kN/m
Imposed
2
occupancy = 5 kN/m
2
Partition = 1 kN/m
2
6 kN/m
Initial selection of beam size
From table 8 try beam size 457x152x52
section properties & Dimensions
D = 449.8 mm d = 407.6 mm
2
B = 152.4 mm A = 66.6 cm
4
t = 7.6 mm Ix = 21370 cm
3
T = 10.9 mm Sx = 1096 cm
c = 177.8/2 Ea = 210
3
= 88.9 Zx = 950 cm
ε = √ 235/ fy
= 0.81
Page 67
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Construction Stage Design
Ultimate limit state loading
Dead load factor, γG = 1.4
Imposed load factor , γQ = 1.6
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.4= 3.95
construction 0.5 x 1.6= 0.8
= 4.75
Moment resistance of steel beam (BS5950 :Part 3.1)
Ms = Sx x Py
= (1096x355)/1000
= 389.1 kNm > 178.13kNm ok !
Composite stage design
Ultimate limit state loading
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.4= 3.95
ceiling & services =0.5 x 1.4= 0.7
imposed load 6 x 1.6 = 9.6
2
= 14.25 kN/mm
Bending moment ,M (427.5x10)/8
= 534.38 kNm
Page 68
Job Title Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC ,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Effective width of compression Flange ,Be (BS5950 :Part 3.1)
Be = (L x 1000 )/4
= (10 x 1000)/4
= 2.5 m < 3m
use = 2.5 m
Compressive Resistance of Slab,Rc
Rc = 0.45f cu(Ds ‐ Dp) Be
Dp = 130 mm
Ds = 50 mm
fcu = 30 N/mm2
Tensile Resistance Of Steel Section,Rs
Rs = p y x A
= (355x66.6x100)/1000
= 2364 kN
Moment Resistance with Full Shear connection
Rs < Rc
Mpc = Rs [ D/2 + Ds ‐ Rs/Rc (Ds ‐ Dp /2 )]
= 2364.3 /1000 [ 449.8/ 2 + 80 + 50‐2364.3 /2700( 80/2)]
= 756.3 kNm > M = 534.38kNm OK!
Shear connector Resistance
from Part 3.1 Table 5 the shear connector strength = 100 kN
For normal weight concrete ,Qk = 100 kN
Qp = 0.8 Qk
= 0.8 x 100
= 80 kN
Page 69
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Influnce of Deck Shape
Deck crosses the beam (i.e transverse)
one stud per trough,i .e N = 1
two stud per trough, i .e N = 2
rp = 0.85/√N ( ba / Dp )[ h/Dp ‐1 ]
= 1.62
use rp = 0.8 Qp = 0.8x80
= 64 kN
Page 70
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny tiong
Client STC ,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Longitudinal shear Force Transfer,Rq number of studs half beam = 15
Rq ( 1 stud) = 15x80 = 1200 kN spacing of shear connector = 333.3
Degree of shear connection,N /Nf ( one stud per trough )
Na/Np =Rq / Rs
= 1200/2364.3 k = L ‐ 6
= 0.51 > 0.4 use = 0.51 10
= 0.4
Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection
a) Using Linear interation method
using 1 stud per trough
Mc = Ms + ( Mpc ‐Ms)Na/Np
= 389.08 + ( 756.28 ‐ 389.08 )0.51
= 576.4 kNm > Msd = 534.38 kNm OK!
Using 2 stud per trough
Mc = Ms + ( Mpc ‐Ms)Na/Np
Na/Np=Rq / Rs
= 0.81 > 0.4 use = 0.81
Mc = 389.08 + ( 756.28 ‐ 389.08 )0.81
= 686.5 kNm > Msd = 534.38 kNm OK!
b)Stress block method
Na/Np ≥ (L‐ 6)/10
≥ 0.4
Rq > Rw
using 1 stud per trough,Nr = 1
Mc= Rs(D/2) + Rq [Ds ‐ Rq[ht ‐Rq/Rc((Ds‐Dp)/2)] ‐ (Rs‐Rq)2/Rf.(T/4)
Mc = 2364.3( 449.8/2)+1200[130‐1200/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐(10.9/4)(2364.3‐1200)^2/589.71
Using 2 stud per trough ,Nr = 2
Np = 2364
64
= 36.94
Na = 0.4Np
= 0.4(36.94)
= 17.73
Rq = 1920
Rq > Rw
Mc = 2364.3(449.8/2)+1920[130‐1920/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐( 10.9/4)(2364.3‐192 2
589.7
= 746.3 kNm > Msd OK!
Page 72
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Vertical Shear
Beam + Slab = 2.82 x 1.4 x 10 x 3/2 = 59.22 kN
Ceiling & services = 0.5 x 1.4 x 10 x 3/2 = 10.5 kN
imposed load = 6 x 1.6 x 10 x 3/2 = 144 kN
Total Shear Force,V = 213.7 kN
Shear capacity ,Pv
Pv = 0.6p yAv Av = Dt (BS5950 part 1)
= 0.6x 355x 7.6 x 449.8
1000
= 728.1 kN
with a uniformly distributed load,Shear force does not influence the moment resistance
of the section in this example.
Serviceability Limit state
Elastic stresses in the Construction stage
2
Slab + Beam 2.82 kN/m
W = 2.82 x 10 x 3 84.6 kN
Bending moment =84.6 x 10 = 105.8 kNm
8
2
fsteel = M = 105.75 x 1000000 = 111.32 N/mm
Zx 950 X 1000
Composite Elastic Section Properties
Position of the e.n.a from the upper surface ofthe slab
Where : αe = 15
r = A = 66.6 x 100 = 0.033
(Ds ‐Dp)Be ( 130‐50)2500
Page 73
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Uncracked Inertia ,Ic
2 3
Ic = A ( D + Ds +Dp ) + Be ( Ds ‐Dp) + I
4 ( 1 + αe .r) 12 αe
2 3
Ic = 66.6 ( 44.98 + 13 + 5) + 250( 13 ‐ 5 ) + 21370
4( 1 + 15 (0.033) 12 x 15
Composite stage Loading
2
Imposed = 6 kN/m
2
C & S = 0.5 kN/m
2
6.5 kN/m
2
fsteel = 243.75 x10000 = 160.2 N/mm
1521.24 x 1000
Combined stress = 111.32+160.23
2
= 271.6 N/mm < p y = 355 N/mm2
2
fconc = 243.75x 10000 = 3.54 < 0.5fcu = 15 N/mm
68892.28 x 1000
Page 74
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter )
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Deflections
Construction Stage Deflection,δ
2
UDL = 2.82 kN/m (self weight of slab and beam)
Design load,w = 2.82 x 10 x 3 = 84.6 kN
3
δ = 5 F L = 5 x 84.6 x (10 x1000 3
384Ea Iax 384 x 210 x 21370 x10000
= 24.55 mm < 27.78 mm ok!
Composite Stage Deflection, δc
2
UDL = 6 kN/m (imposed)
Design load , F = 6 x 10 x 3 = 180 kN
3
δ = 5 F L = 5 x 180 x (10 x1000) 3 = 16.84 mm
384Ea Iax 384 x 210 x 66256 x10000
Effect of slip
δ' c = δ c + c(1 ‐k) ( δo ‐ δ c) c = 0.3
Degree of shear connection k( 1 stud /trough) = 0.51
K(2 stud/trough) = 0.81
Deflection when K = 0.51
δo = Deflection for steel beam acting alone
= 16.84x(68892.28/21370)
= 54.29 mm
δ' c =16.84+ 0.3(1 ‐ 0.51)(54.29 ‐ 16.84)
= 22.35 mm < 27.78 mm
Imposed Deflection is satisfactory
Total deflection
Construction stage = 24.55 mm
imposed load = 22.35 mm
ceiling and services 0.5 x 22.35 = 1.86 mm
6 48.76 mm
Page 75
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Transverse reinforcement (BS5950 :Part 3.1)
use A 142 mesh reinforcement in slab
Shear resistance per shear surface , VRd
( neglecting contribution of desking)
2
Ar = 142 mm /m η = 1
2
Acv = 1E+05 mm /m
2
f y = 460 N/mm
2
f cu = 30 N/mm
vp = tp .py b = 1 x 280 = 280
vr = (0.7 x 142 x 460) + 0.03(1 x 30 x 105000)
= 140.2 kN/m
APPENDIX B2
Page 77
JOB TITLE Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Made By Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check By Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Design Data
Floor dimension
Span L = 10 m
Beam spacing b = 3m
Slab depth ht = 130 mm
Depth above profile hc = 80 mm
Deck profile height hp = 50 mm
Shear connectors : 19 mm Diameter stud (100 mm overall height)
95 mm lenght after welding (h)
Materials
steel : Grade s 355
fy = 355 N/mm2
Partial safety factor γa : 1.05
2
Design strength fd = fy / γa = 338.1 N/mm
concrete : c25/30
Density = 23.55 kN/m3
Loading
concrete slab weight = [130000‐50(80+50+ 30 )/0.3]23.55/10⁶
= 2.43 kN/m2
Construstion stage
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m2
= 2.82
construction load = 0.5 kN/m2
Page 78
Job Tittle Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Made by Kenny tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Composite stage
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m2
= 2.82 kN/m2
ceiling & services = 0.5 kN/m2
Imposed
occupancy = 5 kN/m2
2
Partition = 1 kN/m
6 kN/m2
Initial selection of beam size
From table 8 try beam size 457x152x52
section properties & Dimensions
h = 449.8 mm d = 407.6 mm
2
b = 152.4 mm Aa = 66.6 cm
4
tw = 7.6 mm Iax = 21370 cm
3
tf = 10.9 mm Wpe = 1096 cm
c = 152.4/2 Ea = 210
= 76.2
ε = √ 235/ fy
= 0.81
Section Classification
c/tf = 6.99 < 10ε 8.1
d/tw = 53.63 < 72ε 58.32
Page 79
Job Tittle Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Construction Stage Design
Ultimate limit state loading
Dead load factor, γG = 1.35
Imposed load factor , γQ = 1.5
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.35 = 3.81
construction 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75
= 4.56
Assumption
Moment resistance of steel beam (EC3 Part 1 CI 5.4.5.2)
Mapl.Rd = wpl X fd =
= (1096x338.1)/1000
= 370.6 kNm > 171kNm ok !
Composite stage design
Ultimate limit state loading
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.35 = 3.81
ceiling & services =0.5 x 1.35 = 0.68
imposed load 6 x 1.5 = 9
2
= 13.49 kN/mm
Design moment ,Msd (404.7x10)/8
= 505.88 kNm
Page 80
Job Tittle Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Make by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Effective width of compression Flange ,beff (Cl.4.2.2.1)
beff = (2 x l0 )/8
= ( 2 x 10)/8
= 2.5 m < 3m
use = 2.5 m
Compressive Resistance of Slab,R c (Cl 4.4.1.2)
Rc = 0.85fck/γc X beff X hc
Rc = 0.45fcu x beff x hc
= 2700 kN
Tensile Resistance Of Steel Section,R s (Cl 4.4.1.2)
Rs = fd x Aa
= (338.1x66.6x100)/1000
= 2252 kN 2252
Moment Resistance with Full Shear connection
Rs < Rc
Mpl,Rd = Rs [ h/2 + hc + hp ‐ Rs/Rc (hc /2 )]
= 2251.75 /1000 [ 449.8/ 2 + 80 + 50‐2251.75 /2700( 80/2)]
= 724 kNm > Msd = 505.88kNm OK !
Shear connector Resistance (Cl 6.3.2.1)
2 2
PRd = 0.29αd (√fckEcm)/γv or PRd = 0.8 fcu(π d /4) / γv
h/d = 5 > 4
α = 0.2 ( hsc /d + 1 )
= 1.2
α = 1
Page 81
Job Title Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Make by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
2 2
fck = 25 N/mm fcu = 450 N/mm
2
Ec = 30.5 kN/mm
γV = 1.25
PRd = [ 0.29 x 1 x 19 x19 √ 25(30.5/1000 ) ]/1.25
= 73.13 kN
PRd = [0.8 x 450 x ( π x19 x19/4 )]/1.25
= 81.67 kN
Influnce of Deck Shape (Cl 6.3.3.2)
Deck crosses the beam (i.e transverse)
one stud per trough,i .e Nr = 1
two stud per trough, i .e Nr = 2
kt = 0.7/√Nr ( bo / hp )[ h/hp ‐1 ]
= 1.34 PRd = 73.13 x 0.8
use kt = 0.8 = 58.5 kN
Page 82
Job Title Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres )
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Longitudinal shear Force Transfer,R q number of studs half beam = 16
Rq ( 1 stud) = 16x73.13 = 1170 kN Spacing of the shear connector = 313
Degree of shear connection,N /Nf ( one stud per trough ) (Cl 6.1.2(4))
N/Nf = Rq / Rs For L = 10 m
= 1170/2251.75 Minimum degree of the shear connector
= 0.52 < 0.55 0,25 + 0.03L = 0.55
use = 0.55
Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection (Cl 6.2.1.2(2))
a) Using Linear interation method
using 1 stud per trough
MRd = Mpl,a,Rd + ( Mpl.Rd ‐Mpl,a,Rd)N/Nf
= 370.56 + ( 724.03 ‐ 370.56 )0.55
= 565 kNm > Msd = 505.88 kNm OK !
Using 2 stud per trough
MRd = Mpl,a,Rd + ( Mpl.Rd ‐Mpl,a,Rd)N/Nf
N/Nf= Rq / Rs
= 0.83 > 0.55 use = 0.83
MRd = 370.56 + ( 724.03 ‐ 370.56 )0.83
= 663.9 kNm > Msd = 505.88 kNm OK !
b)Stress block method
N/Nf ≥ (L‐ 6)/10
≥ 0.4
Rq > Rw
using 1 stud per trough,Nr = 1
MRd = Rs(h/2) + Rq [ht ‐ Rq[ht ‐Rq/Rc((ht‐hp)/2)] ‐ (Rs‐Rq)2/Rf(tf/4)
MRd = 2251.75(449.8/2)+1170[130‐1170/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐(10.9/4)(2251.75‐1170)^2/561.64
Using 2 stud per trough ,Nr = 2
Nf = 2252
58.5
= 38.49
Nf = 0.4Nf
= 0.4(38.49)
= 18.48
Rq = 1872
Rq > Rw
MRd = 2251.75(449.8/2)+1872[130‐1872/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐(10.9/4)(2251.75‐1872
561.64
= 716.6 kNm > Msd = 505.88 kNm OK !
Page 84
Job Title Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
STC,UTM Made by Kenny Tiong
Client
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Vertical Shear
Beam + Slab = 2.82 x 1.35 x 10 x 3/2 = 57.11 kN
Ceiling & services = 0.5 x 1.35 x 10 x 3/2 = 10.13 kN
imposed load = 6 x 1.5 x 10 x 3/2 = 135 kN
Total Shear Force,Vsd = 202.2 kN
Shear Resistance,Vpl.Rd (Cl 4.4.2.2)
Vpl.Rd = Av fd/√3
= 449.8 x 7.6 x 338.1
√3 x1000
= 667.3 kN
with a uniformly distributed load,Shear force does not influence the moment resistance
of the section in this example.
Serviceability Limit state
Elastic stresses
No stress check are require for normal conditions and consequently no limit are given in
EC 4
Deflections
Non‐composite Stage Deflection,δ
2
UDL = 2.82 kN/m (self weight of slab and beam)
Design load,F = 2.82 x 10 x 3 = 84.6 kN
3
δ = 5 F L = 5 x 84.6 x (10 x1000) 3
384Ea Iay 384 x 210 x 21370 x10000
= 24.55 mm < 28.57 mm OK!
Page 85
Job Title Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof .Dr.Ir.Mahmood
Composite Stage Deflection, δc
UDL = 6 kN/m2 (imposed)
Design load , F = 6 x 10 x 3 = 180 kN
second moment of area of the composite section based on elastic properties
(uncracked inertia),Ic , is obtained as follow :
2 3
Ic = Aa( h + 2hp + hc ) + beff X hc + Iay
4 ( 1 + nr) 12 n
This modular ratio is used for floor loading with modest permanent load
= 720922295.7 mm4
Deflection with full shear connection
3
δ c = 5 F L = 15.48 mm < 28.57 mm
384Ea Iay
As partial shear connection exists,take the effect of slip into account as follow :
δa = 15.48x720922295.69
21370x10000
= 52.22 mm
Page 86
Job Title Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof .Dr.Ir.Mahmood
δ = 15.48[1+0.3(1‐0.55)((52.22/15.48)‐1)]
= 20.44 mm < l/350 = 28.57 mm
The deflection due to the imposed load is satisfactory
Total deflection
Construction stage = 24.55 mm
imposed load = 20.44 mm
ceiling and services 0.5x20.44 = 1.7 mm
6 46.69 mm
Transverse reinforcement (Cl 6.6.2)
use A 142 mesh reinforcement in slab
Shear resistance per shear surface , VRd
νRd = [2.5 x 105000 x 1 x 0.3 + 142 x 460]/1000
1.15
= 135.6 kN/m