LINDAB Floor light-weight floor system

Design guide and resistance tables

Budapest, 2004.

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Scope of this Design Guide....................................................................................... 4 1.2 Design standards applied ......................................................................................... 4 2 GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF LINDAB-FLOOR ............. 5 2.1 Structural system...................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Geometry ................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 C-sections............................................................................................................ 8 2.2.2 Profiled sheeting ................................................................................................. 9 2.2.3 Concrete .............................................................................................................. 9 2.2.4 Reinforcement................................................................................................... 10 2.2.5 Screws providing composite action .................................................................. 10 2.3 Material properties................................................................................................. 11 2.3.1 Structural steel of the C-beams......................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Profiled sheeting ............................................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Concrete ............................................................................................................ 11 2.4 Calculation of cross-section properties................................................................. 12 2.4.1 Definition of thickness...................................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Definition of effective cross-section properties................................................ 13 3 STRUCTURAL MODEL OF LINDABFLOOR FLOORS................................... 14 3.1 General .................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Dry technology ........................................................................................................ 14 3.2.1 Structural models for the design tables............................................................. 14 3.2.2 Standard overlap lengths for overlap systems .................................................. 15 3.3 Wet technology........................................................................................................ 16 4 LOADS OF THE LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM ....................................................... 17 4.1 Dry technology ........................................................................................................ 17 4.1.1 Erection phase................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Wet technology........................................................................................................ 17 4.2.1 Erection phase................................................................................................... 17 4.2.2 Permanent state ................................................................................................. 18 4.3 Load combinations ................................................................................................. 18 2

5 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES OF THE LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM.................. 19 5.1 Partial safety factors for resistance....................................................................... 19 5.2 Bending resistance .................................................................................................. 19 5.2.1 Bending resistance of Lindab C-sections.......................................................... 19 5.2.2 Moment resistance of the composite cross-section........................................... 20 5.3 Shear failure of the web: shear resistance............................................................ 22 5.4 Crushing of the web: crushing resistance............................................................. 23 5.4.1 Steps of the verification .................................................................................... 23 5.4.2 Crushing resistance for one-sided concentrated loading .................................. 24 5.4.3 Crushing resistance for two-sided concentrated loading .................................. 25 5.5 Resistance against combined bending and shear................................................. 26 5.6 Resistance against combined bending and concentrated load ........................... 26 6 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES OF THE LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM..... 27 6.1 Limitation of deflections ........................................................................................ 27 6.2 Limitation of vibrations ......................................................................................... 27 7 PRACTICALITIES OF THE CALCULATIONS ................................................. 29 7.1 Format of design tables and notation ................................................................... 29 7.1.1 Tables for cross-section properties and resistances .......................................... 29 7.1.2 Resistance tables for floors built by the dry technology................................... 30 7.1.3 Resistance tables for composite floors.............................................................. 31 7.2 Static design based on tabulated data................................................................... 32 7.3 Static design based on detailed calculations......................................................... 32 8 WORKED EXAMPLES FOR LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM DESIGN................ 34 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 51

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of this Design Guide This Design Guide covers the static design of the LindabFloor floor system. It provides an introduction into the engineering background of the design process, the design steps and design equations, followed by design tables that support fast design. This document focuses on the calculation of the mechanical resistance of the floor system according to the Eurocode series of standards. This document does not cover architectural aspects, construction details or the definition of loads. Loads and load combinations may be defined on the basis of Eurocode 1 and the relevant National Application Documents. 1.2 Design standards applied The theory incorporated in this document is based on the following European Standards and European Prestandards: [1] ENV 1992-1-1:1991: Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings. [2] ENV 1993-1-1:1992: Design of steel structures. General rules and rules for buildings. [3] ENV 1993-1-3:1996: Design of steel structures. General rules. Supplementary rules for cold-formed thin gauge members and sheeting. [4] ENV 1994-1-1:1992 Design of steel and concrete composite structures. General rules and rules for buildings. [5] EN 10143: Continuously hot-dip metal coated steel sheet and strip Tolerances on dimensions and shape. [6] EN 10147: Specification for continuously hot-dip zinc coated structural steel sheet Technical delivery conditions.

2 GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF LINDABFLOOR

2.1 Structural system LindabFloor is constructed according to two technologies, dry and wet. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show a schematic view of the system for dry and wet technologies, respectively. When designing any of the two types of the floor system, one should be aware of the following considerations. In the case of the dry technology, loads are carried by beams made of Lindab Csections. This means that the floor structure connected to the C-sections is irrelevant for design except for its contribution as lateral restraint. Therefore, this Design Guide does not provide detailed recommendations for the floor system. Possible solutions are available in the Lindab Family Application Guide. In the case of the wet technology, loads are carried by the C-beams and the concrete slab on the top of them as a composite construction, meaning that the concrete slab should be taken into account in the design calculations. Tests show that the behaviour is strongly dependent on the geometry of the structural members. This aspect will be covered further on in this document. It is also important that the design method described herein assumes that the top and bottom flanges of the C-beams are restrained laterally. In many cases, this assumption is automatically ensured as a result of architectural considerations; it is, however, of utmost importance from the point of view of structural behaviour.

Figure 2.1 Arrangement of the LindabFloor floor system, Part 1 6

Figure 2.2 Arrangement of the LindabFloor floor system, Part 2

2.2 Geometry 2.2.1 C-sections This document provides detailed cross-section properties and resistance figures for the Lindab C-sections presented in Table 2.1. Notation used in the tables is explained in Figure 2.3. Please note that Lindab offers a wider range of C-sections than presented here. The design considerations described herein can also be extended to sections not included in this document. Table 2.1 Cross-section dimensions of Lindab C-sections covered in this document A [mm] 150 T [mm] 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 B1 [mm] 41 41 41 41 41 41 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 B2 [mm] 47 47 47 47 47 47 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 L [mm] 15.3 16.2 16.8 17.7 19.3 20.9 19.7 20.3 21.2 22.8 24.4 23.7 25.3 26.9 28.5

200

250

Figure 2.3 Dimensions of Lindab C-sections 2.2.2 Profiled sheeting In the case of the wet technology, Lindab profiled sheeting is mounted on top of the Csection beams to form a permanent formwork. There is no specific design requirement for the choice of this sheeting. Nevertheless, tests show that the shear resistance of screws that are responsible for the composite action strongly depends on the sheeting applied and its placement, standard or inverse. As, upon writing this document, test results are available for LTP20 sheeting only, it will always be assumed in the following that LTP20 profiled sheeting is used. Standard and inverse placements are defined in Figure 2.4. Standard placement means that the wider of the two flanges is located on the bottom, whereas the smaller is on the top. Inverse placement means the reverse of standard. The two placements imply different structural self-weight (more concrete for the standard placement) as well as different structural behaviour.

Figure 2.4 Placement of the LTP20 sheeting: standard and inverse 2.2.3 Concrete In wet technology, concrete is placed on top of the sheeting. What regards structural behaviour, there is no specific requirement for the choice of the thickness of this concrete slab. Too thick a slab, however, would result in excessive self-weight, and the too thin slab would raise difficulties in erection and would lead to adverse effects in structural behaviour. Therefore an optimal thickness for the concrete layer is recommended which is not excessive for self-weight, and, at the same time, is sufficient for the development of the composite action. This is the reason why LindabFloor applies a concrete slab thickness of 5 cm clear above ribs. The choice of the width of the concrete slab should be based on two aspects: the spacing of the C-beams the restrictions of [4] regarding effective width.

This latter requirement states that the width of the slab that can be taken into consideration is as given in Equation (2.1):
b = b1 + b2 , but b1 l 0 / 8 and b2 l0 / 8 ,

(2.1)

where l0 is the distance between locations of zero bending moment, equal to the span of the beam in the case of simply supported beams as assumed in this case (for the wet technology). Further notation applied in the equation above is shown in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5 Definition of concrete slab width 2.2.4 Reinforcement In order to ensure the appropriate distribution of loads, the concrete slab includes a reinforcing mesh as recommended in [1]. Neither the experimental research nor the calculation method presented herein takes into account the presence of this mesh. Applied reinforcement: d = 3.6 mm, spacing 100/100 mm 2.2.5 Screws providing composite action Composite action is ensured by self-drilling screws type EJOT JT2-6, diameter 6.3 mm. These screws should be installed in the troughs of the sheeting. The screws are connected to the sheeting by what is known as partial fixing, i.e. they are installed in the standard way so as to allow part of the shank and the screw head to become embedded in the concrete (see Figure 2.2). This solution provides a composite action equivalent to that ensured in traditional composite construction. Considering the rib height and slab thickness, LindabFloor requires an embedded length of 35 mm. This document assumes throughout that there are screws installed in each trough, i.e. the spacing of the screws is 115 mm.

10

2.3 Material properties 2.3.1 Structural steel of the C-beams Lindab C-beams are of the steel quality EN 10147, S 350 GD+Z. The most important strength properties are as follows: fyb = 350 N/mm2, the basic value of the yield strength fya the average value of the yield strength, which takes into account the strain hardening due to cold forming (its value is indicated in the design tables) fu = 420 N/mm2, the ultimate strength.

Further material properties: Young's modulus: E = 210000 MPa. Shear modulus: G = 80770 MPa. Poisson's coefficient: 2.3.2 Profiled sheeting As in wet technology the sheeting is not involved in the load carrying mechanism, its properties are not necessary for design. It is worth noting that in the erection phase, the sheeting should be able to resist the dead weight of the fresh concrete (with duly limited deformations). This aspect is not discussed in this document. The appropriate checks may be carried out using the Design Guide (or the software) available for Lindab sheeting. 2.3.3 Concrete In this document it is assumed that the strength class of the concrete is at least C16/20. In ultimate state calculations, the concrete is assumed to behave according to an elasticplastic law. The simplified material law as described in [1] is applied, see Figure 2.6. The validity of this model is restricted to compressive stresses. Tensile stresses are neglected.

= 0,3

11

Figure 2.6 Model of the concrete according to EC2, for cross-section resistance calculations The notation applied in the Figure: fck = 16 N/mm2, the characteristic compressive strength c = 1.5, the material factor for concrete. or the calculation of deformations in the serviceability limit state, the concrete is assumed to be elastic. So as to take into account the time-dependent behaviour of concrete, in accordance with [4], the Young's modulus is assumed to be

E c = Ecm / 3 , where Ecm = 27500 N/mm2, for C16/20 concrete.

2.4 Calculation of cross-section properties

(2.2)

2.4.1 Definition of thickness For the purposes of structural design, the thickness of the cross-sections is characterised by the following properties: t - the nominal thickness of the steel plate, tzinc - the total thickness of the zinc coating, td - the design value of the thickness of the steel plate. t d = t t zinc According to [3,5,6], the design thickness is: (2.3)

For Lindab plates, the total thickness of the double-sided zinc coating can be assumed as 0.04 mm.

12

2.4.2 Definition of effective cross-section properties Cross-section properties have been calculated according to the following principles [3]: Geometry of cross-sections is defined as that of the centre-lines of their constituent plates. Inner bending radii are small enough to be neglected. In thin-walled sheeting cross-sections, local buckling of compression plate elements is taken into account by what is known as the concept of effective widths: compressive stresses effective plate width effective cross-section properties. Effective plate widths are calculated on the basis of an elastic-plastic distribution of stresses, considering that [3] does not allow plastic deformations in the compression zone. Asymmetry due to the difference between widths of flanges in the C-sections is neglected, by considering an average width for both flanges. Therefore, the design tables can be used independent of the placement of the section (i.e. wider flange or narrower flange on top/bottom).

13

3 STRUCTURAL MODEL OF LINDABFLOOR FLOORS

3.1 General

The structural model applied in this document is based on the following assumptions: C-sections are loaded in planes parallel to their webs only. Any loads perpendicular to this plane are assumed to be carried by other structural elements (e.g. by the concrete slab, through the membrane effect). Asymmetry of the C-sections is neglected. C-sections are therefore subject to uniaxial bending only. Any shedding of loads is neglected among the beams, i.e. they are considered as independent structural elements. Loads are assumed to be transmitted to the planes of the beams through a series of single-span beams. Based on these principles, design can be performed using any structural model by making use of the general design principles of Chapter 5. When further limitations are made in the structural model, the resistance of the floors can be calculated beforehand, and a detailed design can be substituted by a simple comparison between actual loads and tabulated data.
3.2 Dry technology

3.2.1 Structural models for the design tables This document provides design tables for the six configurations shown in Figure 3.1.

14

Figure 3.1 Structural models for the design tables Single-span beam Double-span continuous beam with equal spans Continuous beam with three or more equal spans Double-span continuous beam with equal spans and an overlap joint at the middle support 5. Continuous beam with three or more equal spans and overlap joints at intermediate supports, the outer spans optionally strengthened by using a thicker section. 6. Continuous beam with three or more equal spans and overlap joints at intermediate supports, the outer spans optionally strengthened by using additional sections. 3.2.2 Standard overlap lengths for overlap systems In accordance with standard Lindab solutions, the design tables assume overlap lengths as shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. 1. 2. 3. 4.

15

Figure 3.2 Overlap length for the double-span model with an overlap

Figure 3.3 Overlap length for the model with three or more spans and overlaps

3.3 Wet technology

Composite structures prepared according to the wet technology will always be assumed to behave as single-span beams. As the effective width of the concrete slab is an important factor in calculating the cross-section resistances, this width is also fixed in the design tables for 30 cm and 60 cm beam spans. However, considering span lengths, the beam spacing is always equal to the effective width of the slab.

16

4 LOADS OF THE LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM

4.1 Dry technology

4.1.1 Erection phase Self-weight: Construction loads: 1,5 kN/m2 distributed load reduced to the line of the web of the C-section. 4.1.2 Permanent state Self-weight: Imposed loads: 2.0 kN/m2 distributed load reduced to the line of the web of the C-section.
4.2 Wet technology

Self-weight of structural elements.

Self-weight of structural elements and cladding.

4.2.1 Erection phase It is assumed that design is governed by the state immediately after concreting, when there is no composite action between the C-section and the concrete slab. EC4 provides construction loads for concrete slabs with profiled sheeting that act as permanent formwork. These loads may also be considered when designing the C-section on its own. According to EC4, the following loads may be taken into account in the erection phase: self-weight, Self-weight The self-weight of the concrete slab should be based on its design thickness. Construction loads Construction loads represent the weight of operatives and concreting plant and take into account any impact or vibration that may occur during construction. In an area of 3 m by 3 m (or the span length, if less), in addition to the weight of the concrete, the characteristic construction load and the weight of the surplus concrete should together 17 construction loads (erection load, local heaping of concrete), additional construction loads, the ponding effect, i.e. the effect of increased slab thickness due to the deflection of the sheeting.

be taken as 1.5 kN/m2. Over the remaining area a characteristic loading of 0.75 kN/m2 should be added to the weight of the concrete. Additional construction loads When, in addition to the construction loads, there are other actions that result in significant internal forces and moments (e.g. heaping of concrete, excessive impact, pipeline or pumping loads), an additional loading should also be taken into consideration. Without the concrete the sheet should be shown by test or calculation to be able to resist a characteristic load of 1 kN on a square area of side 300 mm, in the most unfavourable place, at any location except a rib adjacent to a free edge. Ponding effect Ponding effect refers to a situation where the additional depth of concrete due to increased deflection cannot be neglected in the calculations. This effect may be neglected if the central deflection of the sheeting under self-weight is less than L/250 and less than 20 mm. If either of these limits is exceeded, ponding effect should be allowed for; for example by assuming in design that the nominal thickness of the concrete is increased over the whole span by 0.7 where is the maximum deflection. 4.2.2 Permanent state Self-weight: Imposed loads: 2.0 kN/m2 distributed load reduced to the line of the web of the C-section.
4.3 Load combinations

Self-weight of structural elements and lining.

For the case of a continuous beam without cantilever, the EC4 defines the following load arrangements: alternate spans carrying the design variable and permanent loads (QQk + GGk), other spans carrying only the design permanent load (GGk). any two adjacent spans carrying the design variable and permanent loads (QQk + GGk), all other spans carrying only the design permanent load (GGk). Partial safety factors: For permanent loads: G = 1.35 For variable loads: Q = 1.50 Combination factors: according to EC4.

18

5 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES OF THE LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM

5.1 Partial safety factors for resistance

The Eurocodes [1,2,3,4] recommend the following partial safety factors for the calculation of resistance in the case of steel and concrete: M0 partial safety factor of steel for strength related limit states,

M1 partial safety factor of steel for stability related limit states, M2 partial safety factor of steel for limit states of connections, c
partial safety factor for concrete.

The design tables presented herein are based on the values shown in Table 5.1. (As this document does not cover connection design, the partial safety factor for connection design is not used in the calculations.)

M0
1,1

M1
1,1 Table 5.1 Partial safety factors

c
1,5

5.2 Bending resistance

5.2.1 Bending resistance of Lindab C-sections C-sections under bending tend to fail by loss of stability, i.e. by local buckling in the compression flange and the compressed part of the web (in sheeting with smaller slenderness, failure may also be caused by loss of strength). Local buckling in thinwalled members is generally taken into account by using what are known as effective plate widths. By eliminating the buckled part of the flange in the function of the compressive stresses of the flange, effective strips are obtained. The calculation of the moment resistance is based on the ultimate limit state due to loss of strength of the effective cross-section thus obtained. M Rd = Weff f y M where Weff is the section modulus with respect to the extreme fibre with the higher stress (in the cases considered, this is always the extreme fibre in compression), fy is the yield strength of the material of the sheeting, which is generally taken as fyb, but in certain cases fya may also be taken into account, (5.1)

19

M is the partial safety factor, generally M1, but if there is no bucking in the
cross-section, then M0 may be applied. The verification of the moment resistance consists of demonstrating that in any crosssection, the moment resistance is not exceeded by the design moment, i.e.: M Sd M Rd (5.2)

where MSd is the design bending moment calculated on the basis of the design value of actions.
Notes:

For certain cases, Eurocode provides for the possibility of relying on part of the plastic reserve of strength of the cross-section. In the case of C-sections considered in this document, plastic reserve of strength can only be taken into account on the tensile part of the cross-section. As the cross-section is nearly symmetric and the compressed part is considered with its effective (decreased) width, the centre of gravity will always move towards the tension side of the section with respect to the centreline of the web. Therefore, in pure bending, the stresses will always reach the yield strength in the compressed part first, and so the plastic reserve of strength available on the tension side cannot be utilised. The relationships presented above assume that both flanges of the C-section are provided with effective lateral restraints. If this is not so, the bending moment resistance will become smaller, and should be determined using more sophisticated calculations.

5.2.2 Moment resistance of the composite cross-section The moment resistance of the composite cross-section is either partial or full according to whether the composite action in the cross-section is considered as partial or full. In the case of full composite action, the classical principle of plane cross-sections (Naviers hypothesis) is valid, whereas when the composite action is partial, there is a slip on the interface between steel and concrete, i.e. cross-sections do not remain plane. Typical strain and stress diagrams for the two cases are shown in Figure 5.1.
Full Composite Action Concrete Slab Lindab Sheeting Lindab C-beam Partial Composite Action

Figure 5.1 Typical strain and stress diagrams for full and partial composite action 20

The question whether full composite action can develop or not is decided by the structural model and the shear resistance of the components that provide the composite action. For simply supported beams it can be assumed (this document restricts itself to this type of structural models) that there is no composite action at the end of the beam, whereas the further away from the beam end a cross-section is considered, the higher is the degree of the composite action as the total shear force resisted by the shear screws increases. At an appropriate distance from the end of the beam (where the shear force has already reached the level necessary for full composite action), there is full composite action. Looking at the equilibrium of the concrete slab in the vicinity of the beam end (see Figure 5.2), one can see that the sum of the shear forces in the shear connectors responsible for composite action should be equal to the axial force that occurs in the cross-section of the concrete considered (i.e. with the stress resultant of the compressive stresses). This relation, along with certain further assumptions, makes possible the determination of the bending moment resistance of the cross-section with partial composite action.

Figure 5.2 Equilibrium of the concrete slab in the vicinity of the beam end The resistance of the composite cross-section is therefore calculated on the basis of the following assumptions. In accordance with [4], it is assumed that all shear screws can reach their plastic states in the ultimate limit state, i.e. the screw forces can reach the value of the shear resistance. Although the principle of plane cross-sections does not hold for the whole of the cross-section, it can be assumed to be valid for both the steel and the concrete part separately. It is also assumed that the curvature of the two constituent parts is equal in all cross-sections. (This latter condition would not be met only when, in addition to the possibility of slip, the two parts could become separated from one another, which in turn is effectively prevented by the connecting screws.)

21

The behaviour of steel is assumed to be elastic-plastic. For compressive stresses, no plastic deformations are allowed. For tensile stresses, plastic deformations are not limited. (These assumptions are in line with [3] to their full extent.) Local buckling of plate elements in compression is taken into account by assuming effective strips. Effective strips are determined according to [3]. (Iterative calculations are applied, therefore the stress distribution and the effective cross-section are fully compatible.) The tensile strength of concrete is neglected. What regards compressive strength, the elastic-plastic model as presented in Figure 2.5 applies, in accordance with [1]. The Figure also shows that plastic deformations are limited to the value 0.0035. From the infinite number of possible strain-stress distributions, we consider the one that yields the highest moment resistance (for a given axial force in the concrete). On the basis of these assumptions, calculations can be made by iteration. The following results may be obtained: the axial force Ntot (in the concrete) necessary for full composite action, the moment resistance that corresponds to any axial force 0 N Ntot. The cross-section resistance tables give data for the value of Ntot for various C-sections and concrete widths, along with the value of the moment resistance for certain values of the ratio N/Ntot (N/Ntot = 0 - 0.2 - 0.4 - 0.6 - 0.8 - 1). Note that the case N = 0 provides the moment resistance of the C-section on its own, whereas the case N = Ntot gives the resistance for full composite action.
5.3 Shear failure of the web: shear resistance

Generally, webs fail due to loss of stability, by shear buckling (however, for lower slenderness, loss of strength is also possible). The shear resistance corresponding to the plane of the web is provided by the following expression for one web: V Rd = hw t d f v / M where hw is the web depth (distance between centrelines of the two flanges, top and bottom), td is the design thickness of the plate, fv is the shear buckling stress or shear yield strength of the web, depending on the yield strength of the material, the slenderness of the web and the stiffeners applied, M is a partial safety factor, M0 or M1, depending on the mode of failure. (5.3)

22

When checking for shear resistance, each cross-section should satisfy the following condition: VSd V Rd (5.4)

where VSd is the design shear force calculated on the basis of the design value of actions. The cross-section resistance tables include two values for shear resistance: VRd,1 applies for stiffened webs (i.e. where web buckling is restricted by a stiffener), VRd,2 applies for unstiffened webs.
5.4 Crushing of the web: crushing resistance

5.4.1 Steps of the verification In the case of direct compressive loading (in most cases, reaction force at a support), webs of thin-walled beams tend to fail due to the type of buckling known as crushing. There are two factors that have major influence on the calculations: the distance c between the point of application of the load and the end of the beam, the presence or absence of another concentrated load in the opposite sense, or the distance e between two adjacent concentrated loads of opposite direction. These factors are illustrated in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3 Definition of distances c and e for the calculation of crushing When checking for resistance against concentrated loads, the following condition should be satisfied: RSd RRd (5.5)

where RSd is the concentrated load calculated on the basis of the design value of actions. The design tables provide data for the resistance against concentrated loads for four cases: RRd,1 is the resistance against a one-sided concentrated load that acts close to the end of the beam (e.g. reaction force at an end support), 23

RRd,2 is the resistance against a one-sided concentrated load that acts far from the end of the beam (e.g. reaction force at an intermediate support), RRd,3 is the resistance against a two-sided concentrated load that acts close to the end of the beam (e.g. reaction force at an end support plus a concentrated load on the other side), RRd,4 is the resistance against a two-sided concentrated load that acts far from the end of the beam (e.g. reaction force at an intermediate support plus a concentrated load on the other side),
Note:

Crushing of webs may be prevented by appropriate detailing. (For instance, rather than providing a bearing type support for the C-beam, applying a bolted connection on the web that transmits the reaction force.) Naturally, in such cases, the crushing check may be omitted. 5.4.2 Crushing resistance for one-sided concentrated loading When the cross-section is subjected to a one-sided concentrated load, the crushing resistance may be determined from the following expressions:
h / t s k1k 2 k 3 9.04 w d 1 + 0,01 t 2 f yb 60 t =

R Rd ,1

M1

if c 1.5hw

(5.6)

and:
h / t s k 3 k 4 k 5 14.7 w d 1 + 0,007 t 2 f yb 49.5 t =

R Rd , 2

M1

(5.7)

if c > 1.5hw and s/td 60 and

h / t s k 3 k 4 k 5 14.7 w d 0.75 + 0,011 t 2 f yb 49.5 t =

R Rd ,2

M1

(5.8)

if c > 1.5hw and s/td > 60 where:

24

k1 = 1.33 0.33 k 2 = 1.15 0.15

f yb 228 r td

k 3 = 0.7 + 0.3 90 k 4 = 1.22 0.22 k 5 = 1.06 0.06 In these equations: fyb td r is the basic value of the yield strength, is the design thickness of the plate, is the inner bending radius of the plate, is the angle between the web and the loaded flange, in degrees (in the case considered, = 90), is the effective length of introduction of the reaction force. f yb 228 r td

5.4.3 Crushing resistance for two-sided concentrated loading When the cross-section is subjected to concentrated loads from both sides, the crushing resistance may be determined from the following expressions:
h / t s k1k 2 k 3 6.66 w d 1 + 0,01 t 2 f yb 64 t =

R Rd ,3

M1

if c 1.5hw

(5.9)

and:
h / t s k1k 2 k 3 21.0 w d 1 + 0,0013 t 2 f yb 16.3 t if c > 1.5hw (5.10) =

RRd ,4

M1

(Notation as before.)

25

5.5 Resistance against combined bending and shear

In the case of combined bending and shear, the following relation should be satisfied in each cross-section:
M Sd VSd + 1 M Rd V Rd
2 2

(5.11)

where MSd , VSd are the internal forces based on the design value of actions, with compatible values of M and V, MRd , VRd are the cross-section resistances.
5.6 Resistance against combined bending and concentrated load

In addition to the conditions (5.2) and (5.5), cross-sections subjected to combined bending moment and concentrated load should also satisfy the following criterion:
M Sd RSd + 1.25 M Rd R Rd

(5.12)

where MSd , RSd are the internal forces based on the design value of actions, with compatible values of M and R, MRd , RRd are the cross-section resistances.

26

6 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES OF THE LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM

6.1 Limitation of deflections

From the point of view of stiffness, the serviceability limit state of floors can be defined by displacements perpendicular to their surface. Generally speaking, displacements are limited by the relevant standards through stiffness requirements of the type eSd elim (6.1)

where eSd is the relevant displacement perpendicular to the surface of the floor, and elim is the limit value of displacement based on the appropriate stiffness requirement. When calculating relevant displacements in this document, the bending stiffness of the C-beam will always be based on the second moment of area of the effective crosssection corresponding to serviceability limit state. The calculation model does not take into account the variability of the effective second moment of area along the beam, which is due to the variability of the internal bending moment. Instead, a constant effective second moment of area, based on an imaginary stress assumed in the extreme fibre, is applied. The imaginary stress assumed in the extreme fibre is 70 % of the maximum possible stress, i.e. equal to 0,7 f yb M 0 . The value Ieff indicated in the

design tables is therefore the one calculated on the basis of this assumption. When calculating deflections, the effect of slip between concrete and the C-beams should be taken into account. This means that the classical theory of beams does not apply to this problem, and it should be replaced by a more sophisticated approach such as finite element calculations. Figure 6.1 shows an example of the type of model that can be used.
6.2 Limitation of vibrations

In the case of light-weight floor systems, the effect of vibrations should also be taken into account. In the absence of detailed dynamic analysis, vibration is controlled through the application of more restrictive limitations for deflections, e.g. by using a limit value of L/400.

27

Figure 6.1 Modelling of a composite floor for the calculation of deflections

28

7 PRACTICALITIES OF THE CALCULATIONS

7.1 Format of design tables and notation

The Appendix of this document presents design tables as follows. Tables for cross-section properties and resistances

Resistance tables

7.1.1 Tables for cross-section properties and resistances Cross-section property tables include the following data. t td Ieff Weff the nominal thickness of the section, the design thickness of the section, the effective second moment of area of the section with respect to an axis perpendicular to the web, for use in serviceability limit state calculations, the effective section modulus of the section with respect to an axis perpendicular to the web and the extreme fibre in compression, for ultimate limit state calculations, the basic value of the yield strength, the average value of the yield strength, the mass per unit length of the section, the bearing length (s0 60*td) corresponding to intermediate values of the resistance RRd2,

fyb fya G s0

VRd1 the shear resistance of the cross-section for unstiffened webs, VRd2 the shear resistance of the cross-section for stiffened webs, RRd1 the resistance against a one-sided concentrated load that acts close to the end of the beam, for bearing lengths s = 10 mm and s = 200 mm, RRd2 the resistance against a one-sided concentrated load that acts far from the end of the beam, for bearing lengths s = 10 mm, s = s0 and s = 200 mm, RRd3 the resistance against a double-sided concentrated load that acts close to the end of the beam, for bearing lengths s = 100 mm and s = 200 mm, RRd4 the resistance against a double-sided concentrated load that acts far from the end of the beam, for bearing lengths s = 100 mm and s = 200 mm, the thickness of the concrete slab (clear above the LTP20 sheeting), hb bb0 the effective width of the concrete slab, Ntot the axial force in the concrete necessary for full composite action,

29

Notes:

In the case of RRd1, RRd3 and RRd4, linear interpolation (and, in principle, extrapolation) may be applied between the values corresponding to the two bearing lengths. In the case of RRd2, linear interpolation (and, in principle, extrapolation) may be applied between the values corresponding to s = 10 mm and s = s0 and between those corresponding to s = s0 and s = 200 mm respectively. As the calculation method for the resistance against concentrated loads assumes a uniform distribution of load along the bearing length, it does not make sense to assume too long a bearing even if it is apparently justified by appropriate detailing. Bending resistance values for composite cross-sections are only presented for a limited range of sections (i.e. for thickness values of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 mm), because other configurations are not yet supported by test results. 7.1.2 Resistance tables for floors built by the dry technology The design tables show the intensity values of maximum allowed uniformly distributed loads for various values of equal span length and for the six configurations defined in Chapter 3 above. There are six resistance values in the tables for each configuration and each span length. the nominal thickness of the section (for models 1, 2 and 4), the nominal thickness of the section in internal spans (for models 3 and 5), the nominal thickness of the section in internal spans and the nominal thickness of the basic section in the end spans (for model 6), the nominal thickness of the section in the end spans (for models 3 and 5), t2 the nominal thickness of the additional section in the end spans (for models 6), ULS, s = 40 mm the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state, for bearing length 40 mm, ULS, s = 100 mm the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state, for bearing length 100 mm, ULS, s = 200 mm the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state, for bearing length 200 mm, t1 ULS, s SLS, L/200 SLS, L/400 the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state when crushing is excluded, the value of the maximum allowed load in serviceability limit state, for deflection limit L/200, the value of the maximum allowed load in serviceability limit state, for deflection limit L/400.

30

Notes:

For bearing lengths other than those specified, resistance values may be determined by linear interpolation. For deflection limits other than those specified, linear interpolation may be applied. The values presented in the tables are based on internal forces and moments calculated according to the elastic theory, with due consideration of unequal stiffness due to the presence of overlaps, thicker and/or additional sections. Resistance values for the ultimate limit state cover all failure modes discussed in Chapter 5 above. 7.1.3 Resistance tables for composite floors The design tables show the intensity values of maximum allowed uniformly distributed loads for various values of equal span length and assuming simply supported models. Six resistance values for each span length are presented as follows. Some important parameters: Tabulated data are based on two slab widths b = 300 mm and b = 600 mm. The tables differentiate between the two placements of sheeting, standard and inverse. (For details, see Figure 2.3.) LTP20 sheeting is assumed for all cases. A slab thickness of 5 cm is assumed for all cases. Assumed strength class of concrete: C16/20. (For material properties considered, see Section 2.3.3 above.) As to screws providing composite action, it is assumed that one screw per trough is used (i.e. one screw per 115 mm). The notation applied in the tables: t the nominal thickness of the section, the design value of shear resistance of the screws providing SRd composite action, K the shear stiffness of the screws providing composite action, ULS, s = 40 mm the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state, for bearing length 40 mm, ULS, s = 100 mm the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state, for bearing length 100 mm, ULS, s = 200 mm the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state, for bearing length 200 mm,

31

ULS, s SLS, L/200 SLS, L/400

the value of the maximum allowed load in ultimate limit state when crushing is excluded, the value of the maximum allowed load in serviceability limit state, for deflection limit L/200, the value of the maximum allowed load in serviceability limit state, for deflection limit L/400.

Notes:

For bearing lengths other than those specified, resistance values may be determined by linear interpolation. For deflection limits other than those specified, linear interpolation may be applied. Resistance values for the ultimate limit state cover all failure modes discussed in Chapter 5 above. Deflections have been calculated using a finite element model, taking into account the effect of slip between concrete and the C-beams.
7.2 Static design based on tabulated data

If the structural arrangement corresponds to the underlying assumptions of the design tables (equal spans, uniformly distributed load), static design can be performed by direct use of these tables. The calculations should consist of the following steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. Define static model on the basis of structural arrangement. Determine relevant load combination(s) for ULS and SLS calculations (qULS and qSLS). Find limit load for the given model and C-section in the design tables (qlim,ULS and qlim,SLS). Demonstrate suitability in ULS: qULS qlim,ULS 5. Demonstrate suitability in SLS: qSLS qlim,SLS 6. Evaluate results and modify arrangement if necessary. (7.2) (7.1)

7.3 Static design based on detailed calculations

If the static model determined by the actual structural arrangement does not correspond to the assumptions of any of the cases considered in the design tables, then these tables

32

cannot be used directly for design. Such differences may include unequal spans or nonuniformly distributed loads. In such cases it is recommended to perform a preliminary design based on an approximate model covered by the design tables, and then to do a detailed analysis of the actual structure. The calculations may consist of the following main steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Define static model on the basis of structural arrangement. Define loads for ULS and SLS. When the cross-section is not uniform along the member, calculate stiffness values from cross-section property tables. Calculate internal forces and moments and reaction forces from ULS load combination(s) relevant for design. Determine deflections from SLS load combination(s) relevant for design. Perform checks in ULS according to design equations presented in Chapter 5 above. Use resistance values available in cross-section resistance tables, and for cases not covered by those tables, introduce appropriate modifications of the values available. Perform checks in SLS according to equations presented in Chapter 6 above. Evaluate results and modify arrangement if necessary.

7. 8.

33

WORKED EXAMPLES FOR LINDABFLOOR SYSTEM DESIGN

8.1 Floor beam design # 1

Problem: Design a LindabFloor floor system built by the wet technology according to

the Eurocode series of standards. Design should cover both erection phase and permanent state, and should include relevant ULS and SLS checks for both design situations. Because of the structural arrangement, no stability failure should be accounted for.
Structural system:

Simply supported, with span length L = 4.20 m Steel floor beam of Lindab C200-2.0 section Lindab profiled sheeting LTP 20-0.7 with standard fixing v = 5 cm concrete slab clear above sheeting, strength class of concrete C16/20, beton = 24 kN/m3 Fixing of sheeting: EJOT JT2-6-6.3-50 screws in every trough (a total of 37 screws) beam spacing equals effective width of concrete slab b = 600 mm.
Static model:

structural model 1: simply supported beam with uniformly distributed loading, bearing length s = 160 mm, the beam is laterally restrained.
Loads:

During construction (no composite action between structural parts): permanent loads (Gk) = self-weight of structural parts, variable loads (Qk) = construction load plus ponding effect.

34

(a) nagyobb ptsi teher (1,5 kN/m2) (b) kisebb ptsi teher (0,75 kN/m2) (c) nslyteher Sagging moment Hogging moment

In permanent state (composite structure): permanent loads (Gk) = self-weight of structural parts and cladding, variable loads (Qk) = imposed loads.
Load combinations:

qULS = GGk + QQk - for ULS, qSLS = SLSGk + SLSQk - for SLS. Partial safety factors:
G = 1,35 for permanent actions, Q = 1,50 for variable actions, SLS = 1,00 for SLS.

8.1.1 Design for construction phase

Values of loads: Permanent loads:

- Self weight of beam: gb = 0.0581 kN/m (see Appendix) - Self-weight of sheeting: gsh = 0.059 kN/m2 (see Lindab section catalogue) - Load due to self weight of beam: qb = 0.0581 kN/m - Load due to self weight of sheeting: qsh = 0.0590.60 = 0.0354 kN/m - Load due to self weight of concrete: qslab = 0.050.6024 = 0.72 kN/m - Load due to self weight of concrete in troughs of sheeting: qtrough = 0.60((0.090+0.065)/20.018)37/4.2010-324 = 0.177 kN/m
Variable loads:

- Construction load: qc,1 = 1.5 kN/m2, qc,2 = 0.75 kN/m2 - Load due to construction load: qc,1 = 0.90 kN/m, qc,2 = 0.45 kN/m

35

For short spans, construction loads may be approximated as a qc,1 = 0.90 kN/m uniform load acting over the whole span. This is an upper bound approximation, being thus on the safe side, and is applied with a view of faster use of the design tables.
Relevant load combination: characteristic value: qSLS,c = SLSGk + SLSQk = 1.0 (0.0581 + 0.0354 + 0.72 +

0.177) + 1.0 0.90 = 1.891 kN/m

design value: qULS,c = GGk + QQk = 1.35 (0.0581 + 0.0354 + 0.72 + 0.177) +

1.5

0.90 = 2.687 kN/m

Ponding effect:

Deflection at mid-span due to self-weight of the structural elements (steel plus fresh concrete): eSd = 5/384(qSLS,tL4)/(EsteelIeff) = 5/384(0.9905103

42004)/(210452.7104) = 4.22 mm. This is below the standardised limit value

20 mm, and is also smaller than elim = L/250 = 16.8 mm, therefore ponding effect need not be taken into consideration. When ponding effect needs to be taken into account (i.e. when the deflection at midspan does not satisfy these conditions), it can be done so by increasing the slab thickness by the value 0.7 (where = eSd is the maximum deflection) and using this increased slab thickness for further calculations of loads in the construction phase.
Design based on tabulated data:

The limit load is determined using the design table for the C200-2.0 simply supported floor beam assuming structural model 1, and then the beam is checked in SLS and ULS for both flanges restrained laterally and for a deflection limit L/250. The limit load, see the appropriate design table in the Appendix (for beam C200, structural system 1, t1 = 2.0 mm, L = 4.2 m, with linear interpolation between ULS s = 100 mm and ULS s = 200 mm): qlim,ULS = 5.158 kN/m, qlim,SLS = 3.944 kN/m. As the relation between limit deflection and limit load is linear, the value qlim,SLS = 3.944 kN/m has been found as follows: 36

deflection limit L/200: 4200/200 = 21.0 mm, limit load from the design table: 4.93 kN/m. deflection limit L/250: 4200/250 = 16.8 mm, the corresponding limit load: 16.8 / 21.0 4.93 = 3.944 kN/m. ULS check: qlim,ULS = 5.158 kN/m > qULS,c = 2.687 kN/m satisfied SLS check: qlim,SLS = 3.944 kN/m > qSLS,c = 1.891 kN/m satisfied Therefore, the beam floor is found appropriate for both SLS and ULS (even for the more severe deflection limit elim = L/400 applied for ensuring better dynamic behaviour: L/400 = 2.46 kN/m > qSLS,c = 1.891 kN/m).
Design according to detailed calculations:

Generally speaking, detailed calculations are necessary when the structural model based on the actual configuration does not correspond to any of those included in the design tables, and therefore those tables cannot be used directly for the structure considered. In such cases it is recommended to perform a preliminary design based on an approximate model, and then to do a detailed analysis using the actual model and the dimensions and resistance values included in the tables. The problem discussed herein is covered by the design tables, and therefore the detailed analysis presented below is intended for demonstrative purposes only. What we should do is to calculate the relevant internal forces and moments as well as relevant deflections and to compare them with the limit values using the load combinations determined previously. These may be obtained either by hand calculations or by using the DimRoof static design software developed by Lindab with a view of facilitating the design of profiled sheeting and steel beams. Design is performed according to the information provided in Chapters 5 and 6 above, whereas limit values are based on resistance values presented in the cross-section property tables of the Appendix of this document.

37

At mid-span: MRd = Weff fy/M = 36.9135010-3/1.1 = 11.74 kNm > MSd = qULS,c L2/8 = 2.687 4.202 / 8 = 5.93 kNm moment resistance OK At support: VRd1 = 40.66 kN (from table in Appendix) > VSd = qULS,c L/2 = 5.64 kN
shear resistance OK

RRd1 = 12.38 kN (from table in Appendix) > RSd = qULS,c L/2 = 5.64 kN
crushing OK

Interactions M-V or M-R are not relevant at supports (as M = 0.0 kNm). At mid-span: elim = L/250 = 4200/250 = 16.80 mm eSd
3

= OK

5/384(qSLS,cL4)/(EsteelIeff)

5/384(1.89110-

42004)/(210452.7104) = 8.06 mm, therefore elim > eSd deflection

Therefore, the floor beam is found appropriate for both SLS and ULS in the construction phase, as has also been shown by previous calculations. (It also satisfies the more severe deflection limit: L/400 = 10.50 mm > eSd = 8.06 mm.)

8.1.2 Design for permanent state

Values of loads: Permanent loads: -

Self-weight of structural elements: qselfw = 0.0581 / 0.6 + 0.059 + 0.05 24 + 0.177 / 0.6 = 1.651 kN/m2 Self weight of cladding: qclad = ~1.0 kN/m2 (may vary according to the cladding system applied)

Variable loads:

Imposed loads: qimp = 2 kN/m2 uniformly distributed

(a) szerkezeti nsly (b) burkolati nsly (c) hasznos teher

38

Relevant load combination: characteristic value: qSLS,p = SLSGk + SLSQk = 1.0 (1.651 + 1.0) + 1.0 2.0 =

4.651 kN/m2
design value: qULS,p = GGk + QQk = 1.35 (1.651 + 1.0) + 1.5 2.0 = 6.579

kN/m2
Design based on tabulated data:

From the design table of the C200-2.0 simply supported composite floor beam, obtain the limit load of the beam, and then check for SLS and ULS. In SLS two relevant deflections should be checked. The EC requires the verification of the deflection due to all loads against a limit of L/250, plus the deflection due to imposed loads only should also be checked against the limit of L/400. This latter limit is more severe than the L/300 recommended by the EC and is used to achieve better behaviour for dynamic effects. The limit load, see the appropriate design table in the Appendix (for beam C200, b = 600 mm, standard placement of sheeting, t = 2.0 mm, L = 4.2 m, with linear interpolation between ULS s = 100 mm and s = 200 mm): qlim,ULS = 9.826 kN/m2, qlim,SLS,L/250 = 11.864 kN/m2 above) qlim,SLS,L/400 = 7.42 kN/m2. ULS check: qlim,ULS = 9.826 kN/m2 > qULS,p = 6.579 kN/m2 satisfied (calculated as shown in Section 8.1.1

In SLS, two cases should be considered according to the method of construction. 1) If, for any case (although it is not justified by design considerations), the floor

beam system is propped during construction, it is assumed that all loads are carried by the composite structure in the permanent state: SLS check for all loads: qlim,SLS,L/250 = 11.864 kN/m2 > qSLS,p = 4.651 kN/m2 satisfied 39

SLS check for the imposed loads: qlim,SLS,L/400 = 7.42 kN/m2 > qSLS,imposed = 2.00 kN/m2 satisfied 2) If the floor is unpropped during construction: SLS check for all loads: esd,1 = e1 + e2 where: esd,1 is the deflection due to all loads in the permanent state

e1 is the deflection due to deformations before the concrete has hardened e2 is the deflection due to deformations of the composite structure qSLS,1 is the self-weight of the floor beam, sheeting and fresh concrete, = 0.9905 kN/m qSLS,2 is the weight of the cladding plus the imposed load, = 3.0 kN/m2 e1 = 5/384(qSLS,1L4)/(EsteelIeff) = 5/384(0.9905103

42004)/(210452.7104) = 4.22 mm

e2 = 0,425 mm, obtained from the appropriate design table on the basis of the linear relation between limit deflection and limit load, as follows: - deflection for the limit L/200: 4200/200 = 21.0 mm, the corresponding limit load from the design table: 14.83 kN/m2 -qSLS,2 = 3.0 kN/m2 the corresponding limit deflection: 3.0 / 14.83 21.0 = 4.25 mm check: L/250 = 16.8 mm > esd,1 = e1 + e2 = 4.22 + 4.25 = 8.47 mm satisfied SLS check for the imposed loads: qlim,SLS,L/400 = 7.42 kN/m2 > qSLS,imposed = 2.00 kN/m2 satisfied The beam is satisfactory in the permanent state for both ULS and SLS.
Design according to detailed calculations:

Design is performed according to Chapters 5 and 6 above. The bending resistance of the composite cross-section is determined from the appropriate bending resistance table and the resistance table (beam C200, b = 600 mm, SRd = 4.961 kN). 40

The axial force in the concrete necessary for full composite action: Ntot = 234.8 kN/m (see table in Appendix) The largest axial force in concrete (at mid-span): N = nconnectors until mid-span SRd = 18 4.961 kN = 89.298 kN That is, the axial force in the concrete at mid-span is equal to the sum of shear forces in shear connectors applied between the end of the beam and mid-span. The concrete cannot be subject to a higher axial force because the connectors, and thus the whole structure, fail when the shear resistance SRd is exceeded. The degree of composite action: N / Ntot = 89.298 / 234.8 = 0.38 In the appropriate moment resistance table, for bb0 = 600 mm, one can interpolate between N / Ntot = 0.2 and 0.4 to obtain the moment resistance: MRd = 26.698 kNm Moment resistance check: MRd = 26.698 kNm > MSd = qULS,p L2/8 = 0.6 6.579 4.202 / 8 = 8.70 kNm moment resistance OK. Shear resistance check: VRd1 = 40.66 kN (from table in Appendix) > VSd = qULS,p L/2 = 8.29 kN
shear OK

RRd1 = 12.38 kN (from table in Appendix) > RSd = qULS,p L/2 = 8.29 kN
crushing OK

Interactions M-V or M-R are not relevant at supports (as M = 0.0 kNm). SLS check: A detailed analysis for SLS in the permanent state cannot be based on the information available, because there is partial composite action in the composite structure that forms after the concrete has hardened, and therefore more sophisticated models are necessary to determine the stiffness of the structure. Thus, tabulated data should be relied on. Therefore, the floor beam is found appropriate for both SLS and ULS in the permanent state, as has also been shown by previous calculations. 41

Finally, as the floor beam has been found satisfactory for both the construction phase and the permanent state, we can state that it is suitable for application in the LindabFloor system.

8.2 Floor beam design # 2

Problem: Design a LindabFloor floor system built by the wet technology according to

the Eurocode series of standards. Design should cover both erection phase and permanent state, and should include relevant ULS and SLS checks for both design situations. Because of the structural arrangement, no lateral-torsional buckling should be accounted for.
Structural system:

Simply supported, with span length L = 6.0 m Steel floor beam of C200-2.0 section Lindab profiled sheeting LTP 20-0.7 with standard fixing v = 5 cm concrete slab clear above sheeting, strength class of concrete C16/20, beton = 24 kN/m3 Fixing of sheeting: EJOT JT2-6-6.3-50 screws in every trough (a total of 53 screws) beam spacing equals effective width of concrete slab bb0 = 600 mm.
Structural system, loads and load combinations: same as in 8.1 above.

8.2.1 Design for construction phase

Values of loads: Permanent loads:

- Self weight of beam: gb = 0.0581 kN/m (see Lindab section catalogue) - Self-weight of sheeting: gsh = 0.059 kN/m2 (see Lindab section catalogue) - Load due to self weight of beam: qb = 0.0581 kN/m - Load due to self weight of sheeting: qsh = 0.0590.60 = 0.0354 kN/m - Load due to self weight of concrete: qslab = 0.050.6024 = 0.72 kN/m - Load due to self weight of concrete in troughs of sheeting: qtrough = 0.60((0.09+0.065)/20.018)53/6.024 = 0.177 kN/m 42

Variable loads:

- Construction load: qc,1 = 1.5 kN/m2, qc,2 = 0.75 kN/m2 (over a length of 3 m in the middle) - Load due to construction load: qc,1 = 0.90 kN/m, qc,2 = 0.45 kN/m Construction loads may also be considered as a qc,1 = 0.45 kN/m uniform load acting over the whole span, plus an additional load qc,2 = 0,45 kN/m acting over a length of 3.0 m. For the sake of simplicity, the additional construction load qc,2 = 0,45 kN/m distributed over the length L = 3,0 m is smeared over the whole span so as to achieve a uniformly distributed load. This can be done to obtain an equivalent loading in terms of either shear or bending moment. In this case, the latter is proposed: qc,2,smeared L2 / 8 = L qc,2 L / 4 - qc,2 L2 / 8. From this, qc,2,smeared = 0.3375 kN/m.
Relevant load combination: characteristic value: qSLS,c = SLSGk + SLSQk = 1.0 (0.0581 + 0.0354 + 0.72 +

0.177) + 1.0 (0.45 + 0,3375) = 1.778 kN/m

design value: qULS,c = GGk + QQk = 1.35 (0.0581 + 0.0354 + 0.72 + 0.177) +

1.5 (0.45 + 0.3375) = 2.518 kN/m

Ponding effect:

Deflection at mid-span due to self-weight of the structural elements: eSd = 5/384(qSLS,tL4)/(EsteelIeff) = 5/384(0.990510-360004)/(210452.7104) = 17.58 mm. This is below the standardised limit value 20.0 mm, and is also smaller than elim = L/250 = 24.0 mm, therefore ponding effect need not be taken into consideration. When ponding effect needs to be taken into account (i.e. when the deflection at midspan does not satisfy these conditions), it can be done so by increasing the slab thickness by the value 0.7 (where = eSd is the maximum deflection) and using this increased slab thickness for further calculations of loads.
Design based on tabulated data:

The limit load is determined using the design table for the C200-2.0 simply supported floor beam assuming structural model 1, and then the beam is checked in SLS and ULS for both flanges restrained laterally and for a deflection limit L/250. 43

The limit load, see the appropriate design table in the Appendix (for beam C200, structural system 1, t1 = 2.0 mm, L = 6.0 m, with linear interpolation between ULS s = 100 mm and s = 200 mm): qlim,ULS = 2.61 kN/m, qlim,SLS,L/250 = 1.352 kN/m2 (as shown in Section 8.1.1 above). ULS check: qlim,ULS = 2.61 kN/m > qULS,c = 2.518 kN/m satisfied SLS check: qlim,SLS,L/250 = 1.352 kN/m > qSLS,c = 1.778 kN/m not satisfied The beam is not satisfactory in the construction phase for SLS, therefore it should be propped at its mid-span during construction.
Design according to detailed calculations:

Generally speaking, detailed calculations are necessary when the design tables do not provide data for the specific case considered. The problem discussed herein is covered by the design tables, and therefore the detailed analysis presented below is intended for demonstrative purposes only. What we should do is to calculate the relevant internal forces and moments as well as relevant deflections and to compare them with the limit values using the load combinations determined previously. These may be obtained either by hand calculations or by using the DimRoof static design software developed by Lindab with a view of facilitating the design of profiled sheeting and steel beams. Design is performed according to the information provided in Chapters 5 and 6 above, whereas limit values are based on resistance values presented in the cross-section property tables of the Appendix of this document (using linear interpolation if necessary). At mid-span: MRd = Weff fy/M = 36.9135010-3/1.1 = 11.74 kNm > MSd = qULS,c L2/8 = 2.518 6.02 / 8 = 11.33 kNm moment resistance OK At support: 44

VRd1 = 40.66 kN (from table in Appendix) > VSd = qULS,c L/2 = 7.554 kN
shear OK

RRd1 = 12.38 kN (from table in Appendix) > RSd = qULS,c L/2 = 7.554 kN
crushing OK

Interactions M-V or M-R are not relevant at supports (as M = 0.0 kNm).

At mid-span: elim = L/250 = 6000/250 = 24.0 mm eSd = 5/384(1.77810-360004)/(210452.7104) = 31.56 mm, therefore elim < eSd deflection is not satisfactory Therefore, the floor beam is found unsatisfactory for SLS in the construction phase, as has also been shown by previous calculations. The floor beam needs propping during construction.

Check of the propped model in the construction phase:

The propped beam is modelled as a double-span continuous beam with constant crosssection. Structural model (structural system 2):

Bearing length is s = 160 at the end supports and s = 200 mm at the intermediate support. Loads are same as above.
Design based on tabulated data:

The limit load is determined using the design table for the C200-2.0 double-span floor beam assuming structural model 2, and then the beam is checked in SLS and ULS for both flanges restrained laterally and for a deflection limit L/250.

45

The limit load, see the appropriate design table in the Appendix (for beam C200, structural system 2, t1 = 2.0 mm, L = 6.0 / 2 = 3.0 m, with linear interpolation between ULS s = 100 mm and s = 200 mm): qlim,ULS = 4.67 kN/m, qlim,SLS,L/250 = 26.08 kN/m Note: Strictly speaking, this value of q would be true only if the bearing length at the intermediate support was equal to that at the end supports (160 mm). The design tables assume equal bearing lengths for all cases. If the bearing over the intermediate support is shorter, then the resistance may decrease to a certain extent. ULS check: qlim,ULS = 4.67 kN/m > qULS,c = 2.518 kN/m satisfied SLS check: qlim,SLS,L/250 = 26.08 kN/m > qSLS,c = 1.778 kN/m satisfied Ponding effect (based on the theoretical expression for deflections in double-span beams): eSd = 2.08/384(qSLS,tL4)/(EsteelIeff) = 2.08/384(0.990510-330004)/(210 452.7104) = 0.46 mm < L/250 = 12.0 mm and 20 mm no ponding effect should be assumed. Therefore, the beam is satisfactory in the construction phase for both ULS and SLS.
Design according to detailed calculations:

Generally speaking, detailed calculations are necessary when the design tables do not provide data for the specific case considered. The problem discussed herein is covered by the design tables, and therefore the detailed analysis presented below is intended for demonstrative purposes only. Loads are same as above. What we should do is to calculate the relevant internal forces and moments as well as relevant deflections and to compare them with the limit values using the load combinations determined previously. These may be obtained either by hand calculations or by using the DimRoof static design software mentioned above.

46

Limit values of internal forces and moments are considered on the basis of resistance values available in the cross-section resistance tables. At mid-span (based on the theoretical expression for double-span beams): MRd = Weff fy/M = 36.9135010-3/1.1 = 11.74 kNm > MSd,m-span = 9/128qULS,cL2 = 1.593 kNm moment resistance OK At the support (based on the theoretical expressions for double-span beams): MRd = Weff fy/M = 36.9135010-3/1.1 = 11.74 kNm > MSd,supp = qULS,cL2/8 = 2.833 kNm moment resistance OK VRd1 = 40.66 kN (from table in Appendix) > VSd,interm = 5/8qULS,cL = 4.72 kN (at intermediate support) shear resistance OK VRd1 = 40.66 kN (from table in Appendix) > VSd,end = 3/8qULS,cL = 2.83 kN (at end supports) shear resistance OK RRd1 = 12.38 kN (from table in Appendix) > RSd,end = 3/8qULS,cL = 2.83 kN RRd2 = 17.89 kN (from table in Appendix) > RSd,interm = 10/8qULS,cL = 9.44 kN (at intermediate support) crushing OK Interaction M-V (MSd / MRd)2+ (Vsd / VRd1)2 = 0.27 < 1.0 OK Interaction M-R MSd / MRd + Rsd,k / RRd2 = 0.74 < 1.25 OK At mid-span: elim = L/250 = 3000/250 = 12.0 mm eSd
3

2.08/384(qSLS,cL4)/(EsteelIeff)

2.08/384(1.77810-

30004)/(210452.7104) = 0.82 mm < L/250 = 12.0 mm, therefore elim

> eSd deflection OK Therefore, the propped floor beam is found appropriate for both SLS and ULS in the construction phase, as has also been shown by previous calculations.

8.2.2 Design for permanent state

Values of loads: Permanent loads: -

Self-weight of structural elements: qselfw = 0.0581 / 0.6 + 0.059 + 0.05 24 + 0.177 / 0.6 = 1.651 kN/m2 47

Self weight of cladding: qclad = ~1.0 kN/m2 (may vary according to the cladding system applied)

Variable loads:

Imposed loads: qimp = 2 kN/m2 uniformly distributed

(a) szerkezeti nsly (b) burkolati nsly (c) hasznos teher

Relevant load combination: characteristic value: qSLS,p = SLSGk + SLSQk = 1.0 (1.651 + 1.0) + 1.0 2.0 =

4.651 kN/m2
design value: qULS,p = GGk + QQk = 1.35 (1.651 + 1.0) + 1.5 2.0 = 6.579

kN/m2
Design based on tabulated data:

From the design table of the C200-2.0 simply supported composite floor beam, obtain the limit load of the beam, and then check for SLS and ULS. In SLS two relevant deflections should be checked. The EC requires the verification of the deflection due to all loads against a limit of L/250, plus the deflection due to imposed loads only should also be checked against the limit of L/400. This latter limit is more severe than the L/300 recommended by the EC and is used to achieve better behaviour for dynamic effects. The limit load, see the appropriate design table in the Appendix (for beam C200, b = 600 mm, standard placement of sheeting, t = 2.0 mm, L = 4.2 m, with linear interpolation between ULS s = 100 mm and s = 200 mm): qlim,ULS = 6.878 kN/m2, qlim,SLS,L/250 = 4.576 kN/m2 qlim,SLS,L/400 = 2.86 kN/m2 ULS check: qlim,ULS = 6.878 kN/m2 > qULS,p = 6.579 kN/m2 satisfied

48

SLS check for all loads (as if all loads were carried by the composite structure in the permanent state): qlim,SLS,L/250 = 4.576 kN/m2 < qSLS,p = 4.651 kN/m2 not satisfied SLS check for the imposed loads: qlim,SLS,L/400 = 2.86 kN/m2 > qSLS,imposed = 2.00 kN/m2 satisfied The beam is not satisfactory for SLS in the permanent state. However, the limit deflection is exceeded by 0.4 mm, i.e. less than 2 %, which could otherwise be neglected. Nevertheless, if we wish to eliminate this exceedance, two possible solutions are recommended: either a larger section is applied and the design process is repeated, or an initial camber is introduced above the intermediate support equal to the value of exceedance of the deflection limit. (Note that the deflection limit in the EC for all loads refers to the deformed shape with respect to the horizontal rather than the original shape of the member. This deflection can be decreased by the introduction of an initial camber.) Cambers are easy to introduce at supports during construction.

Design according to detailed calculations:

Design is performed according to Chapters 5 and 6 above. The bending resistance of the composite cross-section is determined from the appropriate bending resistance table and the resistance table (beam C200, b = 600 mm, SRd = 4.961 kN). The axial force in the concrete necessary for full composite action: Ntot = 234.8 kN/m (see table in Appendix) The largest axial force in concrete (at mid-span): N = nconnectors until mid-span SRd = 26 4.961 kN = 128.99 kN That is, the axial force in the concrete at mid-span is equal to the sum of shear forces in shear connectors applied between the end of the beam and mid-span. The concrete cannot be subject to a higher axial force because the connectors, and thus the whole structure, fail when the shear resistance SRd is exceeded. The degree of composite action:

49

N / Ntot = 128.99 / 234.8 = 0.55 In the appropriate moment resistance table, for bb0 = 600 mm, one can interpolate between N / Ntot = 0.4 and 0.6 to obtain the moment resistance: MRd = 29.938 kNm Moment resistance check: MRd = 29.938 kNm > MSd = qULS,pbb0L2/8 = (6.579 0.6) 6.02 / 8 = 17.76 kNm
moment resistance OK

Shear resistance check: VRd1 = 40.66 kN (from table in Appendix) > VSd = qULS,p L/2 = 11.84 kN
shear resistance OK

RRd1 = 12.38 kN (from table in Appendix) > RSd = qULS,p L/2 = 11.84 kN
crushing OK

Interactions M-V or M-R are not relevant at supports (as M = 0.0 kNm).

SLS check: The information available is not sufficient to perform a detailed analysis for SLS in the permanent state. Therefore, tabulated data should be relied on.

Finally, we can state that the floor beam defined above is satisfactory in the construction phase if one intermediate support is introduced during construction; it is also satisfactory for ULS in the permanent state; it is, however, not satisfactory for SLS in the permanent state as the deflection limit is slightly exceeded (by about 2 %). If we wish to eliminate this exceedance, the introduction of an initial camber is recommended.

50

APPENDIX
Design Tables for the LindabFloor floor system

51