Chekuwong

FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF TWO-WAY COMPOSITE STEEL-DECK SLAB
by
CHEE KHEONG WONG, B.S. in C.E.
A THESIS
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirement for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Approved
Accepted
December, 1987
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his thanks to Dr. James

R. McDonald for his guidance and encouragement throughout
the course of this research.
Special thanks to Dr. Kishor
C. Metha, Dr. Y. C. Das, and Dr. W. Pennington Vann for

their helpful suggestions and constructive criticisms.
The author would like to express his deepest
gratitude to his parents for their support and
encouragement and for working so hard to give him a good
education.
The author expresses his utmost sincere thanks to
Mr. and Mrs. Koh Boon Chor for giving him the opportunity
to further his education.
He is also heavily indebted to
them for their kindness, support and constant

encouragement for so many years.
In addition, the author also likes to thank his
girlfriend Soo Ying for her love, understanding and patience
for al1 these years.
Finally, thanks to Mr. IS for his help with LOTUS.
1 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
t
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
vi i
CHAPTER
1.
INTRODUCTION
Development of Light Gage
2.
Steel-Concrete Floor System
Current Practice
Advantages of One-Way Composite Slabs
The Need for Two-Way Composite Slabs
Organization of Thesis
LITERATURE REVIEW
Early Developments
3.
AISI Studies
10
Pushout and Beam Tests
10
Ful1-Scale Tests
14
CONCEPTS AND CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY
15
The Basic Concept
15
Feasibility of Manufacture
17
Dimensions Used in Feasibility Studies
20
Nodule Size
20
Deck Size
21
11 1
Feasibility of Construction
4.
21
Analysis
25
Results
28
Conclusion
34
PERFORMANCE OF TWO-WAY COMPOSITE SLAB
35
Loadings On Slab
35
Plate Theory
37
Flexural Rigidity of Composite Slab
38
Deflections, Moments, And Shears
42
Deflection
47
Moment Capacity
55
Shear Capacity
62
Shear Strength of Slab
62
SheaiBond Capacity
63
Shear Flow
64
Bond Strength Between Concrete and Steel 66
Shear Strength of Nodules
69
5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Is The Proposed Concept Feasible ?
73
73
Manufacturing Feasibility
73
Construction Feasibility
74
Performance Feasibility
75
Recommendations for Future Research

REFERENCES CITED
78
79
1 v
LIST OF TABLES
3.1
Capacity of Puddle Welds
27
3.2
Tensile Capacity of Metal Deck Sheet
27
4.1
Locations of Concentrated Load
36
4.2
Uncracked And Cracked Flexural Rigidities
43
4.3
Expressions for Maximum Deflection, Moment,

and Shear
46
Deflections of Uniformly Loaded Two-Way

Composite Slabs With 18 Gage Deck (in.)
49

50

51
Deflections of Two-Way Composite Slabs

With 18 Gage Deck Produced by Four
Concentrated Loads (in.)
52

53

54
4.10
Ultimate Moment Capacity of Beam Model
58
4.11
Ultimate Moment Produced by Uniform Loads
59
4.12
Ultimate Moment Produced by Concentrated Loads
60
4.13
Allowable Uniform And Concentrated Loads

as Governed by Slab Moment Capacity
61
Shear Flow (lb/in.) Produced by Uniform Loads

on 3 in. Slab With 18 Gage Deck
67
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.14
4.15
4.16
5.1
5.2
Shear Flow (lb/in.) Produced by Concentrated

Loads
68
Total Shear Resistance at the Interface Between

Deck and Concrete
72
Uniform Loads Capacity of

Two-Way Composite Slab
76
Concentrated Load Capacity of

Two-Way Compos ite SIab
77
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
1.2
2.1
Isometric View of Proposed

Mechanical Shear Transfer Device

in Metal Deck
Linear Regression Plot for Shear

Capacity of Slab
12
3.1
Arrangement of Modular Decks
16
3.2
Base Deck Arrangement

(Nodules Not Shown)
Top Deck Arrangement
(Nodules And Shoring Not Shown)
19
Dimensions And Shape of Proposed

Modular Deck
22
3.5
Shore Used As Support
24
3.6
Tensile Force in Base Deck Versus

Midspan Deflection, for 3 in. Slab
29

30

31

32

33
Locations of Concentrated Loads on

36
Transformation of Two-Way Composite

Slab to Equivalent Flat Slab
39
3.3
3.4
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
4.1
4.2
V 1 1
18
4.3
Beam Model Used In Determining Moment

Capacity of Composite Slab
56
4.4
Slab Model for Shear Flow Calculation
65
4.5
Nodule Dimension Used for Calculating

Shear Resistance
71
VI 1 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this research is to explore the

feasibility of constructing a new two-way action light
gage steel-concrete composite floor system.
The feasi-
bility study involves only theoretical analysis from first

principles of mechanics and material properties.
No
experimental work was performed in this feasibilty study.

A secondary objective of the study was to determine if the
concept is worthy of a testing program.
The performance of existing composite floor systems
is acceptable in today's building industry despite their
limited two-way action.
It is not the objective of this
study to provide a replacement for the current system

but simply to explore a new idea that might be workable
in providing true two-way action in a light gage composite
floor system.
The new concept is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
consists of two layers of modular deck that are
It
laid per-
pendicular to each other and overlap to form a platform to

support the concrete.
A uniform pattern of nodules is
spaced so the overlapping sheets interlock.
The nodules
strengthen the sheaibond between the metal deck and the

concrete to enable two-way composite action to take place.
\A
\\
\ \v
/\
J * 'j\7
\\
//
y^
J ., X ^ //
*\
vV
\\
\\
IS
\/W<^ <^V
CO
0)
(0
'yC ^\
/W^ ^ V
0 (D
^_ _
Q. in
/m7% ^ </\
View
O 4J
-nposi
\ ^
Puddle Velds
\\
Top Deck
V- \
0
>omet
/o-Wa
O (J
*1_ 5K
m v ^ <^ <^
/>
///
V-^V
\'
/A
/ /
X"* ^
*
--
*-
AA"
'/y
<
/* ^ /
/ ,n,/
//
/ / \ / Z'
//
\""v^v
\* S
///
//
//
/
/ ///
/
/ /
//
//
//
'igur
L^
Top Deck Not Shown
V'A / \/\//
0)
a>
Puddle Velds
^ \-lA^ * <^//
M V *^ A /
/vy
/ /A
/ / ////
/ /
/ /
//
//
J"S
***
OO
Development of L ight Gage

Stee1-Concrete F1oor System
Composite floor slabs constructed with light gage
metal deck and reinforced concrete are
buildings.
commonly used in
The terms "composite construction" and
"composite slabs" are
sometimes confused.
Thus, the
following definitions are used to describe composite floor

slab construction:
1)
Composite construction consists of steel beams or

girders supporting a reinforced concrete slab, so
interconnected that the beam and slab act together to
resist bending (one-way action).
2)
A one-way composite floor or roof slab consists of

conventional light gage metal deck supporting a
concrete topping, so interconnected that the deck and
concrete act together to resist bending in one
di rection.
3)
A two-way composite floor or roof slab consists of

two layers of modular metal deck supporting a concrete
topping, so interconnected that the deck and concrete
act together to resist bending in mutually
perpendicular directions.
The system investigated in this study is a two-way

composite slab.
One-way composite slabs using light gage metal
deck were first introduced by the Granco Steel Products
Company in 1950.
Their "Cofar" deck precipitated rapid
development of other one-way deck systems by other

manufacturers.
However, much of the early research on
one-way deck systems in terms of analysis, testing, and

development of design procedures was proprietary with each
deck manufacturer working independently.
These early
proprietary developments produced negative effects on the

market owing to the lack of exchange of information
between various deck manufacturers.
In 1967, the American
Iron And Steel Institute (AISI) sponsored a research

project at Iowa State University with the objective of
obtaining a unified design procedure for steel-deck
concrete composite floor systems (Sabnis, 1979).
The test
results form the basis for current one-way composite slab

design.
Current Practice
In today's practice composite slab systems use metal
deck rolled to form channels running in one direction.
These corrugations produce one way slab action, which
leads to an uneven distribution of forces in the direction
perpendicular to the deck corrugations.
Indentations, embossements, and transverse wires are
used to provide a better transfer of shear between deck
and concrete.
Although the current one-way composite deck
systems perform satisfactorily, tests from AISI sponsored

research indicate that shear-bond failure is the
predominant mode of failure (Schuster, 1972).
A shear-
bond failure results in slippage between the concrete and

the metal deck, which can result in cancellation of the
composite action between deck and concrete.
are
Two methods
used to achieve acceptable shear-bond strength in the
current practice: mechanical devices and chemical bond.

Mechanical shear transfer devices, as shown in Figure 1.2^
lock the concrete slab to the deck.
An alternative way to
achieve adequate shear-bond strength is strictly through a

chemical bond between the metal deck and the concrete.
In practice the deck spans in one direction across
floor beams or purlins.
The deck sheets form a platform
that supports workmen and the wet concrete.
Shoring may
or may not be required prior to setting of the concrete,

depending on span and strength of the metal deck.
If the
slab is continuous across two or more supports, negative

reinforcement may be required at the interior supports.
Welded wire fabric or other forms of reinforcements may be
required to control shrinkage and temperature cracks.
Design procedures for one-way composite slabs are
similar to conventional reinforced concrete slab design.
The concrete in the slab is assumed to resist only
compressive stresses, while the metal deck resists tensile
forces.
The design philosophy recognizes two limit states
based on shear-bond and flexural failure modes.
Advantages of One-Way Compos ite Slabs

There are many inherent advantages in one-way
composite floor slabs.
1) The metal deck serves as a form to support the wet
concrete and remains permanently in place as part of
the structure.
Indentations
Enbossenents
Eibosseients
Indenta
Figure
1.2
Mechanical Shear T r a n s f e r
in Metal Deck
Device
2) The metal deck serves as a working platform for the

workmen, their tools, materials, and equipment prior to
casting the concrete.
3) The metal deck acts as positive reinforcement after the
concrete sets.
4) The metal deck is easy to install.
5) A composite floor slab weighs less because it is thinner
than a conventionally reinforced concrete slab.
The Need for Two-Way

Compos ite Slabs
The choice of the type of slab construction for a
particular application depends on many factors.
Economy
of construction is obviously an important consideration,

but other factors such as strength and serviceability may
come into play.
In situations where the long span to short span
ratio is less than two and where it is possible to support
the slab on all four sides, two-way action slabs may be
more desirable and more economical.
The situation is true
with conventional reinforced concrete slabs, also.

However, in today's practice which utilizes a light gage
steel-concrete composite floor slab, the slab provides
only one-way action.
In situations where two-way action
may be desirable, current practice provides an uneven

^1 g.j.plj3jj^,-on of forces in the so-called 'weak' direction
tranverse to the deck corrugations.
This situation gives
rise to nonuniform size selection of the supporting beams
a
or girders around the perimeter of the slab.
A one-way
composite slab has a limited span between the supporting

beams.
In comparison, a two-way composite slab will pro-
vide even distribution of forces to its edges and leads to

uniform sizing of the supporting structural members around
the slab perimeter.
Larger spans in both directions of
the slab also may be possible with two-way action.
Organ ization of Thes i s

Chapter 2 reviews previous research on composite
slabs.
Chapter 3 explores manufacture of the modular deck
and the constructabi1ity of the proposed two-way composite

slabs.
Performance evaluation with respect to deflection,
moment, and shear capacities is found in Chapter 4.
The
last chapter states conclusions regarding the feasibility

study and suggests the need for additional research.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines previous research on composite

slabs.
Early developments were not published in the open
literature, because they were considered proprietary.

Because of extensive studies sponsored by the American
Iron and Steel Institute, the behavior of one-way
composite slabs is well understood.
Only a limited
number of studies have considered two-way composite slab

action.
Because the proposed two-way composite slab
system is a new idea, no previous work on its performance

is available.
Research on one-way slabs is reviewed in
this chapter with the objective of showing how it leads to

the proposed two-way composite slab concept.
Early Developments
Cofar,
the first metal deck for composite floor
slabs, was first marketed in 1950.
Produced by Granco
Steel Products Company, St. Louis, Missouri, the steel

deck had transverse wires welded to the top of the
corrugations.
system.
A concrete topping completed the composite
Friberg, 1954, published the first significant
article on design of composite slabs using "Cofar."
10
The study also contained a cost comparison between
conventional concrete slabs and composite slabs.
Bryl, 1967, carried out investigations on different
deck cross section profiles.
Results of his investiga-
tions identified several important behavioral and design

characteristics of composite deck:
1) Brittle failure of the composite slab occurred when
shear transfer devices were not used.
2) Large plastic deformations were accompanied by
considerable increase in load-carrying capacity in
slabs with shear transfer devices.
3) Composite slabs should be analyzed as cracked sections
and should be designed using the criteria for bending
and bond stresses.
Discussions by Friberg, 1954, and Bryl, 1967, were based
on the working stress principles.
AISI Studies
A project started in 1967 under sponsorship of AISI
at Iowa State University had as its objective the development of an ultimate strength design approach for composite
slabs.
The work involved extensive testing of pushout and
beam specimens.
Full-scale tests of composite slabs also
were conducted.
Pushout and Beam Tests

The objective of pushout and beam tests was to
secure data for determining the ultimate shear-bond
11
strength of composite slabs.
Pushout tests are tests in
which the resistance to slippage due to a horizontal

force acting on the element is measured.
The beam
element testing was focused primarily on the nature of

shear transfer between the steeI-deck and the concrete.
All beam elements were simply supported and subjected to
symmetrical concentrated loads.
pushout elements were tested.
A total of 353 beam and
The test programs were
conducted by Ekberg, Schuster, and Porter.
Significant
publications by the above are cited in the references.

Data obtained from those tests led to the development of
the following expression for the ultimate shear capacity
of the slab in kips.
V^ = (bd)/s (mpd/L' + k(f'^)^^^}
(2.1)
Where
b
= unit width of slab (in.)
= effective depth of concrete slab (in.)
= spacing of shear devices (in.)
= reinforcement ratio
L'
= shear span of slab (in.)
= compressive strength of concrete (ksi)
= parameter determined from Figure 2.1 (intercept

on the ordinate)
= slope of reduced regression line (see Figure

2.1).
12
, X
Figure 2.1
Linear Regression Plot for

Shear Capacity of Slab
13
Equation (2.1) is the basis for current composite slab
design specified by AISI.
Values of m and k are
obtained from a plot of experimental data.

VgS/bd(f'^)^/^ and
The parameters
d/L'(f'^)^/2 ^^^ plotted as ordinate
and abscissa, respectively.
A linear regression is then
performed to determine the slope, m, and the intercept, k.

Equation (2.1) indicates that the primary parameters
affecting shear capacity are as follows:
1) shear span length
2) concrete properties, including age, and compressive
strength
3) metal deck cross section parameters, including crosssectional area, location of the centroid, material
thickness, and depth of metal deck
4) spacing of the mechanical shear transfer devices (if
present)
5) material properties, including yield and tensile
strength.
The most important conclusion from the tests was
that shear-bond failure is the most predominant type of
failure.
Ekberg et al., 1976, defined shear-bond fail-
ure as the formation of a diagonal tension crack in the

concrete, which results in slippage between the concrete
and deck that is observable at the end of the span.
It was not always clear from the tests if shear-bond
failure preceded yielding of the steel.
14
Ful I-SeaIe Tests
Five full-scale tests were performed in the Iowa
State Project.
The test objective was to obtain informa-
tion, which could lead to improved criteria for the design

of one-way composite floor systems.
Four symmetrically
placed concentrated loads were applied to each slab.

The slabs were simply supported on all four sides.
Even
though the ratio of the long span to the short span was
only 1.33, there was little indication of two-way action.
Results from the full-scale tests confirmed the early
conclusions drawn from the beam and pushout tests that
shear-bond is the predominant failure mode.
Porter, 1974, also used the above results to develop
a set of procedures that combine the principles of yieldline theory and shear-bond regression formula for analysis
of the limited two-way action in the one-way composite
slabs.
From the literature review it can be seen that
little or no research has been done in developing a true
two-way concrete composite slab.
However, a very good
understanding of one-way composite slab behavior has

been established.
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTS AND CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY
This chapter discusses the feasibility of

manufacturing and constructing the proposed two-way
composite floor slab system.
The Bas i c Concept.

Developing the concept of a two-way composite slab
is an exercise in creativity that could lead to an
innovative new floor system.
The concept requires a
modular deck that is not presently produced by U.S.

manufacturers.
The new modular deck will have uniformly spaced
nodules instead of parallel channels.
The nodules will be
pressed in the deck by a cold rolling process.
The geome-
try and arrangement of the nodules will allow two layers

of deck to overlap at right angles to each other.
The shapes and sizes of the nodules that will
produce optimum performance have not yet been determined.
For the purpose of this study, the shape of the nodules is
assumed to be that of a frustrum.
Figure 3.1 shows that
the modular deck overlaps when the sheets are placed at

right angles and parallel to each other.
15
16
Decks Overlap At Right AngM
Base Deck
Top Deck
Decks Overlap Parallel To Each Other
Top Deck
Top Deck
Figure 3.1
Arrangement of Modular Decks
17
The bottom and top layers are called the base deck
and the top deck, respectively.
From the plan view in
Figure 3.2, the base deck spans in one direction and is

placed with a gap between each sheet.
The ends of the
base deck are welded to the support beams with puddle

welds.
As shown in Figure 3.3, a solid layer of the top
deck is placed over the base deck at right angles to it.

The ends of the top decks are also anchored with puddle
we Ids.
Shoring is required to prevent excessive deflection
of the deck during placement of the concrete.
The number
of shores needed depends on the span of the composite

slab, the strength and the thickness of the metal deck,
and the thickness and type of concrete (regular or light
weight).
Because the base and top sheets interlock, welds
are only needed at the ends of the sheets.
Feas i bi1 ity of Manufacture

Light gage metal deck in use today is manufactured
by a cold rolling process.
Flat steel sheets are passed
through a series of rollers that impose the shape and

dimensions of the deck profile.
Cold working during the
rolling process increases the strength of the steel while

reducing its ductility slightly.
The proposed modular deck could also be manufactured
by passing steel sheets through a series of rollers
IB
Base Deck (nodules and shores not shown)
Bean
Puddle Velds
Plan
Figure
3.2
View
Base Deck Arrangement

(Nodules Not Shown)
19
Beaij
r Top Deck (supported by base decks and nodules not shown)
hr
' TH
\
i-j-
1.
\
'
1*
\
^^
Beai
Bea
,1
<
1,
> . ^
1.
i^
__j
1
^ P u d d l e Velds
flean
PI an V i ew
Figure 3.3
Top Deck Arrangement

(Nodules And Shoring Not Shown)
20
equipped with uniformly spaced protrusions on the
circumference of the rollers.
The spacing of the
protrusion will be the same as the spacing of the nodules

on the deck.
The protrusions on individual rollers will
be the same size and shape.
However, the protrusions will
increase in size from the first roller to subsequent ones

until the size of the intended nodule is achieved.
A manufacturer would have to tool up to produce the
modular deck, but the general manufacture of the deck is
very similar to current practice.
Informal discussions
with deck manufacturers did not reveal any major concern

about manufacturing the proposed modular deck.
D imens ions Used i n Feas ibi I ity Studi es

The feasibility study considered an isolated 20 ft
by 20 ft slab, simply supported on all four edges.
This
particular size represents a typical span for floor

systems.
The square slab lends itself to two-way action
NoduIe Size
For the purpose of this study, the shape of an
individual nodule is taken as a frustrum.
special reason for choosing this shape.
There is no
A cross-section
through the nodules is similar to conventional composite

metal deck.
If actual tests are performed in the future,
the shape of the nodules can be optimized.
The best
21
shape for the nodule may depend on the manufacturing
process.
The following dimensions were adopted for the
nodules.
(See Figure 3.4).
1) Nodule base = 2.5 in.

2) Nodule height = 1.55 in.
3) Nodule top = 1.8 fn.
Deck Size
Dimensions of the modular deck sheet assumed for
this study are shown in Figure 3.4.
in. wide by 20 ft long.
The sheets are 26
The nodules are spaced 3.5 in.
apart in both directions.
Each sheet has four rows of
nodules in the longitudinal direction.
Sections A-A and
C-C shown in Figure 3.4, define the 'strong' and 'weak'

cross section of the sheets, respectively.
Distance to
the centroid of the strong cross section from the base of

the nodule is 0.63 in.
The deck is assumed to be 18, 20,
or 22 gage for purposes of calculating tensile capacity.

The yield strength of the material is assumed to be
36 ks i.
Feas ibi1ity of Construction

The proposed two-way composite slab will not be
feasible unless it can be constructed with reasonable ease
by methods familiar to the construction trade.
22
0*
0 EH E
4O
0) u
11 0 0
a 01
r(Q
in
T3 tD
Bi 1 sa E
c
o
5
Q)
0 1 0 El
Li m - ^
B
(n
c
C
(0
4 5 1
cn
(U
H 11 EJ E
E
SI 0 0 0 0
0 I
to
T3
0)
in
O
0
L
Q.
lO
< T)
23
The construction process consists of first placing
the base deck sheets and anchoring their ends to the
support beams with puddle welds.
Because of the weak
cross section (section C-C in Figure 3.4), the modular

deck is not capable of supporting its own weight.
The shores that will be needed later to help to support
the weight of the wet concrete can be used to assist in
supporting the base deck.
One end of a sheet is welded
in place while the sheet is supported by the shores.

The other end is then welded.
A slight pretension may be
required before welding the sheet in place.

Once the base deck sheets are in place, the top
deck sheets can be laid in place.
The nodules of the top
deck interlock with the nodules of the base deck.

ends of the top deck are
installation.
The two
welded in place to complete the
The working platform is then safe for work-
men, equipment, and the wet concrete.

is shown in Figure 3.5.
Placement of shores
The base deck is supported in the
number of locations dictated by design requirements.
The
modular deck has virtually no rigidity and is not capable

of supporting its own weight.
are
essential
Therefore, the puddle welds
if the deck is to carry the required loads.
The deck must achieve its load carrying capacity from

membrane action.
The intermediate shores are
required to
limit deflection of the modular deck and to reduce the

tensile forces in the deck under vertical
loads.
24
^Velded
Velded;7-
Steel Deck As Cable
er^-^
^ , ^ j ' > ' _ ^
^^^^g*
Seal Support
Seal Support
Vood Shore Supports
Slab Span
Base Deck
Vood Shore Support
/ /
y / y y
/ /
^ y
/' y
y y ^
,> r
^ y r
Section A-A
Figure
3.5
Shore
U s e d As
Support
r / ^
y y
^/'^^
25
Analysi s
In order to determine the number of shores and the
required weld capacity, the base deck is assumed to
behave as a parabolic cable.
Analyses are performed to
determine the deck capacity for up to four shores and

three different gage thicknesses.
Loads used in the
analysis are those anticipated during the construction

stage.
Estimated loads include the dead load due to the
weight of the concrete (150 pcf) and the steel deck

(5 psf). The AISI design criteria requires a construction
live load of 20 psf (Sabnis, 1979).
For purposes of comparison, slab thicknesses
of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in. were considered.
Analysis was
carried out on a single base deck sheet spanning 20 ft

between two steel beams.
In order to calculate the in-
plane tensile forces in the deck due to dead plus live

construction loads, the maximum deflection between any
two shores was set to 0.35 in.
arbitrary based on judgment.
The limitation is
It represents a 1 imitation
on the variation of the slab thickness.
For a 5 ft shore
spacing the deflecting span ratio is approximately L/180,

where L is 5 ft.
The equation for tensile force
in a parabolic cable
under uniform load (Sandor, 1983) is given as follows:

T
= (V^ + H^)'/2
max
(3.1)
26
where V and H are the vertical and horizontal cable force
components at the supports, respectively.
V = W/2 .
(3 2)
H = Wl/8f .
(3.3)
Where
W = total dead load plus live load between the two
supports (lbs)
1 = clear span between supports (in.)
f = midspan deflection (in.).
A proper design must find the right combination of
material thickness (gage), shore spacing and puddle welds
capacity to satisfy Equation (3.1) within an acceptable
deflection limitation.
Puddle welds are
11/16 or 3/4 inches in diameter.
Assuming E70 XXX
electrode and the shielded metal arc

weld capacity R
R
= A
w
typically 5/8,
welding process, the
in kips/weld is
X 0.30 Fu
(3.4)
where
A
is area
2
of weld (in. )
w
Fu is tensile strength of the E70 XXX electrode,
which is 70 ksi.
Table 3.1 gives the capacities of three weld sizes.
A minimum edge distance must be specified for the puddle
weld locations in order to prevent the deck material
from tearing around the weld.
The tensile capacity of the
metal deck tabulated in Table 3.2 is given by

T
= (0.6Fy) X Ag
max
(3.5)
27
Tab 1e 3.1
Capacity of Puddle Welds
Weld Diameter
Weld Area
(in.)
'weld Capacity
(in.^)
(k ips)
0.31
6.5
1 1/16
0.37
7.8
3/4
0.44
9.2
5/8
Note : (1) Calculated using Equation (3-4) with shielded

metal arc weld and E70 XXX Electrode
(Fu = 70 ksi).
Tab Ie 3.2
Tensile Capacity of Metal
Deck Sheet
Deck
gage
Deck
Thi ckness
(in.)
Tensile Capacity
per sheet
(kips)
18
0.0516
29
20
0.0396
22
22
0.0336
19
Number of
5/8 in. Dia.
Puddle Welds
Note : (1) Calculated using Equation (3-5) with material

yield strength Fy = 36 ksi and Ag = 26 in. x
deck thickness (ins. ).
28
where
Fy is yield strength of the material (ksi)
Ag is the cross sectional area of deck (in.^).
The tensile capacity of base deck sheets of 18, 20, and 22
gage is tabulated in Table 3.2.
Results
From Table 3.2, it is clear that the puddle welds
are capable of resisting the tensile load capacity
developed in the deck.
A series of calculations were
performed to study the effects of deck gage and the number

of shores in the assumed 20 ft clear slab span.
Slab
thicknesses of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in. were considered in

the calculations.
four.
The number of shores ranges from one to
The midspan deflection was limited to 0.35 in.
The
construction loads (dead plus live) were not factored for

deflection calculations.
The results of the calculations
are presented for each slab thickness in Figure 3.6 to

Figure 3.10.
shores.
Each curve represents a different number of
The limiting midspan deflection is indicated by a
vertical dotted line drawn on each graph.

The three horizontal Iines on each graph represent
the allowable tensile capacity of the deck material for
18, 20, and 22 gage thick respectively.
The horizontal
lines are projected to meet with the vertical dotted line,

which is the limiting deflection.
The minimum number of
29
eo
\.
^ I shores
fio -
40
\
\.
<Q
s30
k\
18 gage
^N
VT
20 gage
^ i ^ shores
*<.
20 -
22 gage
.IW.
>
-^..
-^ 3 shores
10
4 shores
3 in. Slab
r-
0.1
0.2
O.J
HIdspan Deflection (In.)
Figure
3.6
T e n s i l e F o r c e in B a s e D e c k V e r s u s
M i d s p a n D e f l e c t i o n , f o r 3 in. S l a b
0.4
30
7Q
T\I
^T
s.
eo -
\
\
ao -
y 1 shores
\
\.
V
's
s.
\
40 -
X.
^<
30 o
N,
18 gage
-4 2 shores
s.Jii
20 gage
o
u.
%..
'A..
:::^_
20
22 gage
:^:=^
-^ 3 shores
~ - | 4 shores
10 -
4 I n . Slab
r-
.0
Q.t
0.2
O.J
Hidspan Deflection (In.)
Figure 3.7

0.4
31
7Q
\
eo -
\.
\
so \
V.
X.
AO -
V.
\.
' ^ 2 shores
30 u1 o
18 gage
-A
I
20 gage
20 -
^2lr^_
22 gage
_ -3'
3 shores
"I 4 shores
iO -
5 i n . Slab
I
O.i
0.2
0-3
HIdspan Deflection (in.)
Figure
3.8
T e n s i l e F o r c e in B a s e D e c k V e r s u s
M i d s p a n D e f l e c t i o n , f o r 5 in. S l a b
0.4
32
70
\
00 -
\
\
\
::
so
\ .
\
\
40-
N.
\ .
+ 2 shores
^_
30
w
u
o
\-
18 gage
20 gage
20 -
^<-
^^^.
^-^
3 shores
^
= ^
22 gage
I 4 shores
10 -
I
6 i n . Slab
P-
0.1
0.2
0.3
Hidspan Deflection (In.)
Figure 3.9

0.4
33
" "I
i
1
eo ao -
1
\
\
u
1
1
1
\
1
40 -
S
\
A.
X.
N
\
30 U
18 gage
20 gage
20 -
2 shores
^4 3 shores
22 gage
"^"Â-
'-{
4 shores
01
10 -
7 i n . Slab
o -
... ,
0.1
" I
0.2
-4
0.3
Hidspan Deflection (in.)
Figure
3.10
Tensile
Midspan
F o r c e in B a s e Deck V e r s u s
D e f l e c t i o n , for 7 in. S l a b
0.4
34
shores needed to support the decks during construction of
the slab is indicated on the graph.
cut by each horizontal
The last curve to be
line before reaching the vertical
line is the minimum number of shores needed.

From the graphs in Figure 3.6, a 3 in. thick
concrete slab on a 20 gage modular deck needs a minimum
of 3 shores equally spaced in the 20 ft span of the
composite slab.
The maximum deflection between any two
shores due to the construction loads is approximately

0.20 in.
Conclus ion
Analyses presented in this section show that
construction of the proposed two-way action composite
slab, using modular deck, is possible with the required
number of shores.
The number of shores needed depends
on the concrete thickness and the gage of the modular

deck used.
CHAPTER 4
PERFORMANCE OF TWO-WAY COMPOSITE SLAB
The studies conducted on the performance of the

proposed two-way composite slab include deflections,
moment capacity, and shear capacity.
Since no experimental tests were performed, the
analytical studies were based only on thin plate theory
and the concepts of basic mechanics.
Loadings On Slab
Both uniform and concentrated loads were considered
in the performance studies.
Uniform loads were considered
to act over the entire surface of the slab.
In the
concentrated loading case, four concentrated loads were

placed as shown in Figure 4.1 and tabulated in Table 4.1.
A single load at the center of the slab gives the worst
case of deflection and moment, but the four concentrated
loads are more practical representations of actual loads
than a single concentrated load.
As in usual practice, unfactored loads are used
in the deflection calculations and factored loads are
used in the calculation of moments and shears.
factor of
A load
1.55 was used throughout, which is the average
of 1.7 (live load) and 1.4 (dead load).

35
Using a load
36
SInply Supported
I
Concentrated Loads
Siiply Supported
T\
o
1/1
Q .
B^"" T o
cn
CSI
i 1
J
Siaply Supported
i,
4'
20'
Figure 4.1
Locations o f Concentrated Loads

on Two-Way Composite Slab
Tab 1e 4.1
Locations of Concentrated Load
Point Loads
(Kips)
(Ft)
(Ft)
12
12
12
12
37
factor of 1.55 is equivalent to assuming that the ratio
of dead load to live load is 1.0.
Maximum deflections,
moments, and shears in the slab were calculated for the

two loading cases.
Plate Theory
At first glance, the two-way composite slab appears
to have orthotropic properties.
However, because the
material properties are identical in all directions, the

proposed slab can be analyzed by considering it as a thin
plate with small deflections.
The differential equation for behavior of thin
plates is
4
9 w
D {
2~ * 2
9x
4
4
5 w
g w
2
2 "^
T
ax"^ ay
^ " P(xy)-
(4.1)
av
Where
D
= flexural rigidity of the plate
P(x,y) = applied loads

w
= deflection of the plate
x,y
= coordinates on the plate.
Equation (4.1) is used to obtain expressions for deflections resulting from application of loads.
Once the
expressions for deflections are obtained, they are

used to obtain expressions for moments and shears.
then
Before
considering the expressions for deflection, moment, and
38
shear, discussion of the flexural rigidity of the
composite slab is required.
F1exura1 Ri qidity
of Compos ite Slab
In order to facilitate analysis of the proposed twoway composite slab, the steel deck is transformed to rebar
in an equivalent flat slab as shown in Figure 4.2.
thicknesses of the two slabs are the same.
The area
The
of
steel in the composite slab is equal to the area of steel

in the flat slab.
The steel in the flat slab is located
at the centroid of the steel deck cross section.

With these simplifications, expressions for flexural
rigidities of a two-way reinforced concrete slab can be
obtained.
The expressions for the flexural rigidities of
a two-way reinforced concrete slab (Timoshenko and

Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959) are
^x = V ^ ^ - ^ c > ' ^ ^ c x ^ ^^s/^c - ^Ûx>
(4.2)
= ^c^^'^\^^
^^'^^
= (D D ) ^ / ^ .
^^cy ^ ^^s/^c - ^>Uy>
(4.4)
X y
Where
D ,D
^ ^
= flexural rigidity in the x-direction and

y-direction
1,1
= moment of inertia of concrete in the x^^ ^^
and y-directions respectively
1,1
= moment of inertia of steel in the x- and
^^ ^^
y-directions respectively
39
Slab Thickness
Deck Centroid
Assuaed Transformation
Slab Thickness
Deck Centroid
Equivalent Reinforceient
Figure
4.2
T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f Two-Way C o m p o s i t e
Slab to Equivalent F l a t Slab
40
E^ = modulus of elasticity of concrete
E^ = modulus of elasticity of steel
"0^ = Poiss ion's ratio of concrete.
However, since the composite slab and the
equivalent flat slab are
symmetrical about the x and y
axes, I
= I ^, = I and I
=1
= I .
ex
cy
c
sx
sy
s
Hence, D
= D
= D, indicating that the flexural rigidity of the equivalent flat slab D is the same in the x and y directions.
Thus, Equations (4.2) and (4.3) can both be expressed as
D = E ^ / d - ' O ^ ) ^ {I^ + ^^s/^c " ^^'s^
where the term (I
^"^-^^
+ (E /E -1)1 }, which is a moment of

c
s c
s^
inertia term, can be replaced by any one of the following:

1) uncracked moment of inertia (I )
2) effective moment of inertia (I )
3) cracked moment of inertia (I^p)
With the above substitutions, the flexural rigidity D of
the composite slab becomes
1) uncracked flexural
= EI /(I- 1)^^)
g
g
c
2) effective flexural
rigidity
(4.6)
rigidity
= EI /U-'O
^^)
e
e
c
3) cracked flexural rigidity
D
D cr
= EI cr^ /( I- "0c^^ ) .)
(4.7)
(4.8)
Expressions for cracked and uncracked moments of inertia

used above
are
I
= (b(x)^}/3 4 n(As) X (d - x ) ^
cr
(4.9)
41
Where
b
= unit width of the slab (in.)
= distance from the neutral axis to the extreme

compressive fiber of concrete (in.)
= effective depth of concrete (in.)
= modular ratio of concrete and steel
As = area
h
of
steel deck (in.^)
= thickness of concrete slab (in.).
The expression for effective moment of inertia (I )

e
where
M^P
= cracked moment (ft-kips)
f^
= modulus of rupture of concrete (ksi)
y.
= distance from neutral axis to the extreme

tension fiber of concrete in tension (in.)
M
^
= maximum moment in slab produced by unfactored

loads (ft-kips)
was developed by Branson, 1963, and adopted by AC I.

The effective moment of inertia, I , is a smooth
e
transition between the cracked and uncracked moment of
inertia.
Hence, the effective moment of inertia lies
between the lower and upper bound values represented by

cracked and uncracked moments of inertia, respectively.
The relationship holds true for flexural rigidities.
Uncracked and cracked flexural rigidities are
tabulated in
42
Table 4.2, for a range of slab thicknesses and deck gages.
Because the effective flexural rigidity is a function of
the loading it cannot be easily tabulated, but its value
always lies between values of cracked and uncracked
flexural rigidities.
A decision was made not to use flexural rigidity,
based on uncracked section for deflection calculations.
Because the loading magnitude to cause maximum permissible
deflection is being determined, the concrete likely will
crack under these circumstances.
Thus, only the effective
flexural rigidity (D^) and the cracked flexural
rigidity
(D^^) from Equations (4.7) and (4.8), respectively,
are
used for deflection calculations.
Def1ect ions, Moments, And Shears

In solving Equation (4.1) for the deflection of
simply supported plates subjected to uniform and concentrated loads, Navier's solution is used.
moment and shear are
deflections.
Solutions for
then obtained from the known
The solutions can be found in Timoshenko and
Woinowsky, 1959, and also in Ugural, 1967.
The general
expressions for deflection, moment, and shear

1) Uniform loading case
16P
7C D
oo oc Sin(m7:x/a) Sin(n7Cy/b)
m n mn [ (m/a)"^ + (n/h)^
]^
are
43
Table 4.2
Uncracked And Cracked Flexural Rigidities
Steel
Deck
Thickness
Concrete
Slab
Thi ckness
h
(in.)
Effecti ve
Depth
2
Cracked
F1exura1
(in.)
Ûnc racked
Fl exura1
R i g i d i ty
Ri gidity
cr
(ft-kip)
''g
(ft-kip)
18 gage
3
4
5
6
7
2.37
3.37
4.37
5.37
6.37
387
896
1647
2651
3916
630
1493
2917
4834
7676
20 gage
3
4
5
6
7
2.37
3.37
4.37
5.37
6.37
329
753
1371
2191
3219
630
1493
2917
4834
7676
22 gage
3
4
5
6
7
2.37
3.37
4.37
5.37
6.37
297
672
1218
1938
2839
630
1493
2917
4834
7676
Notes :
(1)
d = h - 0.63 in. (Distance to deck centroid).
(2)
Calculated using Equation (4.8).
(3)
Calculated using Equation (4.6)'
44
16P
(m/a)^ + D(n/b)^
V 7-EE
7C
m n mn
X
16PQ
^
7C
D(m/a)^ +
m u
mn [ ( m / a ) ^
16P^ ^ ^ ' ^
3~ Z-/Z-/
K
ra n
oo oo
4P
w=
EE
"*
(n/b)^]^
Sin(n7cy/b).
[{(m^)/(a^n)}
loading
{(m/a)^
X
+ (2--0 ) ( n / a b ^ ] .
(4.14)
(4.15)
Cos(n7cy/b)
(n/b)^]^
C{(n^)/(b^m))
+ (2-1) ) ( m / b a ^ ] .
(4.16)
case
oo 00 S i n ( m 7 : ^ / a )
TCâbD
(4.13)
(n/b)^
Sin(m7:x/a)
Concentrated
Sin(n7cy/b).
Sin(m7cx/a)
V^ = ?-EE
n^
m n
[(m/a)^
2)
(n/b)^]^
Cos(m7:x/a) Sin(n7uy/b)
2
2 2
[(m/a)^ + (n/b)^]^
X
16P
Sin(m7Ux/a)
x~
[(m/a)^
S i n ( n TU T i / b ) }
(n/b)^}^
Sin(m7cx/a)
Sin(n7ty/b).
(4.17)
4P
oo oo { S i n ( m 7 C ^ / a ) S i n ( n 7 t T l / b ) }
M. = ^ E E 2
. ...2.,2
5in(mTtx/a)
7C^- m n { ( m / a ) ^ + ( n / b ) ^ ) }
X
Sin(n7Cy/b)
4P
oo oc
p - E E
Tt^ m n
M =
y
X
{ (m^/a^b)
i- i j ( n ^ / a b ^ ) } .
(4.18)
{ S i n ( m 7 r ^ / a ) S i n ( n 7iT|/b))
2
2~2
Sin(m7lx/a)
{(m/a)^ + (n/b)"^)}^
Sin(n7:y/b)
((n^/bâ)
+ "U ( m ^ / b a ^ ) } .
(4.19)
45
4P g^ 2, {Sin(m7t^/a) Si n(n T:?]/a )}

jr ^ ^ '
"^~"
7-3
'Cos{m7Ux/a)
"^ - {(m/a)^ + (n/b)"^)^
X ~
X
Sin(n7ty/b) { (m^/a'^b) + (2-1)) (mn^/a^ta^ )) . (4.20)

4P ii,^ (Sin(m7c5/a) Sin(n7r T]/a ))
Z 2-^2^
Sin(m7:x/a)
^ "^ {(m/a)^ + (n/b)"^}^
^y ~
X
Cos(n7cy/b) ((n^/b'â) + (2-^0) (nm^/bâ^)}. (4.21)
= vertical deflection at any point of the slab
M ,M
= moments in the x-direction

and y-direction.
Where
V ,V
Po
= Kirchoff shear in the x-direction

.
..
and y-direction
= uniform loads
= single concentrated point load
a,b
= length and width of the slab
m,n
= odd indexes for summations
= 1, 3, 5,
(4.21))
D
x,y
' ^
(for Equations (4.11) to
= flexural rigidity of the slab (depends on

the moment of inertia assumed, i.e.,
effective or uncracked)
= coordinates which define the location of the
deflection, moment or shear
= X and y coordinates for the location of the
concentrated loads
Table 4.3 shows simplified expressions for maximum

deflection, moment, and shear for the two loading
conditions on a square slab (a=b) with Poisson's ratio of
46
Table 4.3
Expressions for Maximum Deflection,
Moment, and Shear
Un i form Load i ng
Concentrated Loading
Maximum Deflection :
Maximum Deflection :
2
w = 0.00406-Di
w = 0.03898-
(4.22)
(4.23)
D,
Maximum Moment :
Maximum Moment :
or M
= 0.04203P a'
o
(4.24)
Maximum Kirchoff's Shear

V
or V
= 0.4361Poa
(4.26)
= 0.5904P-
(4.25)
Maximum Kirchoff's Shear

V
or M
or V ,
y
T
= 2.683 1-a
(4.27)
P = uniform loads.(kips)
o
p
= total concentrated loads on slab (P j = 4P) (kips)
a = dimension of square slab (ft)

D. = flexural rigidity of slab (i = e, for effective
^
flexural rigidity or i = cr for cracked flexural
rigidity) (ft-kip)
p
= single concentrated load on slab (kips)
Note : The above expressions are for a square slab and

Poisson's ratio of 0.15.
47
0.15.
Location of the maximum deflection is at the
center of the slab for both loading cases.
The maximum
moment for the uniformly loaded slab also occurs at the

center of the slab, but for the slab with concentrated
loads, the maximum moment occurs under the loads.
However, the maximum moment expression is singular
at the exact location of the concentrated load.
To
overcome this problem, the moments are calculated close to

the point load rather than exactly at the location.
After
some experimentation it was found that moments evaluated

within 0.2 ft of the point load give reasonable results.
The location of maximum Kirchoff shear is at the center of
the slab edge for both loading cases.
Computer programs were written by the author to
solve for the maximum deflections, moments, and shears for
different uniform and concentrated load cases.
The following values are used in the evaluation of
composite slab performance.
The modular ratio is 9.
Compressive strength of concrete f'^ is 3000 psi and

Poisson's ratio is 0.15.
concrete E
The modulus of elasticity for
is 3.15 x 10^ and the tensile yield strength
c
of equivalent reinforcement f
is 36,000 psi.
Def1ect ion
Equation (4.22) and (4.23) from Table 4.3 are used
to calculate the maximum deflections for various deck gages
48
and slab thicknesses.
Calculations were made using the
cracked flexural rigidity and effective flexural rigidity.

Tables 4.4, 4.5. and 4.6 give deflections for
uniformly loaded two-way composite slabs constructed with
18, 20. and 22 gage deck, respectively.
The upper set of
deflections for slab thicknesses that range from 3 to 7 in.

are determined using a cracked flexural rigidity (Equation
4.22).
The lower set is based on effective flexural
rigidity.
The loads for deflection calculations are not
factored.
Table 4.7. 4.8. and 4.9 give deflections of the twoway composite slabs produced by four concentrated loads;
the slabs have 18, 20, and 22 gage deck, respectively.
Deflections are tabulated for cracked flexural rigidity
and effective flexural rigidity.
is L/180.
The limiting deflection
The loads are not factored.
As expected deflections calculated on the basis of

cracked flexural rigidity are
larger than those based on
effective effective flexural rigidity.

are
Experimental tests
required to determine which approach gives the more
realistic values.
Based on experience with conventional
reinforced concrete slabs, use of the effective flexural

rigidity is justified.
Comparison of the results also reveals that
composite slabs with heavier gage deck are able to support
larger loads.
49
CVI
cvi
so
in
>
"15 >^
I
0
CVI
so
u-
K- j:
u
TD Q)
(U Q
o o CSJ
CVI as
VO
T)
(D lU
0 0)
-J (D
(3
u-l
oo
oo
>v
so
^- CO
E -<
L.
0r
^ -p
^ #
C 3
D
(A
*^- JD
so
CVi
CVI
CVI
VO
oo
CO
CVI
u-l
CVI ^
CVI r . .
CVI
<
fVJ
o o CVI
CVI CO
so
u^
0 (D
^
CV4
Q U
as oo
so en
^
CVi
CVI C O
wo
=>
CVI
C3
wo as
oo rrt
0.87
0.45
0.21
so
oo
CVI
<=>= = =
e r
m r" rr OS
wo CVI
C3
CVi
CVI

c =
SO
CO
a
^r
0.96
0.40
0.20
0.13
1.04
0.57
0.35
0.24
so
1.25
0.65
0.29
0.17
CVI
0.76
0.47
0.32
c 0)
0
- P
-p
u (/)
(U 0
a
*4- E
Q) 0
0.95
0.59
0.40
W (/)
r ~ C3 SO
^ m ^ ^
=> => = =
r CVI
zz r "*
wo
CVI
^ = = ^
CVI
so ~
C3
CVI
=1
er
wn
4->
in
<n
L. . K
o
c
o
CO
u
.
.c
_
c=.
.w
u ^ s o i~
'^v wo so r
..^
*-'
X ta
<u O ) a>
>.
a to *-
a> L-
CJ X
IO a> en
<_> i . -
oc
a>
>>
4 j
a
WW-
IO
i_
^-
>< '
Ol
CD
c
o
.^
n
c=
Ol
..^
ca
J3
IT>
^
w/>
ai
^4.
a
ca
a>
c
4*
->
* *
50
>
c
(D
3
1
0
J
H
oo
Vii^
rvi
^
U
"D (U
Q) Q
T3
fl] 0)
0 0)
-J (D
C3
r->
CVI
CVI
CVI
oo
oo
as
CVI
Ec\j
oi:
4J
U) I/)
0
.4-
U
(U
^*Q)
-O
<TJ
O
CVI
CO
CVI
CO wo oo
CVI o o
O
0)
+J
(0
0
u-l
CVI
so
a
E
Q U
in
5
(D
GO
CVI ^
.^
CVI
VO
CVI
rrs
C3
IO
as ^r
ea =
r
CVi
CSJ
u-l
m
CVI
wo
rri
.13
"^-iD
0 CD
o>
u-l
1.09
0.42 0.72
0.20 0.29
0.12 0.17
(0
CVI
C3
a.
0.57
0.39
0.43
0.29
C
D
.83 1.24
.45 0.68 0.90
CVI
0.5
t- ^
so
^ =
CVI
z s
as
u->
CS4
CVI
C3
=. = = =
SO
CVI
= = ^
wo

^ ^ =
CO
so
C3
C3
so
C3
CVI
C3
cr
1/1
in
i n
4-> OJ ^
(U c
w- .
e
O
CJ
w o VO r ~
^ wo *o r
c
o .c
c
o
"O
Ol
ID 4-
C-
X "o
CJ
CD
ai
Lk. oc =3
(_>
Lk.
o>
QC
>
>.
CO 4 . J
.
4_i
o
Oi
WW.
l_
3 -a
X
LU U .
Of
m
c
a>
o
OJ
^^
wOiwex
Ol
cs
4-^
^ e
J3
(O
CO
51
so
E cvj
(-
0 -Pr
*i-
CVI
C 15
D
CO
(0
0)
4->
a.
CVI
T3
IO
o
CO
CVI
-p ^
Qi
. ~
VO
0.93
0.51 0.77
0.32 0.48
0.22 0.33
u
(n
Q) 0
a
^ E
r
CVi
1.19
0.43 0.78
0.20 0.30
0.12 0 . 1 7
c
0
in
CV4
Q U
VO
^
Q)
i3
fO
H
CVI
oo
so
m c^
0.58
0.23
0.13
0.08
(A I/)
CSJ
0.97
0.66
ti- 1
0 CD
CVI
1.02
0.64 0.60
0.44 0.55
w-
as
l . i O 1.29
0 . 5 1 0.73 0.93 1.13
0.21 0.34 0.48 0.63 0.77
^- CVJ
1.11
o^
1 . 1 3 1.29
0.77 0.88 0.98
>N
so
1.26
3 \.y
1
0
5
K .^
U
13 0
0) O
TJ
(0 0)
0 0)
- J (D
1.11
>
c
(D '
CO r n r~-
CVI
wo s o
^
'^
so so
CVI
as
CVI
wo
CVI
CSJ
m
*rt
CVJ
so
oo wo
C3
VO
s o ^r
so
0-
CVJ
01
CVI
c
eo
CO
in
Ol
-..*
.
c
o
^
c . ^.^
o .ez
(_> t
*
OJ
w.
c:
ui so r
.aiC
CJ
^r u" v ^
r-"-
c
o
in
X -o
a> o> o)
^ .
<n
u- oe
>
Ol
>v
to
**
.
4->
r o 4->
W-
OJ
wi_
X
Ol
Oi w-
.^ 3 -a
<J
OI
>
-a
OS
.^-
<>
.a
(T>
CJ
Ol
..
*at
a
en
c
^"
--
*-
52
so
CSJ
1.03
1.20
1.35
0.63 0.88
0.33 0.51 0.67 0.62 0.97 1.11 1.26
0.16 0.29 0.41 0.52 0.63 0.73 0.83 0.94
f^
II
so
"S d
IQ
c:
i
CJ
c
o
c_>
OO
so
P*-
"^
WO
0)
z(D
m
so
CSJ
CVI
oo
so
rrt
CVI
ca
= =
= = ^ =
CVI
rn
ea as m
a> CVI
= = =
ca
^ = = ^
CVI
._ ^ ^
ori
1-
^
OO
CVI
CVI
ZZ
CO
U1
ca
ca
C3
Ol
.J.J
Oi
1
o
c
o
CJ
in
in
OJ
C
.a<
CJ
e
.
J
.= ^.^
^-
rn
*S
s o r.
".
o-
CO
u ^ s o r
c
o
>s
ID
4.J
i3
X
Oi
.^
TD
"
>
o>
"O
Oi
an
CJ
Ol
in
Ol
Ol
ex
Effective
Flexural
Rigidity
>sT} v . ^
D 0
5 L
1 Q.
0
v\
5 .i^ T3
H- U ID
0) 0
M- Q -J
0
(U T3
in 0) 0)
c (JCD CpD
0
L
P 00 4J
U C
0)
(U
. r u
^ -P c
(U .- 0
Q 3 U
a.
Cracked
Flexural
Rigidity
c
uu
D .-
0.79
0.36
0.15
0.10
CSi
CSi
V) >
0 (U
1.05
'0
0.84 1.25
0.45 0.68 0.91 1.08 1.31
0.28 0.42 0.56 0.67 0.85 0.99 1.13 1.27
0.19 0.29 0.38 0.48 0.57 0.67 0.76 0.86 0.96
0) 0
4J U.
1.13
1.15
.
{fi
0 n
a
E T3
1.23
nCD
1.24
tn
Ol
en
53
in
CD
Su
to 0
p u.
W
wo
CVI
rsi
CVI
CSJ
>i
0 13
so
a
E T3
0 Q)
U U
3
MJ
3C
D0
I L
0 CL in
to
so
ID
CD
(U 0
U- Q - J
I-
CU "D
in 0 ) Q)
CD 4J
CD
0
1P O 4J
U CVJ C
0)
CD
- r u
c
QJ . - 0
Q 15 u
ON
rrt
CO
as
VO
wo
CVI
C3
OS VO
CVI
IO
^
m
wo oo
oo I O
o r
at
OS CO
m
a>
o
as
u-l m
so
^r CVI wo
CSJ oo wo r n
CSi
CSJ
OS w o m
OS w o m CVI
00
^
r>~
v^
. CSJ
0)
CVJ as
c a CSJ
CD
CVI
r~ w o ^
u-l
CVI ^
OS
^
so
^
rrt r as
CSJ
^
II
ID
CO
Ol
4-t
in
at
W- .ac
CJ CJ
Oi c
wo v^ r~~
CJ
<
0=
>
ID 4-
I.
3
T3
X "o
Qt at Qi
_
n
-~
^ wo so r
c >
o .c
CJ
3
00
^ ID .*J
a i I -
. ^ 3 - 0
CJ
(O
OJ
at
CJ o - oc
>
CD -*
X
Ol
C7I
Ol
^
.
a>
.
ui
C3
01
<'
^ w
XJ
<o
Ul
-*-
54
in
CD
wo
0) L
CVi
3
(D 0
CSJ
In >s
a^
wo
ET3
0 (U
u o
s o CVJ
CVi O S
a.
3
2
CID 0
0 (- in
Q. U
I - J^ CD
O 0
_J
o OQ)
QJ 1 3
in
c ID
0 CD (D
L
P CVJ P
U t\J C
(U
0)
- JZ u
M--P
lU . Q 3
OS
so
CSJ
oo
OS
C3
r~~
so
oo
wo
""
s^
m
rn
as
m
r^
II
s o OS
CVi
so
so
CVJ r
wo
so
^^
t3
to
O
Ol
CO
Oi
CJ
c
o
0
s o rsi
CVJ as
oo
wo
^
'v
m
.^
CSJ o o
'
OS s o
m
CV.J
CVi
so
OS
r~
wo
oo
wo
>
so
m s o o
oo
so so
CVI
U-)
so
CVI
' ^
<VJ CSJ
as
rrt
CSJ
Q)
Ol
c
ID
3
er
CD
I-
CO
II
â
oo
"*.*
_ j
4-1
w_
ca
m
Oi
(J
irt v
CJ
^ u> s o f~-
c
o .c
..
C J >
>.
ID 4>>
ID
X
OJ o >
.atf
3
CJ X
CO a t
w_ .
C J w^
CVI
ai
-o
a>
T3
Ol
oc
>
>s
CD 4-
4J
I
O
3
"O
OJ X
wiat
a>
a
o
n
c:
a>
a
(=
X3
ID
III
CO
c
o
.^"
4->
CJ
at
wtOJ
o
Ol
^
4^
a
^
_ i
55
Moment Capacity
In calculating the flexural capacity of two-way
composite slabs, the following assumptions are made
1) No slippage occurs between the modular deck and the
concrete
2) The predominant mode of failure is flexure
3) Slab behavior can be simulated as a series of
individual beams acting together in resisting bending
in perpendicular directions
4) The modular deck cross section is transformed to
equivalent concrete area
Based on these assumptions, the beam model shown in
Figure 4*3 is used to calculate ultimate moment capacity
of the slab.
The steel area
is equal to the area
modular deck within the width of the beam.
of
The effective
depth d is measured from the top of the concrete to the

centroid of the deck area.
Ultimate strength concepts of
AC I-318-83 are used in the calculations.

The ultimate moment capacity of the beam model is
M^ =
(j)(C or T) (d-a/2) .
(4.28)
Where
C = compressive force in the concrete, (kips)
T = tensile force in the steel (kips)
d = effective depth of the beam
a = depth of the stress block
(in.)
(in.)
(|)= strength reduction factor according to AC!-9.3.

(ACI-318-83).
56
0
CD
(0
in
0)
L
-P
nCD
E
in
in
0)
L
Oil
CD
OJ
CJ
CD in
C
..- 0)
c +J
. .
E tn
L 0
Q; a
p E
Q) 0
CD
-p
tn
c
0
p
(/)
c <*.
*-* 0
D >v
0) 4J
in
3 o
CO
r-
Q) a
CD
X) U
0
z:
"D
d)
c
E 0)
CD E
Q) 0
i-
CQ 2 :
in
CD
l-
4J
O
Q)
CO
in
in
O
L
U
QJ
ssau>|3mi qeis
Q)
U
3
0)
57
Ductile behavior of the slab is assured by limiting the
percentage of reinforcement to a maximum of 0.75 o , but
^b
requiring at least 200/fy, as specified by the ACI-10.3.3
and ACI-10.5.1, respectively (ACI-318-83).
The balanced
reinforcement ratio is given by

Pb=
0.85B f
;---f^,
87,000
(
) .
87,000 + f
Where
Pl= 0.85
for f'j, < 4000 psi
f
B, = 0.85 - 0.05(
- 4000
)
1000
for f
> 4000 psi

^
as referenced by ACI-10.2.7.3.
Ultimate moment capacities calculated using Equation
(4.28) are tabulated in Table 4.10.
The uniform and
concentrated loads associated with the ultimate moment

capacities are obtained from Equation (4.24) and Equation
(4-25), respectively.
explained earlier.
A load factor of 1.55 is used as
The ultimate moments produced by
various uniform and concentrated loads are tabulated in

Table 4.11 and Table 4.12, respectively.
Table 4.13
summarizes the allowable (service) load capacity of

two-way composite slabs with various deck gages and slab
thicknesses.
Note that the loads above the solid line in
the table produce deflection greater than L/180.
58
Tab 1e 4.10
Ultimate Moment Capacity
of Beam Model
Concrete
Slab
Thickness
(in.)
Steel
Deck
Thickness
Moment
Capacity
(ft-kip)/ft
5
3
4
5
6
7
10
13
16
20 gage
3
4
5
6
7
4
6
8
10
12
22 gage
3
4
5
6
7
3
5
7
9
11
18 gage
Notes :
The above results are calculated using
Equation (4.28)#
f
f
y
= 3000 psi
= 36,000 psi
59
Tab Ie 4.11
Ultimate Moment Produced
by Un i form Loads
Unfactored
Un i form
Loads
(psf)
Factored
Un i form
Loads
(psf)
Ûltimate
Moments
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
77.5
155.0
232.5
310.0
387.5
465.0
542.5
620.0
697.5
775.0
852.5
930.0
1
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
(ft-kip)/ft
Notes :
(1) Load factor assumed to be 1.55
(2) Calculated by using Equation (4.24) from Table 4.3.
60
Tab 1e 4.12
Ultimate Moment Produced
by Concentrated Loads
Unfactored
Concentrated
Loads
(kips)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Factored
Concentrated
Loads
(kips)
3. 1
6.2
9.3
12.4
15.5
18.6
21.7
24.8
27.9
31 .0
"Ûltimate
Moments
(ft-kip)/ft
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
15
16
18
Notes :
(1) Unfactored load is P^, the sum of four
concentrated loads,
(2) Load factor assumed to be 1.55.
(3) Calculated using Equation (4.25) from Table 4.3
61
Tab 1e 4.13
Allowable Uniform And Concentrated
Loads as Governed by Slab
Moment Capacity
Steel
Concrete
Deck
Thi ckness
Thickness
(in.)
3
4
5
6
7
18 gage
Ûniform
^(Concentrated
Unfactored
Unfactored
Loads
Loads
(kips)
(psf)
(ft -kip)/ft
Moment
Capac ity
5
8
10
13
16
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
6.0
9.2
11.1
14.0
18.0
20 gage
3
4
5
6
7
4
6
8
10
12
150.0
240.0
300.0
400.0
450.0
4.0
7.2
9.2
11.1
13.0
22 gage
3
4
5
6
7
3
5
7
9
1 1
100.0
200.0
250.0
350.0
425.0
^.n
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Notes
(1) Extracted from Table 4.10(2) Interpolated from Table 4.11'
(3) Interpolated from Table 4.12.
(4) Loads above solid lines produce deflection
greater than L/180.
62
Shear Capacity
The shear strength of two-way composite slabs and the
shear-bond resistance at the interface between concrete
and deck are
discussed in this section.
Shear Strength of Slab

The shear strength of the proposed composite slab is
provided by the shear strength of the concrete alone,
since there is no shear reinforcement in the composite
slab.
Hence,
<I>V^ > V^.
(4.29)
Where
V
= shear strength of concrete (kips)
= maximum ultimate shear on slab using Equation

(4.26) and (4.27) from Table 4.3, for uniform
and concentrated loads, respectively (kips)
({) = strength reduction factor of 0.85 as defined by
ACI-9.3. (ACI-318-83).
The shear strength of the concrete V
as mentioned above
is calculated by the following expression, which comes

from ACI-11.3.1.
V
(ACI-318-83).
= 2(f' )^^^bd.
c
(4.30)
Where
f
= compressive strength of concrete (ksi)
= unit width of slab (in.)
= effective depth of the slab (measured from

the top of the concrete to the centroid of
the steel deck cross section) (in.).
63
From Equation (4.30), a 3 in. thick composite slab
provides a shear strength of
3.1 kips.
Solving for P and

o
P-^. from Equations (4.26) and (4.27) with V = V
=31
X
kips, the unfactored loads that can be carried by the slab

are
P^ = 230 psf and P^ = 14 kips.
If the loads are
governed by limiting deflection to L/180, then P = 60 psf

o
and P^ = 3 kips (from Table 4.4 and 4.7, respectively).
If limiting moment capacity governs, then P = 200 psf and
o
P^ = 6 kips (from Table 4.13) for the same slab thickness.
Equation (4.30) also indicates that the shear
strength of the composite slab increases with an increase
in slab thickness.
Thus, if similar calculations were
performed on a thicker slab, the same conclusion regarding

shear strength would be drawn.
Shear-Bond Capac ity
Sheaibond capacity of the slab is important because
without it, composite action between the concrete and
modular deck cannot take place.
If slippage occurs at the
interface, the load carrying capacity of the slab is reduced drastically and as such a shear-bond failure occurs.
The resistance to the horizontal shear stresses at
the interface between the concrete and metal deck is
achieved by the bond strength between concrete and deck
and by the nodules, which act as individual shear
connector.
64
The above can be studied in equation form
^b -^ ^sc > ^
(4.31)
Where
q
= shear flow produced by loads (lb/in.)

= VQ/I
V|_^ = bond strength of concrete and deck (lb/in.)

Vg^ = shear resistance of the nodules acting as
individual connectors (lb/ins.)
V
= Kirchoff shear in slab due to loads (kips)
= first moment of area above or below concrete

-deck interface about the neutral axis (in. )
= moment Inertia of the transformed composite

section (in. ).
The three terms in Equation (4.3 1) are discussed in

the following paragraph.
Shear Flow
In order to calculate the shear flow, a unit width
of the slab as shown in Figure 4.4 is considered.
steel deck area
The
is transformed to equivalent concrete area
by multiplying by the modular ratio n.
The concrete-deck
interface is assumed to be located at the centroid of the

deck cross section (line A-A, in Figure 4.4). The shear
flow of interest is obtained by using the expression
VQ/I.
The neutral axis used in calculating Q is that of
an uncracked section.
The maximum Kirchoff shear is
calculated using Equations (4.26) and (4.27) for uniform
65
<n
X
<o
4-1
Ol
C
0
-p
u
Q)
If)
"D
QJ
E
L
0
Min
CVI
c
CD
L
h-
L
CO
Q)
iZ
to c
0
t. .^
0 p
^ CD
3
Q) U
T3
0 ID
:E U
D 5
a*
(J
CD 0
C
0
I/)
U
CO
in
in
0
L
U
.QJ
TD
0
z:
ss3U)|3|i|i qeis
Q)
cn
66
loads and concentrated loads, respectively.
factored.
The loads are
Table 4.14 tabulates the shear flow due to
uniform loads for a 3 in. slab and an 18 gage deck.

Results in Table 4.14 represent the worst case among all
of the slabs parameters.
Other cases are not tabulated.
Shear flow produced by concentrated loads are presented in

Tab1e 4.15.
Bond Strength Between Concrete and Steel

The bond strength between the modular deck and
concrete can be determined only by tests.
However, a
literature review of bond strength reveals that the

natural surface bond strength between steel and concrete
is proportional to its contact area and also varies with
the character of the surfaces and the nature of the concrete.
The C i V i1 Engineering Handbook, Urquhart, 1974,
states that the bond strength between concrete and steel

can range from 5 to 40 percent of the ultimate compressive
strength of concrete at 28 days, depending on the steel
and concrete characteristics.
The Mechanical Engineers
Handbook, Marks, 1955, states that previous testing

indicates a 2000 psi compressive strength concrete
at 28 days has a bond strength that ranges from 18 to 23
percent of the ultimate compressive strength.
For the purpose of this study, the surface bond
strength (v. ) between concrete and deck is assumed to be
67
Table 4.14
Shear Flow (lb/in.) Produced
by Uniform Loads on 3 in. Slab
With 18 Gage Deck
Unfactored
Un i form
Loads
(psf)
20
40
60
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
460
500
540
580
620
Factored
Uni form
Loads
(psf)
31
62
93
124
186
248
310
372
434
496
558
620
713
775
837
899
961
Shear Flow
In Slab
(lbs/in.)
6
13
19
26
39
52
65
78
91
103
1 16
129
149
162
175
188
201
Notes :
(1) Load factor assumed to be 1.55.
(2) Calculated using VQ/I from Equation (4-3 1)
68
Tab 1e
4.15
S h e a r F l o w ( l b / i n . ) Produced
by C o n c e n t r a t e d Loads
Concentrated load (kips) K * *f

Unfactored
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
(.1
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
K.O
18.0
21.0
Factored
l.(
3.1
4.7
(.2
9.3
12.4
15.S
18.(
21.7
2i.O
27.9
31.0
(0
37
2S
18
14
119
73
50
36
27
179
110
75
54
41
239
147
100
72
55
359
220
150
108
02
477
293
175
144
109
597
367
250
180
137
716
441
300
217
164
036
514
350
253
192
955 1074 1193

587 (61 734
400 4SI SOI
289 325 361
219 246 274
SI
31
21
IS
II
102
(2
42
30
27
154
93
(2
45
34
205
125
84
(0
45
308
167
125
90
U
412
250
167
120
90
514
312
210
150
113
617
375
251
100
136
720
437
293
211
158
023
500
336
240
181
926 1029
5(2 625
377 419
270 301
203 226
47
28
19
13
10
93
56
37
27
20
140
84
5(
40
30
187
112
74
53
40
279
169
112
00
60
373
224
149
107
00
466
280
186
133
100
559
336
224
lit
119
(53
392
261
186
139
746
449
299
213
159
893
505
3](
240
179
Concrete
Thickness
(In.)
18
gage
Deck
20
gage
Deck
22
gage
Deck
932
5(1
373
266
199
69
10 percent of the 3000 psi concrete ultimate compressive
strength at 28 days.
This assumption is conservative
because the nodules on the deck greatly increase the

contact area
between the concrete and the steel deck.
Shear Strength of Nodules

A portion of the horizontal shear strength is
contributed by the nodules, which act as shear connectors.
The actual strength is hard to determine without a large
test program.
Shear resistance of the shear connector
depends on the concrete strength, the shape of the

connector, the size of the connector, the attachment of
connector to its base, and deformations of the connector
during loading.
Expressions for the ultimate shear strength of the
various connectors, such as spiral, stud, and channel,
have been determined by experimental tests.
of them are
However, none
even approximately equivalent to the nodules
of the proposed modular deck.' Only a rough estimate can

be made based on the assumption that the nodules shear off
at their base.
F
= F
r
The shear resistance of a single nodule is
X (c ) x (t .) .
vy
P
a
(4.32)
Where
F
^
= ultimate shear resistance of a single nodule

(lbs)
70
F^y = allowable shear yield stress of material (psi)
Cp
= perimeter ABCD around base of nodule, as shown

in Figure 4.5 (in.)
t^
= thickness of deck (in.).
The shear flow resistance provided by the nodules over the

entire surface of the deck is given by
F
V
sc "
(4.33)
s
Where
^sc - uniform shear flow resistance provided by
nodules (lbs/in.)
s = center-to-center distance between two nodules
(8.5 in. as shown in Figure 4.5).
Based on Equations (4.32) and (4.33) and an assumed
natural bond strength of 300 psi, the total shear
resistance at the interface between the concrete and steel
can be obtained.
These values tabulated in Table 4.16
represent a crude estimate of the actual shear resistance

at the interface.
However, it gives an indication that
sheaibond failure is not likely to be a predominant

failure mode in the two-way composite slab.
Based on the shear capacity studies, it is clear
that shear capacity does not control the load
the two-way composite slabs.
capacity of
71
tn
at
IO
CO
h
Model
-^
8.5 ins
Cross S e c t i o n
Nodule
Side View
Plan VIev
2.5 In.
Nodule
Figure 4.5
Dimension
Nodule Dimension Used for

Calculating Shear Resistance
72
Tab Ie 4.16
Total Shear Resistance at the
Interface Between Deck and Concrete
Steel Deck
Thickness
Shear Flow Resistance

^
r
j
By
By
Total
Natural
Nodules
Bond
(lbs/in.)
(lbs/in.)
(lbs/in.)
18 gage
300
1262
1562
20 gage
300
968
1268
22 gage
300
822
1122
Notes :
(1) Terms on the left side in equation (4.31).
(2) Assumed to be of 10 percent of f'^ = 3000 psi
(3) Caculated using Equations (4.32) and (4-.3).
with F = 36,000 psi, c^ = 10 in.,
and s ^ 8.5 in.
(4) Total = (2) + (3).
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The concept of a two-way composite slab is described

in this document.
Preliminary studies were carried out to
determine the feasibility of manufacturing the modular

deck and constructing the slabs.
The overall performance
of the slabs in terms of deflections, moment capacity, and

shear capacity was evaluated.
theorectical analysis.
required.
All studies are based on
Many basic assumptions are
No experimental testing was performed.
Is The Proposed Concept F ea s i b 1 e 1_

Based on the results from the various calculations
and evaluations, conclusions on the feasibility are
presented.
Manufactur i ng Feas ibi1ity

Discussions regarding maufacturing feasibility in
Chapter 3 indicated that it is possible to produce the
proposed new modular decks through a cold form process.
It could be accomplished by passing flat steel sheets
through a series of rollers equipped with regularly spaced
protrusions, to form the nodules.
73
74
The most predominant problems in manufacturing
these modular decks are the possibility of high stress
concentration and material yielding around the edges of
the nodules during the forming process.
One way to
prevent this, is by limiting the depth of the nodules.

Experimental tests would be required to optimize the
nodule depth.
Because the cnanufacture of the modular deck is not
that different from current practices, the cost of tooling
for the new type of deck may be minimal.
All points mentioned above give a strong indication
that it is possible and feasible to manufacture the
proposed modular deck, a pilot program will be required to
verify these conclusions.
Construction Feas ibi1ity

It is possible to install the modular deck to serve
as a platform for workmen and wet concrete during
construction.
Shores and puddle welds will be required to
limit the deflection and to provide the membrane action

required to support construction loads.
Results from the calculations performed on the 20 ft
by 20 ft isolated slab indicated that in the proposed
concept, shorings will be required at about a 5 ft
spac ing.
75
Performance Feasibi1ity
Results from the performance evaluation suggested
that the amount of allowable uniform and concentrated load
capacities is governed by the deflection or moment
capacity of the slab.
The high shear capacity of the slab
is mainly due to the increase in bond surface area between

the deck and concrete by the nodules.
The assumption that
each individual nodule will act as a shear connector also

further increases the value of the shear resistance of
the slab.
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show the comparisons of the
allowable applied uniform and concentrated loads as
governed by deflections, moments, and shear capacity of
the slab.
It was found that for slabs with a concrete
thickness of 4 in. or less, the applied loads, both

uniform and concentrated are governed by deflections.
For slabs with a concrete thickness greater than 4 in.
the controlling factor on allowable loads is the
slab moment capacity.
Based on the above, we now can
speculate that the limiting capacity of the proposed twoway composite slabs is either by deflections or moment
capac ity.
76
Table 5.1
Uniform Loads Capacity of
Uniform Unfactored Loads
(psf)
Steel
Deck
Thickness
Concrete
Slab
Thickness
(Inches)
18 gage
20 gage
22 gage
*By
Deflections
Capacity
^By
Moments
Capacity
^By
Shear
Capacity
3
4
5
6
7
60
160
280
460
620
200
300
400
500
600
>
3
4
5
6
7
60
120
240
360
540
150
240
300
400
450
>
3
4
5
6
7
40
120
200
320
460
100
200
250
350
425
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
620
620
620
620
620
540
540
540
540
540
460
460
460
460
460
Notes :
(1) Extracted from Table 4.4, 4.5, & 4.6.
(2) Extracted from Table 4.13.
(3) Shear capacity of the proposed composite slab
is not a problem.
The above are
for
a 20ft by 20ft proposed composite slab.
77
Table 5.2
Concentrated Load Capacity of
Unfactored Concentrated Loads (P^ = 4P)
(kips)
Steel
Deck
Thickness
18 gage
20 gage
22 gage
Concret:e
Slab
ThickneJSS
(Inche
'By
Deflections
Capacity
^By
Moments
Capacity
3
4
5
6
7
3.0
6.0
1 1 .0
18.0
25.0
6.0
9.2
11.1
14.0
18.0
3
4
5
6
7
2.0
5.5
9.5
15.0
21.0
4.0
7.2
9.2
11.1
13.0
3
4
5
6
7
1.5
5.0
7.0
13.5
19.0
3.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
^By
Shear
Capacity
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
21 .0
21 .0
21 .0
21 .0
21 .0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
Notes :
(1) Extracted from Table 4.7, 4.8, & 4.9.

(2) Extracted from Table 4.13.
(3) Shear capacity of proposed composite slab is
not a problem
The above are for
a 20ft by 20ft proposed composite slab
78
Recommendat i ons for Future Research
The studies reported herein do not constitute an
exhaustive evaluation of the performance of the proposed
composite slab.
Rather, this research is only the first
step in introducing the idea and demonstrating its

potential performance.
Most of the work done in this
study can be verified only by full-scale experimental

tests.
However, the conclusions reached to date suggest
that further studies be conducted to prove or disprove the

merits of the proposed two-way composite slab concept.
These studies should include manufacture of the modular
deck, construction of slabs, testing of slabs, economic
analysis of slabs, and marketability of the concept to the
construction industry.
REFERENCES CITED
'
Concrete^'Ac?''^,'fl'2? ^?^ Requirements for Reinforced

A S I ? MiÂigan.
"
*"'"'"'^"" ^""'-^*^ Institute.
2.
AISC. 1980: "Manual of Steel Construction. 8th

A^^r ?: *'"^'""=^" Institute of Steel Construction.
A I b C , Chicago.
^*
tQ9 "^^c^'''''^2! Co^^c'J of Codes and Standard Division,

1982: Specifications for Design and Construction of
Composite Slabs," American Society of Civil
Engineers, ASCE, New York.
4.
Bryl, S. , 1967: "The Composite Effect of Profiled

Steel Plate and Concrete in Steel Deck Slabs," Acier
Stahl Steel, October.
5.
Ekberg, C. E, Jr., Elleby, H. A., Greimann, L. F., and

Porter, M. L., 1976: "Shear Bond Analysis of Steel
Deck Reinforced Slabs," Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Paper 12611, Vol. 102, No. STI2,
December, pp 2255-2268.
6.
Ekberg, C. E, Jr., and Porter, M. L., 1971:

"Investigation of Cold-Formed Steel Deck Reinforced
Concrete Floor Slabs," Proceedings of the 1st
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, August,
PP 179-185.
7.
Ekberg, C. E, Jr., and Porter, M. L., 1972: "Summary

of Full-Scale Laboratory Tests of Concrete Slabs
Reinforced With Cold-Formed Steel Decking,"
Preliminary Report, International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering, 9th Congress,
Zurich, Switzerland, May, pp 173-183.
8.
Ekberg, C. E, Jr., and Porter, M. L., 1975: "Design

vs. Test Results for Steel Deck Floor Slabs,"
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of MissouriRolla, Rolla, Missouri, pp 792-812.
79
80
9.
Ekberg, C. E, Jr., and Porter, M. L., 1976: "Design

Recommendations for Steel Deck Floor Slabs," Journal
?n^ L
e^?!^''T' Division, ASCE, Paper 12826, Vol.
luo, iNo. bill, November, pp 2121-2136.
10.
Ekberg, C. E, Jr., and Schuster. R. M., 1968: "Floor

Systems With Composite Form-Reinforced Concrete
blabs. Final Report, International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering, 8th Congress, New
York, September, pp 385-394.
11.
Friberg, B. F., 1954: "Combined Form and

Reinforcements for Concrete Slabs," Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 50, May, pp 697-716.
12.
Johnson, J. E., and Salmon, C. G., 1980: "Steel

Structures Design And Behaviour," 2nd edition. Harper
& Row, Publishers., New York.
13.
Mark, F., 1974: "Handbook of Concrete Engineering," Van

Nastrand Reinhold Co., New York.
14.
Marks, L. S. , 1955: "Mechanical Engineer's Handbook,"

5th edition, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.
15.
Porter, M. L. , 1968: "Investigation of Light Gage

Steel Forms as Reinforcement for Composite Slabs,"
M. S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa.
16.
Porter, M. L. , 1974: "The Behavior and Analysis of

Two-Way Simply Supported Concrete Floor Slabs
Constructed With Cold-Formed Steel Decking,"
Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
17.
Porter, M. L., 1979: "Compendium of ISU Research

Conducted On Cold-Formed Steel Deck Reinforced Slab
Systems," Bulletin No. 200, Engineering Research
Institute, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
18.
Sabnis, G. M., 1979: "Handbook of Composite

Construction Engineering," Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York.
19.
Salmon, C. G., and Wang, C. K., 1985: "Reinforced

Concrete Design," 1st edition. Harper & Row,
Publishers., New York.
81
20.
Sandor, B. l', 1983: "Engineering Mechanics:

Statics," 1st edition, Prentice-Hall Co., New York.
21.
Schuster, R. M., 1970: "Strength and Behavior of ColdRolled Steel Deck Reinforced Concrete Floor Slabs,"
Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
22.
Schuster, R. M., 1972: "Composite Steel Deck

Reinforced Concrete Systems Failing in Shear-Bond,"
Preliminary Report, International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering, 9th Congress,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, May, pp 185-191.
23.
Timoshenko, S., and Woinowsky, K., 1959: "Theory of

Plates and Shells," 2nd edition, McGraw Hill Book Co.,
New York.
24.
Ugural, A. C. , 1985: "Stresses In Plates and Shells,"

1st edition, McGraw Hill Co., New York.
25.
Urquhart, L. C
1959: "Civil Engineering Handbook,"
4th edition, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University, I agree
that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes.
Permission to copy this thesis for
scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or

my major professor.
It is understood that any copying or publication
of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my

further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Disagree (Permission not granted)
Agree (Permission granted)
Student's signature
dho/s^Date
Date

Chekuwong

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Chekuwong

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF TWO-WAY COMPOSITE STEEL-DECK SLAB

The author wishes to express his thanks to Dr. James

Special thanks to Dr. Kishor

C. Metha, Dr. Y. C. Das, and Dr. W. Pennington Vann for

He is also heavily indebted to

them for their kindness, support and constant

Development of Light Gage

Steel-Concrete Floor System

Advantages of One-Way Composite Slabs

The Need for Two-Way Composite Slabs

Pushout and Beam Tests

CONCEPTS AND CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY

The Basic Concept

Dimensions Used in Feasibility Studies

PERFORMANCE OF TWO-WAY COMPOSITE SLAB

Flexural Rigidity of Composite Slab

Deflections, Moments, And Shears

Shear Strength of Slab

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Future Research

Capacity of Puddle Welds

Tensile Capacity of Metal Deck Sheet

Locations of Concentrated Load

Uncracked And Cracked Flexural Rigidities

Expressions for Maximum Deflection, Moment,

Deflections of Uniformly Loaded Two-Way

Deflections of Uniformly Loaded Two-Way

Deflections of Uniformly Loaded Two-Way

Deflections of Two-Way Composite Slabs

Deflections of Two-Way Composite Slabs

Deflections of Two-Way Composite Slabs

Ultimate Moment Capacity of Beam Model

Ultimate Moment Produced by Uniform Loads

Ultimate Moment Produced by Concentrated Loads

Allowable Uniform And Concentrated Loads

Shear Flow (lb/in.) Produced by Uniform Loads

Shear Flow (lb/in.) Produced by Concentrated

Total Shear Resistance at the Interface Between

Uniform Loads Capacity of

Concentrated Load Capacity of

Isometric View of Proposed

Mechanical Shear Transfer Device

Linear Regression Plot for Shear

Arrangement of Modular Decks

Base Deck Arrangement

Dimensions And Shape of Proposed

Shore Used As Support

Tensile Force in Base Deck Versus

Tensile Force in Base Deck Versus

Tensile Force in Base Deck Versus

Tensile Force in Base Deck Versus

Tensile Force in Base Deck Versus

Locations of Concentrated Loads on

Transformation of Two-Way Composite

Beam Model Used In Determining Moment

Slab Model for Shear Flow Calculation

Nodule Dimension Used for Calculating

The objective of this research is to explore the

bility study involves only theoretical analysis from first

experimental work was performed in this feasibilty study.

It is not the objective of this

study to provide a replacement for the current system

pendicular to each other and overlap to form a platform to