See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268601273

Design of Edge Beams in Slim Floors Using Precast Hollow Core Slabs

Conference Paper · February 2006

DOI: 10.1061/40826(186)25

CITATIONS READS

2 52

1 author:

Jörg Lange
Technische Universität Darmstadt
92 PUBLICATIONS   192 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Polyurethane Foam Filled Cold-Formed Steel Members View project

Application of the SPS-Technology in Short Span Railway Bridges View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jörg Lange on 18 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DESIGN OF EDGE BEAMS IN SLIM FLOORS
USING PRECAST HOLLOW CORE SLABS
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jörg Lange
Institute for Steel Structures and Fracture Mechanics
Darmstadt University of Technology,
Darmstadt, Germany
lange@stahlbau.tu-darmstadt.de

ABSTRACT

The design of edge beams in slim floors using precast hollow core slabs (PCHS) is governed by
torsion. Three large scale tests were carried out at the Darmstadt University of Technology and
their results will be reported. The test specimens measured 6 m by 6.5 m and were loaded in 36
points. A finite element analyses has been made to assess the behaviour of the beams and to
develop the basis for a simple design procedure. This procedure is compared to the FEM and
the test results.

INTRODUCTION

We can distinguish two slim floor systems, one that is mainly used in concrete structures
spanning in two directions. The other one is mainly used in steel structures and is usually
spanning in only one direction. A beam is included in the floor to transfer the loads to the
columns. The beams inside a building usually receive their loads nearly symmetrical but edge
beams receive the loads only from one side. Therefore their design is governed by torsion.

Four groups of steel profiles are commonly used. Fig. 1a presents a “Top Hat Section”. Its
advantage is the high torsional rigidity. Due to the large amount of steel (two webs!) and the low
noise insulation of the hollow core its market share is reduced. The un-symmetric I-Beam (Fig.
1b) is made of half a hot rolled I-section welded to a steel plate. This plate is wider than the
flange of the section to give enough space to bear the concrete slab. Fig. 1c shows a section of
a channel welded on a plate. This gives a very shallow section which allows the use of headed
shear connectors to build a composite beam. By horizontally cutting a hot rolled I-section and
welding shear connectors to the web another composite section can be produced. It is easy to
manufacture but the lack of stability during erection is its disadvantage.

a b c d

Figure1 - Typical steel sections for slim floors

The slab might be made of in-situ concrete. This adds very much weight to the structure and
therefore precast hollow core slabs (PCHS, which can be prestressed as well) are used more
often with the section shown in Fig. 1b.
SLIM FLOOR BEAMS UNDER SYMMETRIC LOADS

Three load cases have to be assessed:

- erection (no stabilization by the concrete slab),
- service stage,
- fire.

The most economical structures seam to be beams spanning 5 to 8 m with slabs of 6 to 10 m.

During erection the steel profile has to carry only the weight of the wet concrete slab and the
people who are concreting. Scaffolding is needed when in-situ concrete is used but it has a
negative impact on PCHS. Nevertheless in most cases it is necessary to avoid large deflections.
Unplanned composite action leads to tension in the bottom plate of the PCHS rectangular to the
load bearing direction. Acting in the same direcetion is a Vierendeel-mechanism resulting from
the four point bearing of the PCHS on the deformed beam (Fig. 2) which leads to shear forces.
The precast and prestressed hollow core slabs have no reinforcement to carry shear loads. Due
to the prestressing the concrete is able to do this. The shear and tension forces have a negative
influence on the prestressing force and reduce it severely (mainly resulting from cracks). By this
the shear load capacity can be reduced by up to 50%.

Figure 2 – Shear and tension in the PCHS due to the Vierendeel-mechanism

In addition to bending, shear, deflections, and vibrations special consideration has to be given to
the transverse bending of the bottom flange in the serviceability and ultimate load state. Fig. 3
presents the bending in longitudinal and transversal direction.

σy(z)

σx(z)

Figure 3 – Normal stress due to longitudinal and transversal bending

The von-Mises-criterion σ x2 + σ y2 − σ x ⋅ σ y ≤ f y has to be regarded when calculating the load
bearing capacity.

The fire resistance of slim floor profiles can be secured by using insulating boards made of
ceramic fibres, calcium silicate, rock fibre, or gypsum. The design rules developed for partly
encased sections can also be used. In this case no insulating boards are needed but therefore a
large amount of reinforcement has to be added.

SLIM FLOOR EDGE BEAMS

Edge beams are loaded eccentrically (Fig. 4). This leads to torsion. The PCHS need at least 70
mm to give their load to the beam. 30 mm have to be added to this for the pouring of the
concrete. This leads to significant torsion. Open profiles like I-sections have small torsional
rigidity. Therefore the questions arose on how to avoid the torsion at all.

tf Bearing force of
the PCHS
H

Figure 4 – Eccentric load

A system was introduced that uses reinforcement bars that are connected to the web of the
beam with a simple thread and nut connection. One chamber of the hollow core slab is opened
and the reinforcement is laid in this chamber. When the area around the steel profile is filled with
concrete this chamber is filled too creating a good connection between slab and profile. Now the
torsion can be split into a tensions force in the reinforcement and a compression force against
the top flange (Fig. 5).
D

y P=q·a
Z

Figure 5 – Eccentric load leading to a tension (Z) and a compression (D) force

Using the finite element method and tests the quality of this model had to be assessed.

FEM CALCULATION

The finite element program ANSYS was used to model the edge beam. The concrete slab was
not included in the model. Symmetry was utilized. The connection to the column was modelled
as a half-head-plate that is only connected to the upper flange. It supports torsion but no
bending moment. The load coming from the slab was evenly distributed over a strip of 70 mm
width along the bottom flange edge. The stress- and deflection-plots (Fig. 6) document very
good
- stress peaks in the area of the reinforcement connection to the web,
- large flexure in this area,
- large vertical shear stress in the fillet weld between bottom flange and web resulting from
the transfer of the transverse bending moment from the bottom flange to the web.

Figure 5 – Deflections of a slim floor steel beam

Table 1: Analysis of a single span beam with l = 6.00 m and p = 121.4 kN/m

Tension force in the reinforcement

Steel Profile Bottom-Plate approximation FEM approx./FEM
1/2 HEA 500 400x20 73.51 76.39 0.962
1/2 HEA 550 400x20 69.75 68.18 1.023
1/2 HEA 600 400x20 66.85 65.42 1.022
1/2 HEA 650 400x20 64.55 64.80 0.996
1/2 HEB 360 400x15 115.08 115.71 0.995
1/2 HEB 400 400x20 114.83 114.83 1.000
1/2 HEB 450 400x20 103.11 105.30 0.979
1/2 HEB 500 400x20 94.79 98.97 0.958
1/2 HEB 550 400x20 88.33 92.35 0.956
1/2 HEB 600 400x20 83.35 86.49 0.964
1/2 HEB 650 400x25 79.39 74.34 1.068
1/2 HEM 360 408x25 187.03 179.29 1.043
1/2 HEM 400 407x25 159.14 159.70 0.996
1/2 HEM 450 407x25 134.57 139.46 0.965
1/2 HEM 500 406x25 116.26 115.44 1.007
1/2 HEM 550 406x25 102.02 95.44 1.069
1/2 HEM 600 405x30 90.64 91.07 0.995
1/2 HEM 650 405x25 81.73 76.28 1.071
1/2 IPEo 500 302x15 77.92 76.26 1.022
1/2 IPEo 550 312x15 75.59 75.00 1.008
1/2 IPEo 600 324x15 84.27 82.20 1.025
Table 1 gives a list of profiles that were examined with FEM. The results were compared to a
fast and easy approximation method that will be given in the next chapter. The difference
between this method and the FEM is less than 7%.

APPROXIMATION METHOD

It is assumed that the bending moment My is taken by the two flanges. The area of the smaller
flange (UF = upper flange, LF = lower flange) governs the design.
q d L2 A UF  tf t
M S,d = ≤ M R,d = M pl = min   ⋅ f y,d ⋅ (H − + )
8 A LF  2 2

The web receives the largest stress due to bending of the lower flange.

t s2
M S,d = qd ⋅ l ≤ M pl,web = ⋅ f y ,d
4

The tension force in the reinforcement is given by:

P ⋅l
Z= ⋅δ
tf
H - - hz
2
with
L
P = [γ F,G ⋅1,25 ⋅ g o ⋅ + a ⋅ (γ F,G ⋅ g1 + γ F ,Q ⋅ q Verkehr )] ⋅ α
2
The “scaffolding parameter” α is given in table 2 and the partial safety factors are γF,G = 1.35 and
γF,Q = 1.5, according to Eurocode. δ is given in table 3. It depends on the web thickness and the
length of the beam taking into account the torsional rigidity of the I-section. δ was gained by
comparing the approximation with the FEM calculation. „a” is the horizontal distance of the
rebars.

Table 2: Scaffolding parameter

Length of the beam L [cm] α

600 0.80
720 0.85
840 0.80*
960 0.85*

Numbers marked with (*) show beam lengths that need two props at L/3 each to avoid very large
deflections. Other values require one prop.

Local stresses resulting from torsion or the introduction of the forces from the rebars into the
web are covered by this method.
Table 3: Parameter δ (ts is thickness of the web in [mm])

Profile L = 600 cm L = 720 cm L = 840 cm L = 960 cm

HEA 500 to 650 0.55+(ts-12)⋅0.1 0.59+(ts-12)⋅0.2 0.6+(ts-12)⋅0.1 0.55+(ts-12)⋅0.1

HEB 360 to 650 0.62+(ts-13.5)⋅0.1 0.64+(ts-13.5)⋅0.18 0.65+(ts-13.5)⋅0.1 0.6+(ts-13.5)⋅0.04
HEM 360 to 650 0.9 0.78 0.75 0.64

IPEo 500 to 600 0.85+(ts-12)⋅0.08 not allowed not allowed not allowed

TESTS

In the model for approximation and the FEM calculation it is neglected that the concrete takes
part of the slab´s bearing force and leads it directly into the edge between web and bottom
flange (Fig. 6). The voids in the PCHS improve the good interlocking between in situ concrete
and PCHS. The deflection of the bottom flange adds also to this mechanism.

Compression
strut

Figure 6 – Compression strut from the void of the PCHS to the bottom flange

Tests shall show weather this compression strut can be activated reliably and reduce the
stresses in the bottom flange. The horizontal component of the compression force shall be in
equilibrium with tension in the reinforcement.

Three tests were performed with slabs of 6 m by 6.5 m (Fig. 7 and 8). Only the profiles were
different:
test 1: ½ HEB 400 with plate 400x20
test 2: ½ IPEo 500 with plate 302x15
test 3: ½ HEA 500 with plate 400x20, all S235.

Figure 7 – Section of the slabs tested

 Figure 8 – Plan of the slabs tested

Figure 9 gives a typical load-deflection curve showing two characteristic areas. At the beginning
the bond between concrete and steel produces a composite section with large stiffness. A small
decline in the load can be registered when the ultimate shear strength between steel profile and
concrete is exceeded. After this point only the stiffness of the steel profile is activated. The
behaviour is very ductile. All tests had to be stopped due to the large deflections. No brittle
failure occurred.
Mittelwerte der gemessenen Vertikalverformungen in Trägermitte

1400
Versuch 3

1200

Versuch 1 Versuch 2

1000
Zylinderlast + Eigenlast [kN]

800

600

400

200
Bei Versuch 2 wurden während des Betonierens Hilfsstützen in Feldmitte unter die Randträger gestellt.
Versuch 1 und 3 wurden ohne Hilfstützen betoniert.

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Vertikalverformung [mm]

Figure 9 – Load-deflection curves of an edge beam at centre of the span

In table 4 a comparison of the test results with the approximation method is given for a load level
that leads to a bending moment in the beam of Ms,d = 300 kNm.
 Table 4: Comparison of test results with the approximation method

M S,d l Mapprox web hz Zapprox Ztest Mtest,web Z test/ Mtest web/

Test Profile δ α
(kNm) (mm) (kNm) (mm) (kN) (kN) (Nm/m) Zapprox M approx web

1 ½ HEB 400 right 300 215 14334,1 0,62 90 0,8 72,3 37,1 3648,2 0,51 0,25

1 ½ HEB 400 left 300 215 14334,1 0,62 90 0,8 72,3 36,4 3579,3 0,50 0,25

2 ½ IPEo 500 right 300 166 11067,2 0,55 90 0,8 34,7 26,9 3777,2 0,78 0,34

2 ½ IPEo 500 left 300 166 11067,2 0,55 90 0,8 34,7 28,9 4058,0 0,83 0,37

3 ½ HEA500 right 300 215 14334,1 0,85 90 0,8 71,5 23,1 3147,4 0,32 0,22

3 ½ HEA500 left 300 215 14334,1 0,85 90 0,8 71,5 18,5 2520,6 0,26 0,18

The tests show very well that the approximation gives results that allow for a safe design of the
slim floor edge beam with precast hollow core slabs (PCHS).

REFERENCES

[Bauen mit Stahl, 1997] Geschoßbau in Stahl – Flachdecken-Systeme. Bauen mit Stahl,
Düsseldorf, 1997.
[Feldmann et al., 1998] M. Feldmann/C. Müller/J. Stengel: Zum Tragverhalten von
Stahlflachdecken. Bauingenieur, 10/1998.
[Fontana and Borgogno, 1995] M. Fontana/W. Borgogno: Brandverhalten von Slim-Floor
Verbunddecken. Stahlbau, 6/1995.
[Huber and Oberholzer, 1999] G. Huber/A. Oberholzer: Verbundflachdecken beim Millenium
Tower. Stahlbau, 8/1999.
[Kuhlmann et al., 2000] U. Kuhlmann, J. Fries, M. Leukart: Bemessung von Flachdecken mit
Hutprofilen. Stahlbau Kalender 2000.
[Lam et al, 2000] D. Lam, K. S. Elliot, D. A. Nethercot: Parametric study on composite steel
beams with precast concrete hollow core floor slabs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
54, 2000.
[Leskelä, 1999] M. Leskelä: Design Aspects for the Hollow Core Slab Supported on Beams.
Structural Concrete – the Bridge between People, fib Symposium Prague, 1999.
[Mäkeläinen et al., 2000] P. Mäkeläinen, M. Malaska, Z. Ma: Steel-Concrete Composite Slim
Floor Frame Systems. Helsinki University of Technology, 2000.
[Pajari, 1998] M. Pajari: Shear Resistance of PHC Slabs Supported on Beams. Part I: Tests,
Part II: Analysis. Journal of Structural Engineering, September 1998.
[Tschemmernegg and Huber, 1996] F. Tschemmernegg/G. Huber: Flachdecken mit
Stanzdübeln. Bauingenieur 12/1996.

View publication stats