Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org/papers
Title: Flexural Capacity of the Encased(Slim Floor) Composite Beam with Deep
Deck Plate
Keywords: Concrete
Shear
Structure
© Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Tae-Sup Moon; Myong-Keun Kwak; Byung-Wook Heo; Kyu-
Woong Bae; Keung-Hwan Kim
Flexural Capacity of the Encased(Slim Floor)
Composite Beam with Deep Deck Plate
Myong-Keun Kwak1, Byung-Wook Heo2, Kyu-Woong Bae3, Keung-Hwan Kim4, Tae-Sup Moon5
1
Researcher, Korea Institute of Construction Technology(KICT)
2
Senior Researcher, Korea Institute of Construction Technology(KICT)
3
Chief Researcher, Korea Institute of Construction Technology(KICT)
4
Vice President, Korea Institute of Construction Technology(KICT)
5
Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University
Abstract
The advantages of composite construction are now well understood in terms of structural economy, good performance in
service, and ease of construction. However, these conventional composite construction systems have some problems to
apply steel framed buildings due to their large depth. So, in this study we executed an experimental test with “Slim Floor”
system which could reduce the overall depth of composite beam. Slim Floor system is a method of steel frame multi-story
building construction in which the structural depth of each floor is minimized by incorporating the steel floor beams within
the depth of the concrete floor slab. Presented herein is an experimental study that focuses on flexural behavior of the
partially connected slim floor system with asymmetric steel beams encased in composite concrete slabs. Eight full-scale
specimens were constructed and tested in this study with different steel beam height, slab width, with or without shear
connection and concrete topping thickness. Observations from experiments indicated that the degree of shear connection
without additional shear connection was 0.53~0.95 times that of the full shear connection due to an inherent mechanical
and chemical bond stress.
Keywords: Slim Floor, Composite Beam, Deep Deck Plate, Shear Connector, Partially Connected Composite Beam
ht Ccf
tf x a Csf
Ccw
Csw
50mm h hw P.N.A fy
d tw
50mm h-x Tsw
Concrete tf
Complete shear
slip interaction
Steel
fsb d
(a) Deformed Shape (b) Strain Distribution
Fig. 5. Behavior of Partially Composite Beam tw
Current design methods of the partially connected Fig. 6. Shear Bond Surface of Steel Beam
composite beam have taken the composite action with
shear connectors only. If not considering shear Shear bond stress, f sb may be obtained by
connectors, the designs have adopted the encased Equation (9), incorporated by Equation (7) and (8).
composite beam, SRC beam, or the bare steel beam
only. LRFD of U.S.A (AISC, 1993) used Equation (5) (M d − M s )
to calculate the effective stiffness of composite beams. Rc
(M c − M s )
f sb = (9)
N [ 2( B f + t f + d ) − t w ] L 4
EI p = EI + ( EI f − EI s ) (5)
Nf
d
hd
Loadig Beam
D4 D5
tp
b1 50 b 50 b1
L
Support
Roller
(a) SB200, SB300-A, B, C D1 D2 D3
tp
b1 50 b 50 b1
L
202.5 202.5
Eccentric loading
90
250
H-300x305x15x16
compressive concrete.
Load(kN)
Experiment
Experiment
196kN, and, after the slip appeared, the displacement 800
Load(kN)
800 Analysis(steel)
800 Analysis(steel)
400
400
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Deflection(mm) Deflection(mm)
(d) SB300-A (Deck Depth 250mm) (h) SB300-E(without stud, deck depth 300mm)
Fig. 14. Load-Displacement Relationship for specimens
1600
1200 Analysis(composite)
4.1 Comparison of Stiffness and Strength
Fig 15 presented a comparison of the stiffness and
Load (kN)
800
ultimate load of encased composite beams with those
Analysis(steel)
4.0
(f) SB300-C(eccentric loading, deck depth 250mm) Stiffness after Crack
Ultimate Load
3.0 2.97
2000
Composite / Steel
2.52
End Slip 2.33
2.18 2.25
1600 Analysis(composite) 2.14 2.13
2.0 2.05
1.96
1.84 1.77
1.73 1.67 1.65
Experiment
Load(kN)
1200 1.43
1.11
1.0
800 Analysis(steel)
400 0.0
SB200 SB250-A SB250-B SB300-A SB300-B SB300-C SB300-D SB300-E
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 Fig. 15. Stiffness & Strength against Steel Beam
Deflection(mm)
SB300-B,C
1.07 700 SB300-A
1.03 1.05
1.03
1
Slip Load(kN)
0.99
0.96 0.95 600
0.92 0.92 0.92 SB300-E
0.89 0.89 0.88
0.84 500
0.8
400
SB250-B
0.68
SB200
300
0.6
200 Concrete topping 4cm
10
S2
2000
5
SB300-D(with stud)
1600 49kN 147kN 245kN 441kN S1
SB300-E
0
SB300-A -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
SB300-C Strain(×10-6 )
1200
Load(kN)
SB300-B
SB250-A(with stud)
SB250-B Fig. 19. Strain Distribution By Each Load Level
800
SB200
400
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
End-Slip(mm)
SB250-A
20 Mdm Mds Fsbm Fsbs As τ m τ s
1.5
2
1.44 1.45
1.39 1.42
(4) Shear bond stresses from the test are ranged
from 1.20 to 1.45N/mm2 at the maximum loads, and
1.28
1.20
References
Byung-Wook Heo, “Recent Trends in the Development of Slim
0.0
SB200 SB250B SB300A SB300B SB300C SB300E Floor System”, Magazine of the Korean Society of Steel
Construction, p124-130, 2003. 6
Fig. 21. Distribution of Shear Bond Stress for specimens Jae-Dae Moon, Myong-Keun Kwak, Byung-Wook Heo,
Kyu-Woong Bae, Tae-Sup Moon, “An Experimental Study on
the Bending Capacity for Slim-Floor Composite Beams”,
1 Journal of Korean Society of Steel Construction, p485-492,
0.73 0.87
0.96
2005. 5
0.9 0.77 The Steel Construction Institute, “Slim Floor Design and
0.58 SB300-A Construction”, SCI p110, 1992
SB300-C
0.8
The Steel Construction Institute, “Slim Floor Construction
Moment Resistance