LONG-SPAN FLOOR SYSTEMS FOR MULTI-STORY

RESIDENTIAL STEEL STRUCTURES

by
Amit Varma, Devin Huber

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Fellowship Project
 MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION

MSR forms a significant portion of the construction market, but

steel structures are not very competitive

Typical steel buildings use metal deck-concrete slab floor systems

with intermediate filler beams. These floor systems have overall
depth close to 21-24 in.

Compare with precast plank floor systems depth = 8 in.

MSR vertical real estate. Every inch counts, and minimizing

floor-to-floor height is essential for achieving economy and
competitiveness.
 RESEARCH GOAL
The overall goal of this research project is to develop and validate
innovative long-span floor systems for multi-story residential steel
structures.

The developed floor systems must satisfy ten performance criteria:

1. Span 30 x 40 ft. unsupported
2. Minimize floor-to-floor height requirements
3. Meet strength / serviceability requirements during construction
4. Meet deflection requirements for service loads
5. Meet strength requirements at ultimate loads
6. Satisfy floor vibration requirements
7. Adequate fire resistance
8. Adequate diaphragm action for lateral load transfer
9. Utilize efficient connection systems and be easy to fabricate
10. Be economic from fabrication and erection considerations
 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
To conceptualize and develop innovative long-span (30 x 40 ft.)
floor systems for effectively and economically achieving the ten
performance criteria.

To experimentally evaluate the performance of the developed

floor systems for construction loads, service loads, and ultimate
loads for MSR construction.
To experimentally evaluate the floor vibration performance and
the fire resistance of the long-span floor systems.
To develop and validate analytical models and conduct
parametric studies leading to the development of simple design
provisions for the long-span floor systems.
 FLOOR SYSTEM CANDIDATES
Three types of long-span floor systems are being developed to meet the
performance requirements: Type A, B, and C floor systems.

Type A floor systems are being developed by modifying existing floor

systems. They employ existing connections, fabrication and erection
techniques, and can be implemented immediately into steel construction.

Type B floor systems are state-of-the-art floor systems that present

significant innovation and optimize performance characteristics. They
can be implemented using current materials, and small advances in
fabrication methods, and erection procedures.

Type C floor systems are out-of-the-box type innovative floor systems

that will require major developments in material and fabrication and
erection technologies before implementation.
 CURRENT PLAN

Candidates of a particular type (A, B, or C) will be developed and

evaluated separately.

The top A, B, and C candidates will be identified for further analytical

(Task III) and experimental (Task IV) investigations.

Thus, a suite of long-span slab system solutions with increasing levels

of efficiency and complexity will be developed.
 CONSIDERED SYSTEMS

(1) SELF SHORED SYSTEM (Type A Candidate)

- Existing metal deck-concrete slab systems
- Floor depth for MSR construction governed by deflections during
construction phase, which is non-composite
- Hence, self shored during construction to reduce depth
 CONSIDERED SYSTEMS

(2) DOUBLE SKIN COMPOSITE SYSTEM (Type B)

- Two thin steel plates with concrete cast between them
- Shear transfer provided by welded shear studs (can be staggered
if required)
 CONSIDERED SYSTEMS

(3) PROFILED DOUBLE SKIN COMPOSITE SYSTEM (Type C)

- Two cellular metal decks with concrete cast between
- Shear transfer primarily through deck embossments
 CONSIDERED SYSTEMS

(4) COMPOSITE DEEP DECK SYSTEM (Type B)

- Deep cellular metal deck (7.5 in.) with composite concrete slab
- Achieves a total depth of 10 in.

110 PCF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE

7.5 IN. DEEP CELLULAR DECK

REINFORCING BAR AND STIRRUP

 CONSIDERED SYSTEMS

(5) SANDWICH DEEP DECK SYSTEM (Type B / C)

- Cellular deep metal deck with welded top plate
- Can utilize existing deep deck profiles

TOP STEEL PLATE

TOPPING ADDED FOR WALKING SURFACE AND ADDITIONAL MASS

7.5 IN. DEEP CELLULAR DECK PROFILE

 Type A Candidate Self-shoring Floor System
The floor depth of existing metal deck-concrete slab floor systems
for MSR construction is governed by stiffness requirements in the
construction phase
Many deep W16 and W14 sections are adequate for strength and
stiffness in the construction and composite phases
Shallow W8 sections are usually adequate for strength but
inadequate for stiffness in the construction and composite phases
Adequate W Sections for system
W16X26 (total floor depth = 21 in.),
W14X30 (total floor depth = 19 in.)
W12X35 (total floor depth = 17 in.)
W10X49 (total floor depth = 15.5 in.)
 SELF-SHORING SYSTEM
Thus, the main design issue is the ability of the steel section to
support the construction loading
The self-shoring system directly addresses this concern
The beams are subjected to a counterbalancing force to provide
shoring during construction
The counterbalancing force reduces the construction loads and
allows beams with smaller depths to be selected
The counterbalancing force is removed after the concrete hardens

P
 SELF-SHORING SYSTEM

Free body diagram

Forces andon
acting governing differential
self-shoring equation
system

wL- P
2 wL- P
2
 SELF-SHORING SYSTEM

Let k wL
2 tan EI
where P
wL

Solution using boundary conditions

kL
dk 2
L 1 cos( kx ) sin( kx ) tan
2
1
v 2 2 k x( x L(1 )) 2cos(kx)
2

2k L
2 kL kL tan
sec kL 2sin sin( kx )
2 2

2 kL
dk L k cos(kx) k sin(kx) tan
2 2

2
1
M EIv '' 2 2k 2k cos(kx)
2 2

2k L
2 2 kL kL tan
k sec kL 2sin sin( kx )
2 2
 SELF SHORING SYSTEM

Design parameters and P

is based on a practical limit of 30 in. to provide the needed
room for the stub section, but not inhibit construction
Therefore, = tan-1(30/180)=tan-1(1/6) = 9.5o
P is limited to values that counteract deflections effectively but
do not cause lateral-torsional buckling of the beam or buckling
as a column

Therefore, P = w L
Where = 0.40 and w = total service load during construction
Or, = 0.25 and w = total service load during use
P is greater of these two values
 : Construction

SELF SHORING SYSTEM: DESIGN STAGES

: Concrete slab pour

: Removal of P

Removal of force P
 SELF-SHORING SYSTEM

Design criteria were established for each of the stages.

Deflection limit non-composite = L/240
Deflection limit composite = L/360
Steel beam check for LTB and Flexural buckling during construction
Composite beam check stiffness and strength to be adequate

Design Verifications To Check

Lateral
Plastic Moment Axial Load
Phase of Construction Deflection Torsional
Capacity Capacity
Buckling Check

Pre-Composite - no
Stage I: Construction
loads
yes yes yes yes
concrete
Pre-Composite
Stage II: Concrete-
loads yes yes no yes
concrete
Removal
Stage of Selfof
III: Removal
yes yes no yes
Shores
force P
Stage IV: Structure
Composite Phasein yes yes no no
use
 SELF-SHORING SYSTEM

Design Results with required values for Ix and Zx for steel

shape and the composite shape
Value of counterbalance force also specified

Construction Stage

I & II I & II I I & II III & IV IV

Concrete- Prequired Ix steel Zx steel bMcr cPn Ix required Zx required -

Spacing Span deck self required required required required composite composite
(ft) (ft) weight (psf) (kips) (in.4) (in.3) (kip-ft) (kips) (in.4) (in.3)
20 40 3.0 33 (W8x15) 3 8 9 130 12
6 30 40 4.5 110 (W8x21) 6 12 13.5 260 23
40 40 6.0 245 (W10x39) 12 17 18 585 42
20 45 4.2 46 (W8x15) 4 12 12.6 200 14
8 30 45 6.3 127 (W8x31) 10 17 18.9 380 32
40 45 8.4 300 (W12x40) 17 32 25.2 825 57
20 45 5.3 70 (W8x21) 5 14 15.75 230 18
10 30 45 7.9 125 (W8x35) 12 25 23.625 430 40
40 45 10.5 345 (W12x45) 20 42 31.5 964 71
 SELF-SHORING SYSTEM

Based on these design checks, the values of and are

P = 0.25 w L , where w = total service load
= tan-1(1/6) = 9.5o

In this case the value of the counterbalancing force P and the beam
For 8 ft. spacing - beam is W8 x 31 - force P is 6.3 kips
For 10 ft. spacing - beam is W8 x 35 - force P is 7.9 kips
The overall depth of the floor system after construction will be 13
in. and 15 in. for 8 ft. and 10 ft. spacing respectively.

This solution requires the same weight of steel as the unshored

system but it reduces the beam depth by 50%.
 SELF-SHORING SYSTEM
SYSTEM ONE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Structural design uses threaded rods, clevis and pin type
connections and turnbuckles to apply the counterbalancing force P

TURNBUCKLE

Threaded Rods
Torque the turnbuckle-threaded rods
connection until the desired
displacement at midspan is achieved
SYSTEM TWO: SCREW JACK SYSTEM
 SELF SHORING SYSTEM

Reducing the depth of the floor beams can lead to issues

with floor vibration and fire resistance
Floor Vibrations - floor systems require a certain damping
ratio to meet vibration requirements
Concrete Concrete
required (%) Required Attachments
-deck self -deck self Ix
Spacing Span weight required Spacing Span weight required 3 3.5 Hung ceiling
(ft) (ft) (psf) (%) (ft) (ft) (psf) (in.4)
3.5 4.0 Hung ceiling and ductwork
20 40 3.75 20 40 33
4.0 4.5 Partial Height Partitions
6 30 40 4.25 6 30 40 125
4.5 5.0 Full Height Partitions
40 40 4.5 40 40 300

b >4% requires
20 45 3.5 20 45 46
8 30 45 3.75 8 30 45 127
40 45 4 40 45 300
stiffer beams be
20 45 3.5 20 45 70
10 30 45 4.25 10 30 45 145 used
40 45 4 40 45 345
 SELF SHORING SYSTEM
Fire resistance
Recent move in European countries towards eliminating fire
proofing for floor beams based on Cardington fire tests
Requires anchored reinforcement to develop cable action in
concrete slab
Using AISC Design guide 19 we find that there is a need to
fire protect the steel deck or use light-weight concrete
More detailed evaluations are being conducted
 TYPE A CANDIDATE
SELF SHORING SYSTEM

FIRE RESISTANCE
SFRM Solution
- Based on current code, SFRM or Gypsum board fire
protection would be required
Gypsum Board Solution
 SELF SHORING SYSTEM
Other comments/recommendations
- System is most efficient for spans between 20 30 ft, recommended maximum
span is 30 ft
- Specific W sections tailor made for system could be designed and implemented
- Implementation in laboratory is pending
- Experimental validation of stiffness, strength, fire resistance, and floor vibration
limits
Self-Shored System
- Implementation in a real structure Technological Feasibility Economical
Merit Merit Merit
9 9 10
8 6 5
8 9 9
9 8 9
9 7 7
7 7 6
8 8 8
7 7 6
5 10 6

Average 7.8 7.9 7.3

 TYPE B Candidate

(2) Double Skin Composite Systems

- Two thin steel plates with concrete cast between them
- Shear transfer provided by welded shear studs (can be staggered
if required)
DSC Design and Layout

ASSUMED LAYOUT
 DSC Design 30 ft Span

CROSS SECTION
NOTE: STAGGERED STUD SPACING MAY
BE NEEDED BASED ON MAXIMUM AGG.
SIZE

Design addresses limit states of flexure, shear, local buckling, shear

transfer for composite action
-Overall depth of 6.5 in. (7.5 in. if topping added)
- Self weight of 75 psf
- Uses 2.5 in. long by in. diameter shear studs @ 12 in. spacing
 DSC Connection Between Panels

Grout keys and intermittently welded steel plates for diaphragm

action and continuity between panels
 Considered Systems (Type C)

(3) Profiled Double Skin Composite System

- Two cellular metal decks with concrete cast between
- Shear transfer primarily through deck embossments
 Profiled DSC Design

Design considered limit states of flexure, shear, and shear transfer

across interface. The contributions of profiled faces were included
- 9 in. overall depth of system
- Self weight of 84-87 psf for 2 in. and 1.5 in. profile
- Can be laid out in same manner as other DSC system
 Profiled DSC System

DISCUSSION
- Profiled system is an alternative to flat face DSC system
- System maintains a shallow overall depth, although slightly
deeper then flat face DSC system
- Overall increase in weight, however performs better from floor
vibration standpoint
- Uses existing cellular deck profiles
- Side-lap connections on deck may inhibit casting of concrete
- Determining how interface shear the profiles can transfer needs
to be determined
 DSC Systems
Overall Conclusions
- Present merit as candidates for long span slab systems in steel MSR
- Main issues corresponding to the systems is in their fabrication and
related costs
- It was concluded by committee that at this time, the DSC systems may
likely not be feasible for current implementation
- Committee ratings areEconomical
summarized below
Double Skin Composite (DSC) System
Technological Feasibility
Profiled DSC System
Technological Feasibility Economical
Merit Merit Merit Merit Merit Merit
6 4 3 8 5 5
8 8 - 7 7 -
5 4 5 6 3 6
8 3 2 7 4 3
6 2 5 7 4 5
8 3 4 8 5 5
8 7 7 8 7 7
5 7 3 6 7 4
8 8 7 10 5 8

Average 6.9 5.1 4.5 Average 7.4 5.2 5.4

 Proposed Systems

(3) Composite Deep Deck System

- Deep cellular metal deck (7.5 in.) with composite concrete slab
- Achieves a total depth of 10 in.

110 PCF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE

7.5 IN. DEEP CELLULAR DECK

REINFORCING BAR AND STIRRUP

 Deep Deck Composite Systems

Description
- Cellular deep deck composite with concrete slab to form long-span
floor system.
- Use of lightweight concrete would allow for long spans without use of
shoring
- Use of deck profile will help in reducing self weight of system, as
compared to DSC system
- 30 ft span was designed for
 Deep Deck Composite System

Design Process
- Must consider both construction and composite phase in design
- SDI recommendations were used with some slight modifications to
account for long span
- RC theory used in analyzing composite section
- Floor vibrations analyzed using AISC DG 11 recommendations
- Calculations assumed contribution from adjoining bays would
participate
- Fire resistance may be enhanced by increased depth of concrete
- Existing UL designs could likely be implemented for further protection
if needed
 Deep Deck Composite System
Cross Sections

PROFILE 1: SELF WEIGHT 47 PSF

ENHANCE STRENGTH OF
FIRE RESISTANCE CONNECTION
/CRACK CONTROL

PROFILE 2: SELF WEIGHT 56 PSF

NOTE: 110 PCF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE ASSUMED

 Deep Deck Composite System

Possible Connection Detail

4" MIN. Deep-Dek 7.5 Cellular BUTT DECK & ALIGN

END BEARING LENGTH FLUTES
2.5 IN. CONCRETE

10"

Deep-Dek 7.5 Cellular Deep-Dek 7.5 Cellular

ROOF DECK with ROOF DECK with
Klean Line-R Panel Klean Line-R Panel

ATTACHMENT
LOAD BEARING
REQ'D. (SHEAR STUDS)
WIDE FLANGE BEAM
 Deep Deck Composite System
DISCUSSION
- 10 in. deep composite deep deck system has been presented with self weights
comparable to existing metal deck concrete systems
- System could be erected in a manner similar to current metal deck systems
- Existing deck profiles may need to be modified with embossments to ensure
better composite action
- Cost of using deep cellular decks, is this reasonable?
- Research committee felt strongly that a system of this nature could be
implemented as a long span system
- Ongoing studies relating to interaction between slab and steel deck
- Large-scale experiments are needed to validate for floor vibration, fire
resistance, serviceability and strength requirements
 Deep Deck Composite System

Committee Ratings

Composite Deep Deck System

Technological Feasibility Economical
Merit Merit Merit
9 8 7
9 8 7
7 8 7
9 9 9
9 8 7
9 9 7
8 9 8
7 8 7
7 7 7

Average 8.2 8.2 7.3

 Proposed Systems

(5) Sandwich Deep Deck System

- Cellular deep metal deck with welded top plate
- Can utilize existing deep deck profiles

TOP STEEL PLATE (16 GAGE) TOPPING

Deep-Dek 7.5 Cellular

ROOF DECK and top plate with Klean Line-R Panel

SELF WEIGHT OF STEEL COMPONENTS = 12.5 PSF

WITH TOPPING ~ 23 PSF
 Sandwich Deep Deck

Special Structural Considerations

- Strength and stiffness design could be done by previously
described procedure where core stiffness would come from
deck (verified in ABAQUS using 3D FEM)
- Susceptibility to annoying floor vibrations would likely need to
be experimentally checked due to nature of system (extremely
lightweight and long spanning)
- System alone provides little fire protection, applied system
would have to provide almost all fire protection
 Discussion - Issues
- SDD system is a lightweight all steel system capable of long spans (30 ft)
- Issue of connecting top plate to deck needs to be addressed and resolved
Murray System
- Fire resistance and floor vibration issues will need to be carefully
investigated
- Committee saw merit in system of this nature with modifications to resolve
fabrication issues
- System similar to that developed by Murray (1991) could be possible
solution
- Large-scale experiments needed to evaluate strength, serviceability, floor
Sandwich Metal Deck System
vibration, and resistance. Technological Feasibility Economical
Merit Merit Merit
10 10 7
8 6 6
7 6 7
8 7 7
6 7 6
7 6 8
7 6 6
7 8 5
6 4 6

Average 7.3 6.7 6.4

 Future Plans

Further System Development

- Final designs to be completed for relevant systems by end of
summer
- Experimental Investigations (Fall 2005 Spring 2007).
- Careful investigation of fire behavior of floor systems
- Matching funds from NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
Program. Focus on the fire behavior of floor systems