Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

105
Eurocode4: Design of composite

steel and concrete structures
Dr Stephen Hicks, Manager Structural Systems, Heavy Engineering
Research Association, New Zealand
Introduction
BSEN1994 (Eurocode4) is the Structural Eurocode that deals with composite
steel and concrete structures. It replaces the following national standards:
BS5400-5, BS5950-3.1 and BS5950-4. Eurocode4 consists of three Parts:
Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings (BSEN1994-1-1);
Part 1-2, General rules Structural fre design (BSEN1994-1-2); and
Part2, General rules and rules for bridges (BSEN1994-2).
To enable Eurocode 4 to be used, designers also need to make reference to
the national annex, which includes the national decision for Nationally
Determined Parameters (NDPs), the national decision regarding the use of
informative annexes and reference to Non-Conficting Complementary
Information (NCCI). For BSEN1994-1-1 and BSEN1994-1-2, the website
http://www. steel- ncci.co.uk will provide all the necessary NCCI, whilst for
BSEN1994-2 NCCI is given in PD6696-2. In the interests of improving free
circulation of products and services in Europe, it is intended to reduce the number
of NDPs in the future, thereby leading to a gradual alignment of safety levels
across the member states. As a frst step in this process, the European Commis-
sion Joint Research Centre (JRC) has commenced a pilot project that is consider-
ing the harmonization of NDPs, whose initial focus is Eurocode2, Eurocode3
and Eurocode4 (http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/showpage.php?id=52).
To assist designers in understanding Eurocode 4, references [1], [2] and
[3] provide background information on the origin and objectives of the
code provisions, which are supplemented by a selection of worked
This complimentary chapter is brought to you by Eurocodes PLUS our online tool that helps with the Eurocodes transition, for more details go to: http://shop.bsigroup.com/transition

BSI British Standards Institution
The essential guide to Eurocodes transition
106
examples that illustrate the use of a particular clause. In addition, background
information is freely available through the Eurocodes website of the JRC
(http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/).
The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the key aspects
to Eurocode 4 and consider the principal changes for UK designers. The
convention used is that, when the provisions are similar in different parts of
this Structural Eurocode, Eurocode4 is referenced. However, when the rules
are specifc to a certain type of structure, the relevant part is identifed (e.g.
BSEN1994-1-1 for buildings).
Materials
Structural steel
Although the use of structural steel with a nominal yield strength of not more
than 460 N/mm
2
is permitted in bridge designs conforming to BS 5400-5,
Eurocode 4 offers opportunities for building designers, where previously a
yield strength of not greater than 355 N/mm
2
was allowed in BS 5950-3.1.
According to Eurocode3, the modulus of elasticity for steel should be taken
as 210 kN/mm
2
, rather than the value of 205 kN/mm
2
given in BS5400 and
BS5950.
Concrete
The strength and deformation characteristics for normal weight and light-
weight concrete are given in Eurocode2. The compressive concrete strengths
used in the design rules in according to Eurocode 4 are based on cylinder
strengths. Strength classes are defned as Cx/y for normal weight concrete and
LCx/y for lightweight concrete, where x and y are the characteristic cylinder
and cube compressive strengths respectively. For example, C25/30 denotes a
normal weight concrete with a characteristic cylinder strength of 25 N/mm
2

and a corresponding cube strength of 30 N/mm
2
.
While BS5950-3.1 covers the use of concrete grades C25/30 to C40/50 and
LC20/25 to LC32/40, the range of concrete grades that are permitted in
designs conforming to Eurocode4 are much wider at C20/25 to C60/75 and
LC20/22 to LC60/66 respectively. Although Eurocode2 provides guidance for

Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
107
lightweight concrete with dry densities of between 800 kg/m
2
and 2000kg/m
2
,
it is unlikely that a density of less than 1750 kg/m
3
will be used in composite
design, owing to the fact that this is the lowest value that is permitted in the
Eurocode4 equations for evaluating the resistance of headed stud connectors.
Profled steel sheeting
Yield strengths of 280 N/mm
2
and 350 N/mm
2
are the common grades for
steel strip in the UK. Typically, profled steel sheeting (or decking) is galvanized
for durability purposes and, for internal environments, a total zinc coating of
275 g/m
2
is normal. Grades of steel for profled steel sheeting are specifed in
BSEN10326 (this replaces BSEN10147, which is the reference given in the
current version of BSEN1994-1-1), which distinguishes both the yield strength
and the level of zinc coating. For example, the designation S280GD+Z275
means 280 N/mm
2
yield strength and 275 g/m
2
of zinc coating.
The rules in BSEN1994-1-1 are only appropriate for profled steel sheeting
thicknesses above a certain bare metal thickness. The UK national annex uses
the recommended value of t0.70 mm. Although an identical minimum sheet
thickness is given in BS5950-4, bare metal thicknesses of between 0.86 mm
to 1.16 mm have generally been used in the UK to date. The thickness of a
275 g/m
2
zinc coating is equivalent to approximately 0.02 mm on each face,
resulting in overall sheet thicknesses commonly used in the UK of between
0.9 mm to 1.2 mm. For design calculations the smaller bare metal thickness
should be used.
Reinforcement
In a similar way as BS5950-3.1, to simplify calculations the modulus of elas-
ticity of the reinforcement may be taken as equal to the value for structural steel
in Eurocode4 (i.e. 210 kN/mm2 rather than 200 kN/mm
2
given in Eurocode2).
Shear connectors
Headed stud connectors should be supplied according to BSENISO13918
(rather than EN13918, which is the reference incorrectly given in Eurocode4).

108
To distinguish studs used for shear connectors, the designation SD is used,
for example, SD19100, is a headed stud shear connector with a 19 mm
diameter shank and a nominal height of 100 mm. Due to the limitations to
the Eurocode 4 design equations for calculating the resistance of headed
stud connectors, the stud shank diameters that will be used in practice
are likely to be between 16 mm and 25 mm for solid concrete slabs, and
not greater than 19 mm for studs through- deck welded within the ribs of
profled steel sheeting. The performance of other types of shear connector
may be evaluated from standard tests given in the informative Annex B.2
of BSEN1994-1-1, in the absence of guidelines for a European Technical
Approval (ETA).
In Eurocode 4, the nominal height of the stud rather than the length-
after- welding (LAW) is used in the design equations. However, LAW is needed
for detailing purposes, and is sometimes used to ensure that limits to design
rules are satisfed (e.g. LAW is required to determine whether a stud may be
taken as ductile in the rules for partial shear connection). As a consequence
of this, two values of stud height need to be considered by the designer:
the nominal height for calculating resistance; and LAW when detailing the
shear connection. Traditionally, the LAW is taken as 5 mm shorter than the
nominal height.
Composite beams
Effective width of concrete fanges to composite beams for shear lag
The rules for the effective width in Eurocode4 are simpler than BS5400-5,
but similar to those in BS5950-3.1. The effective width at the ultimate limit
state is taken as a constant value for the middle portion of the span and tapers
towards the points of zero moment, as shown in Figure 4.1 (as opposed
to BS 5950-3.1 where a constant width is taken along the full length for
simply- supported beams); similar results for effective widths of steel plated
structural elements can be calculated from BS EN 1993-1-5. In addition,
when multiple shear connectors are provided, the effective width may be
increased by the distance between the outermost shear connectors measured
from their centre- lines, b
0
(see Figure 4.1). However, for the serviceability
limit state, the Eurocode 4 provisions are similar to BS 5950-3.1 in that a
constant effective breadth may be assumed to act over the entire span, based
on the mid- span value.

109
L
2
b
1
b
2
b
0
b
e
f
f
b
0
b
e
1
b
e
2
1
2
3
4
L
1
L
3
L

/
4
1
L

/
2
1
L

/
4
1
L

/
4
2

L

/
2
2

L

/
4
2

b
e f f , 1
b
e f f , 2
b
e f f , 0
b
e f f , 1
b
e f f , 2
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
.

E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

s
p
a
n
s
,

f
o
r

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

w
i
d
t
h

o
f

c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

a
n
g
e
K
e
y
1

L
e

=

0
.
8
5
L
1

f
o
r

b
e
f
f
,
1
2

L
e

=

0
.
2
5
(
L
1

+

L
2
)

f
o
r

b
e
f
f
,
2
3

L
e

=

0
.
7
0
L
2

f
o
r

b
e
f
f
,
1
4

L
e

=

2
L
3

f
o
r

b
e
f
f
,
2

110
In both BS 5950-3.1 and Eurocode 4, the maximum value of the effective
width b
e1
= b
e2
= span/8 on each side of the beam (see Figure4.1). As well
as considering this limit, the width assumed in design must not exceed the
actual slab width available, which is particularly relevant to edge beams and
beams adjacent to openings. The rules in Eurocode4 are more generous for
cases when the slab is spanning parallel to the span of the beam in that, in
BS5950-3.1, the width assumed in design could not exceed 80% of the actual
slab width available.
Creep and shrinkage
One of the differences from previous UK practice is that the elastic modulus
for concrete under short- term loading is a function of its grade and density.
As a consequence of this, instead of the short- term value, n
0
, of 6 and 10 for
normal weight and lightweight concrete respectively, a range of values should
be used. For design conforming to Eurocode 4, n
0
ranges between: 5.2 to
6.8 for normal concrete; and 8.3 to 10.8 for lightweight concrete with a dry
density r=1750 kg/m
3
.
In BS5950-3.1, the effective modular ratio that should be used in design is
based on a consideration of the short- and long- term modular ratio, and the
proportion of the total loading that is long term. However, BSEN1994-1-1
introduces a useful simplifcation for composite beams in buildings in that the
modular ratio may be taken as 2n
0
for both short- and long- term loading if:
frst- order global analysis is acceptable (which is expected to occur in the
majority of cases);
the foor is not mainly intended for storage; and
the foor is not prestressed by controlled imposed deformations.
Shear connection
Partial shear connection
Ductile shear connectors are defned as those having suffcient deformation
capacity to justify the assumption of ideal plastic behaviour of the shear
connection (measured in terms of the slip at the interface between the steel
beam and the concrete slab). Suffcient slip capacity enables the longitudinal

111
shear to be redistributed between the shear connectors before any of them
fail, such that they may be taken to be equally loaded at the ultimate limit
state. In these situations, it is permitted to space the connectors uniformly,
which is helpful when the connectors are used with profled steel sheeting,
due to the fxed pitch of the ribs. Unlike BS5950-3.1, whose only requirement
is that other types of shear connectors should have at least the same defor-
mation capacity as headed studs, Eurocode4 specifes that a shear connector
may be taken to be ductile if its characteristic slip capacity, d
uk
, is at least
6 mm. In situations when the shear connector is not a headed stud, d
uk
may
be evaluated from the standard test given in AnnexB.2 of BSEN1994-1-1.
According to BS EN 1994-1-1, headed studs with a shank diameter, d, of
between 16 mm and 25 mm, and an overall length after welding (LAW)
of not less than 4d may be considered ductile within defned limits to the
degree of shear connection, h. Unlike BS 5950-3.1, where the limits to the
degree of shear connection depended only on the beam span, the limits in
BSEN1994-1-1 are a function of the beam span, the steel grade and whether
the steel section is symmetric or asymmetric (defned by the ratio of the
bottom fange area to top fange area of the steel section). The maximum
asymmetry that is permitted is for steel sections with a bottom fange area
equal to three times the area of the top fange. For steel sections in which
the ratio of fange areas is between 1 and 3, linear interpolation is permitted.
A graphical representation of the degree of shear connection requirements
in BS 5950-3.1 compared with BS EN 1994-1-1 is presented in Figure 4.2.
As can be seen from Figure4.2, for symmetric steel sections, a much lower
degree of shear connection is permitted than in BS5950-3.1.
A third set of rules where headed stud connectors may be considered as ductile
over a wider range of spans is given in BSEN1994-1-1. However, these are
more restrictive in scope and only apply to profled steel sheeting spanning
perpendicular to the supporting beam, with ribs not greater than 60 mm in
height and one 19 mm diameter stud per rib. Moreover, this third set of rules
can only be used when the simplifed method is used (where the composite
moment resistance is linearly interpolated between full shear connection and
no shear connection), as opposed to the rules in Figure4.2 where the tradi-
tional stress- block method is used, which gives a larger lever arm and moment
resistance.
The use of non- ductile shear connectors is permitted in Eurocode4 (such as
headed studs used outside the ranges given in Figure4.2, or block connectors).

112
However, the spacing of the shear connectors must be based on an elastic
analysis of the longitudinal shear.
Resistance of shear connectors embedded in solid slabs and concrete
encasement
Although only design rules for headed stud connectors are given in Eurocode4,
the UK national annex to BSEN1994-2 provides guidance for block connec-
tors with hoops through PD 6696-2. Specifc design rules for horizontally
lying studs are provided in AnnexC of BSEN1994-2 which, according to
the UK national annex to BSEN1994-1-1, may also be used for buildings.
Unlike BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5400-5, where the characteristic resistances of
headed stud connectors were presented in tabular form, the stud resistance
in Eurocode 4 is taken to be the lesser of two equations (one representing
stud shank failure, the other representing crushing of the concrete around
the stud). A comparison of the characteristic resistances of typical 19 mm
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

s
h
e
a
r

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

h

=

n
/
n
f
BS EN 1994-1-1 Grade S355
BS EN 1994-1-1 Grade S275
BS 5950-3.1
Steel sections having a bottom flange
with an area equal to three times the
area of the top flange
SteeI sections with equaI flanges
Span (m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure 4.2. Minimum shear connection requirements from BS 5950-3.1 and
BS EN 1994-1-1

113
diameter studs embedded in solid concrete slabs is presented in Table4.1 and
Table4.2 for normal weight and lightweight concrete respectively.
Unlike BS5950-3.1, where the design stud resistance is reduced in hogging
moment regions, in Eurocode4 it is assumed that the design resistance is not
dependent on whether the surrounding concrete is in compression or tension.
Although test evidence suggests this assumption is slightly unconservative for
hogging moment regions [4], this is compensated by the fact that only full
shear connection is permitted by BSEN1994-1-1 in these areas.
While BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5400-5 recognize that appropriate resistance to
uplift should be provided by the shear connectors, only BS5400-5 provides
specifc rules on the infuence of tension on the shear resistance of headed
studs. According to Eurocode4, the design shear resistance of headed studs,
P
Rd
, may be assumed to be unaffected, provided that the design tensile force
does not exceed 0.1P
Rd
; for situations when the design tensile force exceeds
this value, the connection is not within the scope of Eurocode4. However, for
situations where signifcant tension forces may develop in shear studs (such as
may be encountered over long web- openings, tension- feld action, etc.), guid-
ance to UK designers is given in PD6696-2.
Table 4.1. Characteristic resistances of 19 mm diameter 95 mm LAW stud
connectors embedded in normal weight concrete
Standard Characteristic resistances of shear connectors (kN)
for concrete grade
C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C35/45 C40/50
Eurocode 4
BS 5400 and BS 5950-3.1
81
95
93
100
104
106
113
114
113
119
Table 4.2. Characteristic resistances of 19 mm diameter 95 mm LAW
stud connectors embedded in lightweight concrete (with a dry density
r = 1750 kg/m)
Standard Characteristic resistances of shear connectors (kN)
for concrete grade
LC20/22 LC25/28 LC30/33 LC35/38 LC40/44
Eurocode 4
BS 5400 and BS 5950-3.1
64
83
74
88
83
92
91
97
99
102

114
Design resistance of headed studs used with profled steel sheeting in
buildings
The BS EN 1994-1-1 reduction factors that are applied to stud connectors
welded within the ribs of profled steel sheeting are calculated using identical
equations to those in BS5950-3.1, except that a lower multiplier is used for
cases when the sheeting ribs are perpendicular to the supporting beams. Also,
while the limiting values to the reduction factors in BS5950-3.1 were based
on the number of studs per rib, the limits in BSEN1994-1-1 are a function
of the number of studs per rib, the thickness of the sheet and whether the
studs are through- deck welded or welded through holes in the sheet. Unlike
BS5950-3.1, no reduction factor equations are provided for more than two
studs per rib.
The geometry of existing UK profled steel sheets have been designed such
that the limiting value dominates, so the reduction factors in BSEN1994-1-1
are independent of the geometry and are therefore based on the number of
studs per rib and the orientation of the sheet. As a consequence of this, for
through- deck welded 19 mm diameter 95 mm LAW studs, the reduction
factor values from BSEN1994-1-1 are identical to those given in BS5950-
3.1 for sheet thicknesses greater than 1.0 mm, but up to 15% lower for sheet
thicknesses less than 1.0 mm. Nevertheless, when concrete grades less than
C35/45 and LC40/44 are used, the resistance of headed stud connectors will
be lower than those given by BS5950-3.1, irrespective of the sheet thickness
(see Table4.1 and 4.2).
Detailing of the shear connection
One of the signifcant differences in the detailing rules to Eurocode 4
compared to BS5950-3.1 is the requirement that the underside of the head of
a stud should extend not less than 30 mm clear above the bottom reinforce-
ment to provide adequate resistance to separation; this rule appears to have
been developed from a consideration of the performance of studs in solid
slabs, or composite slabs with shallow re- entrant profled steel sheeting. In
60 mm deep profled steel sheets commonly used in the UK, the presence of a
shallow re- entrant stiffener to the top fange of the sheet results in an overall
depth closer to 70 mm, meaning that this detailing rule cannot be achieved for
typical 19 mm diameter 95 mm LAW studs. Nevertheless, recent full- scale

115
beam tests have indicated that this rule could be relaxed for typical 60 mm
deep profled steel sheets used in the UK[5].
Design resistance to longitudinal shear in concrete slabs
In evaluating the amount of transverse reinforcement required to prevent longi-
tudinal splitting caused by the forces from the shear connectors, Eurocode4
refers to the provisions in Eurocode2 for reinforced concrete T- beams. The
rules in Eurocode 2 are based on a truss analogy, where it assumed that
successive concrete struts form in the fange to the beam with the transverse
reinforcement acting as ties to maintain equilibrium and prevent the concrete
struts from rotating (see Figure 4.3). This approach is a signifcant depar-
ture to the rules for transverse reinforcement in BS5400-5 and BS5950-3.1,
which were developed from a semi- empirical relationship.
Like BS5950-3.1 and BS5400-5, the design longitudinal shear resistance of
the concrete slab should exceed the design resistance of the shear connectors
to ensure that the more ductile shear connectors are the critical design case.
Where a combination of precast and in- situ concrete is used, the longitudinal
shear resistance should again be evaluated according to Eurocode2, but in
these situations using the provisions for shear at the interface for concrete
S
u
p
p
o
r
tPotential surfaces of
shear failure
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
m
o
m
e
n
t

o
f
p
o
i
n
t

l
o
a
d
b
eff
aa Potential surfaces
of shear failure
45 q
f
26.5
a a
a a
F
d
F
d
a
a
a
a
b
eff
D
x
q
f
Figure 4.3. Truss model for transverse reinforcement

116
cast at different times. These rules are different to those currently recom-
mended in UK practice[6].
In a similar way as in BS5950-3.1, when profled steel sheeting spans perpen-
dicular to the supporting beam and is either continuous, or discontinuous but
anchored (from the provision of through- deck welded stud connectors), the
sheet may be taken to contribute to the transverse reinforcement. However,
for the case when the sheets are discontinuous and anchored, the rules in
BSEN1994-1-1 are more consistent than BS5950-3.1 and BS5950-4, in that
the basis for calculating the bearing resistance of the stud is identical for both
transverse reinforcement considerations and end anchorage in composite slabs.
Serviceability limit state
Defections
The additional defection due to partial shear connection need not be consid-
ered if the shear connection is:
designed according to the methods for headed studs in BSEN1994-1-1
(see Figure4.2);
the degree of shear connection, h, is not less than 50%; and
when the ribs of the profled steel sheet are perpendicular to the supporting
beam their height does not exceed 80 mm.
Shrinkage of the concrete results in forces on the shear connectors to act in
the opposite direction to that due to the vertical loads, and can therefore be
neglected when designing the shear connection. However, the shrinkage forces
can cause the beam to defect in the same way as if the beam was subject to
vertical loading, which leads to additional defections and fexural stresses. In
BS5950-3.1, it was not necessary to consider the effects of shrinkage if the
calculation procedures provided in that Standard were adopted. According
to BS EN 1994-1-1, the additional defection due to shrinkage need not be
included in design if the span- to- depth ratio of the beam is not less than 20
and normal weight concrete is used. For other cases, guidance is given by
Johnson and Anderson[1].

117
Irreversible deformation
As opposed to BS5950-3.1, there are no specifc requirements to limit stresses
at the serviceability limit state in BSEN1994-1-1. However, to ensure that
it is appropriate to base the calculations for defections on elastic theory, it is
considered good practice to use similar limitations as BS5950-3.1. On this
basis, it is recommended[7] that in designs conforming to BSEN1994-1-1
the calculated stresses should be limited to the yield strength of the steel, f
y
,
and the concrete stress to 0.63f
ck
.
Vibrations
Owing to the fact that limits to vibrations are material- independent,
Eurocode4 refers designers to BSEN1990. For vibration limits in buildings,
BS EN 1990, Annex A1.4.4 refers to ISO 10137. However, no guidance is
given to the designer on how these limits should be verifed; it is expected
that, for steel- framed buildings, an appropriate NCCI will be given, such as
reference[8]. For bridges, specifc vibration limits are provided in AnnexA2.4
of BSEN1990.
Crack widths
Where composite beams and composite slabs are designed as simply- supported,
but the slab is continuous, a minimum percentage of reinforcement should
be provided over the intermediate supports. According to BS 5950-4, rein-
forcement equivalent to 0.1% of the cross- sectional area of the concrete
should be provided as a minimum for unpropped construction. However, UK
industry has already moved away from this value and adopted the following
BSEN1994-1 provisions as good practice when the control of crack widths
is not required:
0.2% of the cross- sectional area of the concrete (taken as the depth
above the ribs of the sheeting, h
c
, for composite slabs) for unpropped
construction;
0.4% of the cross- sectional area of the concrete (taken as the depth above
the ribs of the sheeting, h
c
, for composite slabs) for propped construction.

118
When limits to the crack widths are required, reference should be made to
Eurocode2 for composite slabs and slabs to beams.
Design for fre resistance
The fre resistance of a composite beam may be evaluated using the bending
moment resistance model in BSEN1994-1-2, which is similar to the moment
capacity method given in BS 5950-8. When the ribs of the profled steel
sheeting are perpendicular to the supporting beam, voids are created between
the sheeting and the top fange of the steel beam. Unlike BS5950-8, where
limiting temperatures were only provided when the voids were flled with
non- combustible fller, according to BSEN1994-1-2 the voids may be ignored
if at least 85% of the surface of the top fange is in contact with the slab. As a
consequence of this, the voids do not need to be flled for re- entrant profles,
but they must be flled for trapezoidal profles (or the effect of the voids on
the beam temperature must be considered).
An alternative method for evaluating the fre resistance of a composite beam
is the critical temperature model in BSEN1994-1-2, which is used to estimate
the critical temperature of the lower fange of the steel beam under a given
sagging bending moment. Although this method is simple, for a composite
beam designed for partial shear connection at ambient temperature, the crit-
ical temperature method is likely to be more conservative compared to that
achieved using BS5950-8.
Composite columns
Rules for composite columns in buildings were intended to be provided
in BS 5950-3.2, but this standard was never published. However, rules for
composite columns were published in BS 5400-5, and have been used in
the UK for the design of bridge piers. The rules for composite columns in
Eurocode 4 are appropriate for concrete flled steel hollow sections, fully
concrete- encased and partially concrete- encased steel H- sections. The advan-
tages of using composite columns are that they possess a high bearing resist-
ance and, in buildings, signifcant periods of fre resistance can be achieved
without the need for applied external protection.

119
Composite joints
Although design guidance for composite beam- to- column connections has
been available since 1998 [9], the design rules are formalized through the
publication of BS EN 1994-1-1. The beneft of using composite connec-
tions in braced frames is that beam depths and section sizes can be reduced,
improved serviceability performance is achieved (in terms of defections) and,
due to the improved continuity between the frame members, greater robust-
ness is possible.
Composite slabs
Flexure
The m- k method in BS5950-4 is the traditional approach for evaluating the
longitudinal shear resistance of composite slabs; however, this method has
limitations and is not particularly suitable for the analysis of concentrated
line and point loads. As well as the m- k method, in BSEN1994-1-1 another
approach known as the partial connection method is given, which is based
on the principles of partial shear connection. This method provides a more
logical approach to determine the slabs resistance from applied concentrated
line or point loadings, but may only be used when ductile longitudinal shear
behaviour has been demonstrated by tests on composite slabs.
Both the m- k and partial connection method in BS EN 1994-1-1 rely on
tests on composite slabs to evaluate the longitudinal shear strength, or shear
bond value, for the variables under investigation. However, design values
that have been evaluated from tests according to BS5950-4 cannot be used
directly in Eurocode 4, unless they have been converted by a method such
as that described in [10]. It is expected that, once the national standards are
withdrawn, design tables and software according to the Eurocodes will be
provided by profled steel sheeting manufacturers for their specifc products.
Concentrated point and line loads
Concentrated point and line loads often occur in buildings from, for example,
temporary props during construction, wheel loads, columns, solid masonry

120
partitions, etc. In these situations, the effect of the smaller effective slab width
available for bending and vertical shear resistance needs to checked at the
locations of these loads. The BSEN1994-1-1 equations for determining the
effective width of composite slabs are identical to those given in BS5950-4,
with the exception that their applicability is limited to cases when the ratio
of the sheet height to the overall slab depth h
p
/h does not exceed 0.6. More-
over, although an identical nominal transverse reinforcement area of not less
than 0.2% of the area of concrete above the ribs of the sheet is specifed in
BSEN1994-1-1, a signifcant difference is that this level of reinforcement is
only appropriate for characteristic imposed loads not exceeding 7.5kN for
concentrated loads, and 5.0 kN/m
2
for distributed loads. In situations when
this loading is exceeded, the appropriate transverse reinforcement should be
determined in accordance with Eurocode2.
Vertical shear
The vertical shear resistance of a composite slab should be determined using
Eurocode2, which depends on the effective depth of the cross- section to the
centroid of the tensile reinforcement. Although not specifed in BSEN1994-
1-1, in BS5950-4 and the ENV version of BSEN1994-1-1 it was permitted
to take the profled steel sheeting as the tensile reinforcement provided that
it was fully anchored beyond the section considered. However, for heavily
loaded slabs additional reinforcement may be required at the support when
the profled steel sheeting is discontinuous and only has limited anchorage.
Design for fre resistance
The required fre performance of foor slabs is defned by the Approved Docu-
mentB to the UK National Building Regulations. The Approved Document
requires the slab performance to be assessed based on criteria for insulation
(criterionI), integrity (criterionE) and load bearing capacity (criterionR). In
BSEN1994-1-2, it may be assumed that composite slabs satisfy the integrity
criterion. Moreover, according to BSEN1994-1-2, composite slabs that have
been designed to BS EN 1994-1-1 may be assumed to possess 30 min fre
resistance when assessed according to the load bearing capacity criterion.
Nevertheless, the slabs ability of achieving the insulating criterion still needs
to be verifed.

121
The insulation criterion is satisfed by providing adequate slab thickness to
ensure that the temperature of the unexposed surface of the slab does not
exceed 140 C. The UK national annex to BSEN1994-1-2 provides a table
of recommended slab thicknesses for both trapezoidal and re- entrant profles
to satisfy the insulation requirements for common periods of fre resistance.
These slab thicknesses are identical to those given in BS5950-8.
Despite the fact that Annex D of BS EN 1994-1-2 provides a calculation
model for estimating the fre resistance of composite slabs, the UK national
annex does not recommend its use, owing to the fact that many UK profled
steel sheets are outside the limits to its feld of application. In an attempt to
resolve this issue, alternative design temperatures based on BS 5950-8 are
presented in the UK national annex.
Typically, design tables that satisfy the load bearing criterion are given by
profled steel sheeting manufacturers, which are based on the extended appli-
cation of a single fre test on a particular product. Although the extended
application of fre test results in the UK is already based on a design model
that is in the spirit of BS EN 1994-1-2, extending the application of fre
tests will be formalized in the future through the publication of a series of
European Standards with the designation EN 15080. For projects in other
European countries, where the use of AnnexD of BSEN1994-1-2 is recom-
mended, it is likely that the manufacturers fre design tables will be the only
valid method of design for UK profles; in particular, when the contribution
of the tensile resistance of the profled steel sheet is included in the calculation
of the sagging moment resistance (a practice that has hitherto been included
in UK design, which often eliminates the need for reinforcement bars within
the ribs).
Conclusions
Eurocode 4 brings both benefts and challenges to UK designers who are
familiar with the earlier national standards for composite steel and concrete
structures. To assist designers in the transition to the Eurocodes, the Steel
Construction Institute (SCI) have issued a suite of design guides that provide
advice on designing structural elements and frames.. In addition to the design
guides, the European steel industrys multilingual Eurocode3 and Eurocode4
website, Access Steel (www. access- steel.com), contains further guidance.

122
References
[1] Johnson R.P. and Anderson D. Designers Guide to EN1994-1-1: Eurocode4: Design
of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, Thomas Telford, London, 2004
[2] Moore D., Bailey C., Lennon T. and Wang, Y. Designers Guide to EN 1991-1-2,
EN1992-1-2, EN1993-1-2 and EN1994-1-2, Thomas Telford, London, 2007
[3] Hendy C.R. and Johnson R.P. Designers Guide to EN1994-2 Eurocode4: Design
of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges,
Thomas Telford, London, 2006
[4] Johnson R.P., Greenwood R.D. and van Dalen K. Stud shear- connectors in hogging
moment regions of composite beams, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 47, No. 9,
September 1969, pp345350
[5] Hicks S.J. Strength and ductility of headed stud connectors welded in modern profled
steel sheeting, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 85, No. 10, May 2007, pp3238
[6] Hicks S.J. and Lawson R.M. Design of Composite Beams using Precast Concrete
Slabs, SCI Publication 287, The Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, 2003, p92
[7] Rackham J.W., Couchman G.H., and Hicks S.J. Composite Slabs and Beams using
Steel Decking: Best Practice for Design and Construction (Revised Edition), SCI
Publication 300/MCRMA Technical Paper No. 13, The Metal Cladding and Roofng
Manufacturers Association in partnership with the Steel Construction Institute,
Wirral, 2009, p110
[8] Smith A.L., Hicks S.J. and Devine P.J. Design of Floors for Vibration: A New Approach,
SCI Publication 354, Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, 2007, p124
[9] Couchman G.H. and Way A.G.J. Joints in Steel Construction Composite Connec-
tions, SCI Publication 213, Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, 1998, p98
[10] Johnson R.P. Models for the longitudinal shear resistance of composite slabs and the
use of non- standard test data, In Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V,
Leon R.T. and Lange J. (eds). ASCE, New York, 2006, pp157165


Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

105

Eurocode4: Design of composite

You might also like