Design of Composite Steel-Concrete

Structures to Eurocode 4
- Some Basic Concepts

Chiew Sing-Ping
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Nanyang Technological University, SINGAPORE

10 April 2015
 Scope of Presentation

Design codes
Materials
Composite columns
Composite beams
Composite slabs

2
 Design Codes for Composite Structures
Effective 1 April 2015 Superceded (valid till 31 March 2015)

Eurocode 1 BS 6399
- for loadings - for loadings
Eurocode 2 BS 5950-1
- for concrete properties and some - for construction stage, design of pure
of the concrete related checks beam
(such as longitudinal shear) BS 5950-6
Eurocode 3 (many Parts) - for design of profiled steel sheeting
- for construction stage, design of BS5950-3.1
pure steel beam and profiled steel - for design of composite beam
sheeting BS5950-4
Eurocode 4 Part 1-1 - for design of composite slab
- general rules of buildings BS 5400-5
Eurocode 4 Part 1-2 - for design of composite column
- for the structural fire design BS 5950-8
- for structural fire design
3
 Design Safety Factors

Eurocodes British Standards

Load safety factors 1.35 Gk + 1.5 Qk 1.4 Gk + 1.6 Qk (BS5950)

1.2 Gk + 1.5 Qk (BS5400-5)

Structural steel 1.0 1.0 (BS5950)

Material 1.05 (BS5400-5)
safety Concrete 1.5 1.5
factors
Reinforcement 1.15 1.15

4
 Material Strength
Concrete and steel strengths in EC4 and BS5950
BS5950 EC4

Normal C30 C50 C20/25 C60/75

Concrete
Light weight C25 C40 LC20/22 LC60/66

Structural steel 355 N/mm2 460 N/mm2

Cube strength Cylinder strength / Cube strength

The ranges are narrower compared to EC2 (C12/15 C90/105) and EC3
( 690 N/mm2) because of more limited knowledge and experience in
composite members with very high concrete and steel strengths.

5
 Concrete Strength
One of the most noticeable differences in Eurocodes is the way
concrete strength is specified throughout.

In British Standards, In Eurocodes,

the cube strength fcu is used. the cylinder strength fck is used.

6
 BS
Cube strength
25 N/mm2 Will different
Converting from
strength gives
the concrete
different
strength to
resistance ?
equivalent plastic
EC stress block
Cylinder strength
20 N/mm2

BS: 0.45 fcu = 0.4525 = 11.25 N/mm2

EC: 0.85 fck/c= 0.8520/1.5 = 11.33 N/mm2

No difference!

7
 Steel Strength

EC3 has additional ductility requirements compared to

BS5950 in terms of stress ratio, % elongation and strain
ratio.

Normal strength steel high strength steel

fu/fy 1.10 fu/fy 1.05 (EC3-1-12)
Elongation at failure not fu/fy 1.10 ( UK NA to EC3-1-12)
less than 15% Elongation at failure not less
u 15y y is the yield than 10%
stain u 15 y

8
 Problem
Some product standards only have requirements on the nominal yield
and tensile strengths, or their minimum values. The stress ratio calculated
according to these nominal values cannot comply with the EC3 ductility
requirement. Also, % elongation cannot comply. Refer to BC1 for
guidance on minimal requirements and compliance under SS NA.
Nominal yield Nominal tensile
Standard Grade Stress ratio
strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
G500 500 520 1.04
AS 1397
G550 550 550 1.00
AS 1595 CA 500 500 510 1.02
EN 10326 S550GD 550 560 1.02
ISO 4997 CH550 550 550 1.00
AS 1397: Steel sheet and strip hot-dip zinc-coated or aluminium/zinc-coated
AS 1595: Cold-rolled, unalloyed, steel sheet and strip
EN 10326: Continuously hot-dip coated strip and sheet of structural steels
ISO 4997: Cold-reduced carbon steel sheet of structural quality

9
 Profiled Steel Sheeting
Most types of profiled steel sheeting are manufactured from
G500/G550 steel in accordance with AS1397.

10
 Headed Stud Shear Connector

In BS 5950, the resistances of headed studs in solid slab

are given for various combinations of height, diameter and
concrete strength but the physics behind these numbers are
not explained.

In EC4, the resistance is expressed in two equations

governed by the strength of concrete and steel.

11
Characteristic Resistance Qk of Headed Studs in
Normal Concrete (BS 5950-3.1 Table 5)
Dimensions of headed stud shear Characteristic strength of
connectors concrete (fcu)
Nominal shank Nominal As-welded
25 30 35 40
diameter height height
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
(mm) (mm) (mm)
25 100 95 146 154 161 168
22 100 95 119 126 132 139
19 100 95 95 100 104 109
19 75 70 82 87 91 96
16 75 70 70 74 78 82
13 65 60 44 47 49 52

12
 Design Resistance of Headed Studs in Solid
Concrete Slab (EC4)
EC4 calculates the resistance as the minimum of two equations,
shown here as (1) and (2).

0.8 f u d 2 4
PRd
V (1)

0.29 d 2 f ck Ecm h
PRd 0.2 sc 1 (2)
V d

The two equations represent the 2 possible failure modes:

(i) failure in the shank of headed stud and (ii) failure in concrete.

13
 steel failure

Failure in the headed stud

Push-out Test Specimen concrete

crushes

Failure in concrete 14
 Comparison of Characteristic Resistances in
various Design Codes
Characteristic resistance of shear stud, PRk (kN)
Headed shear studs embedded Characteristic strength of concrete (N/mm2)
in solid concrete slab of
normal weight concrete 25 30 35 40

BS5400: Part 5: 2005 90 100 104 109

BS5950: Part 3.1: 2010 95 100 104 109

EC4: Part 1.1: 2004 81.0 92.1 100.6 102.1

Notes: Nominal shank diameter = 19mm

Nominal height = 100mm while as-welded height = 95mm

EC4 leads to a 17% reduction of the characteristic resistance.

15
Characteristic Resistance of Stud (EC4 and BS5950)
160

140
BS (d=22mm, h=100mm)
120 EC (d=22mm, h=100mm)
BS (d=19mm,h=100mm)
100
PR k (kN)

EC (d=19mm, h=100mm)
BS ( d=16mm, h=75mm)
80
EC (d=16mm, h=75mm)
60

40

20

0
25 30 35 40 45 50
Concrete strength (N/mm2)

Note: the differences are larger for smaller stud diameters

16
In general, the resistance of headed stud shear connectors
determined by EC4 is lower than BS5950.
more headed studs are needed in EC4 design !

17
 Design Resistance of Headed Studs in
Composite Slab
The design resistance of headed stud connector in composite
slab with profiled steel sheeting is more complex than in a solid
slab. It is influenced by the following factors:
The direction of the ribs relative to direction of span of the
composite beam;
The mean breadth b0 and depth hp of profiled steel sheeting;
The diameter d and height hsc of the headed shear stud;
The number nr of the headed studs in one trough;
Whether or not a headed stud is central within a trough.

18
 Reduction Factor kt
Design shear resistance is taken as the resistance in a solid slab
multiplied by the reduction factor kt
b0 b0

hsc

hsc
hp

hP
hp/2

0.7 b0 hsc
EC4: kt 1 kt,max

nr hp hp

BS5950-3.1: The coefficient is 0.85 and 0.6 for re-entrant trough profiles
and 0.63 and 0.34 for open trough profiles
For the EC4 these values are about 17% lower than the BS for re-entrant
profiles, but about 40% higher than the BS for open trough profiles.
19
 Upper Limit kt,max for the Reduction Factor kt
Generally, most profiled sheet sheeting is designed such that their limiting
value dominates, so the reduction factor is independent of the geometry

EC4 BS 5950-3.1
profiled Number of stud Thickness t Stud not exceeding Stud not
steel connectors per of sheet 20mm in diameter and exceeding
sheeting trough (mm) welded through 19mm in
profiled steel sheeting diameter
1.0 0.85
nr=1 1.0
Re-entrant >1.0 1.0
trough 1.0 0.70
nr=2 0.8
>1.0 0.8
1.0 0.85
nr=1 0.82
Open >1.0 1.0
trough 1.0 0.70
nr=2 0.45
>1.0 0.8

For open trough profiles, the reduction factor in EC4 BS5950

For re-entrant trough profiles, the reduction factor in EC4 BS5950
20
 Characteristic resistance of shear stud, PRk (kN)
Characteristic strength of concrete fcu
Headed shear studs in
(N/mm2)
composite slab with profiled
steel sheeting 25 30 35 40

BS5950: Part 3: Re-entrant 95 100 104 109

2010
Open trough 77.9 82 85.3 89.4

EC4: Part 1.1: 2004 68.9 75.5 85.5 86.8

Notes: Nominal shank diameter = 19mm

Nominal height = 100mm while as-welded height = 95mm
nr=1
The resistance of shear stud in composite slab determined in EC4 is up
to 27% lower than that given in BS 5950.

21
Application of Composite Column

22
 Top-Down Construction

Kingposts (supporting the roof) which are part of the barrette

piles installed during the foundation stage

23
Installation of a kingpost into the barrette pile

24
 KingPost in column

Excavation for starter

bars

Install starter bars

Casting column head

25
 Column Design Approach
Cross section resistance (yielding)
Resistance to compression
Resistance to moment
Reduced moment resistance under compressive force, i.e.
interaction between compression and bending
Member buckling resistance
Axial buckling resistance
Reduced moment resistance under compressive force, i.e.
interaction between compression and bending
F LBA
Fcr

GNIA
Types of elastic analysis
and design

e 26
Simplified Method (EC4 Clause 6.7.3.4)

Design Concepts

Design based on the

EC3 buckling curves
(similar to pure steel column)
Axial
compression
Design based on second-order
analysis with equivalent member e0
Imperfection (simplified method)

Resistance of
member in
combined Design based on second order
compression analysis with equivalent member
Imperfection (simplified method) e0
and bending

27
 Axial Compression Resistance
Compression resistance of composite column

N pl,Rd Aa f yd Ac f cd As fsd

= + +

steel concrete reinforcement

f yk / a f ck / c fsk / s

28
 Axial Buckling Resistance

N Ed
1.0
N pl,Rd

The buckling reduction factor

(EC3 approach) Plastic resistance
1.0
1
1.0 x
a
Euler buckling
2
- 2 b

0.5 1 - 0.2 2
c

N pl,Rk
0.0 1.0 2.0
N cr

29
Buckling Curve - EC3

30
 Buckling Curve EC4

Axis of Buckling curve

Cross-section Limits
buckling S235 - S460
y-y b
Concrete encased section
z-z c
Partially concrete encased y-y b
section z-z c
Concrete filled circular and s 3% any a
rectangular hollow sections 3% < s 6% any b

For steel column, the buckling curve is related to steel section and steel
strength.
For composite column, the buckling curve is related to the cross-section.
The strength of steel has little influence on the buckling curve.

31
 Example - Comparison of Design Approach
Design based on EC4
Design based on
simplified approach -
EC3 buckling NEd
second order analysis &
curve
member imperfection
Buckling curve b
Member
L/200 e0
imperfection
Resistance of
axial N Rd () = 4320 kN N Rd (e0) = 4108 kN
compression
Comparison
1.05
NRd(X) / NRd(e0) NEd
Note: design based on the use of member imperfection e0 leads to
a maximum difference of 5% in comparison with design based on
the EC3 buckling curve approach.
Design data:
fy=355N/mm2, fck=25N/mm2, fsk=500N/mm2,
Cross-section: 350mm350mm, steel section: 254254 UC73.
32
Column length: 5.0m, 4 bars of 20mm diameter
Example - Comparison of Design Approach
Design based on EC3 Design based on EC4
buckling curve approach simplified approach
N Rd( ) N Rd (e0 )

NRd( ) = Npl,Rd M Ed,max = k NRd(e0 ) e0

N

1
M Ed,max M M pl,Rd Npl,Rd
Tedious approach !
1.0
2 The maximum resistance can be
2 - obtained by:

NRd(e0)

0.5 1 - 0.2 2
kNRd(e0 ) e0 = M M pl,Rd
Npm,Rd

N pl,Rk N pl,Rd -N Rd (e0 )

=
N cr N pl,Rd -N pm,Rd
M
Second order effect factor k: Mpl,Rd Mpl,Rd

Easier approach !
k=
1 2 (EI )ef,II
1- N Rd (e0 ) /Ncr,eff N cr,eff =
L2cr
33
 Resistance of Members in combined
Compression and Bending
The EC3 buckling curve approach can be adopted for
composite column under axial compression, however, this
approach is not suitable for composite column subjected to
axial compression and bending moment.

In design of slender RC column, an accidental eccentricity of

the axial load in the column is introduced to calculate the
maximum moment at mid-height of the column.

Similar to slender RC column, equivalent initial bow

imperfections (member imperfections) are used in the design of
composite column for simplification.

34
Bending Moment due to Member Imperfection

NEd
For the member imperfection e0 caused by the
design axial load NEd on a composite column,
there will be a bending moment of NEde0.

The design bending moment for the composite

e0 column length considered both second-order
effects of end moment and imperfection is given
by:
M Ed.max k1M Ed k2 N Ed e0
NEd k1, k2 are the factors of second order effects

related to end moment ratio

k=
1- N Ed /N cr,eff

35
 Member Imperfections for Composite Column
Axis of Buckling Member
Cross-section
buckling curve imperfection (e0)
Concrete encased section y-y b L/200
y
z
z-z c L/150
Partially concrete encased y-y b L/200
Section
y
z
z-z c L/150
Circular and rectangular y-y a L/300
hollow section y
z z-z b L/200
Circular hollow section with y-y b L/200
additional I-section
y z-z b L/200
z
Partially encased H section
with crossed H section
y any b L/200
z

36
 Improvement in the Design of Column in
Combined Compression and Bending

Compared to EC4 (1994), the simplified method for

composite columns in EC4 (2004) was improved using
second order analysis and equivalent member (initial bow)
imperfection which takes into account the effects of residual
stresses and geometrical imperfections.
Introducing initial bow imperfections into the simplified
method for composite columns, the scope of the simplified
method can be extended to sway frames.

37
 k1M Ed M Ed
M
M pl,Rd

The influence of imperfection is taken

into account indirectly in the interaction
curve. The factor d is reduced by a
relevant amount to account for the
moment due to the member
imperfection.
(a) EC4: 1994

k1M Ed k2 NEd e0 M Ed, max

M
d M pl,Rd
The member imperfection can be taken
into account in the global analysis and
hence it is not necessary to allow for
the imperfection in the analysis of the
(b) EC4: 2004 interaction curve. 38
 Design of Composite Beam

Nc,f

Np

Npl,a

The concrete slab works best in compression while the steel section
works best in tension; hence, a large moment resistance is generated
as a force couple.

Resistance mobilization in both the concrete slab and the steel section
is limited by the shear connection along the concrete interface.

39
 Failure Modes of Composite Beam
IV

IV

I-I resistance to sagging moment and vertical shear

II-II resistance to hogging moment and shear and M-V interaction
III-III shear connection @ the steel concrete interface
IV-IV lateral torsional buckling
V-V Longitudinal shear of the concrete flange

40
 Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance
In BS5950-3.1, no equation is provided to calculate the
lateral torsional buckling resistance of continuous composite
beam under hogging moment over the internal support.
When checking LTB, the methods given in BS5950-1
(design of steel beam) is supposed to be used.

In EC4, the restraint of slab is taken into account compared

with steel beam in EC3.

41
 BS5950-3.1 EC4

M b pb Sx M b, Rd LT M Rd
Where pb is determined by TB With:
1
TB =nt uvt LT 1
LT LT2
LT

0.5 M Rk
4a /hs LT
vt = M cr
1+ 2a /hs +0.05 /x
2 2

M cr kcC4 / L Ga I at ks L2 / 2 Ea I afz
1/2
(EC4)
0.5
2 EI z I w
L2cr GIT
M cr C1 + 2 (EC3)
L2cr z
I EI z

EC4/BS EC4/EC3
EC4 EC3 BS5950-3.1
Ratio Ratio
Lateral-torsional
546 kNm 531 kNm 479 kNm 1.14 1.03
buckling 42
 Elastic Critical Moment

Inverted- U frame ABCD resisting lateral-torsional buckling

In this approach, the elastic critical moment Mcr is determined using the
so-called continuous inverted U-frame model.
The model given in EC4 takes into account the lateral displacement of the
bottom flange causing bending of the steel web and the rotation of the top
flange that is resisted by bending of the concrete slab.

M cr kcC4 / L Ga I at ks L / E I
1/2
2 2

a afz

43
 Composite Slab

Trapezoidal
Open Trough (Trapezoidal)

Re-entrant

Possible modes of failure:

Shear failure at end support
Moment failure near mid-span region
Debonding within longitudinal shear span along the interface between
concrete slab and decking, i.e. shear bond failure critical
44
 Longitudinal Shear

How can concrete stick to profiled sheeting after bending?

How reliable is the shear bond along the interface between

concrete and profiled sheeting ?
Surface bonding due to chemical reaction
- non ductile failure, hence not so reliable.

Mechanical interlocking due to indentations or

embossments in the profiled sheeting or end anchorage
- ductile failure with rational provision, hence more
reliable.

45
 Longitudinal Shear

End slip

Cracking

Test setup

46
m-k Method

EC4: BS5950-4:

bd p mAp Bs ds mr Ap
k Vs kr f cu Concrete
Vl,Rd 1.25 Bs Lv
strength
vs bLs

m= 163.26
k= 0.0312
m= 172.45
k= 0.2491

47
 Comparison of Longitudinal Shear

EC4 BS5950-4
Short span Long span Short span Long span
m 172.5 163.3
k 0.2491 0.0312
Shear-bond
resistance 79.3 60.1 74.3 56.2
Vl,Rd (kN)

Test Short span 81.2 kN Long span 61.6 kN

BS5950 provides a more conservative value for longitudinal shear resistance

48
 Vertical Shear

BS 5950-4 EC4

Vv bb dsvc
Vv,Rd CRd,c k 1001 fck k1 pc bw dp
1/3

Vv,Rd,min vmin k1 cp bw dp
1/3
0.79 100 As 400 f cu
1/ 4 1/3

m bv d d 25
vc =
vmin 0.035k 3/2 fck1/2

BS 5950-4 EC4 Experiment

118.7kN 107.8 kN 153.6 kN

EC4 provides a more conservative value for vertical shear resistance

49
 Punching Shear
BS 5950-4 EC4

Vp Critical perimeter Ds -Dp vc Vp,Rd Cp d p vRd

vRd CRd,c k 100 1 f ck vmin
1/3
1/3
0.79 100 As 400 f cu
1/ 4 1/3

m bv d d 25
vc =
vmin 0.035k 3/2 fck1/2
Critical perimeter = 4 Ds -Dp +4ds +4 length of load area Cp 2 hc 2 bp 2hf 2 ap 2hf 2dp 2hc

BS 5950-4 EC4 Experiment

108kN 139 kN 186 kN

BS5950-4 provides a more conservative value for vertical shear resistance

50
 Conclusions
1. Composite members with high strength steel ( S460) and
concrete ( C60/75) outside the scope of EC4. Can refer to
BCA/SSSS design guide for S550 steel and C90/105
concrete for CFT members.
2. Common grades of profiled steel sheeting cannot meet
EC3 ductility requirements in terms of stress ratio (fu/fy)
and %elongation after fracture. Design strength will have
to be downgraded. Refer to BC1 design recommendations.
3. The resistance of headed stud shear connectors is
generally lower in EC4 compared to BS5950; BC1 adopts
EC4 design resistance values.
4. For composite columns, the EC4 buckling curves are
different compared to EC3 due to contribution of concrete.
Unlike EC3, no special consideration for composite column
with S460 steel.
51
 Conclusions
5. The simplified design approach using second order
analysis and equivalent member imperfection without any
need for member buckling resistance check is much
easier for composite column in combined compression
and bending moment. Approach is more similar to EC2
concrete column design.
6. EC4 provides guidance for lateral-torsional buckling check
for continuous composite beams taking into account the
beneficial effect provided by the concrete slab, i.e. the so-
called inverted U-frame method.
7. EC4 provides clear guidance for testing & development of
composite slab system using profiled steel sheeting.
Existing m and k values from BS5950 cannot be used
directly in EC4 composite slab design.

52