Kennytiongpingchietaa 050041 D 09 TTT

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.
1/07)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT
KENNY TIONG PING CHIET

Author’s full name :
25th FEBRUARY 1986
Date of birth :
COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE BEAM DESIGN
Title :
BETWEEN BRITISH STANDARD PART 3.1 AND

EUROCODE 4 PART 1.1
Academic Session: 2008 /2009
I declare that this thesis is classified as :
CONFIDENTIAL (Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

Act 1972)*
RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as specified by the

organisation where research was done)*
√ OPEN ACCESS I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

(full text)
I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows :
1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose
of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.
Certified by :
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR
860225 -13 -5265 PROF.IR.DR. MAHMOOD MD TAHIR

(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date : 4th MAY 2009 Date : 4th MAY 2009
NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTIAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organisation with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.

“I hereby declare that I have read this project report and in

my opinion this project report is sufficient in terms of scope and
quality for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering”
Signature : ………………………………….
Name of Supervisor: PROF.IR.DR.MAHMOOD MD TAHIR
Date : 4th MAY 2009

i

COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE BEAM DESIGN BETWEEN BRITISH

STANDARD PART 3.1 AND EUROCODE 4 PART 1.1
KENNY TIONG PING CHIET
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of
the degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
MAY 2009

ii

I declare that this thesis entitled “The Comparison of Composite Beam Design
Between British Standard Part 3: Section 1 And Eurocode 4 Part 1.1” is the result of
my own research except as cited in the references. The thesis has not been accepted
for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature: …………………………….
Name : KENNY TIONG PING CHIET
Date : 4th MAY 2009

iii

To my beloved parents and siblings

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere appreciate to my thesis supervisor Prof. Dr.

Ir Mahmood Md Tahir from Steel Technology Centre (STC) of Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for his encouragement ,guidance, and
help during the development of this project.
Besides that, I would like to express my appreciation to my parents and

family who always support and encourage me to complete the project .This project
would not been possible without their love and support.
Lastly, my sincere appreciate also extends to all my friends and all members
of STC for helping me either directly and indirectly in completion of this project.
Thank you very much to all of you.

v

ABSTRACT
In 2010 years, Eurocode are expected to replace most of the country code of
practice. There will be a general move in the industry towards using Euro codes as
conflicting British Standards will be withdrawn in early 2010. With the Eurocode
taking in place, engineers who have the knowledge of the Eurocode design will have
a better place when dealing with other country engineer and take on the project at the
country who already adopt the Eurocode. The introduction of Eurocode to replace
the old design standard, British Standard and the change of the code will benefit the
construction industry and also make the designer and other parties which involved in
the industry need to adapt to the changes. Many of designers, engineers, clients,
regulators, contractors, academics and suppliers are concern about the
implementation of the Eurocodes. Designers are unlikely to adopt the structural with
Eurocodes until they see competitive advantages. So before the design code is used,
it is good to conduct a research on both Eurocode and British standard to identify the
changes in the design code together with the performance of the composite beam
using the new design code. The results of the project can be a good reference to all
designers, engineers, researchers, and others.
vi

ABSTRAK
Pada 2010 tahun yang akan datang,Eurocode dijangkakan akan menggantikan

kebanyakan garis paduan dan kod amalan yang selama ini digunakan dalam industri
pembinaan.Selepas Eurocode digunakan ,Jurutera-jurutera yang mengetahui tentang
Eurocode akan mempunyai kelebihan berbanding dengan yang lain apabila bekerja
and berurusan dengan Negara yang telah mengamalkan Eurocode. Pengenalan and
penggunaan kepada Eurocode akan membawa kebaikan kepada industry
Pembinaan,Walaubagaimanapun,Perubahan kod amalan lama British standard
kepada Eurocde ini juga membimbangkan Jurutera ,pereka ,academis,kontraktor,
dan pembekal. Pereka dan Jurutera belum sedia and enggan mengamalkan Eurocode
sehingga mereka mengetahui kebaikan yang ketara.Jadi sebelum Eurocode ini
digunakan,Kajian and penyelidikan tentang Eurocode dan British standard patuh
dijalankan untuk mengenapastikan perubahan elemen-elemen dalam kedua-dua kod
amalan and pretasi rasuk rencam dengan mengunakan Eurocode 4 yang
baru.Semoga ,Hasil-hasil and keputusan bagi project ini akan memberi
maklumat ,pengenalan and pengetahuan kepada semua pereka, jurutera ,dan lain-lain.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
THESIS TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF APPENDICES xiv
LIST OF NOTATIONS xv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background of Project 2
1.3 Objectives 3
1.4 Scope of The Project 4
1.5 Problem Statement 5
viii

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Composite Construction 6

2.1.1 History 6
2.1.2 The Definition Of Composite Construction 7
2.1.3 Advantage Of Composite Construction 8
2.2 Component of the Composite Beam 9
2.2.1 Shear Connection 10

2.2.1.1 Full Shear Connection 10
2.2.1.2 Partial Shear Connection 11
2.3 Eurocode 11
2.3.1 Background of the Eurocode 12
2.3.2 The Benefits of The Eurocodes 12
2.3.3 Scope of Eurocode 4 13
2.3.3.1 Scope of Eurocode 4 Part 1-1 14
2.3.4 Issues related to Eurocode 4 15
2.4 British Standard 16
2.4.1 BS5950-3.1:1990 16
2.4.2 Scope of BS5950-3.1 17
2.5 Relationship between BS5950-3.1 and Eurocode 4 17
2.5.1 Notation and Terminology 17
2.5.2 Concrete 18
3 METHODOLOGY 19
3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 The procedures and steps to conduct the study 20
3.2.1 Study and understand the concepts of BS5950 20
and EN1994-1.1
3.2.2 Understand the basis of design and composite beam 21
design procedures for BS5950 and EN1994
3.2.3 Design the composite beam 23
ix

3.2.4 Establish the spread sheet for design of the 23

composite beam using Microsoft Excel
3.2.5 Comparing the result 24
3.2.6 Conclusion and recommendation 24
3.2.7 Flow chart for the design process for 25
the composite beam
4 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 30
4.1 The safety factor and the load combination 30

4.2 Partial safety factor for material 32
4.3 Effect breath of slab 33
4.4 Compressive and Tensile Capacities 34
4.4.1 Tensile capacity 34
4.4.2 Compressive capacity 35
4.5 The Moment Resistance with full Shear Connection 36
4.6 Influence of the Deck Shape 38
4.7 Number of stud for half beam 40
4.8 Shear connection 42
4.8.1 The effect on beam due to different minimum 43
degree of the shear connector
4.8.2 Shear Connector Resistance 44
4.8.3 Degree of the shear connection 45
4.9 Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection 46
4.9.1 Comparison of the moment resistance with 49
partial shear connector using linear interaction
between Eurocode 4 and BS 5950
4.9.2 Comparison of the moment resistance with 51
partial shear connector using stress block method
between Eurocode 4 and BS 5950
4.10 Vertical Shear 54
4.11 Deflection 56
4.12 Transverse reinforcement 58
x

5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 59

5.1 Conclusions 59
5.2 Recommendations 60
REFERENCES 61
xi

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES NO. TITTLE PAGE
1.1 Single Shear Connector 4

1.2 Double Shear Connector 4
2.1 The Component of the Composite Beam 9
2.2 The shear connector 10
4.1 Comparison of moment resistance with full shear connector 37
and the design moment for EC4 and BS5950 Part 3.1
4.2 Degree of the shear connector versus length of the beam 43
4.3 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using 50
linear interaction method versus length of beam for single stud.
linear interaction method versus length of beam for double stud.
4.5 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using stress 51
block method versus length of beam for single stud.
stress block method versus length of beam for double stud.
4.7 Interaction between moment resistance and degree of shear 53
connection in composite beam
4.8 The different between shear capacity and total shear force in 55
EC4 and BS5950

xii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITTLE PAGE
3.1 The Notation used for EN1994-1-1 and BS5950:3.1 21

4.1 Safety factor and load combinations for EC4 and BS5950 30
4.2 Loading combinations, design Force, and design moment 31
for 10 metres beam.
4.3 Comparison of the design strength of steel between EC4 32
and BS5950 Part 3.1
4.4 Comparison of the effect breath of slab between EC1994 -1-1 33
and BS 5950 Part 3.1 with 10,12,15 metres length of beam
4.5 Comparison of the tensile capacity between EN 1994 -1-1 34
and BS 5950 Part 3 sections 3.1
4.6 Comparison of the compressive capacity for 10, 12, and 35
15 metres length of beam composite beam between
EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
4.7 Comparison of the moment resistance with full shear 36
connection for 10, 12, and 15 metres length of composite
beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3.1.
4.8 Comparison of the moment resistance with full shear 36
connection and the design moment for EN1994-1-1 and
BS5950 Part 3: section 3.1
4.9 Comparison of the influence of the deck shape for the 38
xiii

decking placed perpendicular to the beam with sheet thickness

more than 1 mm for EN1994 1-1 and BS5950 Part 3.1
4.10 Comparisons of the shear connector capacity for single 39
and double stud for EC4 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
4.11 Comparison of the number of stud for half beam between 40
EN1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1 for single
and double stud connectors
4.12 Calculation of the number of shear stud required for the 41
composite beam.
4.13 Comparison of the degree of the shear connector between 42
EN1994-1-1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
4.14 Comparison of the shear connector capacity between 44
EN 1994 -1-1 and Bs 5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
4.15 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear 46
connection between EN1994 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
connection with the influence of the degree of the shear
connector for 15 meter beam
connector for linear interaction method
connector using stress block method.
4.19 Comparison of the vertical shear capacity for 10, 12, and 54
15 metres length of composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1
and BS5950 Part 3:Section 3.1
4.20 Comparison between shear capacity and total shear force 55
4.21 Comparison of deflections for 10, 12, and 15 metres 56
composite beam design using EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950
Part 3:Section 3.1
4.22 The example calculation of the effect of partial shear 57
connector for 10 metres composite beam.
4.23 Comparison of the Transverse reinforcement used for 58
composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950
Part 3: Section 3.1
xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Detail Diagram of Composite Beam 62

B1 Spread Sheet of Composite Beam Design Based on 64
BS5950 Part 3:Section 3.1
B2 Spread Sheet of Composite Beam Design Based on 76
EN1994 -1-1
xv

LIST OF NOTATIONS
EN1994 -1-1 BS5950 Part 3:

Section 3.1
Design moment Msd M

Design load F F
Effective width of beff Be
compression flange
Compressive resistance of Rc Rc
slab
Tensile Resistance of steel Rs Rs
section
Moment resistance with full Mpl.Rd Mc
shear connection
Moment resistance with MRd Mc
partial shear connection
Shear connector resistance PRd Qp
Influence of deck shape kt k
Degree of shear connection N/Nf Nα/Np
Vertical shear Vsd v
Shear resistance Vpl.Rd. Pv
Flange thickness tf T
Web thickness t t
w
Basic Shear Strength τRd -

Yield Strength of the f sk -
reinforcement
xvi

Depth of slab ht Ds
Deck Profile Height hp Dp
1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
In 2010years, Eurocode are expected to replace most of the country code of

practice. Vietnam and Singapore have decided to adopt the Eurocode and a number
of other countries outside the EC are showing a keen interest in using the Eurocodes
including China, India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia, Japan, South
Korea and those in the Gulf Region. Within Europe, Turkey, Croatia and countries in
the Balkan regions are intending to adopt the Eurocodes. Russia and some North
African countries are also showing interest in the Eurocode as a replacement of the
old design code British standards.
According to BSI, There will be a general move in the industry towards using
Euro codes as conflicting British Standards will be withdrawn in early 2010 and they
will therefore not be maintained by BSI .With the Eurocode taking in place, Engineer
who have the knowledge of the Eurocode design will have a better place when
dealing with other country engineers who already adopt the Eurocode .
2

Nowadays many of the buildings use the composite technology which is

structural member composed of two or more dissimilar materials joined together to
act as a unit. This system is not only one of the most economical structural systems
but also good in quality. In this project BS5950: Part 3: section 1and Eurocode 4 will
be used for the composite beam design for the comparison purpose. The comparison
is to see the effect and the difference of both designs code on strength, cost, quality,
deflection, and other.
1.2 Background Of Project
The introduction of Eurocode to replace the old design standard, British

Standard and the change of the code will benefit the construction industry and also
make the designer and other party which involved in the industry feel depress for the
change of the design code. According to the Eurocode expert in UK, The
introduction of the Eurocode is to improve the competitiveness of the European
construction industry and the professionals and industries connected with it which is
within and outside the European Union. Secondly, provide a common understanding
regarding the design of structures between owners, operators and users, designers,
contractors and manufacturers of construction products.
3

1.3 Objectives
1) To identify the difference in the concept of the design between BS 5950: Part
3: 1990 and Eurocode 4.
2) To compare the performance of the composite beam design between BS 5950:
Part 3: 1990 and Eurocode 4 based on Ultimate Limit State and Serviceability
Limit State.
3) To establish composite beam design using spread sheet for BS5950-3.1 and
Eurocode 4.
1.4 Scope of the Project
The scope of the project is merely on a simple supported composite beam

with uniform loading and constructed with profile metal decking slab. The research
on the comparison of the composite beam design between the BS5950: part 3 and
Eurocode 4 are prepared as a design guideline.
Microsoft Excel will prepared for the complex calculation, repeating

calculation, prepare for the table to simplify the design process and the design of the
composite beam will also be establish using Microsoft Excel.

4

The scope of the project covers the basis of the design for BS5950 and
Eurocode 4, which are design of the composite beam with:
1) Full and partial shear connection

2) Single and double headed stud shear connector
3) Linear Interaction method and stress block method
4) The depth of the slab is 130 mm.
5) Design strength of the steel is S 355.
6) Different length of the beam from 10, 12 and 15m.
The Comparison will be made on the Notation, material, safety factor,

terminology, formulae, and other different between British Standard BS5950-section
3.1 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-Part 1.1 from the result obtained.
Figure 1.1 Single Shear Connector Figure 1.2 Double Shear connector

5

1.5 Problem Statement
The structural Eurocodes are a European suit of codes for structural design
that have been developed over a period of more than twenty-five years. Between
2004 and 2007 they will be published, as British Standards, initially as an alternative
to the existing Standards. By 2010 they will have effectively replaced the current
British Standards as the primary basis for designing buildings and civil engineering
structures not only in the UK but also in Malaysia.
Many of the designers, engineers, clients, regulators, contractors, academics

and suppliers are concern about the implementation of the structural Eurocodes.
Designers are unlikely to adopt the structural Eurocodes until they see competitive
advantages. So before the design code is used, it is good to conduct a research on
both Eurocode and British standard to identify the change of the elements in the
design code together with the performance of the composite beam using the new
design code. The results of the project will be an introduction, information, and
knowledge to all designers, engineers, researchers, and others.
According to the report of The Institution of Structural Engineers, rewriting

all of the software for Eurocodes is an enormous task that cannot be completed all at
once. The spread sheet of the composite beam design will be establish to ease the
design using the BS5950 and EC4 which will be a simple tool to help and speed up
the calculation and design process for the reference purpose.
6

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Composite Construction
2.1.1 History
Composite construction as we know it today was first used in both a building

and a bridge in the U.S. Over a century ago, the first forms of composite structures
incorporated the use of steel and concrete for flexural members, and the issue of
longitudinal slip between these elements was soon identified. Composite steel–
concrete beams are the earliest form of the composite construction method. In the
U.S. a patent by an American engineer was developed for the shear connectors at the
top flange of a universal steel section to prevent longitudinal slip. This was the
beginning of the development of fully composite systems in steel and concrete.
Concrete-encased steel sections were initially developed in order to overcome the
problem of fire resistance and to ensure that the stability of the steel section was
maintained throughout loading. The steel section and concrete act compositely to
resist axial force and bending moments (Civil Engineering Handbook, Second
Edition, The Brian Uy and J.Y. Richard Liew).
7

2.1.2 The Definition Of Composite Construction
The definition of Composite construction is a generic term to describe any

building construction involving multiple dissimilar materials. It is not to be confused
with the Composite order which is a specific order of classical architecture that
combines elements of the Ionic and Corinthian orders.
In structural engineering, composite construction exists when two different

materials are bound together so strongly that they act together as a single unit from a
structural point of view. When this occurs, it is called composite action. One
common example involves steel beams supporting concrete floor slabs. If the beam
is not connected firmly to the slab, then the slab transfers all of its weight to the
beam and the slab contributes nothing to the load carrying capability of the beam.
However, if the slab is connected positively to the beam with studs, then a portion of
the slab can be assumed to act compositely with the beam. In effect, this composite
creates a larger and stronger beam than would be provided by the steel beam alone.
(From Wikipedia, encyclopedia)
2.1.3 Advantage Of Composite Construction
The main benefits in using composite beams are that:
(i) Savings in steel weight of between 30 to 50% can be achieved compared to

non-composite beams.
(ii) The increased stiffness of composite beams can result in them being
shallower than non-composite beams for the same span. this can lead to lower
storey heights and a reduction to cladding costs (which is significant, as
8

cladding can represent up to 20% of the total building cost), or allowing more
room for mechanical services.
(iii)The deflection of the composite slab will decrease with the steel decking.
(iv) Composite action can better utilize the properties of each constituent
material. In steel-concrete composite beams, for example, the concrete is
assumed to take most or all of the compression while the steel takes all the
tension.
The cold formed profiled steel sheeting is an integral part of the structural system as
it performs the following roles:
(i) It acts as a safe working platform and protects the workers below.
(ii) It supports the loads during construction and may eliminate the need
for temporary propping.
(iii)It acts as permanent formwork for the concrete slab.
(iv) Through mechanical or frictional interlock (and/or the provision of

end anchorage),composite action can develop with the concrete such
that the sheet provides all, or part, of the main tension reinforcement
to the slab.
(v) Through the provision of through-deck welded stud shear connectors,

the composite slab may be used to provide restraint to the steel beams
(Hick, 2008).
By using the composite beam, the loading capacity and stiffness of the composite
construction can be increased with the composite action due to the interaction of the
steel beam and concrete slab with the shear connection. Beside that the saving in
9

steel weight and the depth of the beam can be deduced due to the composite beam
action (Tahir , 2008).
2.2 Component of the Composite Beam
Figure 2.1 The Component of the Composite Beam
2.2.1 Shear Connection
One of the important components for composite beam, which is a mechanical

device producing interaction between steel and concrete (BS5950-3.1:1990), which
also used to resist uplift forces developed between the slab and the beam at the ends
of the span. Shear connectors should posses adequate strength and deformation
capacity. Composite beams comprise steel I-sections attached by shear connectors to
a concrete or composite slab, so that the bending resistance and the flexural stiffness
of the beams are considerably higher than those of steel I-sections. (K.F.Chung, R.M.
10

Lawson, 2001).All the shear connection should be capable of the resisting uplift
forces caused by the tendency of the slab to separable from the beam.
Figure 2.2 The shear connector
2.2.1.1 Full Shear Connection
Shear inter-connection between steel and concrete elements sufficient to

produce full composite action, permitting only negligible slip at the interface and
developing the full moment capacity of the composite cross section. (1.2.5, BS5950-
3.1)
11

2.2.1.2 Partial Shear Connection
Shear inter-connection between steel and concrete elements producing less

composite action than full shear connection, permitting some limited slip at the
interface and developing a reduced moment capacity, less than the full moment
capacity of the composite cross section (1.2.8, BS5950-3.1).It may be advantageous
not to have to provide sufficient shear connection to produce full interaction, since a
lesser moment capacity will be adequate. This can be achieved by reducing the
number of the shear connector.
2.3 Eurocode
2.3.1 Background of the Eurocode
The Eurocode is being introduced as a decision of the political decision;

theSigning of the Treaty of Rome by the UK Government some decades ago. The
introduction of the Eurocode will bring the new life in the construction industry and
also give more opportunity for all the civil engineer to work at other country around
the world by a consequence which was the agreement to remove all artificial barriers
to trade across Europe. There are 10 Eurocodes introduced for different type of
design.
The 10 Eurocodes are:
• EN 1990: Eurocode : Basis of structural design

• EN 1991: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
• EN 1992 : Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
• EN 1993: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
• EN 1994: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
12

• EN 1995: Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures

• EN 1996: Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
• EN 1997: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
• EN 1998: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
• EN 1999: Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures
Eurocodes are designed to:

• help the European construction industry become more competitive
• improve structural safety
• harmonise construction standards in the private sector
• enable designers to use more supporting guidance and software
• be the primary reference for all users, advising them on the latest
developments and training events.
(BSI)
2.3.2 The Benefit Of The Eurocodes
The intended benefits of the Eurocodes are to:

(i) provide common design criteria and methods of meeting necessary
requirements for mechanical resistance, stability and resistance to
fire, including aspects of durability and economy
(ii) provide a common understanding regarding the design of structures

between owners, operators and users, designers, contractors and
manufacturers of construction products
(iii) facilitate the exchange of construction services between Members

States
13

(iv) facilitate the marketing and use of structural components and kits
in Members States
(v) facilitate the marketing and use of materials and constituent

products, the properties of which enter into design calculations
(vi) be a common basis for research and development, in the

construction industry
(vii) allow the preparation of common design aids and software
(viii) increase the competitiveness of the European civil engineering

firms, contractors, designers and product manufacturers in their
world-wide activities.
2.3.3 Scope of Eurocode 4
(1) Eurocode 4 applies to the design of composite structures and members for
buildings and civil engineering works. It complies with the principles and
requirements for the safety and serviceability of structures, the basis of their
design and verification that are given in EN 1990 – Basis of structural design.
(2) Eurocode 4 is concerned only with requirements for resistance, serviceability,

durability and fire resistance of composite structures. Other requirements, e.g.
concerning thermal or sound insulation, are not considered.
14

(3) Eurocode 4 is intended to be used in conjunction with:
EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design

EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
ENs, hENs, ETAGs and ETAs for construction products relevant for
composite structures
EN 1090 Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures
EN 13670 Execution of concrete structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, when
composite structures are built in seismic regions.
(4) Eurocode 4 is subdivided in various parts:
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings

Part 1-2: Structural fire design
Part 2: Bridges. (EN1994)
2.3.3.1 Scope of Eurocode 4 Part 1-1
For this project, Eurocode 4 Part 1-1(Design of the composite steel and
concrete Part 1-1 general rules and rules for building)will be used as the one of the
design code for the design of the composite beam
Part 1-1 of Eurocode 4 gives a general basis for the design of composite
structures together with specific rules for buildings.
15

The following subjects are dealt with in Part 1-1:

Section 1: General
Section 2: Basis of design
Section 3: Materials
Section 4: Durability
Section 5: Structural analysis
Section 6: Ultimate limit states
Section 7: Serviceability limit states
Section 8: Composite joints in frames for buildings
Section 9: Composite slabs with profiled steel sheeting for buildings
2.3.4 Issues related to Eurocode 4
EN 1994 (Design of composite steel and concrete structures) requires much

more careful consideration of shrinkage, second order and thermal effects than
BS5950-3 and these differences need to be highlighted to designers.
Manufacturers of profiled metal sheeting will need to reassess their test

results for composite slabs and reinterpret them for use with EN 1994. In some cases
additional tests may need to be carried out.
16

2.4 British Standard
2.4.1 BS5950-3.1:1990
This Section of BS 5950 has been prepared under the direction of the Civil
Engineering and Building Structures Standards Policy Committee. BS 5950 is a
document combining codes of practice to cover the design, construction and fire
resistance of steel structures and specifications for materials, workmanship and
erection. (BS5950-3.1).As Eurocode 4, British Standard 5950,The structural use of
steel in building is divided into 9 main parts.BS5950 part 3 section 3.1 is about
Design of simple and continuous beams which will be one of the design code for the
comparison purpose.
9 parts of the BS5950 are:
— Part 1: Code of practice for design in simple and continuous construction:

hot rolled sections;
— Part 2: Specification for materials, fabrication and erection: hot rolled sections;
— Part 3: Design in composite construction;
— Section 3.1: Code of practice for design of simple and continuous composite
beams;
— Section 3.2: Code of practice for design of composite columns and frames;
— Part 4: Code of practice for design of floors with profiled steel sheeting;
— Part 5: Code of practice for design of cold formed sections;
— Part 6: Code of practice for design of light gauge sheeting, decking and cladding;
— Part 7: Specification for materials and workmanship: cold formed sections;
— Part 8: Code of practice for fire resistant design;
— Part 9: Code of practice for stressed skin design.
17

2.4.2 Scope of BS5950-3.1
This Section of BS 5950 gives recommendations for the design of simply

supported and continuous composite beams, comprising hot rolled steel sections,
plate girders and hollow sections acting compositely with reinforced concrete slab,
or with a composite slab complying with BS 5950-4.This Section of BS 5950 does
not cover the design of composite columns or composite frames, for which reference
should be made to Section 3.2.2).The design of the composite beam assumes that the
members are not subject to axial loads.In practice ,small axial loads may be
transferred without affecting the bending of the beam. Otherwise, Beam-column
member fall within the scope of BS5950-3.2 (SCI, 1990)
2.5 Relationship between BS5950-3.1 and Eurocode 4
2.5.1 Notation and Terminology
In common with the other Eurocodes, EC4 uses a number of subscripts such
as k for characteristic values, d for design values, R for resistances (rather than
capacities) and E for applied forces or moments. Specific to EC4 is the subscript a,
which comes from the French word for steel, acier, and refers to steel components of
the composite structure; for example, the shear resistance of the steel section is
referred to as Vpl,a,Rd . The resistance of a shear connector changes from Q to PRd, and
forces in the steel and concrete used when calculating the plastic resistance of a
composite section become Na and N c. Among other changes, the depth of the
concrete slab is referred to as h, and that of the profiled steel sheeting hp .Most of the
formulae may look different with the notation but actually they are same.
18

2.5.2 Concrete
One of the most noticeable differences in EC4 is the way that concrete
strength is treated. Concrete strengths are termed according to the shape of the
moulds used to produce samples of the concrete for compression testing; in the
British Standards, the cube strength is used, whereas the cylinder strength is used in
the Eurocodes. At first glance, the strengths used in the two different Standards will
give different resistances, as concrete with a characteristic cube strength of 25
N/mm2 should have a characteristic cylinder strength of 20 N/mm2. However, when
converting from the concrete strength to the equivalent plastic stress block, the
factors (0.67 and 0.85 for the BS and EC respectively) result in virtually identical
design strengths. The modular ratios that are recommended in the Eurocodes are
similar to those in the British Standards, but are concrete strength dependant. For a
typical 25/30 concrete, the short-term modular
ratio is 6.7 and for permanent loads is 29 (with an intermediate value for the primary
and secondary effects of shrinkage).However, for frames which have αcr > 10
(meaning second order effects do not have to be taken into consideration), a value of
twice the short-term modular ratio can be used for both short term and long-term
loading to simplify the analysis.
19

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this project is to identify and compare the difference and the
similarities between British Standard BS5950 section 3.1 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-
1.1. Besides that, the comparison is focused on the design process of the composite
beam to determine the similarities and the difference for all elements between
BS5950-3.1:1990 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-1.1:2004. The computer software,
Microsoft Excel is used to establish the spread sheet to decrease the design process
time. The method used to compare BS5950 Part 3.1:1990 with Eurocode 4 is by
developing spread sheet that can calculate automatically the capacity of the
composite beam studied.
20

3.2 The Procedures and Steps to Conduct the Study
The procedures and steps to conduct the study for comparison the composite
beam design between BS5950-3.1 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-1.1 is listed below.
1) Study and understand the concepts and scopes of BS5950 and EN1994-
1.1
2) Understand the basis of design, design procedures and design principles
of composite beam design for BS5950 and EN1994.
3) List and identify all the formulae used and notation used in BS5950 and
EN1994-1.1 in a table.
4) Start the design process of the simply supported composite beam design
using BS5950 and EN1994-1.1 for the same case of study.
5) Establish spread sheet for the composite beam design for BS5950 and
EN1994-1.1 using Microsoft Excel.
6) Compare and identify the similarity and different between BS5950-3.1
and EN1994-1-1.
7) Conclude and summarize the finding and result.
8) Recommendations
3.2.1 Study and Understand the Concepts of BS5950 and EN1994-1.1
The understanding on the British standards and Eurocode was done before
proceeding with the rest of the study. First of all, the concept and scopes of the
design code was clearly understood to know the limitation for each design code. The
history of the design code was also studied to understand about the background
information. Other than that, all the related news and articles about the design code
was studied from the internet and books to understand about the design code.
21

3.2.2 Understand the Basis of Design and Composite Beam Design Procedures
for BS5950 and EN1994
After that, the design procedures of the composite beam design for BS5950-
Part 3.1 and Eurocode 4 EN1994-1.1 was studied and understood. The study of the
procedures or the flow of design is important so that the comparison and the study on
the design code can be conducted properly. Besides that, the basis of the design such
as construction condition, shear resistance, shear connection, moment resistance for
full and partial shear connection were studied.
Table 3.1 The Notation used for EN1994-1-1 and BS5950:3.1

EN1994-1-1 BS5950 :3.1
Design moment Msd M
Design load F F
Effective width of compression flange beff Bc
Compressive resistance of slab Rc Rc
Tensile Resistance of steel section Rs Rs
Moment resistance with full shear connection Mpl.Rd Mc
Moment resistance with partial shear connection MRd Mc
Shear connector resistance PRd Qp
Influence of deck shape kt k
Degree of shear connection N/Nf Nα/Np
Vertical shear Vsd v
Shear resistance Vpl.Rd. Pv

22

The following are the design procedures of the composite beam for Eurocode 4 and
British standard:
Loading :
1) Calculate Loading and choosing material and beam size
2) Getting the design load, F and Design moment, Msd for both construction
stage and composite stage design.
Ultimate Limit State :

3) Effective width of compression flange ,beff
4) Compressive resistance of slab, Rc and Tensile Resistance of steel
section,Rs.
5) Calculate moment resistance with full shear connection, Mpl.Rd
6) Calculate shear connector resistance ,PRd
7) Calculate influence of deck shape ,kt
8) Calculate degree of shear connection, N/Nf
9) Calculate moment resistance with partial shear connection ,MRd
10) Calculate vertical shear ,Vsd and shear resistance ,Vpl.Rd.
Serviceability Limit State :

11) Deflection check
12) Transverse reinforcement
13) Stress check (BS5950)
23

3.2.3 Design the composite beam
Before starting the design process, all the necessary data such as length and
size of the beam, loading, decking profile, material properties and other related data
were obtained from the design tables and properties tables. The composite beam was
designed as a simply supported beam with uniform loading and constructed with
profile metal decking slab placed perpendicular to the beam. The composite beam
was designed according to the Eurocode 4, EN1994-1-1 and British standard,
BS5950-3.1, using the same parametric data for both design codes so that the
comparison can be conducted. The same size of the beam was used as comparison
for these two design codes. The designs were done with different length of the beam.
For this project, 10, 12 and 15 metres beam composite beam were designed. The
steel section used for 10 metres beam was 457 x 152 x 52 UB for both design codes.
For 12 metres beam, the steel section used was 457 x 191 x 74 UB for both design
codes. For 15 metres beam, the steel section used was 533 x 210 x 109 UB. The
composite beam was also designed in an unpropped condition. Besides that, the size
of the shear stud used was the same for 10, 12, and 15 metres length of beam.
3.2.4 Establish the Spread Sheet for Design of the Composite Beam Using
Microsoft Excel
Two spread sheets were established for the design of the composite beam
according to the Eurocode 4, EN1994-1-1 and British Standard, BS5950-3.1. By
using the spread sheet, the repeated manual calculation can be avoided to decrease
the design process time. Besides that, the different data were used to design and the
results were used for comparison purpose. The spread sheet was also used as a
software or tool to check the design for reference purpose. Microsoft Excel was used
to establish the spread sheet to assist in the design calculation.
24

3.2.5 Comparing the Result
By using the spread sheet, The result obtained from the design of the
composite beam for 10, 12 ,& 15 metres were used to analysis and compare.
Comparison was conducted to identify the different and similarity between Eurocode
4, EN1994-1-1 and British standard, BS5950-3.1 accordingly .The comparison were
done on the load combination and safety factor, Partial safety factor for material,
Effect breath of slab, Compressive and Tensile Capacities, The Moment Resistance
with full Shear Connection, Influence of the Deck Shape, Number of stud for half
beam, Shear connection, Shear Connector Resistance, Degree of the shear
connection, Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection, Vertical Shear,
Deflection, and Transverse reinforcement. All the result were listed accordingly and
well presented by using tables and graphs.
3.2.6 Conclusion and recommendation
Conclusions and recommendations were given after the comparison and the
design had been completed. Recommendations and suggestion were given for the
future studies in order to improve the quality of the research by using other method
or any limitation for this project.

25

The Flow Chart of The Composite Beam Design For Eurocode 4, EN1994 -1-1
and British Standard, BS5950 Part 3: section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS5950 Part 3: section 3.1
Calculate the loading Calculate the loading

For Construction Stage Design For Construction Stage Design
and Composite Stage Design and Composite Stage Design
W = 1,35 γG + 1,5 γk W = 1.4 Gk+ 1.6 Qk
Design Load F = WL x spacing of beam Design Load F = WL x spacing of beam
Design Moment M sd = Design Moment M =
Effective width of Compression Effective width of Compression

Flange,beff Flange ,Be
b eff = < Beam spacing Be = < Beam spacing
Compressive Resistance of Slab ,Rc Compressive Resistance of Slab ,Rc

0,45 R c=0.45 f cu Be (Ds -D p)
Tensile Resistance of Steel Section, Tensile Resistance of Steel

Rs Section, R s
0.95 A
26

Moment Resistance For Full Shear Moment Resistance For Full Shear
Connector Connector
For F or

h h D
. h h D
2 2 2 2

h D
.
2 2 2 2 4
Shear Connector Resistance Shear Connector Resistance
Q p = 0.8 Q k
= 0,29
Or
Q k is the shear connector obtained from
,
table 5
=
Whichever is smaller -10 % reduction in the strength for

lightweight concrete used.
Influence of Deck Shape Influence of Deck Shape
, .
1 1 1
√
27

Number of Stud Required Number of Stud Required
For Rs> R c For Rs> R c
Number of stud = Number of stud =
For R c > Rs For R c > Rs
Number of stud = Number of stud =
Longitudinal Shear Force Longitudinal Shear Force

Transfer ,R q Transfer ,R q

Degree of Shear Connection Degree of Shear Connection
for Rs < R c K= for Rs < Rc
or Or
for R c < Rs K= for Rc < Rs

28

Moment Resistance with Partial Moment Resistance with Partial Shear

Shear connection. connection.
Linear Interaction Method Linear Interaction Method
. + , . +K

Stress Block Method
Stress Block Method
For R q > R w
No design formulae is given in
Eurocode 4, but the formulae of
Mc = M s + R q
BS5950 part 3 is based on the same
principals.
For R w > R q
Mc = Rs
Shear Resistance Shear Resistance
. Pv = 0.6 py Av
√
0,5 Av = Dt (as simplification)

.
Av is the shear area

29

Deflection Deflection
Non Composite and Composite Non Composite and Composite

Stage Deflection Stage Deflection
5 5

384 384
Effect of partial shear connection Effect of partial shear connection
For propped beam For propped beam
δ’ c = δ’ c + 0.5 (1 –K)(δ o –δ c)

= 1 + 0,5 1 1
For unpropped beam

For unpropped beam
= 1 + 0,3 1 1
δ’ c = δ’ c + 0.3 (1 –K)(δ o –δ c)
Transverse Reinforcement Transverse Reinforcement
Ѵ Rd =2,5 Acv η π Rd + V c = 0.03 η f cu Acv + 0.7Ar f y
≤ 0.2Acv η
≤ 0.8 η Acv √f cu
30

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
The results for the Comparison between EN 1994 -1 -1 and BS5950 Part 3.1
for composite beam design were tabulated and compiled in this sections. The results
were arranged accordingly with the flow of the composite beam design process.
4.1 The Safety Factor and the Load Combination
Table 4.1 Safety factor and load combinations for EC4 and BS5950.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
The Dead load factor 1.35 1.4
Different in percentages
3.57 %
The live load factor 1.5 1.6
Different in percentages 6.25 %

31

From the table 4.1, The Eurocode had a lower safety factor for both dead load
and live load compared to British Standard about 3.57% different for the dead load
factor, and about 6.25% for the live load. The reduction of the safety factor will
affect on the loading, design force and the design moment for the beam design. The
table below shows the effect of the different safety factor on the design force and the
moment with detail calculation.
Table 4.2 Loading combinations, design Force, and design moment for 10
metres beam.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
Load combination 1,35 γG + 1,5 γk 1.4Gk + 1.6 Qk
Factored loading 1,35(3.32) + 1,5(6) 1.4(3.32) + 1.6 (6)

= 13.49 kN/mm2 = 14.25 kN/mm2
Design Force F = 13.49 x 10 x 3 F = 14.25 x 10 x 3
= 404.7 kN = 427.5 kN
Design moment M sd = (404.7 x 10)/8 M = (427.5x 10)/8
= 171 kNm = 178.1 kNm
From the above table 4.2, BS5950 had a higher value of design moment and
design force which was about 4 % greater than the value from Eurocode 4 and this
was solely due to the different value of the safety factor for both design codes. The
difference was the same for both design codes with same length of beam regardless
of the length of the beam.
32

4.2 Partial Safety Factor for Material
Table 4.3 Comparison of the design strength of steel between EC4 and BS5950
Part 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS5950 Part 3.1
Steel strength for the f y = 355 N/mm2 P y = 355 N/mm2

beam
Partial safety factor γ c = 1,05 No partial factor
introduce for British
standard.
Design Strength fd= 388 N/mm2 P y = 355 N/mm2
.
Different in percentage 4.79 %
The design strength of the steel for the Eurocode 4 was reduced to about
4.79 % with partial safety factor. The reduction of the design strength for the steel
affected the tensile resistance of the material. This was proven by the more detailed
calculation later in section 4.41. Meanwhile BS5950 did not consider any partial
factor to the steel strength and the steel strength remains 355N/mm2.The length of
the beam did not affect the design strength.
33

4.3 Effective breath of slab
Table 4.4 Comparison of the effect breath of slab between EC1994 -1-1 and BS
5950 Part 3.1 with 10, 12,and 15 metres length of beam.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part

3 :Section 3.1
Formulae use for
Effective breath of slab beff = Be =
For Span length = 10

metres 2.5 metres 2.5 metres
For Span length = 12
metres 3 metres 3 metres
For Span length = 15 3.75 > 3 metres 3.75 > 3 metres

metres
From table 4.4 results show that there are no difference for effective breath of
slab for the same span length of the beam between EC4 and BS5950 part 3.1. The
effective breath of slab increased as the length of the span increased and the spacing
between the beams will be the limiting factor for the value of the effect breath of slab.
From the above data presented, the effective breath of slab for span length 15 meter
is 3.75 meter which is greater than the beam spacing. Therefore 3 meter is taken as
the value for effective breath of slab instead of 3.75 meter for the calculation. The
effective breath will then affect on the compressive capacity. Detail calculation will
be show in section 4.42 for compressive capacity.
34

4.4 Compressive and Tensile Capacities
4.4.1 Tensile Capacity
Table 4.5 Comparison of the tensile capacity between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS
5950 Part 3: sections 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part
3 :Section 3.1
Formulae
0.95 A Different
(%)
Result for Rs = 0.95 x 355 x 66.6 x0.1 Rs = 355 x 66.6 x 0.1
span = 10 = 2246.1 kN = 2364.3 kN 5.00
metres
Result for Rs = 0.95 x 355 x 94.6 x0.1 Rs = 355 x 94.6 x0.1
span = 12 = 3190 kN = 3358 kN 5.00
metres
Result for Rs = 0.95 x 355 x 139 x 0.1 Rs = 355 x 139 x 0.1
span = 15 = 4687.78 kN = 4934.5 kN 5.00
metres
As shown in table 4.5, the tensile capacity for the Eurocode 4 was lower than
the tensile capacity for British Standard with 5 % for 10, 12 and 15 metres length of
beam. This was due to the partial safety factor on material which is 0.95 introduced
for Eurocode 4 and reduced the design strength of the steel up to about 5 % as
proven in the table above. Meanwhile British standard did not consider any partial
safety factory on material and the design strength of the steel remain 100% which is
355 N/mm2. The tensile capacity increased as the length of the beam was increased.
This was due to the larger size of the beam used for the longer length .The larger
beam which has larger area of the steel will then affect on the tensile capacity.
As a conclusion for this section, BS5950 had a higher value of the tensile
capacity than EC4 for the same size of the beam used.
35

4.4.2 Compressive Capacity
Table 4.6 Comparison of the compressive capacity for 10, 12, and 15 metres
length of beam composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3 :Section
3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section
3.1
Formulae use for R c = 0,45 f cu b eff h c R c=0.45 f cu Be (Ds -D p)
compressive capacity
of the steel section
Result for span = 10 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 2.5 x R c = 0.45 x 30 x 2.5 x 80
metres (130-50) = 2700kN
= 2700kN
Result for span = 12 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80
metres = 3240 kN = 3240 kN
Result for span = 15 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80 R c = 0.45 x 30 x 3 x 80
metres = 3240 kN = 3240 kN
Different in 0%
percentage
From above table 4.6, it is shown that there are no difference for the
compressive capacity with the same length of the beam between EC4 and BS5950
part 3.1. The compression capacity was influenced by the compressive strength of
concrete, f cu, the effective breadth of the slab, beff and the depth of the concrete slab
above the profiled decking, hc . For this project, the depth of the concrete slab above
the profiled decking, hc and compressive strength of concrete were the same. Thus,
the compressive capacity was affected by the effective breadth of the slab. The
compressive capacity increased with the increase of the length of the beam but
limited by the effective breath of slab as shown in the above table. Compressive
capacity for beam with 15 meter length was the same as the compressive capacity for
beam with 12 metres length which is 3240 KN due to the effect breath of the slab
which was 3 metres.
36

4.5 The Moment Resistance with Full Shear Connection
Table 4.7 Comparison of the moment resistance with full shear connection for
10, 12, and 15 metres length of composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950
Part 3:Section 3.1.
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.11
Length Moment Resistance Design Moment Resistance Design Different
Of the with full Shear moment with full Shear moment (%)
beam Connection (kNm) Connection (kNm)
(kNm) (kNm)
10 724 505.88 756.3 534.38 4.27
12 1020 728.46 1059 769.5 3.68
15 1559 1138.22 1613 1202.34 3.35
Table 4.8 Comparison of the moment resistance with full shear connection and
the design moment for EN1994-1-1 and BS5950 Part 3: section 3.1

Length of Moment Moment
beam Resistance Design Resistance Design
(m) with full moment Different with full moment Different
Shear (kNm) (%) Shear (kNm) (%)
Connection Connection
(kNm) (kNm)
10 724 505.88 30.13 756.3 534.38 29.34
12 1020 728.46 28.58 1059 769.5 27.34
15 1559 1138.22 26.99 1613 1202.34 25.46

37

1800
1600
1400
Moment resistance(EC4)
1200
1000 Design moment (EC4)
800
Moment
600 resistance(BS5950)
400 Design moment(BS5950)
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.1 Comparison of moment resistance with full shear connector and the
design moment for EC4 and BS5950 Part 3.1
As shown in the table 4.7, there are different from 3.35% to 4.27% for the
moment resistance with full shear connection for both design codes. The percentage
of the difference decreased as the length of the beam was increased. The moment
resistance of the full shear connector depended on the tensile capacity, Rs,
compressive capacity, R c, Slab depth, and deck profile height. For this project the
steel decking used were the same and the compressive resistance is same for 10, 12,
and 15 metres beam as show in table 4.5 .Therefore, the difference of the moment
resistance for full shear connector was solely due to the different of the tensile
capacity, Rs. As a result for this section, BS5950 with the higher tensile capacity
resulted in a higher value of the moment resistance of full shear connector compared
to EC4 which has lower tensile capacity due to the influence of the partial safety
factor for the material.
From the data presented in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.1, results showed that there
was a difference with a range of 26.99% to 30.13% regarding the moment resistance
and the design moment in EC4 which was higher than the BS5950 which had a range
from 25.46% to 29.34% difference between the moment resistance and the design
38

moment. This was because of the lower value of the safety factor used for the load
combination in EC4 and also due to the different of the tensile capacity and
compressive capacity. The tensile capacity increased and was greater than the
compressive capacity due to the bigger size of the beam used for longer beam.
4.6 Influence of the Deck Shape
Table 4.9 Comparison of the influence of the deck shape for the decking placed
perpendicular to the beam with sheet thickness more than 1 mm for EN1994 1-1 and
BS5950 Part 3.1
Formulae for
Influence of the Deck kt = 0,7 bo (h –hp) rp = 0.85 ba (h – Dp)
shape √Nr hp hp ≤ √Nr Dp Dp ≤ 1
1
Span Stud per

length trough actual use actual use
(m)
10 1 1.89 > 1 1 2.3 > 1 1
2 1.34 > 0.8 0.8 1.62 > 0.8 0.8
12 1 1.89 > 1 1 2.3 > 1 1
2 1.34 > 0.8 0.8 1.62> 0.8 0.8
15 1 1.89 > 1 1 2.3 > 1 1
2 1.34 > 0.8 0.8 1.62 > 0.8 0.8
From the table 4.9, results showed that the increase of the length of span did
not affect the value of the influence of the deck shape. For this project, the thickness
of the sheet used was more than 1 mm. Thus, the value of the influence of the deck
39

shape was limited to 1 for single stud connector and 0.8 for double stud connector
which was obtained from the Table 6.2, EN1994-1-1 and BS5950, clause 5.4.7.2.
was the same for both design codes. The value k t or r p equal to 1 means no
reduction on the shear connector resistance, P Rd. Meanwhile, the value of the
influence of the deck shape 0.8 reduced the value of the shear connector resistance
up to 20 % for double stud connector. According to EC4, the constant in the equation
was reduced from 0.7 to 0.6 because the decking was placed parallel to the beam.
For BS 5950, the constant was reduced from 0.85 to 0.6 as well for the same reason.
Due to the difference of this constant between both design codes, BS 5950 showed a
higher value of the influence of the deck shape than EC4 which was more than 1.
Table 4.10 Comparisons of the shear connector capacity for single and double
stud for EC4 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
Span Stud
length per EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part
(m) trough 3 :Section 3.1
10 1 P Rd = 73.13 x 1 = 73.13 kN Q p = 1 x 80 = 80 kN
2 P Rd = 73.13 x 0.8 = 58.3 kN Q p = 0.8 x 80 = 64 kN
12 1 P Rd = 73.13 x 1 = 73.13 kN Q p = 1 x 80 = 80 kN
2 P Rd = 73.13 x 0.8 = 58.3 kN Q p = 0.8 x 80 = 64 kN
15 1 P Rd = 73.13 x 1 = 73.13 kN Q p = 1 x 80 = 80 kN
2 P Rd = 73.13 x 0.8 = 58.3 kN Q p = 0.8 x 80 = 64 kN
The calculation shown in the table 4.10 proved that there were reductions on
the shear connector with the presence of the influence of the deck shape and
regardless to the change of the length of span. There was about 8.6 % difference of
the shear connector resistance between both design codes due to the influence of the
deck shape and BS5950 give higher value than EC4.
40

4.7 Number of Stud for Half Beam
Table 4.11 Comparison of the number of stud for half beam between EN1994 -1-
1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1 for single and double stud connectors
3.1
Length of span Number of stud required for half beam
(m)
Nr = 1 Nr = 2 N=1 N=2
16 32 15 30
10
22 44 21 42
12
23 46 21 42
15
The number of stud for the composite beam was determined by the following
formulae
For Rs> R c
Number of stud =
For R c > Rs
Number of stud =
As shown in the table 4.11, the number of the studs required for the beam for EC4
was more than BS5950 for 10, 12 and 15 metres beam, this was because of the
smaller value of shear connector resistance P Rd in EC4 and this was proven in table
4.12.
41

Table 4.12 Calculation of the number of shear stud required for the composite
beam.
Number of stud For 10 meter beam For 10 meter beam
Rs<R c Rs< R c
Rs = f d x A a Rs = P y x A
. . .
=
= 2246.09kN = 2364.3kN
R c = 2700 kN R c = 2700 kN
Rs< R c Rs> R c
. .
= =
.
= 31 = 30
As shown in the table 4.11, the number of stud required for BS5950 part 3.1
was lower than required in EC 4 this is due to the different of the tensile capacity Rs
and the lower value of the shear connector capacity, P Rd provided by BS5950 part
3.1. The number of stud was not affected by the length of the beam but the number
of the studs increased as the length of beam increased due to the increase of the
tensile capacity Rs with larger beam used.
42

4.8 Shear Connection
Table 4.13 Comparison of the degree of the shear connector between EN1994-1-
1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
for Rs < R c K= for Rs < Rc

Formulae for
degree of the
shear or or
connection
for R c < Rs K= for Rc < Rs
Minimum L ≤ 5 m N/Nf ≥ 0,4 K≥ ≥ 0.4

degree of the 5 ≤ L ≤ 25 m N/Nf ≥ 0,25 + 0,03 L
shear L > 25 m N/Nf ≥ 1,0
connector
Degree of the Minimum Degree Degree of the Minimum
shear connector of the shear shear connector Degree of the
connector shear
connector
Single 0.5< 0.55 0.5
10 m stud 0.55 0.4
Double 0.80 0.8
stud
Single 0.5 < 0.61 0.52
12 m stud 0.61 0.6
Double 0.81 0.83
stud
Single 0.52 < 0.7 0.52
15 m stud 0.7 0.9
Double 0.83 0.83
stud
43

4.8.1 The Effect on Beam Due to Different Minimum Degree of the Shear
Connector
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 EC4
0.5 BS5950
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 12 15 20 25 m
Figure 4.2 Degree of the shear connector versus length of the beam
As shown in the figure 2,The EC4 gave some improvement for the longer
span with the minimum of the shear connection (0,25 + 0,03 L) which meant only
the beam longer 25 meter were needed to be designed for full shear connection as
shown in the figure. Meanwhile, the minimum of the shear connection was
determined using (L- 6)/10 with lower limit 0.4. This meant that the beam longer
than 16 meter was designed for full shear connection. The improvement was about
36 % with EC4 for the longer composite beam design. The intersection of both lines
was the optimum length of composite beam design for both design codes, which is
12 metres as shown in figure 2.
44

4.8.2 Shear Connector Resistance
Table 4.14 Comparison of the shear connector capacity between EN 1994 -1-1
and Bs 5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 Bs 5950 Part 3.1
P Rd = 0,29 α d 2 ( √f ck E Q p = 0.8 Q k
Formulae use cm )
for Shear γv Q k is the shear
connector (A) connector obtained Different
Resistance or from table 5 (%)
P Rd = 0.8 f cu( π d 2 /4) -10 % reduction in the

γ v strength for
lightweight concrete
(B) used.
Whichever is smaller
Shear 81.67kN
Connector 73.13 kN 80 kN 8.59
Resistance for 73.13 kN
span length =
10 metres
Shear 81.67 kN
span length =
12 metres
Shear 81.67 kN
span length =
15 metres
Table 4.14 showed that there was approximately 8.59% difference for shear
connector resistance between the analyses of both codes. Clearly BS5950 resulted in
a higher value of the shear connector, regardless to the different length of the beam.
According to Eurocode 4, the shear connector resistance was defined by equations.
Equation (A) is the failure of the concrete meanwhile the equation (B) is the shear
failure of the stud. The smaller value between those two equations was used for the
calculation. From the formulae, the shear connector resistance was effected by the
different stud used and the change of the concrete used. Beside that the partial safety
45

factor, γv was taken as 1, 25 at ultimate limit state, which also contributed to the
reduction of the shear connector resistance. For this project, the normal weight
concrete was used and the shear stud with 95mm height (after welding) and diameter
19 mm was used for the design. Meanwhile BS5950 did not consider any other factor.
The value Qk was obtained from BS5950 part 3.1 and a reduction of 20 % was
applied for Qk. As a conclusion, BS 5950 had a higher value of shear connector
resistance compared to the value of shear connector resistance for EC4 with the
lower value of the shear connector resistance.
4.8.3 Degree of the Shear Connection
The degree of the shear connector depended very much on the value of the
tensile capacity and compressive capacity. The smaller value between the tensile
capacity and compressive capacity was the determinant for the degree of the shear
connector. From the table above, it showed that the degrees of the shear connector
increased from 0.8 to 0.83 with the increase of the length. It was because of the
different size of steel beam used and also due to the increase of the value for
compressive capacity, R c. The difference of the degree of the shear connector
between the analyses of both codes increased as the length of the span increased for
single stud due to the minimum of the shear connector. A longer beam needed a
larger value of degree of the shear connector and it was controlled by (0, 25 + 0, 03
L) in EC4 and (L-6)/10 for BS 5950. Thus, BS5950 gave a higher value of the
degree of the shear connector than EC 4 due to the higher minimum of the shear
connector. The value difference of the degree of the shear connector will then
influence the moment resistance with partial shear connection and deflection with
effect of partial shear connection at the next section.
46

4.9 Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection
Table 4.15 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connection
between EN1994 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
Linear Stress Design Linear Stress Design

Span interaction block Factored interaction block Factored
Length N method moment method moment
(m) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
L = 10 1 565.0 640.2 576.4 668.1

2 663.9 716.6 505.88 686.5 746.3 534.38
L = 12 1 840.4 910.2 870.1 953.6
2 928.0 1013 728.46 978.7 1059 769.50
L = 15 1 1378.0 1413 1552.0 1482
2 1457.0 1548 1138.22 1552.0 1608 1202.34
Two methods were used to determine the moment resistance of the composite
section with partial shear connector. They are Linear interaction method and stress
block method. According to SCI, the linear interaction is the simplest method.
Meanwhile the stress block method was accurate in the equilibrium of the section
was solved by equating the force in the concrete to the force transferred by the shear
connector, Rq. From the table, the moment resistance with partial shear connection
with linear interaction was lower compared to the moment resistance with partial
shear connection with stress block method.
47

Linear interaction formulae

MRD = M apl.,Rd + ( Mpl.Rd -Mapl,Rd)N/Nf
Where Mpl.Rd is the moment resistance of the composite section for full shear
connector
M apl.,Rd is the moment resistance of the steel section
Stress block method formulae

For R q > R w
Mc = M s + R q
For R w > R q
Mc = Rs
According to the linear interaction equation, the moment resistance with

partial shear connection was influenced by the moment resistance of the composite
section for full shear connector, moment resistance of the steel section, and the
degree of the shear connector for both design codes. The stress block method was
dependable on the R q and Rw. There were no design formulae given by the EN1994
-1-1.The formulae of BS5950: Part 3 are based on the same principle (SCI).The data
from the table showed that the moment capacity increased as the length of the span
increase, this was due to the different size of steel beam used which increased the
moment resistance of the steel section and different degree of the shear connector.
BS5950 with a higher minimum degree of the shear connector gave a higher moment
resistance with partial shear connection compared to EC4 even the same of the beam
was used. This was proven by detail calculation in the next table.
48

Table 4.16 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connection
with the influence of the degree of the shear connector for 15 meter beam.
Beam size : 533 x 210 x 109 Beam size : 533 x 210 x 109
Span length : 15 meter Span length : 15 meter
a) Using linear interaction method a) Using linear interaction method
Using 1 stud per trough Using 1 stud per trough

MRd =M apl.,Rd + ( Mpl.Rd -Mapl,Rd)N/Nf Mc = Ms + (M pc – Ms)Na/N p
= 956.15 + (1559.31 – 956.15)0.7 =1003.94 +(1613.09 -1003.94)0.9
= 1378kN =1552.1 kN
As shown in table 4.16 the same size beam were used but there were some
difference with the moment, this was solely due to the partial safety factor for the
material. However with a higher degree of the shear connection, it had increased the
moment resistance with partial shear connector about 11.43 %. Clearly BS5950
resulted in a higher value of the moment resistance with partial shear connector and
it had a high difference which was about 22.53 % with the design moment
1202.34kNm. Meanwhile, the moment resistance with partial shear connection for
EC4 was 1378kNm and the design moment 1138.22kNm for 15 metres beam. This
was about 17.4% different between the moment resistance with partial shear
connection and the design moment. Again, it has proven that the design using
BS5950 Part 3.1 was more conservative than the Eurocode 4with the same size of the
beam used.
49

4.9.1 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector using
linear interaction between Eurocode 4 and BS 5950
Table 4.17 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector for
linear interaction method
Span Stud EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
length per Moment resistance with Moment resistance with Different
(m) trough partial shear partial shear (%)
connector(kNm) connector(kNm)
10 1 565.0 576.4 1.98
2 663.9 686.5 3.29
12 1 840.4 870.1 3.41
2 928.0 978.7 5.18
15 1 1378.0 1552.0 11.21
2 1457.0 1552.0 6.12
From the table 4.17, there were differences for the moment resistance with
partial shear connector using linear interaction for single and double stud. Based on
the figure 2 and figure 3 shown, the moment resistance for partial shear connector for
BS 5950 was greater than the moment resistance given by the EC4 when the length
of the span increases for both single and double stud. For the single stud composite
beam design, the percentages of difference increased which was about 1.98% to
11.21% as the length of the beam increased. Meanwhile, the percentage of difference
for the double stud composite beam design increased from 3.29 % to 11.21% as the
length of the beam increased between BS5950 and EC4. This was because of the
difference of the moment resistance of steel beam, partial safety factor for material
and the difference of the degree of the shear connector used.
50

1600
1400
1200
1000
800 EC4
600 BS5950
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.3 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using linear
interaction method versus length of beam for single stud.
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 EC4
600 BS5950
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.4 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using linear
interaction method versus length of beam for double stud.
51

4.9.2 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector using
stress block method between Eurocode 4 and BS 5950
Table 4.18 Comparison of the moment resistance with partial shear connector
using stress block method.
Span Stud EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
length per Moment resistance Moment Different
(m) trough with partial shear resistance with (%)
connector (kNm) partial shear
connector (kNm)
10 1 640.2 668.1 4.18
2 716.6 746.3 3.98
12 1 910.2 953.6 4.55
2 1013 1059 4.34
15 1 1413 1482 4.66
2 1548 1608 3.73
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 EC4
600 BS5950
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.5 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using stress
block method versus length of beam for single stud.
52

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
EC4
800
BS5950
600
400
200
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.6 The moment resistance with partial shear connector using stress
block method versus length of beam for double stud.
From the table 4.18, there was a difference from 3.73% to 4.66% for moment
resistance with partial shear connector using linear interaction for single stud and
3.73 % to 4.37% for double stud. Based on the figure 4.5 and figure 4.6 shown, the
moment resistance for partial shear connector for BS5950 were greater than moment
resistance given by the EC4 and percentage of difference remained constant as the
length of the beam increased. The difference was due to the influence of different
moment resistance of steel beam, partial safety factor for material, and the different
of the degree of the shear connector used.
Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the linear interaction method
used to determine the moment resistance for partial shear connector with lower value
was more conservative in the design compare to the stress block method which gave
higher moment in both design code. The difference of the value in moment
resistance with partial shear connector between stress block method and linear
interaction method decreased with the increase of the degree of the shear as
illustrated in figure 6.
53

1 is stress block method and 2 is linear interaction
Figure 4.7 Interaction between moment resistance and degree of shear

connection in composite beam
54

4.10 Vertical Shear
Table 4.19 Comparison of the vertical shear capacity for 10, 12, and 15 metres
length of composite beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3:Section 3.1
3.1
Formulae
use for Vpl.Rd = .Av Pv = 0.6 py Av
vertical √
shear Different Av = Dt (as simplification)

= 0.58 . Av Between Av is the shear area
Pv
Span Shear Total Shear Total

length
capacity, 0.5 Pv Shear capacity, 0.5 Pv Shear
Pv Force Pv Force
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
L = 10 m 667.3 333.65 202.24 8.36% 728.14 364.1 213.72
L = 12m 802.9 401.43 242.68 8.36% 876.07 438.00 256.46
L = 15 m 1222.0 610.81 303.35 8.33% 1333 666.5 320.6
As shown in the table 4.19, BS 5950 had a higher value of the shear capacity
compared to EC4. There was a difference of 8.36 % for the shear capacity for all the
lengths of beam used regardless of the length of beam. The influence of the partial
safety factor for material had reduced the steel strength to 388.1kN causing the
reduction for the shear capacity in EC4. The constant 0.58 in equation for shear
capacity in EC4 was obtained from the partial safety factor and divided with √3
which was about 3 % difference with the constant 0.6 applied to the shear capacity
for BS5950.
55

Table 4.20 Comparison between shear capacity and total shear force
Length EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3 :Section 3.1
of the Total Shear Different Total Shear Different
beam(m) 0.5 Pv Force (%) 0.5 Pv Force (%)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
10 333.65 202.24 39.39 364.1 213.72 41.30
12 401.43 242.68 39.55 438.00 256.46 41.45
15 610.81 303.35 50.34 666.5 320.6 51.90
700
600
500 0.5 Pv or shear
capacity(EC4)
400 design shear or total shear
force(EC4)
300 0.5 Pv or shear
capacity(BS5950)
200
Design shear or total
vertical force(BS5950)
100
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 4.8 The different between shear capacity and total shear force in EC4 and
BS5950
As shown in table 4.20, the difference between the shear capacity, 0.5 Pv and
the total shear force is about 39.39 to 50.34% in EC4, which were lower than the
difference of the shear capacity, 0.5 P v and the total shear force in BS5950 part 3.1
which were about 41.30 to 51.90 % .Clearly, from figure 7, it showed that the design
of the composite beam using EC4 was more conservative compared to BS5950 part
3.1. This was because of the considerations and reductions suggested in EC4.
56

4.11 Deflection
Table 4.21 Comparison of deflections for 10, 12, and 15 metres composite beam
design using EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3:Section 3.1
Formulae
for δ= δ=
deflection
Effect of partial shear Effect of partial shear

connection connection
For propped beam For propped beam
δ’ c = δ’ c + 0.5 (1 –K)(δ o –δ c)
= 1 + 0,5 1 1
For unpropped beam For unpropped beam

δ’ c = δ’ c + 0.3 (1 –K)(δ o –δ c)
= 1 + 0,3 1 1
Length of
span 10 m 12 m 15 m 10 m 12 m 15 m
Second
moment of 21370 33320 66820 21370 33320 66820
area for steel
beam(cm4)
Construction
state 24.55 32.64 39.74 24.55 32.64 39.74
deflection
(mm)
Composite
stage 15.48 22.33 29.48 16.84 24.43 32.41
deflection
(mm)
The effect of
partial shear 20.44 27.84 34.44 22.35 29.43 33.47
connection
(mm)
The total
deflection 46.69 62.80 80.27 48.76 64.52 81.76
(mm)
57

One of the benefits for composite beam was the less deflection due to the
composite action. Deflections are important in order to prevent cracking or
deformation of the partition and cladding, or avoid noticeable deviation of floor or
ceiling (SCI). The deflection were calculated using the second moment of area of the
composite section based on the elastic properties As shown in the table, the
deflection of the beams were increased as the length of the beam increased. The data
show that BS5950 had a greater deflection compared to EC4 for composite stage
deflection and the effect of partial shear connection. Meanwhile the construction
stage deflection with 10, 12, and 15 metres beam was the same for both design codes.
There were no difference for the construction stage deflection because the formulae
used for the deflection calculation for both design codes were the same and the same
second moment of area for same size of the beam were used as shown in table 4.21.
Besides that, the effect of the partial shear connection increased the deflection. There
was no difference consideration in the formulae for the effect of partial shear
connection for EC4 and BS5950. The effect of partial shear connection was
influence by the degree of the shear connector, the deflection of the composite beam
with full shear connector, δ c and the deflection of the steel beam under same load ,δ
a as shown in table 4.22
Table 4.22 The example calculation of the effect of partial shear connector for
10 metres composite beam.
δ’ c = δ’ c + 0.3 (1 –K)(δ o –δ c)
= 1 + 0,3 1 1
=15.48[1 + 0.3(1-0.55)(52.22/15.48)-1]
= 16.84 + 0.3(1 -0.51)(54.29 – 16.84)
= 20.44mm
=22.35mm
58

4.12 Transverse reinforcement
Table 4.23 Comparison of the Transverse reinforcement used for composite

beam between EN 1994 -1-1 and BS5950 Part 3: Section 3.1
EN 1994 -1-1 BS 5950 Part 3.1
Formulae used
Ѵ Rd =2,5 Acv η π Rd + V c = 0.03 η f cu Acv + 0.7Ar f y
≤ 0.8 η Acv √f cu
≤ 0.2Acv η
V Rd or V c 135.6 kN/m ≤ 350 kN/m 140.2 kN/m ≤ 420kN/m
The longitudinal shear strength of the concrete should be checked to ensure

transfer of the force from the shear connector into the slab without splitting the
concrete. This may require provision of the transverse reinforcement (SCI). For this
project the transverse used for both design code are the same, which is A142. Thus
there was no difference of the Acv, which was the cross sectional area of concrete per
unit length in any plane and Ae, which was the amount of the reinforcement crossing
each shear plane. As shown in the table; there was about 3.28% difference for both
design codes. BS5950 had a higher value of shear resistance per unit length of the
shear plane along the beam. EC4 gave lower value of shear resistance per unit length
of the shear plane along the beam compared to BS5950 due to the influence of the
partial safety factor for the reinforcement and the consideration of the basic shear
strength of the concrete, τ Rd which was suggested by EC4. Besides that, the concrete
grade was specified in terms of the cylinder strength, fck in Eurocode instead of the
cube strength fcu in British standard. The approximate conversion was f ck ≈ 0,8 f cu,
2
For this project, fck for EC4 was 25N/mm and fcu used for BS5950 Part 3.1 was 30
N/mm2. Due to the difference about 16.6%,it has contributed to the reduction in
0.2Acv η for EC4.

59

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
From the result shown by the spread sheet that was established, it has shown
that this project has inevitable been quite successful and able to meet its objective.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
1) It can clearly be seen that there were differences in concept of the

design between BS5950: Part 3.1 and EN1994 -1-1 for Shear
connector resistance, vertical shear, minimum degree of shear
connector and transverse reinforcement.
2) The design of the composite beam using Eurocode 4 had the lower
value of the moment resistance with full and partial shear connection,
shear connector capacity, deflection, and shear capacity compared to
BS 5950Part 3: section 3.1. This was because of difference
considerations and partial safety factor introduced in the composite
beam design for Eurocode 4.
3) The results obtained from the manual calculations and the spread
sheet established using Microsoft Excel for both design codes showed
60

only a slight difference. This was only due to the decimal difference
from the results obtained from the spread sheet. Thus the spread sheet
was quite accurate which produce reliable data and design calculation
for composite beam.
5.2 Recommendations
There are some recommendations are suggested for further research/study to

improve this research:
1) Comparison for the different placing of the steel decking should be

made for the further research i.e. steel decking parallel to the beam.
2) Comparative study for the different type of the shear connector for
BS5950: Part 3.1 and EN1994-1-1.
3) Comparative study for continuous composite beam for BS5950: Part

3.1 and EN1994-1-1.
4) Comparative study for the economic composite beam design between

BS5950: Part 3.1 and EN1994-1-1.
5) Comparative study for the different steel decking and strength of steel
beam for BS5950: Part 3.1 and EN1994-1-1.
61

REFERENCE
1) British Standards Institution. Design of composite steel and concrete

structures. General rules and rules for buildings. London. BS EN1994-1-
1:2004
2) British Standards Institution. Section 3.1 Code of practice for design
of simple and continuous composite beams.London.BS 5950-3.1 :2000
3) K.F.Chung and R.M.Lawson (1994).Composite Beam Design to Eurocode .
London. The Steel Construction Institute.
4) R.M.Lawson (1990).Commentary on BS 5950: Part 3: Section 3.1 Composite
Beam. London. The Steel Construction Institute.
5) K.F. Chung and R.M. Lawson (2000).Simplified design of composite beams
with large web openings to Eurocode 4. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 57 (2001) 135–163.
6) Mahmood Md Tahir, Sulaiman A, and Anis S (2008).Experimental Test on
Composite and Non-composite Connection Using Trapezoid Web Profiled
Steel Sections. Steel Structures 8(2008) 43-58.
7) Hassan k. Al Nageim and T.J.Mazginley (2005).Steel Structures (3rd
Edition)-Practical Design Studies.Taylor and Francis.
8) David a.Nethercot(2005).Limit State Design of Structural Steelwork(2nd
Edition).Chapman and Hall.
9) R P Johnson and D Anderson. Designer‘s Guide to EN1994 -1-1.Thomas
Telford.
62

APPENDIX A

63

64

APPENDIX B1

Page 65
Job Tittle Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made By Kenny tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check By Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Design Data
Floor dimension
Span L = 10 m
Beam spacing b = 3m
Slab depth Ds = 130 mm
Depth above profile Dc = 80 mm
Deck profile height Dp = 50 mm
Shear connectors : 19 mm diameter stud (100 mm overall height)
95 mm lenght after welding (h)
Materials
steel : Grade s 355
2
fy = 355 N/mm
concrete : c25/30
3
Density = 23.55 kN/m
Loading
concrete slab weight = [130000‐50(80+50+ 30 )/0.3]23.55/10⁶
2
= 2.43 kN/m
Construstion stage
2
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m
2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m
2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m
2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m
= 2.82
2
construction load = 0.5 kN/m
Page 66
Job Title Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC ,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir .Mahmood
Composite stage
2
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m
2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m
2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m
2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m
2
= 2.82 kN/m
2
ceiling & services = 0.5 kN/m
Imposed
2
occupancy = 5 kN/m
2
Partition = 1 kN/m
2
6 kN/m
Initial selection of beam size
From table 8 try beam size 457x152x52
section properties & Dimensions
D = 449.8 mm d = 407.6 mm
2
B = 152.4 mm A = 66.6 cm
4
t = 7.6 mm Ix = 21370 cm
3
T = 10.9 mm Sx = 1096 cm
c = 177.8/2 Ea = 210
3
= 88.9 Zx = 950 cm
ε = √ 235/ fy
= 0.81
Page 67
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Construction Stage Design
Ultimate limit state loading
Dead load factor, γG = 1.4
Imposed load factor , γQ = 1.6
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.4= 3.95
construction 0.5 x 1.6= 0.8
= 4.75
Total Design Load = F = 4.75 x 10x 3= 142.5 kN

Design moment = Msd = (142.5x10)/8
= 178.1 kN/m
Moment resistance of steel beam (BS5950 :Part 3.1)
Ms = Sx x Py
= (1096x355)/1000
= 389.1 kNm > 178.13kNm ok !
Composite stage design
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.4= 3.95
ceiling & services =0.5 x 1.4= 0.7
imposed load 6 x 1.6 = 9.6
2
= 14.25 kN/mm
Total design load F 14.25x10x3 = 427.5 kN
Bending moment ,M (427.5x10)/8
= 534.38 kNm
Page 68
Job Title Composite Beam design using BS5950 part 3.1
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC ,UTM
Effective width of compression Flange ,Be (BS5950 :Part 3.1)
Be = (L x 1000 )/4
= (10 x 1000)/4
= 2.5 m < 3m
use = 2.5 m
Compressive Resistance of Slab,Rc
Rc = 0.45f cu(Ds ‐ Dp) Be
Dp = 130 mm
Ds = 50 mm
fcu = 30 N/mm2
Rc = 0.45x30x(130‐50)x2500 2364

= 2700 kN
Tensile Resistance Of Steel Section,Rs
Rs = p y x A
= (355x66.6x100)/1000
= 2364 kN
Moment Resistance with Full Shear connection
Rs < Rc
Mpc = Rs [ D/2 + Ds ‐ Rs/Rc (Ds ‐ Dp /2 )]
= 2364.3 /1000 [ 449.8/ 2 + 80 + 50‐2364.3 /2700( 80/2)]
= 756.3 kNm > M = 534.38kNm OK!
Shear connector Resistance
from Part 3.1 Table 5 the shear connector strength = 100 kN
For normal weight concrete ,Qk = 100 kN
Qp = 0.8 Qk
= 0.8 x 100
= 80 kN
Page 69
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Influnce of Deck Shape
Deck crosses the beam (i.e transverse)
one stud per trough,i .e N = 1
rp = 0.85/√N ( ba / Dp )[ h/Dp ‐1 ] ba = 150 mm

= 2.295
use rp = 1 No Reduction Qp = 1x80
= 80 kN
two stud per trough, i .e N = 2
rp = 0.85/√N ( ba / Dp )[ h/Dp ‐1 ]
= 1.62
use rp = 0.8 Qp = 0.8x80
= 64 kN
Page 70
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny tiong
Client STC ,UTM
Longitudinal shear Force Transfer,Rq number of studs half beam = 15
Rq ( 1 stud) = 15x80 = 1200 kN spacing of shear connector = 333.3
Rq ( 2 stud) = 15 x 2 x 64 = 1920 kN
Degree of shear connection,N /Nf ( one stud per trough )
Na/Np =Rq / Rs
= 1200/2364.3 k = L ‐ 6
= 0.51 > 0.4 use = 0.51 10
= 0.4
Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection
a) Using Linear interation method
using 1 stud per trough
Mc = Ms + ( Mpc ‐Ms)Na/Np
= 389.08 + ( 756.28 ‐ 389.08 )0.51
= 576.4 kNm > Msd = 534.38 kNm OK!
Using 2 stud per trough
Mc = Ms + ( Mpc ‐Ms)Na/Np
Na/Np=Rq / Rs
= 0.81 > 0.4 use = 0.81
Mc = 389.08 + ( 756.28 ‐ 389.08 )0.81
= 686.5 kNm > Msd = 534.38 kNm OK!
b)Stress block method
Na/Np ≥ (L‐ 6)/10
≥ 0.4
Na = 0.4 Np Nf = Rs/Qp

= 11.82 = 2364.3/80
= 29.554
Page 71
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by KennTiong
Client STC ,UTM
Rw = Rs ‐ 2Rf Rf = B T P y

= 2364.3 ‐ 2 x 589.71 = (152.4x10.9x355)/1000
= 1185 kN = 589.7 kN
Rq > Rw
using 1 stud per trough,Nr = 1
Mc= Rs(D/2) + Rq [Ds ‐ Rq[ht ‐Rq/Rc((Ds‐Dp)/2)] ‐ (Rs‐Rq)2/Rf.(T/4)
Mc = 2364.3( 449.8/2)+1200[130‐1200/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐(10.9/4)(2364.3‐1200)^2/589.71
Mc = 668.1 kNm > Msd OK!
Using 2 stud per trough ,Nr = 2
Np = 2364
64
= 36.94
Na = 0.4Np
= 0.4(36.94)
= 17.73
Rq = 1920
Rq > Rw
Mc = 2364.3(449.8/2)+1920[130‐1920/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐( 10.9/4)(2364.3‐192 2
589.7
= 746.3 kNm > Msd OK!
Page 72
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny tiong
Client STC,UTM
Vertical Shear
Beam + Slab = 2.82 x 1.4 x 10 x 3/2 = 59.22 kN
Ceiling & services = 0.5 x 1.4 x 10 x 3/2 = 10.5 kN
imposed load = 6 x 1.6 x 10 x 3/2 = 144 kN
Total Shear Force,V = 213.7 kN
Shear capacity ,Pv
Pv = 0.6p yAv Av = Dt (BS5950 part 1)
= 0.6x 355x 7.6 x 449.8
1000
= 728.1 kN
0.5 Pv 364.07 kN > V = 213.72kN
with a uniformly distributed load,Shear force does not influence the moment resistance
of the section in this example.
Serviceability Limit state
Elastic stresses in the Construction stage
2
Slab + Beam 2.82 kN/m
W = 2.82 x 10 x 3 84.6 kN
Bending moment =84.6 x 10 = 105.8 kNm
8
2
fsteel = M = 105.75 x 1000000 = 111.32 N/mm
Zx 950 X 1000
Composite Elastic Section Properties
Position of the e.n.a from the upper surface ofthe slab
ye = (Ds ‐ Dp)0.5 + αe .r (D/2 + Ds ) = ( 130‐50 )0.5 + 15 x 0.033(449.8/2+130 )

( 1 + αe .r) ( 1 + (15 x 0.033)
= 144.3 mm
Where : αe = 15
r = A = 66.6 x 100 = 0.033
(Ds ‐Dp)Be ( 130‐50)2500
Page 73
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Uncracked Inertia ,Ic
2 3
Ic = A ( D + Ds +Dp ) + Be ( Ds ‐Dp) + I
4 ( 1 + αe .r) 12 αe
2 3
Ic = 66.6 ( 44.98 + 13 + 5) + 250( 13 ‐ 5 ) + 21370
4( 1 + 15 (0.033) 12 x 15
= 44175 + 711.1 + 21370

4
= 66256 cm
Zt(steel) = Ic = 66256 = 1521 cm3

(D+Ds‐ye) (44.98+13‐14.426)
Zc = Ic αe = 66256x 15 = 68892 cm3

ye 14.43
Composite stage Loading
2
Imposed = 6 kN/m
2
C & S = 0.5 kN/m
2
6.5 kN/m
w = 6.5 x 10 x 3 = 195 kN

Bending moment = 195 x 10/8 = 243.8 kNm
2
fsteel = 243.75 x10000 = 160.2 N/mm
1521.24 x 1000
Combined stress = 111.32+160.23
2
= 271.6 N/mm < p y = 355 N/mm2
2
fconc = 243.75x 10000 = 3.54 < 0.5fcu = 15 N/mm
68892.28 x 1000
Page 74
Span (L = 10 meter )
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Deflections
Construction Stage Deflection,δ
2
UDL = 2.82 kN/m (self weight of slab and beam)
Design load,w = 2.82 x 10 x 3 = 84.6 kN
3
δ = 5 F L = 5 x 84.6 x (10 x1000 3
384Ea Iax 384 x 210 x 21370 x10000
= 24.55 mm < 27.78 mm ok!
Composite Stage Deflection, δc
2
UDL = 6 kN/m (imposed)
Design load , F = 6 x 10 x 3 = 180 kN
3
δ = 5 F L = 5 x 180 x (10 x1000) 3 = 16.84 mm
384Ea Iax 384 x 210 x 66256 x10000
Effect of slip
δ' c = δ c + c(1 ‐k) ( δo ‐ δ c) c = 0.3
Degree of shear connection k( 1 stud /trough) = 0.51
K(2 stud/trough) = 0.81
Deflection when K = 0.51
δo = Deflection for steel beam acting alone
= 16.84x(68892.28/21370)
= 54.29 mm
δ' c =16.84+ 0.3(1 ‐ 0.51)(54.29 ‐ 16.84)
= 22.35 mm < 27.78 mm
Imposed Deflection is satisfactory
Total deflection
Construction stage = 24.55 mm
imposed load = 22.35 mm
ceiling and services 0.5 x 22.35 = 1.86 mm
6 48.76 mm
Page 75
Span (L = 10 meter)
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Transverse reinforcement (BS5950 :Part 3.1)
use A 142 mesh reinforcement in slab
Shear resistance per shear surface , VRd
vr = 0.7 Ar f y + 0.03 η f cu Acv ≤ 0.8 η Acv √f cu
( neglecting contribution of desking)
2
Ar = 142 mm /m η = 1
2
Acv = 1E+05 mm /m
2
f y = 460 N/mm
2
f cu = 30 N/mm
vp = tp .py b = 1 x 280 = 280
vr = (0.7 x 142 x 460) + 0.03(1 x 30 x 105000)
= 140.2 kN/m
0.8 η Acv √fcu = 0.8 x 1 x 105000 x √30

= 460.1 kN/m > 140.22 kN/m
76

APPENDIX B2

Page 77
JOB TITLE Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Span (L = 10 metres)
Subject
Made By Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check By Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Design Data
Floor dimension
Span L = 10 m
Beam spacing b = 3m
Slab depth ht = 130 mm
Depth above profile hc = 80 mm
Deck profile height hp = 50 mm
Shear connectors : 19 mm Diameter stud (100 mm overall height)
95 mm lenght after welding (h)
Materials
steel : Grade s 355
fy = 355 N/mm2
Partial safety factor γa : 1.05
2
Design strength fd = fy / γa = 338.1 N/mm
concrete : c25/30
Density = 23.55 kN/m3
Loading
concrete slab weight = [130000‐50(80+50+ 30 )/0.3]23.55/10⁶
= 2.43 kN/m2
Construstion stage
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m2
= 2.82
construction load = 0.5 kN/m2
Page 78
Job Tittle Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Subject
Made by Kenny tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof.Dr.Ir Mahmood
Composite stage
Concrete slab = 2.43 kN/m2
Steel deck = 0.15 kN/m2
Reinforcement = 0.04 kN/m2
steel beam = 0.2 kN/m2
= 2.82 kN/m2
ceiling & services = 0.5 kN/m2
Imposed
occupancy = 5 kN/m2
2
Partition = 1 kN/m
6 kN/m2
Initial selection of beam size
From table 8 try beam size 457x152x52
section properties & Dimensions
h = 449.8 mm d = 407.6 mm
2
b = 152.4 mm Aa = 66.6 cm
4
tw = 7.6 mm Iax = 21370 cm
3
tf = 10.9 mm Wpe = 1096 cm
c = 152.4/2 Ea = 210
= 76.2
ε = √ 235/ fy
= 0.81
Section Classification
c/tf = 6.99 < 10ε 8.1
d/tw = 53.63 < 72ε 58.32
Page 79
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Construction Stage Design
Dead load factor, γG = 1.35
Imposed load factor , γQ = 1.5
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.35 = 3.81
construction 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75
= 4.56
Total Design Load = F = 4.56 x 10x 3= 136.8 kN

Design moment = Msd = (136.8x10)/8
= 171 kN/m
Assumption
Moment resistance of steel beam (EC3 Part 1 CI 5.4.5.2)
Mapl.Rd = wpl X fd =
= (1096x338.1)/1000
= 370.6 kNm > 171kNm ok !
Composite stage design
Slab + beam 2.82 x 1.35 = 3.81
ceiling & services =0.5 x 1.35 = 0.68
imposed load 6 x 1.5 = 9
2
= 13.49 kN/mm
Total design load F = 13.49x10x3 = 404.7 kN
Design moment ,Msd (404.7x10)/8
= 505.88 kNm
Page 80
Subject
Make by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Effective width of compression Flange ,beff (Cl.4.2.2.1)
beff = (2 x l0 )/8
= ( 2 x 10)/8
= 2.5 m < 3m
use = 2.5 m
Compressive Resistance of Slab,R c (Cl 4.4.1.2)
Rc = 0.85fck/γc X beff X hc
γc = 1.5 0.85fck /γc = 0.45fcu

fck = 25 N/mm2 (Cl 3.1.2 and Table 3)
fcu = 30 N/mm2
Rc = 0.45fcu x beff x hc
= 2700 kN
Tensile Resistance Of Steel Section,R s (Cl 4.4.1.2)
Rs = fd x Aa
= (338.1x66.6x100)/1000
= 2252 kN 2252
Moment Resistance with Full Shear connection
Rs < Rc
Mpl,Rd = Rs [ h/2 + hc + hp ‐ Rs/Rc (hc /2 )]
= 2251.75 /1000 [ 449.8/ 2 + 80 + 50‐2251.75 /2700( 80/2)]
= 724 kNm > Msd = 505.88kNm OK !
Shear connector Resistance (Cl 6.3.2.1)
2 2
PRd = 0.29αd (√fckEcm)/γv or PRd = 0.8 fcu(π d /4) / γv
h/d = 5 > 4
α = 0.2 ( hsc /d + 1 )
= 1.2
α = 1
Page 81
Job Title Composite Beam Design Using EN1994 ‐1‐1
Subject
Make by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
2 2
fck = 25 N/mm fcu = 450 N/mm
2
Ec = 30.5 kN/mm
γV = 1.25
PRd = [ 0.29 x 1 x 19 x19 √ 25(30.5/1000 ) ]/1.25
= 73.13 kN
PRd = [0.8 x 450 x ( π x19 x19/4 )]/1.25
= 81.67 kN
PRd = 73.13 kN smaller
Influnce of Deck Shape (Cl 6.3.3.2)
Deck crosses the beam (i.e transverse)
one stud per trough,i .e Nr = 1
kt = 0.7/√Nr ( bo / hp )[ h/hp ‐1 ] bo = 150 mm

= 1.89
use kt = 1 No Reduction PRd = 73.13x1
= 73.13 kN
two stud per trough, i .e Nr = 2
kt = 0.7/√Nr ( bo / hp )[ h/hp ‐1 ]
= 1.34 PRd = 73.13 x 0.8
use kt = 0.8 = 58.5 kN
Page 82
Span (L = 10 metres )
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Longitudinal shear Force Transfer,R q number of studs half beam = 16
Rq ( 1 stud) = 16x73.13 = 1170 kN Spacing of the shear connector = 313
Rq ( 2 stud) = 2 x 16 x 58.5 = 1872 kN
Degree of shear connection,N /Nf ( one stud per trough ) (Cl 6.1.2(4))
N/Nf = Rq / Rs For L = 10 m
= 1170/2251.75 Minimum degree of the shear connector
= 0.52 < 0.55 0,25 + 0.03L = 0.55
use = 0.55
Moment Resistance with Partial Shear Connection (Cl 6.2.1.2(2))
a) Using Linear interation method
using 1 stud per trough
MRd = Mpl,a,Rd + ( Mpl.Rd ‐Mpl,a,Rd)N/Nf
= 370.56 + ( 724.03 ‐ 370.56 )0.55
= 565 kNm > Msd = 505.88 kNm OK !
Using 2 stud per trough
MRd = Mpl,a,Rd + ( Mpl.Rd ‐Mpl,a,Rd)N/Nf
N/Nf= Rq / Rs
= 0.83 > 0.55 use = 0.83
MRd = 370.56 + ( 724.03 ‐ 370.56 )0.83
= 663.9 kNm > Msd = 505.88 kNm OK !
b)Stress block method
N/Nf ≥ (L‐ 6)/10
≥ 0.4
N = 0.4 Nf Nf = Rs/Rq

= 12.32 = 2251.75/73.13
= 30.79
Page 83
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Rw = 0.95fytw(h ‐2 tf) Rf = b tf Py

= 0.95x 338.1x7.6( 449.8‐2(10.9)) = (152.4x10.9x338.1)/1000
= 1045 kN = 561.6 kN
Rq > Rw
using 1 stud per trough,Nr = 1
MRd = Rs(h/2) + Rq [ht ‐ Rq[ht ‐Rq/Rc((ht‐hp)/2)] ‐ (Rs‐Rq)2/Rf(tf/4)
MRd = 2251.75(449.8/2)+1170[130‐1170/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐(10.9/4)(2251.75‐1170)^2/561.64
MRd = 640.2 kNm > Msd OK !
Using 2 stud per trough ,Nr = 2
Nf = 2252
58.5
= 38.49
Nf = 0.4Nf
= 0.4(38.49)
= 18.48
Rq = 1872
Rq > Rw
MRd = 2251.75(449.8/2)+1872[130‐1872/2700((130 ‐ 80)/2) ‐(10.9/4)(2251.75‐1872
561.64
= 716.6 kNm > Msd = 505.88 kNm OK !
Page 84
Subject
STC,UTM Made by Kenny Tiong
Client
Vertical Shear
Beam + Slab = 2.82 x 1.35 x 10 x 3/2 = 57.11 kN
Ceiling & services = 0.5 x 1.35 x 10 x 3/2 = 10.13 kN
imposed load = 6 x 1.5 x 10 x 3/2 = 135 kN
Total Shear Force,Vsd = 202.2 kN
Shear Resistance,Vpl.Rd (Cl 4.4.2.2)
Vpl.Rd = Av fd/√3
= 449.8 x 7.6 x 338.1
√3 x1000
= 667.3 kN
0.5 Vpl.Rd = 333.6 kN > Vsd = 202.24kN (Cl 4.4.3)
with a uniformly distributed load,Shear force does not influence the moment resistance
of the section in this example.
Serviceability Limit state
Elastic stresses
No stress check are require for normal conditions and consequently no limit are given in
EC 4
Deflections
Non‐composite Stage Deflection,δ
2
UDL = 2.82 kN/m (self weight of slab and beam)
Design load,F = 2.82 x 10 x 3 = 84.6 kN
3
δ = 5 F L = 5 x 84.6 x (10 x1000) 3
384Ea Iay 384 x 210 x 21370 x10000
= 24.55 mm < 28.57 mm OK!
Page 85
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof .Dr.Ir.Mahmood
Composite Stage Deflection, δc
UDL = 6 kN/m2 (imposed)
Design load , F = 6 x 10 x 3 = 180 kN
second moment of area of the composite section based on elastic properties
(uncracked inertia),Ic , is obtained as follow :
2 3
Ic = Aa( h + 2hp + hc ) + beff X hc + Iay
4 ( 1 + nr) 12 n
r = Aa = 66.6 x 100 = 0.033

beff x hc 2.5 x 1000 x 80
n = 10 for normal concrete (Modular ratio)
This modular ratio is used for floor loading with modest permanent load
Ic = 66.6 x 100(449.8+2 x 50+80) + 2.5 x1000x512000 + 21370 x10000

4(1+10x0.033) 12x10
= 720922295.7 mm4
Deflection with full shear connection
3
δ c = 5 F L = 15.48 mm < 28.57 mm
384Ea Iay
As partial shear connection exists,take the effect of slip into account as follow :
δ = 1+ C [ 1 ‐ N] [δa ‐1 ] (Cl 5.2.2(6)) C = 0.3

δ c Nf δc
δa = 15.48x720922295.69
21370x10000
= 52.22 mm
Page 86
Subject
Made by Kenny Tiong
Client STC,UTM
Check by Prof .Dr.Ir.Mahmood
δ = 15.48[1+0.3(1‐0.55)((52.22/15.48)‐1)]
= 20.44 mm < l/350 = 28.57 mm

The deflection due to the imposed load is satisfactory
Total deflection
Construction stage = 24.55 mm
imposed load = 20.44 mm
ceiling and services 0.5x20.44 = 1.7 mm
6 46.69 mm
Transverse reinforcement (Cl 6.6.2)
use A 142 mesh reinforcement in slab
Shear resistance per shear surface , VRd
vRd = 2.5 Acv η τRd + Ae fsk ≤ 0.2 Acv η fck (Cl 6.6.2(2))

γs γc
( neglecting contribution of desking)
2
Ae = 142 mm /m η = 1
Acv = 105000 mm2/m γ c = 1.5
2
f sk = 460 N/mm γs = 1.15
2
f ck = 25 N/mm
τRd = 0.25 x f ctk 0,0 = 0.25x1.8 = 0.3
γc 1.5
νRd = [2.5 x 105000 x 1 x 0.3 + 142 x 460]/1000
1.15
= 135.6 kN/m
0.2 Acvηf ck = 0.2x105000x 1x25 = 350 kN/m > 135.55kN/m

γc 1.5x1000

Kennytiongpingchietaa 050041 D 09 TTT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Kennytiongpingchietaa 050041 D 09 TTT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

KENNY TIONG PING CHIET

BETWEEN BRITISH STANDARD PART 3.1 AND

Academic Session: 2008 /2009

I declare that this thesis is classified as :

CONFIDENTIAL (Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as specified by the

√ OPEN ACCESS I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows :

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR

860225 -13 -5265 PROF.IR.DR. MAHMOOD MD TAHIR

Date : 4th MAY 2009 Date : 4th MAY 2009

“I hereby declare that I have read this project report and in

COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE BEAM DESIGN BETWEEN BRITISH

KENNY TIONG PING CHIET

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Name : KENNY TIONG PING CHIET

Date : 4th MAY 2009

I would like to express my sincere appreciate to my thesis supervisor Prof. Dr.

Besides that, I would like to express my appreciation to my parents and

Pada 2010 tahun yang akan datang,Eurocode dijangkakan akan menggantikan

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF APPENDICES xiv

2.1 Composite Construction 6

2.2.1 Shear Connection 10

3.2.4 Establish the spread sheet for design of the 23

4 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 30

4.1 The safety factor and the load combination 30

5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 59

FIGURES NO. TITTLE PAGE

1.1 Single Shear Connector 4

TABLE NO. TITTLE PAGE

3.1 The Notation used for EN1994-1-1 and BS5950:3.1 21

decking placed perpendicular to the beam with sheet thickness

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Detail Diagram of Composite Beam 62

EN1994 -1-1 BS5950 Part 3:

Design moment Msd M

Basic Shear Strength τRd -

In 2010years, Eurocode are expected to replace most of the country code of

Nowadays many of the buildings use the composite technology which is

1.2 Background Of Project

The introduction of Eurocode to replace the old design standard, British

3: 1990 and Eurocode 4.

2) To compare the performance of the composite beam design between BS 5950:

1.4 Scope of the Project

The scope of the project is merely on a simple supported composite beam

Microsoft Excel will prepared for the complex calculation, repeating

1) Full and partial shear connection

The Comparison will be made on the Notation, material, safety factor,

1.5 Problem Statement

Many of the designers, engineers, clients, regulators, contractors, academics

According to the report of The Institution of Structural Engineers, rewriting

2.1 Composite Construction

Composite construction as we know it today was first used in both a building

2.1.2 The Definition Of Composite Construction

The definition of Composite construction is a generic term to describe any