Before discussing the deflection of a composite section, we need to first look at the concept of

shored versus unshored construction. Shoring can be provided under the beams and girders in
order to allow the concrete floor to cure and reach its design strength prior to imposing any load on
the steel beams. Once the shores are removed, the beam will have an instantaneous deflection
due to the weight of the concrete floor slab. With unshored construction, the weight of the wet
concrete is superimposed on the steel floor beams prior to the concrete curing, thus causing the
beams to deflect under the weight of the concrete. The instantaneous deflection of the beams in
the shored scheme will not be as much as it is in the unshored scheme since the beam in the
former case will be in a composite state and thus have greater stiffness.

From a design standpoint, there is no conclusive data that favors either scheme. From a construction
standpoint, the unshored scheme is usually preferred because it avoids labor required to install and
remove the shores. However, the disadvantage of unshored construction is that because the beams
deflect under the wet weight of the concrete additional concrete will be required to achieve a flat floor
surface, resulting in concrete ponding. Ponding occurs when the deflected shape of a beam loaded
with wet concrete allows additional concrete to accumulate,(see Figure 7-19b). This creates a situation
where the builder must account for additional concrete that must be placed and the designer must
account for the added dead load.
 For common floor framing systems, the additional concrete required due to ponding can range from 10% to
15%. One way to mitigate concrete ponding is to camber the beams. It would be ideal to camber the
beams an amount equal to the deflection of the wet concrete, but this is not recommended because if the
beam is cambered too much, then the slab might end up being too thin at mid span of the beam and there
would not be enough concrete coverage for the headed studs (Figure 7-19c)

For this reason, most designers provide camber that is equivalent to 75% to 85% of the deflection due to
the dead load of the concrete. This reduction accounts for the possibility of overestimating the dead load,
as well as the fact that the calculated deflection usually does not account for the actual support conditions
of the beams (i.e., the typical deflection equations assume pinned ends, whereas the end conditions have
some degree of fixity). Beams less than 25 ft. long should not be cambered and the minimum camber
should be at least 3⁄4 in. These limits ensure economy in the fabrication and cambering processes.
For shored construction,the advantages are that all of the strength and deflection checks are based on
the composite condition and the strength of the steel beam alone is not a factor when the concrete is
still wet. Aside from the fact that added labor and materials will be required for shored construction,
one key disadvantage is that cracks are likely to occur over the supporting girders and sometimes
over the beams as well. One way to mitigate this occurrence is to add reinforcement over the beams
and girders to control the cracking
(see Figure 7-20). Even with unshored construction, cracking is somewhat common over the
supporting girders, so rebar is often added over the girders in either scheme. Another way to mitigate
cracking over the beams and girders in a shored scheme is to place the shoring such that some
amount of deflection in the beams will occur, while minimizing the amount of ponding. Figure 7-21
shows one recommended shoring placement scheme that allows some deflection and minimizes
ponding. In this scheme, shores are placed under the girders where a beam intersects and shores are
placed at a distance of L/5 from the ends of the beams.
With unshored construction, the beams must be designed to support the concrete slab, as well as
the temporary construction loads present while the slab is being placed. In floor systems with a
formed-steel deck, the floor deck is usually adequate to brace the top flange of the beams against
lateral–torsional buckling because the deck is oriented in the strong orthogonal direction, with the
ribs perpendicular to the beam. However, the floor deck is usually not adequate to provide lateral
stability for the girders because the deck is oriented in the weak orthogonal direction, with the
deck ribs parallel to the girder. The design must therefore consider the unbraced length of the
beams and girders during slab construction phase loading. Most designers use a construction live
load of 20 psf for the construction phase design check [6]
For shored construction, the advantages are that all of the strength and deflection checks are
based on the composite condition and the strength of the steel beam alone is not a factor when the
concrete is still wet. Aside from the fact that added labor and materials will be required for shored
construction, one key disadvantage is that cracks are likely to occur over the supporting girders
and sometimes over the beams as well