J. Construct.

Steel Research 7 (1987) 279-295

The Use of Profiled Steel Sheeting in Floor Construction

H. D. Wright, H. R. E v a n s and P. W. H a r d i n g
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering,UniversityCollege,
Cardiff, South Wales, UK

(Received7 July 1986;revisedversionreceived11 November1986;

accepted2 January 1987)

SYNOPSIS

The flooring system for medium- to high-rise buildings that incorporates

profiled steel sheeting as both permanent formwork and tensile reinforce-
ment to an in situ concrete slab and through deck welded shear studs to
provide composite beam action is rapidly becoming the most popular system
in Britain.
This popularity is due to the significant construction benefits occurring as
well as the provision of an elegant structure. Although elegant the bi-
directional composite action is complex and the analysis used in design is
tedious and incorporates empirically derived coefficients.
The authors of this paper have investigated the behaviour of each
constituent part of the system. Over 200 tests have been carried out and the
results compared with current design methods. This research has enabled
more accurate analysis techniques to be developed.

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper describes research studies associated with the development of

composite flooring decks for high-rise buildings. These decks employ cold-
formed profiled steel sheeting, not only as the permanent formwork for
in situ cast concrete slabs, but also as the tensile reinforcement for the slabs.
A typical system is illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 1. Profiled steel
sheeting has been used as permanent formwork since around 1940, but its
additional use as the tensile reinforcement is very much more recent. The
essential integral action between the steel deck and the concrete is provided
279
J. Construct. Steel Research 0143-974X/87/$03.50 © Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Ltd, England, 1987. Printed in Great Britain
 b

[ ............ L, t

SECT/ON A-A

C~c~-'r~

STUD DETAIL

I
CorT~'~tT~ ~iE~r7

J 1 i ,I
i

SECTION B - 8
DERS PECTI VE
Fig. 1. The flooring system.
 Profiled steel sheet flooring 281

Fig. 2. Typical failure buckle.

by some form of interlocking device, capable of resisting horizontal shear

and preventing vertical separation of the steel/concrete interface. The most
satisfactory method of achieving this action is by rolling a pattern of
'embossments' into the surface of the steel deck; an effective chevron
embossing pattern is shown in Fig. 2.
The 'composite slab action' thus established provides the floor deck with a
spanning capability in one direction. Recently, a further development of the
system has resulted from advances in on-site welding of stud shear con-
nectors. These may now be welded directly through the galvanized steel
decking onto the supporting steel beams. In this way, the concrete floor slab
may be made to act compositely with the supporting beams to provide a
transverse spanning capability, see Fig. 1. This 'composite beam action', in
conjunction with the 'composite slab action', creates a two-way spanning
flooring system. This type of floor has been widely used for some time in
North America. Its adoption in the UK is very much more recent, but its use
in this country is now expanding rapidly as a result of some significant
advantages. The more important of these advantages are considered to be
(a) The steel deck serves as permanent shuttering for the in situ cast
concrete slab so that there is no need to erect and remove forms and
falsework.
282 H. D. Wright, H. R. Evans, P. W. Harding

(b) The steel deck immediately provides a platform to support construc-

tion loads; since there is no need for a maze of supporting falsework,
finishing trades can operate on the floor immediately below the one
being cast.
(c) The steel deck acts as the tensile reinforcement so there is no need to
place and fix reinforcing bars for the slab.
(d) The deck geometry leads to a reduction of deadweight resulting in
reduced foundation loads.
(e) Services can be incorporated within the depth of the floor slab.
(f) The steel decks can be easily stacked, transported and handled.
Collectively, these advantages can considerably shorten the time involved
in construction, with the obvious commercial attractions that accrue from
the curtailment of interest charges payable on borrowed project capital and
from early sale or let of the building.
Three major aspects must be considered during the design of a composite
flooring system
(a) The steel sheeting itself must be sufficiently strong and rigid to
support the weight of wet concrete during casting----construction
stage.
(b) The steel sheeting, acting compositely with the hardened concrete,
and spanning between the supporting steel beams, must support the
imposed live loading---composite slab action.
(c) The steel beams, acting compositely with the hardened concrete
through the stud shear connectors, and spanning in the transverse
direction, must support the imposed live loading---composite beam
action.
Working with sponsorship from seven different organizations, the
authors have been able to carry out detailed tests and to study each of these
three aspects of the behaviour. These studies will now be outlined.

2 CONSTRUCTION STAGE

The construction or wet concrete stage often produces the critical loading
for composite slab design. When the slab is unpropped during construction
the span of the floor is dictated by the capacity of the sheeting alone to
withstand the weight of wet concrete.
Profiled steel sheeting acts as an assemblage of slender flange and web
plates. The flanges are often stiffened with rolled grooves (see Fig. 5) to
reduce the effects of plate buckling under bending compression and the
 Profiled steel sheet flooring 283

webs of composite profiles are also stiffened by the embossments used for
shear bond in the composite stage.
The load-deflection behaviour of most profile shapes follows a linear
elastic path until buckles form in the compression flanges. This buckling is
elastic although it results in non-linear load--deflection behaviour and is
followed by material yield only when the buckles reach substantial propor-
tions (see Fig. 2). The ultimate strength is therefore much greater than the
strength at first buckle and many profiles are designed to carry working loads
in the non-linear part of the load carrying range.
The elastic behaviour may be predicted by simple beam analysis which
gives good agreement with experimental results. The behaviour during
buckling may be approximately predicted by using effective width methods.
With the increasing use of profiled sheeting competitive market pressures
have led manufacturers to performance testing, thus allowing very accurate
specification of strength and stiffness.
The authors have carried out over forty performance tests on various
profiled steel sheet types used in flooring construction. The tests were all
carried out on isolated single-span specimens using an air bag reacting
against a restraint frame as the loading device. From the results of these tests
it has been possible to compare analysis with real behaviour.
(a) In the elastic stage the simple beam methods were found acceptably
accurate in predicting the centreline deformation of the samples but it
was noted that edge deformations were substantially greater.
(b) In the post-buckling range the effective width method detailed in the
British code of practice BS 5950: Part 41 was found to be very
conservative. This is due to the fact that the shallow groove stiffeners
present in all the profiles tested were deemed to be ineffective by this
code.
(c) In contrast to the conservatism of the British Code, the European
Recommendations for Steel Construction, ECCS-TC7,2 which take
into account stiffeners of very low I-value, were found to over-
estimate the stiffness of all profiles tested.
The use of performance testing to determine the exact specification of a
prototype sheet is expensive although essential for competitive marketing.
However, the cost of repeated testing to determine an optimum design prior
to this prototype may be prohibitive. A design method using more accurate
analysis is therefore desirable to determine profile geometry.
A folded plate analysis 3 method has been adapted by the authors which
can accurately predict not only centreline deflection but also unsupported
edge deformation (see Fig. 3b) and ponding deflection (see Fig. 3a) due to
wet concrete loading. This elastic method has been combined with modified
284 H. D. Wright, H. R. Evans, P. W. Harding

Ponding
deformation

Co)

// ¢
1 I- --" . . . . . . .
*
7]

// /
///////
./ / / / / ~ p
/,,/ voture at

(b)
Fig. 3. Ponding and edge deformation.

effective width methods to give very close agreement with the performance
tests described. Figure 4 shows this comparison for one of the profiles tested.

3 COMPOSITE SLAB ACTION

In this phase of the structural behaviour, the hardened concrete slab, acting
compositely with the profiled steel decks, spans between the supporting
beams and carries the imposed live loads. The composite action depends
upon adequate transfer of horizontal shear forces between the slab and the
steel deck to enable the deck to act as tensile reinforcement.
In addition to the horizontal shearing forces, the imposed bending action
leads to vertical separation between the steel and concrete. The profiled
sheet must, therefore, be designed to resist this vertical separation, in
 Profiled steel sheet flooring 285

LOAD^
5] KN/mZ

t,

J DEFLECTION
f mrn

10 20 30 /.0 50 60 70

SPAN = 3500turn

TEST RESULT

A.IS.I. I B S 5950
EUROPEAN

........ AUTHORSMETHOD

Fig. 4. Typicalload-deflectionrelation----constructionstage.

addition to transferring the horizontal shear. Resistance to vertical separa-

tion can be achieved by forming the profile geometry into a re-entrant
shape, as in Fig. 5a. However, this is uneconomical in terms of cover width
and a trapezoidal profile with chevron embossments, such as that shown in
Fig. 5b, represents a good compromise between cover width and effective
structural action.
The analysis of the composite slab behaviour is complex since predicted
ultimate strengths based on modular ratio or plastic section methods do not
take into account the shear bond failure mode which is normally pre-
dominant. The extent of the shear bond achieved is dependent upon many
related parameters such as the height, shape, orientation and frequency of
the embossment pattern and the geometry and flexibility of the profiled
sheet itself. Currently, it is not possible to obtain an accurate determination
of strength other than by performance testing; such testing is permitted by
the recently published British code of practice, BS 5950: Part 4.
286 H. D. Wright, H. R. Evans, P. W. Harding

2ramI I" ;52-Smm!_ ;s2.smml

(o)

I" 225mm _1 225mm J

I i

l cover width 900mm t

(b)

Fig. 5. Re-entrant and trapezoidal profiles. (a) Richard Lees Super Holorib, (b) Precision
Metal Forming CF46.

Within the terms of the British code the testing may take one of two
forms. The first involves prototype testing of a particular construction
situation to give capacities pertaining to that particular situation. The
limited information thus obtained, and the expense involved, is not
generally attractive to the steel deck manufacturer and the second type of test
programme is more appropriate. In this, a specified series of tests allows the
determination of two factors (m, and k0 expressing the characteristics of a
particular profiled sheet. Unfortunately, these factors do not have a direct
physical significance, but they are important in that they may be used
subsequently to determine ultimate capacity when the same sheet is used for
different spans, slab thicknesses and concrete strengths.
The British code requires a minimum of six tests to be carried out on
representative slabs and the results to be plotted as shown in Fig. 6. The
straight line drawn through the experimental points then allows the mr
factor to be determined as the slope of the line and the kr factor to be
determined as its intercept. The code also requires the application of 10 000
load cycles, varying between 0.5 and 1.5 times the design load, before the
test to failure is commenced. This preliminary cycling ensures that any
chemical bond between concrete and steel has been destroyed so that the
test to failure gives a true value of embossment capacity.
The results plotted in Fig. 6 are those obtained by the authors from a
detailed series of tests carded out on a typical deck of trapezoidal profile
with chevron embossments, the particular deck considered being the CF 46
deck produced by Precision Metal Forming. Twelve tests were carded out in
all, in strict accordance with the recommendations of the design code. The
testing arrangements are shown in Fig. 7, each slab being simply supported
 Profiled steel sheet flooring 287

Ve

0 08
J ~J Shear bond
J ~ r eduction (-10*/e)
Ultimate shear bond //, j
r egressio~ine ~ ..~ f
006

L design reg,oo .
O,Ot. • - - - -

002-

Ap 10-4
Bs. Lv. ~71~-"E~
=
'1 "2 '3 '4 '5 '6

Ve = Max. shear force (1/2 failure load)

Bs = Width of slab
ds : Depth of slab
Fcu=Cube strength
Ap--Crass section area of steel deck
Lv = Shear span (1/4 span for u.d.l.)

Fig. 6. Regressiongraph.

and loaded by a four point loading system to represent a uniformly distri-

buted load. Several parameters were varied as shown in Table 1 and, in
addition to the measurements taken to satisfy code requirements, detailed
measurements of the strains developed in the steel sheet and of the slip at the
steel/concrete interface were taken.
The results of the tests are typified by the load/vertical deflection and
load/end slip graphs plotted in Fig. 8. In addition to proving the effective-
ness of the 3 mm high chevron embossment as a shear transfer device (failure
loads greatly in excess of the required design loads were invariably achieved)
the results obtained allowed the following observations to be made
(a) In each test, failure was by loss of shear bond, although yield strains
were measured in the steel sheet in some instances. Figure 9 illus-
trates diagrammatically the stages observed in the structural action,
and Fig. 10 shows a view of a typical slab after failure.
(b) Variation in concrete strength had little effect on the ultimate load
capacity. Concrete strengths ranged from 25 N/mm 2to 55 N/ram 2and
similar capacities were recorded in each case. Even the weakest
concrete was strong enough to prevent local crushing around the
288 H. D. Wright, H. R. Evans, P. W. Harding

~ Load

I - ~ 1 L I
I i I
displacement
transducer ÷
two dial gauges
~ - slip
gauges

Side eLevatio~

/' I
!l
I ' 1 '
I I
I L

Plcln

Fig. 7. Test'set-up--composite slab tests.

TABLE 1

Span Depth Cube Concrete Embossment Cyclic Ultimate

strength density load load

SP 1 2.4 98 28-0 1840 3 yes 31.14

SP 2 2.4 100 52.0 1900 3 yes 34.62
SP 3 2.4 98 35.0 1852 3 yes 29.75
SP 4 2.1 131 48.0 1896 3 yes 55.73
SP 5 2.1 130 57.5 1910 3 yes 57.12
SP 6 1.4 95 49.0 1904 3 yes 68.26
SP 7 1.4 95 41.5 1865 3 yes 67.13
SP 8 1.4 130 43-5 1870 3 yes 91.55
SP 9 1.4 129 46.5 1865 3 yes 90.43
SP 10 2.4 98 55.0 1910 3 no 30.69
SP 11 2.4 98 27.0 1850 2 no 12-75
SP 12 2.4 98 30.0 1900 2 yes 12-50
 Profiled steel sheet flooring 289

LOAD (KNIm z)

SLIP DEFLECTION

20

10

DEFLECTION (,ram)
,J,
1'0 2'0 SLIP x 10 (mm}

Fig. 8. Typical load--deflectionrelation---compositeslab.

First stage: Fulty composite behaviour

~ shear span.

end ~--JLSecondstage: Chemical bond breaks and

slip
slip starts

Finat stage: Mechamcal bond ~aits and

collapse occurs

Fig. 9. Typicalshearbond failure.

embossment, failure occurring when the concrete rode up and over

the embossment.
(c) The application of preliminary cyclic loading had little effect on
ultimate strength. Slabs SP11 and SP12were identical specimens, one
being subjected to cyclic loading and the other subjected to static
loading only; both failed at similar loads.
(d) The height of the embossment had a very significant effect on
ultimate strength. A reduction of about 30% in embossment height
resulted in a drop of 50% in load-carrying capacity.
290 H. D. Wright, H. R. Evans, P. W. Harding

Fig. 10. Actual failure.

While the performance tests described are satisfactory they can, of

course, only be conducted once the profiled steel sheets are already in
production. They cannot be used in the optimum design of a new profile
without the considerable expense of repeated prototype production. The
authors are, therefore, currently developing an analytical method for the
prediction of composite slab behaviour.

4 COMPOSITE BEAM STAGE

Whereas the composite slab behaviour is largely dependent upon the type of
profiled steel sheet being used, the behaviour of the floor beam is dependent
upon the type of sheeting and its orientation to the beam, the stud
characteristics a n d the design of the system. The construction sequence
describes the system: The sheeting is laid over the support steelwork, often
in multiple spans. Steel studs 100 mm long and 20 mm diameter are the norm
and these are welded through the sheeting into the beam below using a forge
weld requiring approximately 2000 amp. When the sheeting is laid trans-
verse to the beam studs may be welded in every trough of the sheeting
 Profiled steel sheet flooring 291

although every other trough is more normal. The slab is then concreted
often using a pumped mix over a complete floor level.
The strength of through deck welded shear studs has, in the past, been
questionable and although the system has been in use in this country for
several years there is no British code of practice as to stud weld qualification.
The American welding code 4does give a very onerous test procedure which
has been adopted by the authors to evaluate weld strength on over eighty
stud specimens (provided by T. R. W. Nelson Ltd). Although the weld
strength is dependent on site conditions it has been proved that the through
deck system provides adequate weld quality.
The strength of the weld may not be the major factor in the strength of the
system as stud failure often occurs by concrete crushing. The push-out test
detailed in CP 1175 has become the standard British test in verifying stud
strength. The authors have carried out over forty of these tests and produced
stud strength tables in various grades of concrete (both normal weight and
lightweight).
The use of this test in determining stud strength for situations where the
stud is welded through a profiled steel sheet must be questioned as the
presence of the profile leads to two possible areas of weakness in the
composite beam when the sheeting runs transverse to the beam. Firstly, the
presence of the profile reduces the effective section I-value and, secondly,
the volume of concrete in the trough of the profile available in front of the
stud to withstand shear forces is reduced.
A more realistic test for situations where through deck stud welding is
used has been developed by the authors. This is shown in Fig. 11 and is
compared to the standard push-out tests. All the major profiles on the UK
market at the current time have been tested in this way and it has been
proved that the presence of the profile weakens the stud. Figure 12 shows
the load-slip curves for the major profiles and it can be noted that not only
does the presence of the profile, but also the position of the stud within the
trough, weaken the stud. Grant et al.6 produced an empirical reduction
coefficient to model this effect, its value being based on tests carried out on
American profiles. Using the calculated strength reduction it was found that
only one profile, Metecno 55, required stud strength modification although
the experiments showed that stud strength was reduced in all the decks. This
indicates that the coefficient derived for American profiles is not directly
applicable to British profiles.
Once the stud strength has been established it may then be used to
determine both strength and stiffness of composite beams by the design
method recommended by CONSTRADO 7 and derived by Johnson. s The
method is based on partial interaction theory but modified to simplify the
calculation. In this method the number of studs may be reduced so that the
292 H. D. Wright, H. R. Evans, P. W. Harding

,r

! I

I
--I :1 I
I ; Ir
I ! IIII
o! I',,~ ~ I !
I
~1
~1
I i L.F=~,
I i - ', , 0',0"I
1 II P 'I
.L--- . IL~- ~ t , Ii i
- f - l-- n--l--" --
I II I
L.U-J
//////, ///// /~ ~/r//////~/*"/i/

r- 300 '1

STANDARD PUSH-OUT TEST

~:~ fA98 Mcsh

7m ..r'T,
I
I
I :C _ I

i i
i t ,
I B1
3_ / / / / / / / / / / / / / I

// "T "////////////////
/" . 700 ,
I

THROUGH DECK PUSH-OUT TEST

Fig. 11. Push-out tests.

TABLE 2

Concrete Deck Direction of Span Test

corrugation (mm ) date

Lightweight CF46 Transverse 4.5 Aug. 83

Lightweight Holorib Transverse 4.5 Aug. 83
Normal weight Holorib Transverse 4.5 Oct. 83
Lightweight Metecno Transverse 5.5 May 84
Lightweight QL60 Transverse 6.0 May 84
Normal weight CF46 Transverse 6.0 Feb. 84
Normal weight Metecno Parallel 6.0 Jan. 84
Lightweight Metecno Parallel 6-0 Jan. 84
 Profiled steel sheet flooring 293

i
I00 I

2
z

sc / ~ I STANDARD CPII7 L/W CONC GR 25

n
/ ,'.~ ~ AT REAR OF TROUGH
/ //( ~ 3 PMF CF46 L/W CONC GR 25 AT
o /L / ~ FRONT OF TROUGH

~ RIO'lARD LEES LIW CONC GR 25

I 1 I I
O I 2 3 4 v
Slip (ram)

Fig. 12. Stud load to slip relationship.

final composite strength of the beam may be less than its fully composite
strength but still sufficient for its design load.
Eight full-scale beam tests were conducted by the authors to determine
the suitability of this method for composite beams using profiled steel
sheeting. Table 2 details the tests and Fig. 13 shows the test set-up. The
degree of variation between the specimens was chosen to ensure adequate
representation of profile steel sheeting and concrete types used in practice.
The loading response of all the eight specimens was very similar and
followed a linear elastic pattern initially. For specimens designed to have full
or nearly full composite action failure occurred when the steel beam yielded
although slip between concrete and steel did occur prior to this. For beams
with very low amounts of interaction the failure was by shear bond as the
concrete around the studs crushed allowing considerable slippage between
beam and slab. Several conclusions were reached as a result of comparing
the test results to calculated predictions using the CONSTRADO guide. 7
(a) In general the design method underestimates the ultimate strength of
the composite beam. The degree of partial interaction calculated was
substantially lower than that achieved in practice.
(b) Two of the tests were identical in every respect apart from profiled
steel sheet type. Both test specimens behaved very similarly which
confirmed the validity of the through deck put-out tests as these tests
had also given similar results for these two profiled steel sheet types.
294 H. D. Wright, H, R. Evans, P. W. Harding

Ioadng beams
ro,ers [2--222222252_22222-21 ii
. . . . . . slip gouges
-e-. -0- .e- -0-
i i ii i i

composite
I ~isplacermn!
i_ beam transducer

SIDE ELEVATION

I .... .......,1
_'__U_ _ E-..'-" . . . . . . 1__.__.,

"
-,i
'- [ " ~{ . . . .
I1
|: ~1

PLAN
Fig. 13. T e s t s e t - u p - - c o m p o s i t e b e a m tests.

(c) The use of lightweight concrete (in this case, Lytag) appears to make
little difference for short-term strength and stiffness. Test specimens
identical apart from concrete type behaved similarly.
(d) The stiffness, as calculated by the design method, was acceptably
close to the test results. The calculation uses the estimated degree of
partial interaction in deriving this stiffness. If the actual degree of
interaction (as determined from the tests) is used, considerable
overestimation of stiffness occurs. This indicates that the prediction
of deflection is only safe as long as the underestimation of strength is
acceptable.
The test series showed that the simplified method was conservative in its
estimation of both strength and stiffness although the degree of con-
servatism was considerably different and unrelated. The use of this design
m e t h o d has disadvantages not only in its inaccuracy but also in the fact that
the calculations are tedious. This fact is recognized and tabulated safe load
 Profiledsteelsheetflooring 295

tables and computer design programs are available. These still use the
simplified analysis techniques, however, and more accurate techniques will
be required as engineers refine designs for greater economy. A finite
difference technique has been developed by the authors and gives a more
accurate prediction of composite beam behaviour.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The composite floor system described in this paper is the most popular
m e t h o d of high-rise flooring in America and is rapidly becoming so in the
UK. As indicated in the introduction, its popularity is based on the speed
and convenience with which it can be constructed and these advantages
have, so far, made optimum structural design of lesser importance.
However, as the number of constructors using the system increases, the
competition for contracts will also increase and the need for efficient
structural design and economy will become more important.
A n u m b e r of detailed conclusions have already been presented in this
paper. The overall conclusion that can be drawn is that current design
m e t h o d s are, on the whole, safe but very conservative in some cases.
For maximum economy the system described cannot be designed as a
series of separate parts. Slab span, beam span and studding requirements
should be considered together for optimum economy.

REFERENCES

1. British Standards Institution, BS 5950, Structural Use of Steelwork in Building,

Part 4, Code of practice for design of floors with profiled steel sheeting, London,
BSI, 1982.
2. ECCS-TC7, Recommendations for Steel Construction, The design of profiled
steel sheeting, European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, London,
CONSTRADO, 1983.
3. Goldberg, J. E. and Leve, H. L., Theory of prismatic folded plate structures,
Publ. Int. Assn Bridge Struct. Engng, 17 (1957) 59-86.
4. ANSII/AWS D1.1-82, Structural Welding Code--Steel, 7 Stud Welding,
American Welding Society, Inc., 1982.
5. British Standards Institution, CP 117: Composite construction in structural steel
and concrete, Part 1: Simply-supported beams in building, London, BSI, 1965.
6. Grant, J. A., Fisher, J. W. and Slutter, R. G., Composite beams with formed
steel deck, AISI Engineering Journal, First Quarter (1977).
7. CONSTRADO, Steel Framed Multi-Storey Buildings. Design Recommend-
ations for Composite Floors and Beams using Steel Decks, Section 1, Structural,
London, Constrado, October 1983.
8. Johnson, R. P., Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete, Vol. 1: Beams,
Columns, Frames and Applications in Building, London, Granada, 1975.