›
Part 5
38 TheStructuralEngineer
May 2014
Composite and Steel
Construction compendium
Part 5: Construction of composite floors
This article is part of a series
that will gradually build to form a
Composite (steel-concrete) and
Steel Construction compendium.
Written by leading experts
from the SCI, the articles aim
to provide a real insight into
composite and steel construction,
to help practicing engineers get
the most from these materials.
Introduction
The designer of a composite floor has a number of basic and
obvious decisions to make, including what type of beam to
use and what type of decking. He or she also has some more
detailed decisions, such as the choice of propped or unpropped
construction, whether the steel beams will be restrained during
construction, and how will the upper surfaces of the slabs be
levelled during concreting? All these decisions need to be well
thought through, rather than assumptions made, and the more
detailed decisions need to be communicated to those who
will construct the floor so that site practice reflects design
assumptions. There may also be specialists involved in the design,
e.g. to establish the precise details of how the decking will be
delivered and laid out. These individuals must also have a clear
understanding of the primary designer’s assumptions.
This final article in the composite part of this construction
compendium looks at three aspects of construction; the provision
of lateral restraint to the beams, whether the steelwork is propped
and how the concrete is levelled.
Provision of lateral restraint to the beams
For bracing against buckling, two requirements may be identified
for all restraint systems:
1. Sufficient stiffness; to increase the buckling load of the restrained
member to the desired level by limiting the buckling deformations.
2. Sufficient strength; to resist the loads transmitted as a result of
restricting the buckling deformations.
Despite the importance of both stiffness and strength, many
structural design codes provide only strength requirements,
assuming that a member of such strength will possess adequate
stiffness. EN1993-1-1 Clause 5.3.3(2)1 defines an equivalent
stabilising force.
The elimination of lateral torsional buckling as a failure mode may
enable a lighter section size to be used. However, a designer should
recognise that profiled steel decking will not always provide this
level of restraint. Two things need to be considered; firstly the
TSE29_38-40 CSCC 5 v4.indd 38
Technical
Composite/Steel compendium
in-plane stiffness of the decking itself, and secondly how it is fixed
to the beam. If the ribs of the decking run parallel to the beam,
then no restraint is provided at the construction stage, as the
decking would merely act like a concertina were the beam flange
to try and move sideways. If the ribs run perpendicularly then the
decking may be assumed to have sufficient stiffness. However, to
exploit this stiffness it will need to be adequately fixed to the beam.
When shear studs are present and they have been through-deck
welded, as is common UK practice, the decking may be assumed
to be adequately held in place. Otherwise, when the decking
is fixed (using discrete connectors such as shot-fired pins) the
designer must provide an adequate number of connectors, taking
into account their individual resistances and the force needed to
restrain the beam flange2.
Propping of the decking and/or beams
Why prop?
The term ‘propping’ is used to describe the provision of temporary
supports to the steelwork. The benefit of propped construction
is that it results in a greater part of the loading being applied to
the (stiffer and stronger) composite section, be it beam or slab,
and less to the steel element alone. Greater spans may then be
achieved. For long span beams this can be particularly beneficial by
reducing dead load deflections. Propping of decking (or ‘sheeting’
as it is termed in the Eurocodes) may enable secondary beams
to be more widely spaced, and so the steelwork costs may be
reduced (Figure 1). The disadvantage is that the construction
process may be adversely affected.
What should be specified?
A simple statement on a drawing such as: ‘beams and decking to be
propped’ will not suffice. That statement might be read as implying
the designer assumed continuous support during concreting, but
clearly that could not be achieved in practice.
Propped construction essentially means that at the construction
stage, the steel element (beam or decking) has a different
structural form – typified by shorter spans and continuity over
additional support/s. Typically there would be a prop at mid-span,
or possibly at third-span points. A proportion of the construction
loading is transferred by the props to the floors below. When the
concrete has attained sufficient strength, the props are removed,
and the self-weight is resisted by the composite section. The steel
element must be able to span between the props when subject to
the construction loading.
When we come to consider a composite floor, rather than individual
elements, the situation becomes a little more complex and one can
envisage two scenarios (Figure 2). From a design point of view,
the easier situation to consider is that shown in Fig. 2a, where the
24/04/2014 08:29
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

39

N Figure 1
Propping of decking (note that props
should be braced in both directions)

beams are propped but the decking is not. For a beam spanning
between columns, the support stiffness provided by the columns
will be similar to that provided by the temporary supports. In Fig.
2b the decking is propped and the beams are not. This option
is complicated because the permanent supports to the decking
(the beams) will deflect as load is applied, whereas the temporary
supports will barely move (unless they are supported off the beams a. Props placed directly below beams
themselves). Normally the outcomes of this ‘support incompatibility’
are not considered in the design of the elements, with loads
distributed between supports assuming the supports have equal
stiffness, rather than the stiffer temporary supports picking up a
relatively higher proportion of the load. However, the ‘differential
settlement’ that results from these different support stiffnesses b. Props placed between beams (to support the decking)

should certainly be taken into account when considering the

thickness of concrete to design for.
Good practice on site
Careful attention should be paid when propping decking on site
because of the nature of the product (formed from thin steel).
Timber bearers or steel runners should be used to span between
individual props. They must be sufficiently stiff, and always extend
the full width of the bay to avoid localised problems (Fig. 1).
Typically they are 75-100mm wide to provide adequate bearing and
avoid local damage to the decking. Props are normally placed at
approx. 1m centres.
Levelling of the concrete surface
Just as there are different ways in which a floor can be propped, there
are different ways in which a concrete slab (its upper surface) can be
levelled. To avoid overloading in the temporary condition it is essential
that the designer’s assumptions are reflected in site practice. Failure
 Figure 2
Propping of beam or decking
to do this could see excessive self-weight of concrete applied to the
structure. The two principal ways in which the upper surface of the
concrete can be controlled during casting, are:
• Maintain a reasonably constant thickness of slab. As the beams
and decking deflect under the wet weight of concrete, the upper
surface of the concrete ‘deflects’ to follow their form. This is
achieved by setting tamping rails on the beam lines
• The upper surface of the concrete is maintained level (meaning
‘flat’). As the steelwork deflects, more concrete will be added to
compensate, and the thickness of concrete will clearly not be uniform.
Laser levelling may be used as a quick and cheap solution, possibly
with power floating (Figure 3) to avoid the need for a screed.

TSE29_38-40 CSCC 5 v4 NEW.indd 39 24/04/2014 11:24


40 TheStructuralEngineer
May 2014
"A simple statement on a
drawing such as: ‘beams and
decking to be propped’ will
not suffice"
‘Level’ may also mean ‘at a certain height’, in which case as-built
deviations in the height of the steelwork may compound the situation
previously described.
For the aforementioned situation, the deflection of the decking might
be in addition to the deflection of a secondary beam to which it is
attached, and in addition to the deflection of a primary beam to which
the secondary is attached. As such, the extra thickness of concrete
could be significant.
Design codes recognise the fact that as the decking deflects, more
concrete may be added (known as ‘ponding’ of the concrete), for
example EN 1994-1-1 (Clause 9.3.2(2))3 suggests that if the central
deflection of the decking is more than 10% of the slab thickness,
ponding should be allowed for. It also suggests that the decking
should not deflect more than L/180 (where L is the effective span
between supports) under its own weight plus the wet weight of
concrete. BS 5950-44 set a similar limit but added an absolute limit of
20mm (unless ponding had been explicitly allowed for, in which case
more relaxed limits could be applied). However, all these measures
are relative to the ends of the decking span and do not reflect the
potential additive effect of supporting beams. Clearly this is incorrect
(when used in conjunction with modern site practice, which has
changed since the Eurocodes were written), and designers should
carefully consider all sources of deflection.
TSE29_38-40 CSCC 5 v4 NEW.indd 40
›
Part 5
Technical
Composite/Steel compendium
W Figure 3
Power floating of concrete
to produce flat upper surface
ALAMY
References and further reading
1) British Standards Institution (2005) BS EN 1993-1-1:2005
Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures General rules and rules
for buildings London: BSI
2) Steel Construction Institute (2011) Stability of Steel Beams
and Columns (P360), Ascot, Berkshire: SCI
3) British Standards Institution (2005) BS EN 1994-1-1:2004
Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures
– General rules and rules for buildings London: BSI
4) British Standards Institution (1994) BS EN 5950-4:1994
Structural use of steelwork in building code of practice
for design of composite slabs with profiled steel sheeting
(superseded/withdrawn) London: BSI
Further reading
The Concrete Society (2008) Composite concrete slabs on
steel decking. Guidance on construction and associated design
considerations (includes amendment No. 1, September 2013),
Camberley, UK: The Concrete Society
Beal, A. N. (2011) ‘Floor slabs, lasers and levels’, Concrete,
Camberley, UK: The Concrete Society
MCRMA/Steel Construction Institute (2009) Composite Slabs
and Beams using Steel Decking. Best Practice for Design and
Construction (Revised Edition) (P300), Ascot, Berkshire: SCI
Web resources
The Steel Construction Institute: www.steelconstruction.info
24/04/2014 11:24