Author's personal copy

International Journal of Steel Structures Online ISSN 2093-6311

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-020-00333-5 Print ISSN 1598-2351

Effect of Rib Geometry in Steel–Concrete Composite Beams with Deep

Profiled Sheeting
Ahmed Albarram1 · Jawed Qureshi1 · Ali Abbas1

Received: 16 November 2018 / Accepted: 26 March 2020

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2020

Abstract
Presented are the results from a finite element model of steel–concrete composite beams with deep decks and a comparison
with various analytical/design methods. Using a deck deeper than 80 mm are becoming popular with a desire for longer
spanning capability and lower concrete volume. However, there are no design rules in either American or European design
codes for using a deck deeper than 80 mm, as both codes limit the deck rib height to 75 and 85 mm, respectively for using
the stud’s capacity formula. Therefore, research is needed to establish the design stud capacity in beams with decks deeper
than 80 mm. After extensive validation, the 3-D FE model is used for a parametric study with tests having decks deeper than
80 mm. The parameters include rib geometries, studs’ layout and concrete slab reinforcements. The FE results showed that
stud capacity with narrow and deep decks (100–150 mm) is about 70% of the conventional decking (60–80 mm deep). The
stud capacities from the numerical results were compared to the predicted strengths from the design/theoretical models. While
the equations from the concrete pull-out failure mode by Johnson and Yuan (Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 128(3):252–263,
1998) gave reasonable predictions with a coefficient of variation as 11%, both EC4 and ANSI/AISC rules provided inac-
curate and inconsistent predicted strengths. A generalised stud capacity formula should be developed in the design codes
for decks deeper than 80 mm.

Keywords Deep steel decking · Headed stud connector · Push test · Finite element modelling · Composite beams

List of Symbols e Distance from centre of stud to nearer

As Cross-sectional area of shear connector wall of rib
stud Ec Young’s modulus of concrete
AWulst,eff Effective area of weld collar Ecm Secant modulus of elasticity of
bo Average rib width of profiled steel deck concrete
C Central position of stud Es Young’s modulus of steel
c1, c2 Material constants equal to 3.0 and F Favourable position of stud
6.93, respectively fc Compressive cylinder strength of
d Diameter of shear connector stud concrete
dc Compressive damage variable fcm Mean value of concrete cylinder com-
dt Tensile damage variable pressive strength
dWulst Diameter of weld collar fcu Compressive cube strength of concrete
ft Tensile strength of concrete
fu Minimum ultimate tensile strength of
* Jawed Qureshi
j.qureshi@uel.ac.uk shear connector stud
fuk Characteristic tensile strength of shear
Ahmed Albarram
a.albarram@uel.ac.uk connector stud
fy Yield stress of steel
Ali Abbas
a.abbas@uel.ac.uk fyp Yield strength of sheeting
Gf Fracture energy of concrete
1
School of Architecture, Computing and Engineering (ACE), Gfo Initial fracture energy of concrete
University of East London, 4-6 University Way, Beckton, hp Rib height of profiled steel deck
London E16 2RD, UK

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
HPS High Performance Steel
hsc Total height of shear stud connector
hWulst Height of weld collar
kcpt, kcpt, ηcpt, ηcpt Non-dimensional group for concrete
pull-out failure mode
krp, kcp, ηrp, ηcp Non-dimensional group for punching
and concrete pull-out failure mode
kt Reduction factor
Nr Number of studs per rib
PAISC Nominal unfactored design strength
calculated from American code
PCPT Shear connector resistance per stud
obtained from concrete pull-out failure
mode
PEC4 Nominal unfactored design strength
calculated from European code
PFE Shear connector resistance per stud
obtained from the finite element
analysis
Pm,c Shear connector resistance per stud
obtained from concrete failure
Pm,s Shear connector resistance per stud
obtained from stud failure
PRm Mean shear resistance of stud
PRPCP Shear connector resistance per stud
obtained from rib punching and con-
crete pull-out failure mode
PTest Shear connector resistance per stud
obtained from experiments
R g, Rp Reduction factors specified in the
American Code
st Transverse centre to centre spacing
between studs
ts Thickness of profiled steel decking
Ty Resistance of shear stud to uniaxial
tension
U Unfavourable position of stud
vtu Shear strength of concrete
Fig. 1 Composite beams with
different types of steel decks. a
Re-entrant deck; b trapezoidal
deck
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
w Crack opening displacement
wc Ultimate crack opening displacement
wo Density of concrete
εc~in Compressive inelastic strain of
concrete
εc~pl Compressive plastic strain of concrete
εy Plastic strain of steel
σc Compressive stress of concrete
σc0 Initial yield stress of concrete
σcu Ultimate compressive stress of
concrete
σt Tensile stress of concrete
1 Introduction
Steel profiled sheeting is widely used in steel–concrete com-
posite beams. A profiled sheeting either comprises re-entrant
or trapezoidal shape that lies between the concrete slab and
the steel beam (see Fig. 1). It can be oriented either par-
allel or perpendicular to the steel beam axis and fixed by
through-welded shear studs. Steel decks ranging from 60
to 80 mm depths have been conventionally used in compos-
ite construction (Qureshi 2010). Decks deeper than 80 mm
are becoming popular in North America and Europe due to
larger composite slab spans (Kingspan 2011), with as much
as 150 mm deep decking being commonly available these
days (see Fig. 2). Investigating the performance of shear
studs by push tests can be an easier alternative to full-scale
composite beams to determine the shear connector resist-
ance, ductility and failure modes due to their lower cost
(Ernest et al. 2010).
The desire for longer slab spans has led to development
of profiled sheeting deeper than the traditional 60–80 mm
deep decking. Since 2011, Kingspan (2011) has introduced
146 mm deep composite decking in the UK. The American
manufacturers are not behind either with ASC Steel Deck
(2016) now producing 150 mm deep profiles. Unfortunately,
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures
Fig. 2 Deep profiled decking in
construction
both European and American design codes limit the sheet-
ing depth to 85 and 75 mm, respectively for using their stud
capacity formula. The structural designers have no option
but to rely on the manufacturer’s specified characteristic stud
strength, developed through experiments with specific stud
height and concrete strength in mind. Research is needed
to establish the design stud capacity in composite beams
with decks higher than 80 mm. A generalised stud capac-
ity formula should be developed in the design codes for
these deep decks. This study presents a useful insight into
understanding the behaviour of composite beams with decks
deeper than 80 mm by numerical modelling and provide a
comparison with available theoretical/design models for the
shear stud capacity.
Using a composite deck deeper than 80 mm has some
benefits, including 20–30% reduction in concrete volume
and increase in the slab’s spanning capability to as much
as 6 m (Kingspan 2011). However, lack of design guide-
lines for stud capacity remains the single most challenge
in the design of the composite beams with decks deeper
than 80 mm. Research on the behaviour of composite beams
with deep decks is very limited. Rambo-Roddenberry (2002)
studied the behaviour and strength of welded stud connec-
tors in various depths of profiled decking up to 150 mm.
However, the shape of ribs of profiled decking, deeper than
80 mm was rectangular, which is neither common in com-
posite construction, nor economical. Although Adany et al.
(2013) carried out experimental research on 153 mm deep
trapezoidal sheeting, the research solely focused on test-
ing bare steel decking, without concrete and shear studs, to
determine its bending resistance.
Several numerical and experimental studies were con-
ducted previously to study the structural behaviour of
composite beams with different types and geometries of
ribs. Qureshi et al. (2011a) were the first to numerically
model the post-failure behaviour of composite beams with
profiled sheeting. This seminal work allowed the separa-
tion between steel deck and concrete slab to be modelled,
resulting in accurate shear connector resistance predic-
tions. Due to ineffectiveness of the European code in pre-
dicting the strengths, Shin et al. (2013) proposed a new
design equation using results from FE analysis to esti-
mate the in-plane compressive strengths of HPS deck with
U-shaped ribs. With another numerical study, Shin et al.
(2014) proposed new design equation to predict the in-
plane compressive strengths of HPS box girders with open
ribs. Rahnavard et al. (2015–2019) presented a variety of
methods for modelling concrete and steel interaction using
shear connector. In their research, the B31 element type
was used for shear connector modelling in composite shear
walls (Rahnavard and Hassanipour 2015; Rahnavard et al.
2016), composite connections (Rahnavard et al. 2017a, b),
composite steel–concrete beam (Rahnavard et al. 2017a,
b), and buckling of restrained braces (Rahnavard et al.
2018; Naghavi et al. 2019).
Chen et al. (2015) investigated the behaviour of headed
studs at elevated temperatures through an experimental and
numerical study. Nellinger et al. (2017) concluded that the
embedment depth of stud in the concrete above the sheeting
rib had significant influence on the load-slip behaviour. For
push tests with studs that satisfied the minimum embedment
depth of two diameters, which is required by the EN 1994-
1-1 (2004), the double curvature deformation of stud and
large slip capacity were observed. While single curvature
deformation of stud and small slip capacity were witnessed
for tests that did not satisfy the minimum stud embedment
depth of 2 diameters. A FE model was developed by Katwal
et al. (2018) for full-scale composite beams with profiled
steel sheeting. However, the profiled decking depth consid-
ered in all studies did not exceed 80 mm. A very limited
research is available to address the impact of steel decks
deeper than 80 mm on composite beams.
13
 Author's personal copy
Lack of design rules and no past research on the behav-
iour of composite beams with steel decks deeper than 80 mm
is a major knowledge gap. This paper aims to bridge this gap
by investigating various theoretical models for stud resist-
ance and comparing them with a validated nonlinear 3-D
finite element model using ABAQUS. A parametric study is
performed on composite beams with 100 and 146 mm deep
decks, after extensive validation against experiments with
steel decks ranging from 50 to 150 mm deep. The param-
eters include the rib geometries, headed studs’ layout, and
reinforcing the concrete slab with a unique grid steel bars.
The results obtained from the FE analysis are then com-
pared with the nominal strengths of headed stud predicted
by the EC4 (2004), ANSI/AISC (2016), and some analytical
methods proposed by Johnson and Yuan (1998), and Konrad
(2011).
2 Finite Element Modelling
2.1 Summary of Previous Experimental
Investigations
ABAQUS/Explicit is used to prepare the nonlinear three-
dimensional finite element model. This method is very
effective in terms of modelling complex contact interac-
tions, and material and geometric nonlinearity. Two previ-
ous experimental studies from Rambo-Roddenberry (2002)
and Smith and Couchman (2010) are chosen for validation.
The selected push tests from the first experiment consisted
of favourable and unfavourable headed studs welded through
trapezoidal decks of 50 and 76.2 mm deep each. Also, cen-
tral headed studs were welded through a rectangular deck of
114.3 and 152.4 mm deep. Due to the narrow geometry of
decks deeper than 80 mm, push tests ended with rib shearing
failure and significant decrease in the shear connector resist-
ance when compared to other results from tests with decks
less than 80 mm deep. Using a wide a range of sheeting
depths and geometries ensure that the results of FE model
are acceptable for modelling composite beams with a deep
profiled sheeting. The full details of both experiments are
summarised in Table 1.
The second experiment involved 27 push tests to investi-
gate the mesh reinforcement position, slab depth, and num-
ber and transverse spacing between studs. Headed studs of
19 × 100 mm were welded through 60 mm deck with rib
geometry (bo/hp) of 2.35 and placed in the favourable side.
Tests results showed that placing the mesh 25 mm from the
top surface of concrete slab caused 20% decrease in the
shear stud resistance compared to placing the mesh on the
deck surface. While the change in the stud spacing from
75 to 140 mm appeared to have a small effect on the shear
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
resistance, the change in the slab depth from 140 to 215 mm
increased the shear resistance about 30%.
2.2 Finite Element Mesh and Type
Figure 3 shows the half-symmetric FE model of the push
test conducted by Smith and Couchman (2010) with sym-
metry along the centreline of the beam web. It consists of
a steel beam, headed studs, profiled decking, concrete slab
and wire mesh reinforcement. In the beginning, three differ-
ent element mesh sizes were used, including 10 × 10 mm,
15 × 15 mm, and 20 × 20 mm. Based on the best compromise
between the accuracy in results and computational time, the
medium mesh of 15 × 15 mm was selected. After meshing
all parts, they were assembled together to produce the push
test model. For steel beam, headed stud and concrete part,
three-dimensional continuum eight-node reduced integra-
tion elements (C3D8R) were used with an aspect ratio of
(1:1). Where necessary, six-node wedge elements (C3D6R)
were also used in some places, especially the stud part with
an aspect ratio of (3:5). Four-node doubly curved shell ele-
ments with reduced integration (S4R) were used for the
profiled steel decking. Finally, two-node three-dimensional
truss elements (T3D2) were used to model the wire-mesh
reinforcement.
2.3 Steel Material Properties
The stud connectors and steel beam were modelled as a sin-
gle geometry but with different material properties. All steel
components were treated elastic perfectly plastic, except
steel beam, which was treated fully elastic as the steel beam
has no effect on the behaviour of headed studs during the
test. Young’s modulus of elasticity (Es) for the steel beam
was taken as 210 GPa, while 200 GPa was assumed for the
rest of steel components. For tests conducted by Smith and
Couchman (2010), the yield stress (fy) of headed studs,
profiled deck and wire-mesh were taken as 475, 350 and
500 MPa, respectively. For Rambo-Roddenberry (2002)
tests, the yield stress (fy) of headed studs, profiled, and
wire reinforcement was taken as 400, 280, and 500 MPa,
respectively.
A bi-linear stress–strain relationship was used in
ABAQUS to define the steel components with elastic per-
fectly plastic behaviour. This relationship has two parts:
first is the linear elastic region and second fully plastic part,
where stress remains constant beyond the yield point. The
linear elastic part is defined by the modulus of elasticity
of the material. While the yield stress of the material and
zero plastic strain represents the second fully plastic region.
Modelling steel components in this way is reasonable, as the
failure is mostly concrete related in beams with composite
profiled sheeting slab. Generally, fracture of steel, geometric
 Table 1 Comparison of shear stud capacities obtained from experiments and FE analysis
Tested by Series Profiled sheeting (mm) Headed stud Slab depth (mm)
International Journal of Steel Structures

fc (MPa) PTest (kN) PFE (kN) PTest/PFE

ts bo hp d × hsc nr Position

Rambo-Roddenberry (2002) S10 40.8 0.9 152.4 50.8 19 × 100 1 F 152.4 89.7 92.3 0.97
S12 40.8 0.9 152.4 50.8 19 × 100 1 U 152.4 63.4 66.7 0.95
S20 24.2 0.9 152.4 76.2 9.5 × 127 1 F 152.4 35.0 43.4 0.81
S21 24.2 0.9 152.4 76.2 22 × 127 1 F 152.4 60.5 63.5 0.95
S22 24.2 0.9 152.4 76.2 9.5 × 127 1 U 152.4 27.5 34.3 0.80
S23 24.2 0.9 152.4 76.2 22 × 127 1 U 152.4 70.3 74.6 0.94
S24 24.2 1.5 76.2 114.3 19 × 152 1 C 171.5 34.6 36.8 0.94
S25 24.2 1.5 88.9 152.4 19 × 197 1 C 222.3 27.6 27.8 0.99
Smith and Couchman (2010) A1U 18.9 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 1 F 140 91.2 90.4 1.01
A1D 19.0 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 1 F 140 116.4 111.6 1.04
B1U 19.0 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 1 F 225 112.1 112.0 1.00
A2DX 19.3 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 2 F 140 62.4 63.8 0.98
A2UY 19.3 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 2 F 140 56.0 50.8 1.10
Author's personal copy

A2DY 21.0 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 2 F 140 74.0 69.9 1.06

A2DZ 19.3 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 2 F 140 61.9 56.8 1.09
B2U 18.9 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 2 F 225 74.7 78.3 0.95
A3D 18.9 0.9 155 60 19 × 100 3 F 140 46.4 47.1 0.98
Mean 0.97
CoV (%) 8.30

13
 personal copy
Fig. 3 a Push test arrangement
(Smith and Couchman 2010);
b FE modelling
Fig. 4 Uniaxial elastic perfectly plastic representation of steel parts in
FE
imperfections and residual stress pattern do not affect shear
stud capacity in such beams. Figure 4 shows the uniaxial
stress–strain models for steel with elastic perfectly plastic
behaviour used in the FE modelling.
2.4 Concrete Material Model
Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) model was used to
define the concrete slab. This model enables the inelas-
tic behaviour of concrete in compression and tension to
be modelled. The density and Poisson’s ratio of concrete
were chosen as 2400 kg/m3 and 0.2, respectively. Concrete
Damage Plasticity model accounts for bi-axial and tri-axial
stress states through four plasticity parameters. These
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
include dilation angle (ψ), eccentricity (ε = ratio of tensile
strength to compressive strength), ratio of initial biaxial
compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive
yield stress (fb0/fc0) and ratio of the second stress invariant
on tensile meridian to that on the compressive meridian
(K). The default values as recommended by ABAQUS for
ε, fb0/fc0 and K are 0.1, 1.16 and 2/3, respectively. Based
on sensitivity analysis undertaken on three dilation angles
(i.e. 36°, 40° and 44°), the dilation angle of 40° was cho-
sen. For Smith and Couchman (2010) work, the mean
compressive strength (fcm) of concrete was 20 MPa. The
uniaxial compressive and tensile behaviours of such grade
were represented in the FE model using Fig. 5.
2.4.1 Compressive Behaviour
Under compressive loading, concrete material responds lin-
early up to the initial yield stress σco. After that, the material
acts nonlinearly until the ultimate compressive stress σcu,
which is characterized by stress hardening. The elastic stiff-
ness of the concrete reduces when the load is lifted at any
point on the strain softening part of the stress–strain curve,
this stage is represented by compressive damage variables
dc. Compressive damage variable in concrete is calculated
using Eq. (1) as given in ABAQUS. The zero value of this
variable indicates that concrete is undamaged and 1 indicates
full damage. In ABAQUS, the compressive damaged values
are entered versus the compressive inelastic strain (crushing
strain) εc~in, which is calculated from Eq. (2).
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 5 Uniaxial loading

response of concrete (C20)

( ) [ ( )3 ] [( )]
dc = 1− 𝜎c ∕fcm (1) C1 w C2 w
f (w) = 1+ exp (5)
wc wc
d c 𝜎c
𝜀∼in
c
= 𝜀∼pl
c
+ (2)
1 − dc Eo
2.5 Contact Interactions and Constraints
2.4.2 Tensile Behaviour
A surface to surface contact pair algorithm was used to
The strain softening behaviour of concrete in tension was define stud-concrete and deck-concrete contact surfaces.
based on the fracture energy cracking method and using the The tangential and normal behaviour were used to define
exponential function given in Eq. (3) as proposed by Cornelis- the interaction properties between surfaces. The normal
sen et al. (1986). The fracture energy to any concrete grade behaviour was defined by the default option “Hard” contact
is represented by the stress-crack opening curve, particularly pressure-overclosure relationship. The tangential behaviour
the area under the unloading part. The tensile stress σt versus was defined via the penalty frictional formulation with a
crack opening displacement was calculated from Eq. (4). The coefficient of friction of 0.5 as recommended in Eurocode
tensile damage variable was found using the formula (dt = 1 4. The stud-concrete contact was defined by treating the stud
– σt/ft). The fracture energy was measured from the formula as a master and concrete as a slave surface. In deck-concrete
Gf = Gfo (fcm/fcmo)0.7 as suggested by MC 10 CEB-FIP model contact, concrete surface was treated as a master due to its
code (2010). higher stiffness and steel deck as a slave. Figure 6 shows a
surface to surface contact interaction of stud-concrete and
wc = 5.14Gf ∕ft (3) concrete-deck before the assembly. The beam-deck contact
was specified by general contact algorithm with frictionless
𝜎t = ft [f (w)−f (wc )] formulation. The nodes of steel decking around the headed
(4)
stud circumference were tied to the nodes of stud’s shank at

Fig. 6 Contact interactions of

stud-concrete and deck-concrete
surfaces

13
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

its base. The steel reinforcement bars were embedded inside
the concrete slab using the embedded constraint method.
2.6 Boundary Conditions and Load Application
Figure 3 illustrates the boundary conditions and the load-
ing surface of the push test models. Same boundary condi-
tions were applied to both validation and parametric studies.
All nodes of the underside of the beam flange, denoted by
surface 1, were restrained from moving in the Y (upward)
direction and rotating in the X (transverse) and Z (longitudi-
nal) direction due to symmetry. Surface 2, embedded to the
ground in experiments, representing profiled sheeting and
concrete slab nodes was prevented from translating in the Z
direction. Surface 3 denotes the shear loading surface on the
beam flange. All numerical models were loaded by applying
a uniform velocity at a rate of 0.5 mm/s, after a convergence
study of various loading rates. This loading rate was cho-
sen based on a compromise between accuracy and compu-
tational efficiency. To ensure the stability of the uniform
(2010), which had profiled decking depths ranging from 50
to 150 mm. The validation was based on the shear connec-
tor resistance, load-slip behaviour and mode of failure. The
FE results showed a close agreement with the experiments.
The average ratio of PTest/PFE is 0.97 with the corresponding
coefficient of variation of 8.30%. The results obtained from
the numerical analysis are compared with the experimental
results in Table 1. Numerical load versus slip curves for
selected push tests are compared with experiments from both
studies in Figs. 8 and 9, which shows a reasonable match.
In case of the verified models for Rambo-Roddenberry
(2002), the failure mode was stud shearing for the series
S20–21, rib punching and stud shearing for the series
S10, S12 and S22–23, and rib shearing or (rib cracking)
for the series S24–25 which incorporate profiled sheeting
greater than 100 mm deep. On the other hand, all specimens
in Smith and Couchman (2010) failed by concrete cones
35

velocity, a smooth amplitude function was used as suggested 30

in ABAQUS. The load increment must be controlled to make
the overall dynamic impact on all models minimal. The ratio 25
Load per stud (kN)

of kinetic energy to internal energy (ALLKE/ALLIE) of the 20

S25-FE
model should always be less than 10% (see Fig. 7) to ensure S25-1-Exp.
the quasi-static solution during a dynamic explicit procedure 15
S25-2-Exp.
(Suresh and Regalla 2014). For this purpose, a small mass 10 S25-3-Exp.
scaling factor of 10 was selected after a convergence study of
various mass scaling factors. This approach was successful 5

in maintaining the quasi-static solution in both validations 0

and parametric study. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Slip (mm)
2.7 Validation of FE Model
Fig. 8 FE and experiment Load-slip curves for push test series (S25)
The numerical results were verified against the experiments from Rambo-Roddenberry (2002)
from Rambo-Roddenberry (2002) and Smith and Couchman
120

0.0035 100
0.003
Load per stud (kN)

80
ALLKE/ALLIE

0.0025

0.002 60

0.0015 A1U-FE
40
0.001 A1U-1-Exp.
20 A1U-2-Exp.
0.0005
A1U-3-Exp.
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Slip mm Slip (mm)

Fig. 7 The ratio of kinetic energy over internal energy (ALLKE/ Fig. 9 FE and experiment Load-slip curves for push test (A1U) from
ALLIE) versus slip capacity for the mass scaling factor of 10 Smith and Couchman (2010)

13
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures
around headed studs and formation of a horizontal crack
along the surface of the concrete slab. A very similar fail-
ure pattern was observed in the numerical models as well
(see Figs. 10, 11). The cracking is represented by the tensile
damage variable, DAMAGET (dt); the value equal to one
represents complete cracking and zero denotes no tensile
crack. After this extensive validation of the finite element
model in terms of stud resistance, slip capacity and failure
modes, it can be confidently used to model composite beams
with 100 and 146 mm deep decks.
3 Parametric Study
The influence of a deep profiled sheeting was investigated
on the behaviour of secondary composite beams. A full-
scale push test model was created using five ribs of deep
profiled sheeting. The use of five ribs was meant to achieve
Fig. 10 Comparison of failure
mode in experiment in Smith
and Couchman (2010) and FE
model
Fig. 11 Concrete cones propa-
gation for stud pairs in Smith
and Couchman (2010) and FE
model
more precise behaviour of composite beams with decks
deeper than 80 mm and to investigate different headed stud’s
distribution. The section of steel beam was chosen to be
254 × 254 × 73 UC. The test program involved modelling
composite beams with two different types of steel decks.
One with a deep deck of 100 mm produced by Tata Steel
(2016), and the other with a deep deck of 146 mm produced
by Kingspan (2011). Although the first deck is marketed for
non-composite beams, it felt necessary to account it for the
composite beam action herein to address more than one type
of steel deck deeper than 80 mm. Thus, the average rib width
(bo) was 100 mm and the rib deck ratio (bo/hp) was 1.0. In
case of the 146 mm deep deck, the average rib width was
97.5 mm, resulting in a rib deck ratio of 0.67. The sheeting
thickness of both steel decks was 1.2 mm. Full dimensions
of both steel decks are shown in Fig. 12.
Because of the narrowness of the bottom surface of the
sheeting rib, it was not possible to place the headed studs
13
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 12 Details of the 100 and 146 mm profiled steel decks
Fig. 13 General push test arrangement with deep profiled decking
anywhere but in the centre. Therefore, the headed studs were
positioned in the centre of troughs in all models. The cor-
responding headed stud was 19 × 140 mm and 19 × 195 mm
for the 100 and 146 mm deep decks, respectively. The yield
stresses of the profiled sheeting and the headed stud in all
models were assumed to be 350 MPa and 420 MPa, respec-
tively. The width of a normal-weight-concrete slab in all
models was 600 mm, being the minimum width requirement
in EC4 (2004). The concrete slab depth was equal to the stud
height plus 20 mm of concrete cover. All parts were meshed
using 15 × 15 mm mesh size, then assembled together to
produce the push test model. The general push test arrange-
ment is shown in Fig. 13. The concrete slab was raised in
this figure to enable the embedded parts inside the concrete
to be seen.
The total number of push models were 40 and divided into
five groups (G1–5) as illustrated in Table 2. The first group
(G1) had eight models (T1–8), where four tests contained the
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
100 mm deep deck and four with the 146 mm deep deck. This
group was considered as the control case. The second group
(G2) resembles G1, except two headed studs were placed in
each rib at a transverse spacing of 5d. The third group (G3)
involved 8 tests (T17–24) similar to G1, but each test had
three single studs placed in every other rib. This means there
was no stud in the second and fourth ribs. The fourth group
(G4) contained 8 tests (T25–32) having the studs placed in
the three middle troughs, where there was no stud in the first
and last ribs. Figure 14 shows the distribution of studs in
G3–4. In the first four groups, all concrete slabs were rein-
forced by a single layer of wire-mesh bars placed on the deck
surface. The fifth group (G5) also had eight tests (T33–40)
similar to G1, except the concrete volume within ribs was
reinforced by unique grid bars. For inner three ribs, the grid
bars were positioned at the back and front to the stud connec-
tors, while the outer ribs had the layer placed either at front or
back of the stud. The bars were made from A193 wire-mesh
(7 mm in diameter) and assembled with the conventional slab
reinforcement above the steel deck as one part. The model of
such grid bars is shown in Fig. 15.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Effect of Rib Geometries
Figures 16 and 17 show the load-slip curves obtained from
the control case tests (G1) with 100 and 146 mm deep decks,
respectively. In general, the shear stud capacity with narrow
and deep deck appeared to vary from 48 to 83 kN when
the concrete grade was increased from 12 to 40 MPa. Test
with 100 mm deep decks showed a slight increase in the
shear stud capacity compared to those obtained from the
146 mm deep decks. This could be due to the small differ-
ence between both rib geometries which did not contribute
much towards the shear stud strength. All models failed by
a combination of concrete cone failure and rib punching.
The concrete started cracking near the first rib and propa-
gated upwards forming wedge shapes at the end of the test.
Also, the concrete cones progressed across most troughs.
The crushing in concrete happened at late stage of test when
the tensile damage of concrete had already come into effect.
The tensile-based concrete failure is dominant in composite
beams with deep decks as concrete is strong in compres-
sion (crushing). The typical tensile cracking and crushing
of concrete are shown in Fig. 18.
The webs of sheeting in front of studs started to buckle
as soon as the load reached the peak point resulting in rib
punching failure as seen in Fig. 19. The behaviour of the
headed stud in the control case was investigated. The first
stud close to the applied load sheared off in most models
at the late stage of the test due to continuous concrete
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 2 Details and shear stud capacities of push tests obtained from the parametric study
Group Test fc (MPa) Profiled sheeting Headed stud PFE (kN) Parameter
bo (mm) hp (mm) bo/hp d × hsc nr

G1 T1 12 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 50.2 Control case (rib geometries)

T2 20 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 59.3
T3 30 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 70.7
T4 40 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 82.5
T5 12 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 48.1
T6 20 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 57.2
T7 30 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 68.6
T8 40 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 79.1
G2 T9 12 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 10 39.1 Stud pairs
T10 20 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 10 47.8
T11 30 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 10 54.8
T12 40 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 10 62.1
T13 12 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 10 38.3
T14 20 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 10 45.7
T15 30 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 10 50.3
T16 40 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 10 53.2
G3 T17 12 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 60.7 Studs placed alternatively
T18 20 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 72.6
T19 30 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 84.3
T20 40 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 97.1
T21 12 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 59.4
T22 20 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 71.4
T23 30 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 84.8
T24 40 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 93.1
G4 T25 12 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 47.8 Studs placed in the three middle ribs
T26 20 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 56.5
T27 30 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 66.8
T28 40 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 3 78.8
T29 12 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 40.6
T30 20 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 51.9
T31 30 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 62.7
T32 40 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 3 71.0
G5 T33 12 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 64.6 Slab reinforced with unique grid bars
T34 20 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 75.7
T35 30 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 88.8
T36 40 100 100 1.00 19 × 140 5 102.7
T37 12 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 61.0
T38 20 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 70.4
T39 30 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 83.2
T40 40 97.5 146 0.67 19 × 195 5 96.3

pressure. This is indicated by a sudden drop in the load
after further decline in the load bearing capacity as seen
in Figs. 16 and 17. The remaining studs experienced a
double curvature deformation, particularly the last three
studs away from the applied load as shown in Fig. 20. This
deformation is common in narrow rib steel decks, where
more moment is resisted by the studs causing a double
curvature (Lawson 1997).
This part of the research provides the first insight into
the correlation between narrow and wide rib decks regard-
ing the shear connector resistance. The shear stud capac-
ities obtained from steel decks deeper than 80 mm are

13
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 14 FE push tests: a studs placed alternatively in G3; b studs placed in the three middle ribs in G4
Fig. 15 Push test with deep
deck reinforced by a unique
grid bars
compared to previous studies conducted with the common
steel decks. For push tests having 60 mm deep decking,
1.2 mm sheeting thickness, 19 mm diameter stud in cen-
tral position, the shear capacity per stud varied from 75 to
120 kN when the concrete strength was changed from 12
to 40 MPa (Qureshi et al. 2011b). For the same push tests
arrangement, but having 76 mm deep decking, Robinson
(1988) found that the shear capacity per stud was 81.6 kN
with a concrete strength of 24.9 MPa. In this research, that
experimental result was normalised to the concrete grades
of C12, C20, C30, and C40 using Eq. (6). This equation
was previously used by Robinson (1988) and Lloyd and
Wright (1990).
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
[ ]0.5
Pnormalised = fc ∕fc(test) Ptest (6)
The shear capacity per stud would then vary from
56.6 to 103.4 kN when the concrete strength is changed
from 12 to 40  MPa. Figure  21 presents the shear stud
capacities with different rib geometries. The comparison
revealed that the shear stud capacity obtained from narrow
(bo/hp < 1.5) and deeper decks than 80 mm is 65–70% of
those obtained from the mid-deep decks. This reduction in
the shear resistance is attributed to the narrow geometry of
deep decks which provides relatively less concrete volume
around studs.
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

90

80

70
Load per stud (kN)

60

50

40

30 T1
T2
20
T3
10 T4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Slip (mm)

Fig. 16 Load-slip curves for tests with the 100 mm deep decking

90

80
T5
70 T6 Fig. 18 Side cut view of concrete failure in push models with deep
Load per stud (KN)

T7 deck: a tensile concrete damage and b concrete crushing

60 T8
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slip (mm)

Fig. 17 Load-slip curves for tests with the 146 mm deep decking

4.2 Effect of Headed Stud’s Distribution

In case of stud pairs presented in G2, the FE results
exhibited a reduction in the shear connector resistance by
22% and 25% for tests with 100 and 146 mm deep decks,
respectively as compared to the results obtained from
the control case (single studs per rib). The reduction in
the shear connector resistance was due to the shortage of
deformation capacity as the embedded concrete volume
in troughs around studs is less than the troughs with one
stud. The models with stud pairs failed due to concrete
cones only. The first two studs sheared at the late stage of
the test, while the rest of studs only bent in the direction
of the applied load without showing any double curvature.
These findings will help assess the accuracy of the current
design equations in predicting the shear connector resist-
ance when stud pairs are used in deep decks.
Fig. 19 Typical rib punching in deep decking
Regarding the models with single studs placed in every
alternative trough (G3), Figs. 22 and 23 present the shear
stud capacities with 100 and 146 mm deep decks, respec-
tively. Placing the headed studs in such a manner caused
a significant increase in the shear connector resistance by
an average of 21% when compared to the control case (sin-
gle studs in every rib). This is due to the extra concrete
volume and greater longitudinal spacing between studs.
It was also interesting to see that this unique arrangement
made the shear stud capacities with deep decks fairly close
to the resistance obtained from tests with 76 mm deep
decks (highlighted as green bars in Figs. 22, 23). The fail-
ure mechanism was similar to those in the control case.
However, the concrete part in troughs where there was

13
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 20 General deformation of

19 × 195 mm headed studs

Fig. 21 Shear connector 130

resistance with different rib
120
geometries
110

100
Load per stud (kN)

90

80 bo/hp = 0.67 [hp = 146 mm]

70 bo/hp = 1.00 [hp = 100 mm]

60 bo/hp = 2.00 [hp = 76 mm]

bo/hp = 2.35 [hp = 60 mm]
50

40

30

20
C12 C20 C30 C40
Concrete grade (MPa)

Fig. 22 Comparison of tests 110

with 100 mm deep deck and dif-
ferent studs’ layout against tests 100
with 76 mm deep deck
90
Load per stud (kN)

80

70 Studs placed in each rib [bo/hp = 1.00]

Studs placed alternatively [bo/hp = 1.00]

60
bo/hp = 2.00 [hp =76 mm]
50

40

30
C12 C20 C30 C40
Concrete grade (MPa)

no stud remained completely intact throughout the test.
With less concrete damage and up to 20% increase in the
shear connector resistance, this unique layout of studs, if
implemented in practice, could be beneficial in composite
beams with deep decks. Contrarily to G3, omitting studs
from the first and last ribs, and placing studs in the middle
three ribs (refer to G4) did not add any benefit. The shear
connector resistances obtained from this group were close
to the control case (G1). This observation proves that wide
longitudinal spacing between studs could play a significant
role in developing the shear connector resistance in deep
decks.

13

International Journal of Steel Structures
Fig. 23 Comparison of tests
with 146 mm deep deck and dif-
ferent studs’ layout against tests
with 76 mm deep deck
Load per stud (kN)
4.3 Effect of Slab Reinforcement
From the initial observations in the control case, the concrete
volume within the ribs appeared to be the critical zone where
the behaviour of the headed stud is governed. The tensile con-
crete damage generates within the ribs and mainly propagates
through the concrete part surrounding the stud connectors.
Given that the narrow geometry of composite decks, deeper
than 80 mm, offers little concrete volume to resist the shear
load, the brittle failure of concrete will be a natural conse-
quence resulting in less shear connector resistance. If the ten-
dency of the tensile concrete damage was suppressed, it would
allow more load-bearing capacity to be achieved. For this rea-
son, the concrete embedded within the ribs was reinforced by
special grid bars as addressed in G5. This technique led the
stud connector to gain an average of 25% more shear resistance
when compared to the control case.
Figure 24 presents a comparison between the load-slip
curves obtained from G1 and G5 for tests with 100 mm deep
deck. The load bearing capacity was significantly improved
causing more ductile response as compared to those obtained
from the control case. This is due to the proposed technique
of slab reinforcement, which suppressed the concrete damage
within the ribs. As a result, the stud connector gained more
shear resistance and ductility. The tensile concrete failure prop-
agation and the deformation between tests with and without
this unique slab reinforcement are shown in Fig. 25. Overall,
this part of the study brings a new approach in strengthening
the profiled slab with deep decks in which both strength and
ductility of the headed stud can improve.
Author's personal copy
110
100
90
80
70 Studs placed in each rib [bo/hp = 0.67]
Studs placed alternatively [bo/hp = 0.67]
60
bo/hp = 2.00 [hp = 76 mm]
50
40
30
C12 C20 C30 C40
Concrete grade (MPa)
5 Comparison of FE Results with Design
Codes and Theoretical Equations
5.1 General
The shear stud capacities obtained from the parametric
study were compared with the nominal design strengths
predicted by the EC4 (2004), ANSI/AISC (2016), and
some theoretical equations by Johnson and Yuan (1998),
and Konrad (2011). The FE results from the parametric
study involved results taken from tests with single and
double studs per rib (i.e. G1 and G2). It should be noted
that the developed equations by Nellinger et al. (2018) are
excluded herein, as they require the stud connectors to
be placed off-centre, besides the presence of a transverse
compression force (i.e. normal load).
In fact, there is no specific formula in the literature
to predict the shear stud capacity in a profiled decking
greater than 80 mm deep. The existing equations in the
design codes and elsewhere are primarily empirical and
are based on the dimensions of common decks (i.e. 60
and 80 mm deep). For instance, the depth of the 146 mm
deep decking is almost twice as the common ones. With its
deep and narrow ribs, it is uncertain whether the existing
design equations account for the geometry effect of such
decks. The comparison among the FE results, the codified
design equations and the theoretical methods are shown
in Table 3.
13
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 24 Comparison between load-slip curves obtained from G1 and G5 for tests with the 100 mm deep deck

5.2 Eurocode 4 Provisions of PFE/PEC4 is 3.99, with the coefficient of variation of 27.5%.
Applying the dimensions of decks deeper than 80 mm with
The nominal strength of headed shear stud connector is their relevant stud height in Eq. (9) resulted in very low
taken as the lesser value obtained from Eqs. (7–8) and mul- reduction factor ranging from 0.11 to 0.28. For the conven-
tiplied by a reduction factor using Eq. (9). tional profiled decks, the ratio of the average rib width to
√ the rib height (bo/hp) is greater than 1.5 in most cases. How-
PEC4 = 0.29𝛼d2 fc Ec (7) ever, in the steel decks investigated herein, the rib deck ratio
(bo/hp) ≤ 1.0. This is the reason Eq. (9) resulted in low reduc-
𝜋d2 tion factor, which in turn gave very low predicted strengths. It
PEC4 = 0.8fu (8) is recommended that Eq. (9) should be calibrated to account
4
for the geometries of decks deeper than 80 mm.
[ ]
0.7 bo hsc
kt = √ −1 (9) 5.3 ANSI/AISC Provisions
Nr hp hp
The nominal strength of one headed shear stud connec-
where α = (h sc/d − 1) for (3 ≤ h sc/d ≤ 4) and α = 1.0 for
tor embedded in a solid concrete slab is determined using
(hsc/d > 4). The factor kt should not be taken greater than the
Eq. (10).
appropriate value ktmax given in Table 4.
√
The relationship between the load per stud obtained from PAISC = 0.5As fc Ec ≤ Rg Rp As fu (10)
the FE analysis and the EC4 predicted strengths is shown in
Fig. 26. Clearly, the EC4 equations highly underestimated √
the headed stud strengths in deep decks. Some predictions Ec = 0.043w1.5
o
fc (11)
were 3–5 times lower than the FE results. The average ratio

13
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 25 Tensile concrete failure

at the end in deep decks: a
conventional reinforcement and
b unique grid bars

For decks oriented perpendicular, Rg is 1.0 and 0.85 for
single and double studs, respectively, and Rp is 0.6.
The FE results are compared to the ANSI/AISC predicted
strengths in Fig. 27. It was found that ANSI/AISC equations
gave unsafe predictions in general. The average ratio of PFE/
PAISC is 0.79, and the corresponding coefficient of variation is
16.96%. It was noticed that the controlling equation was the
steel failure (Rg Rp As fu) when the strength of concrete was
higher than 20 MPa. The predicted strengths of the headed
stud in case of single and double studs remained constant when
the concrete strength was greater than 20 MPa. This suggests
that the use of equations in the American specifications would
result in unreliable values as they are not capable of dealing
with different variables, such as, the concrete strength and
number of studs per rib. Moreover, the American code comes
with the drawback that the geometries of steel decks are not
considered.
5.4 Comparison with Analytical Approach
According to Johnson and Yuan (1998)
Based on a theoretical analysis carried by Johnson and
Yuan (1998), the researchers proposed several equations
to predict the strength of headed stud in composite beams
with transverse sheeting. The equations were based on
five modes of failure including shank shearing (SS), rib
punching (RP), rib punching with shank shearing (RPSS),
rib punching with concrete pull-out (RPCP), and concrete
pull-out (CPT). In this research, two analytical approaches
were selected, namely the developed equations from RPCP
and CPT. The RP equations were not chosen as they do not
consider the number of studs per rib.

13
13
Table 3 Comparison of shear stud capacity obtained from FE analysis and current design equations
Group Test PFE (kN) PEC4 (kN) PAISC (kN) PRPCP (kN) PCPT (kN) PKonrad (kN) PFE/PEC PFE/PAISC PFE/PRPCT PFE/PCPT PFE/PKonrad

G1 T1 50.2 16.7 65.0 39.7 52.2 37.4 3.00 0.77 1.26 0.96 1.34
T2 59.3 22.7 89.3 46.9 62.6 45.2 2.61 0.66 1.26 0.95 1.31
T3 70.7 26.7 89.3 51.1 69.8 52.8 2.65 0.79 1.38 1.01 1.34
T4 82.5 26.7 89.3 51.2 70.2 59.2 3.09 0.92 1.61 1.18 1.39
T5 48.1 9.4 65.0 31.8 44.9 32.1 5.12 0.74 1.51 1.07 1.50
T6 57.2 12.8 71.4 38.7 53.0 38.9 4.48 0.80 1.48 1.08 1.47
T7 68.6 15.0 71.4 42.8 59.3 45.4 4.58 0.96 1.60 1.16 1.51
T8 79.1 15.0 71.4 42.9 59.7 50.9 5.28 1.11 1.84 1.32 1.55
G2 T9 39.1 11.8 65.0 48.1 45.4 29.9 3.31 0.60 0.81 0.86 1.31
T10 47.8 16.0 75.9 59.0 52.7 36.2 2.98 0.63 0.81 0.91 1.32
T11 54.8 18.9 75.9 67.1 57.4 42.3 2.91 0.72 0.82 0.95 1.30
T12 62.1 18.9 75.9 67.2 57.7 47.3 3.29 0.82 0.92 1.08 1.31
T13 38.3 6.6 60.7 40.4 37.3 25.7 5.77 0.63 0.95 1.03 1.49
T14 45.7 9.0 60.7 51.3 42.3 31.1 5.07 0.75 0.89 1.08 1.47
Author's personal copy

T15 50.3 10.6 60.7 59.5 46.0 36.3 4.75 0.83 0.85 1.09 1.38
T16 53.2 10.6 60.7 59.5 46.3 40.7 5.02 0.88 0.89 1.15 1.31
Mean 3.99 0.79 1.18 1.06 1.39
CoV (%) 27.48 16.96 29.84 11.00 6.41
International Journal of Steel Structures
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 4 Upper limits ktmax for the reduction factor kt 120

Number of stud Thickness Stud not Profiled sheeting

Numerical predicted strength, PFE (kN)

100
connectors per of sheeting exceeding with holes and Underestimation
rib (mm) 20 mm in diam- studs 19 mm
eter and welded or 22 mm in 80
through profiled diameter
sheeting
60

1 ≤ 1.0 0.85 0.75 Overestimation

> 1.0 1.0 0.75 40
2 ≤ 1.0 0.70 0.60
> 1.0 0.80 0.60 Single studs (G1)
20
Double studs (G2)
FE results = predicted strengths
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
90
ANSI/AISC predicted strength, PAISC (kN)
80
Underestimation
Numerical predicted strength, PFE (kN)

70 Fig. 27 FE results versus ANSI/AISC predicted strengths

60

50 PRP = krp PEC4 (13)

Overestimation
40
[ ( )0.5 ]/( )
30
krp = 𝜂rp + 𝜆rp 1 + 𝜆2rp −𝜂rp
2
1 + 𝜆2rp ≤ 1.0 (14)
Single studs (G1)
20
Double studs (G2)
10 FE results = predicted strengths [( ) ]/
𝜂rp = e + hsc −hp ts fyp PEC4 (15)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Eurocode 4 predicted strength, PEC4 (kN) 𝜆rp = eTy ∕2hp PEC4 (16)

Fig. 26 FE results versus EC4 predicted strengths Ty ≅ 0.8As fu (17)

5.4.1 Combined Concrete Pull-Out and Rib Punching where PEC4 is the shear connector resistance in a solid slab
Failure (RPCP) calculated from Eqs. (7–8). e is equal to 50 and 48.75 mm
for 100 and 146 mm deep decks, respectively.
For combined rib punching and concrete pull-out failure of For the concrete pull-out failure mode, the equations are
studs in slabs with two studs placed in series or diagonally as follows:
in a rib, the stud placed on the favourable side is assumed to PCP = kcp PEC4 (18)
fail by concrete pull-out, whilst the stud placed on the unfa-
vourable side is assumed to fail by rib punching. Eventually, [
( )0.5 ]/( )
the shear resistance of each stud is assumed to be the mean 2 2
kcp = 𝜂cp + 𝜆cp 1 + 𝜆cp −𝜂cp 1 + 𝜆2cp ≤ 1.0 (19)
value of PRP and PCP as given in Eq. (12).
( )
PRPCP = PRP + PCP ∕2 (12) [ ( )]/
h ( )
𝜂cp = 0.56vtu h2sc e + st − sc hp PEC4 if 0.75hsc ≤ e + st
For the rib punching failure mode, the equations are as 4
follow: (20)
( ( ) )]/
[
( )2 e + st ( )
𝜂cp = vtu e + st 0.75hsc − hp PEC4 if 0.75hsc > e + st (21)
3

13
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

90 90

80 80

Numerical predicted strength, PFE (kN)

Numerical predicted strength, PFE (kN)

70 Underestimation 70 Underestimation

60 60

50 50

40 Overestimation
40 Overestimation
30
30
20 Single studs (G1)
20 Single studs (G1)
Double studs (G2)
Double studs (G2) 10
10 FE results = predicted strengths
FE results = predicted strengths
0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Predicted strengths by Johnson and Yuan, PCPT (kN)
Predicteded strengths by Johnson and Yuan, PRPCP (kN)

Fig. 29 FE results versus PCPT predicted strengths

Fig. 28 FE results versus PRPCP predicted strengths

𝜆cp = eTy ∕hp PEC4 (22) The predicted strengths considerably overestimated the
shear resistance of tests with stud pairs. It was noticed
that the predicted values were even higher than the ones
Ty ≅ 0.8As fu (23) achieved for the single studs which ideally should be
lower. The proposed equations from the RPCP failure
0.5
vtu = 0.8fcu ≤5 (24) would give unsteady results for the composite beams
with deep decks. The discrepancy was due to the way the
Theoretically, the equations developed from the RPCP equations were developed, which was based on the studs’
failure mode are not suitable for composite beams with arrangement.
deep decks, especially the equations for concrete pull-out
failure. These formulae were developed based on plac- 5.4.2 Concrete Pull-Out Failure (CPT)
ing two studs in series or staggered in a trough. In the
current research, it is not possible to place two studs in For concrete pull-out failure of studs in slabs with one stud
any arrangement but the same line due to the narrowness per trough, in a central or favourable position, the strength is
of rib. Nevertheless, if these equations were meant to be determined by multiplying the shear stud strength in a solid
used, then st would be zero in case of single studs, and st slab calculated from Eqs. (7–8) by the reduction factor kcpt
would be assumed as the transverse spacing between studs as shown below:
in case of stud pairs. Thus, Eq. (21) would be used for
single and double studs of 19 × 195 mm, as it justifies the PCPT = kcpt PEC4 (25)
condition of 0.75hsc > (e + st). On the other hand, Eq. (20)
[ ( )0.5 ]/( )
would be used for single and double studs of 19 × 140 mm,
as it justifies the condition of 0.75hsc ≤ (e + st). kcpt = 𝜂cpt + 𝜆cpt 1 + 𝜆2cpt −𝜂cpt
2
1 + 𝜆2cpt ≤ 1.0
The predicted strengths of the developed equation (26)
based on RPCP failure are compared to the FE results [ ( )]/
hsc
in Fig. 28. The average ratio of P FE/P RPCT is 1.18, and 𝜂cpt = 0.56 vtu h2sc bo − hp Nr PEC4 ≤ 1.0 (27)
the coefficient of variation is 29.84%. In case of the 4
push models with single studs, the developed equations
underestimated the shear resistance of headed stud when 𝜆cpt = e Ty ∕hp PEC4 (28)
the concrete grade was C12 and C20 with a deviation of
over 20%. However, the deviation in results became much Ty ≅ 0.8 As fu (29)
higher when the concrete grade was C30 and C40. The
predicted strengths remained within the range of 47–51 The predicted strengths based on CPT failure are com-
kN and 39–42 for tests with 100 and 146 mm deep decks, pared with the numerical results as shown in Fig. 29. In gen-
respectively and did not reveal a significant rise as the eral, the average ratio of PFE/PCPT is 1.06 with the coefficient
concrete strength increased. of variation of 11.00%. In terms of the push models with

13
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures

single studs, the developed equations appeared to adequately 90

predict the strength capacity of stud up to the concrete grade 80

Numerical predicted strength, PFE (kN)

of 30 MPa, while the predicted strengths were conservative
70 Underestimation
for the concrete grade of 40 MPa. On the other hand, the pre-
dicted strengths were in good agreement with the numerical 60

results from the push models with stud pairs. The maximum 50
scatter in results was 15%. Overestimation
40
Although the developed equations from CPT failure did
not closely predict the stud capacity in some cases, they 30
Single studs (G1)
seemed more relevant than the ones from RPCP failure to 20
Double studs (G2)
deal with composite beams with deep decks. In fact, the 10
FE results = predicted strengths
equations consider the number of studs per trough, and they
0
were developed based on placing studs in a central or favour- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
able position which meets the way the studs are arranged in
Predicted strengths by Konrad, PKonrad (kN)
this study (central position). Hence, the developed equations
from CPT failure could precisely predict the strength of stud
Fig. 30 FE results versus PKonrad predicted strengths
if they were calibrated again to cover the geometries of steel
decks deeper than 80 mm.
where AWulst,eff is the effective area of weld collar = 0.5
hWulst dWulst (see Table 5), kn = 1 for single studs per rib, and
5.5 Comparison with Analytical Approach kn = 0.8 for stud pairs.
According to Konrad (2011) Figure 30 presents the comparison between the results
from the FE analysis and the proposed equations by Kon-
The formulae developed by Konrad (2011) considered the rad (2011). It can be noticed that the proposed equations
influence of the welding position of the stud on the shear significantly underestimated the shear stud capacities of all
resistance. The mean shear strength of a stud in a profiled models, the average ratio of PFE/PKonrad is 1.39, and the cor-
decking is the smaller value among Eqs. (30–31). The reduc- responding coefficient of variation is 6.41%. This is because
tion factor (kt) in Eq. (32) is for the mid-position of stud of the value before the term (bo/hp)2 in Eq. (32) being very
and the case of hsc/hp ≤ 1.56. The author assumed that the small that resulted in a reduction factor (kt) ≤ 0.521. It is
geometry of decking does not affect the resistance of stud then recommended that if the equations proposed by Konrad
rupture, and thus the reduction factor is only included in the (2011) were meant to predict the shear connector resistance
concrete failure equation. in deep decks, Eq. (32) should be calibrated again to give
more realistic reduction factor which in turn would result in
Pm,s = 39.85AWulst,eff fc2∕3 + 0.59fu d2 (30)
more accurate strength capacity.
( )
Pm,c = kt 39.85AWulst,eff fc2∕3 + 3.75d2 fc1∕3 fu1∕2 (31)
6 Conclusions
[ ( )2 ( ) ( )]
kt = kn 6.79 × 10−4 bo ∕hp + 0.17 bo ∕hp + 0.25 hsc ∕hp ≤ 1.0
This research aims to bridge a crucial gap in knowledge and
(32) understating of steel–concrete composite beams with sheet-
ing deeper than 80 mm. Lack of design rules for composite
beams with deep decks and very limited previous research

Table 5 Effective area of weld Diameter of stud Height of weld collar Diameter of weld collar Effective area of weld
collar according to Konrad (mm) (hWulst) (mm) (dWulst) (mm) collar (AWulst,eff) (mm2)
(2011)
10 2.5 13.0 16.3
13 3.0 17.0 25.5
16 4.5 21.0 47.3
19 6.0 23.0 63.0
22 6.0 29.0 87.0
25 7.0 40.0 140.0

13
 Author's personal copy
poses a major challenge to the structural designers. This
paper fills this knowledge gap by investigating various theo-
retical models for the stud resistance and comparing them
with a validated nonlinear 3-D finite element model using
ABAQUS. After extensive validations, a parametric study
using 40 push test models performed on composite beams
with 100 and 146 mm deep decks. The parameters included
the rib geometries, studs’ layout and slab reinforcement.
The numerical analysis revealed that the shear stud capac-
ity with narrow (bo/hp < 1.5) and deep decks was 65–70% of
that obtained from the traditional steel decks (i.e. 60–80 mm
deep). The narrow geometry of deep decks which offers rela-
tively less concrete volume was the main reason behind that
drastic difference. Attempts were made aiming at develop-
ing the strength and ductility of headed stud placed in such
decks. New techniques were proposed in this research to
the push test arrangements including placing studs in every
alternative rib and reinforcing the concrete embedded within
ribs by a unique grid steel bars. The first technique led for
the shear stud capacity to increase by an average of 20%.
The use of the unique grid bars was successful in suppress-
ing the concrete damage. This resulted in an average of 25%
increase in the shear stud capacity besides achieving higher
ductility than the control case.
Critical examination was conducted on the existing
design equations and some theoretical methods to assess
their accuracy in predicting the shear stud capacity when
composite decks deeper than 80 mm are used. The compari-
son showed that the EC4 (2004) underestimated the shear
stud capacity with predications 3–5 times lower than the
FE results. Certainly, the EC4 needs to be updated to incor-
porate decks deeper than 80 mm. On the other hand, the
ANSI/AISC (2016) overestimated the shear stud capacities
of all tests with a deviation of up to 20%. Over-predicting
the shear connector resistance could potentially be unsafe,
the American provisions need amendment as well to account
for higher decking depths.
Meanwhile, the predicted strengths obtained from the
developed equations by Konrad (2011) were on the conserv-
ative side, underestimating the shear stud capacity by 50%
in some cases. Among the theoretical methods developed
by Johnson and Yuan (1998), the concrete pull-out failure
(CPT) gave the most reasonable results with an accuracy of
85–95% in most cases, yet some results were still undesira-
ble. While this research provides an important basis for com-
posite beams with deep profiled sheeting, further research
is needed to develop a generalised design shear connector
resistance formula for decks deeper than 80 mm.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Uni-
versity of East London for their facilities. Also, the first author is sin-
cerely grateful to the Higher Committee for Education Development
in Iraq for his PhD study.
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
References
ABAQUS Documentations. (2014). ABAQUS user’s manual. Version
6.14, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorenson, USA
Adany, S., Kachichian, M., Kovesdi, B., & Dunai, L. (2013). Experi-
mental studies on deep trapezoidal sheeting with perforated webs.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 139(5), 729–739.
ANSI, AISC 360. (2016). Specification for structural steel buildings.
Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction.
ASC Steel Deck. (2016). Floor deck catalogue. Sacramento, CA:
Manufactures of ASC Steel Deck profiles.
BS En 1992-1-1. (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures:
Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings. London: British
Standard Institution.
BS EN 1994-1-1. (2004). Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and
concrete structures: Part 1.1: General rules and rules for build-
ings. London: British Standard Institution.
CEB-FIP Model Code. (2010). The International Federation for Struc-
tural Concrete, Switzerland.
Chen, L. Z., Ranzi, G., Jiang, S. C., Tahmasebinia, F., & Li, G. Q.
(2015). Behaviour and design of shear connectors in composite
slabs at elevated temperatures. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 115, 387–397.
Cornelissen, H. A. W., Hordijk, D. A., & Reinhardt, H. W. (1986).
Experimental determination of crack softening characteristics of
normalweight and lightweight-concrete. Heron, 31(2), 45–56.
Ernest, S., Bridge, R., & Wheeler, A. (2010). Correlation of beam tests
with pushout tests in steel–concrete composite beams. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 136(2), 183–192.
Johnson, R. P., & Yuan, H. (1998). Models and design rules for stud
shear connectors in troughs of profiled sheeting. Proceeding of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, 128(3),
252–263.
Katwal, U., Tao, Z., & Hassan, M. K. (2018). Finite element modelling
of steel–concrete composite beams with profiled steel sheeting.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 146, 1–15.
Kingspan Multideck Technical Handbook. (2011). Manufactures of
multideck composite metal decking. North Yorkshire, United
Kingdom.
Konrad, M. (2011). Structural behaviour of headed studs with trap-
ezoidal profiled sheeting. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stuttgart,
Germany (in German).
Lawson, R.M. (1997). Shear connection in composite beams-influence
of steel deck shape. In Proceeding of the Engineering Foundation
Conference, Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete III,
ASCE, Irsee, Germany, pp. 312–324.
Lloyd, R. M., & Wright, H. D. (1990). Shear connection between
composite slabs and steel beams. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 15(4), 255–285.
Naghavi, M., Rahnavard, R., Thomas, R. J., & Malekinejad, M. (2019).
Numerical evaluation of the hysteretic behavior of concentrically
braced frames and buckling restrained brace frame systems. Jour-
nal of Building Engineering, 22, 415–428.
Nellinger, S., Eggert, F., Kuhlmann, U., Odenbreit, C., & Obiala, R.
(2018). Short-span composite beam tests to evaluate stud resist-
ances. Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures
and Building, 171(1), 17–28.
Nellinger, S., Odenbreit, C., Obiala, R., & Lawson, M. (2017). Influ-
ence of transverse loading onto push-out tests with deep steel
decking. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 128(1),
335–353.
Qureshi, J. (2010). Finite element modelling of steel–concrete compos-
ite structures. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds, United
Kingdom.
 Author's personal copy
International Journal of Steel Structures
Qureshi, J., Lam, D., & Ye, J. (2011a). Effect of shear connector spac-
ing and layout on the shear connector capacity in composite
beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 67(4), 706–719.
Qureshi, J., Lam, D., & Ye, J. (2011b). The influence of profiled sheet-
ing thickness and shear connector’s position on strength and duc-
tility of headed shear connector. Engineering Structures, 33(5),
1643–1656.
Rahnavard, R., & Hassanipour, A. (2015). Steel Structures analysis
using ABAQUS. Kerman: Academic Center for Education, Culture
and Research, Publishing Organization of Kerman Branch.
Rahnavard, R., Hassanipour, A., & Mounesi, A. (2016). Numerical
study on important parameters of composite steel–concrete shear
walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 121, 441–456.
Rahnavard, R., Hassanipour, A., Suleiman, M., & Mokhtari, A.
(2017a). Evaluation on eccentrically braced frame with single and
double shear panel. Journal of Building Engineering, 10, 13–25.
Rahnavard, R., Khaje, M. T., Hassanipour, A., & Siahpolo, N. (2017b).
Parametric study of seismic performance of steel bridges pier
rehabilitated with composite connection. Journal of Struc-
tural and Construction Engineering. https://doi.org/10.22065/
JSCE.2017.92128.1259.
Rahnavard, R., Naghavi, M., Aboudi, M., & Suleiman, M. (2018).
Investigating modeling approaches of buckling-restrained braces
under cyclic loads. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 8,
476–488.
Rambo-Roddenberry, M. D. (2002). Behaviour and strength of welded
stud shear connectors. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University.
Robinson, R. (1988). Multiple stud shear connections in deep ribbed
metal deck. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(4),
553–569.
Shin, D. K., Dat, B. V., & Kim, K. (2014). Compressive strength of
HPS box girder flanges stiffened with open ribs. Journal of Con-
structional Steel Research, 95, 230–241.
Shin, D. K., Le, V. A., & Kim, K. (2013). In-plane ultimate compres-
sive strengths of HPS deck panel with U-shaped ribs. Thin-Walled
Structures, 63, 70–81.
Smith, A. L., & Couchman, G. H. (2010). Strength and ductility of
headed stud shear connectors in profiled sheeting. Journal of Con-
structional Steel Research, 66(6), 748–754.
Suresh, K., & Regalla, S. P. (2014). Effect of time scaling and mass
scaling in numerical simulation of incremental forming. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 612, 105–110.
Tata Steel. (2016). Composite floor decking design and technical infor-
mation. United Kingdom.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13