See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304581402

CHARACTERIZATION OF LOAD PATHS IN

COMPOSITE STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS AND
COLLECTORS

Conference Paper · May 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 238

1 author:

Anshul Agarwal
The University of Arizona
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anshul Agarwal on 30 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
CHARACTERIZATION OF LOAD PATHS IN COMPOSITE STEEL DECK
DIAPHRAGMS AND COLLECTORS

Robert B. Fleischman
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
rfleisch@email.arizona.edu

Anshul Agarwal
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
anshul@email.arizona.edu

Alexander T. Walsh
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
alexanderwalsh@email.arizona.edu

Luis F. Valdez
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
lfvaldezsoto@email.arizona.edu

Diaphragm behavior remains one of the less defined aspects of building response.
In an earthquake, inertial forces must be carried through the floor diaphragm to the lateral
force resisting system. The floor systems in steel structures are indeterminate
assemblages of different materials and geometries, acting at different elevations, and
connected by elements which may not be primarily considered for diaphragm action.
Complex load paths develop in the floor diaphragm, including interaction with lateral load
and gravity load systems. Research has indicated that peak diaphragm forces during an
earthquake can significantly exceed the levels prescribed in past codes. As these larger
forces will be reflected in upcoming design codes, it is important to better understand how
these forces are carried in the floor system to permit efficient and economical designs.
This paper presents details of an upcoming analytical program examining the
characteristics, behavior, and failure modes of composite steel deck diaphragms.

1. INTRODUCTION
Floor diaphragm behavior remains one of the less defined aspects of building
response. In an earthquake, inertial forces must be carried through the floor or roof
diaphragm to the primary elements of the lateral force resisting system. The systems that
comprise the diaphragm for steel structures are complicated indeterminate assemblages
of different materials and geometries, acting at different elevations, and connected by
elements which may not be intended for diaphragm action. Complex load paths develop
in the floor system as a result not only of diaphragm action, but also interaction with lateral
load and gravity load transfer. Research has indicated that due to the building’s nonlinear
dynamic response, peak diaphragm force magnitudes during an earthquake can

1
significantly exceed the levels prescribed in past codes. As the large inertial forces will be
reflected in upcoming design codes, it is crucial to better understand how these forces
are carried in the floor system to permit efficient and economical designs.
This paper presents the details of an upcoming analytical study aimed at
examining the load paths in steel diaphragms and collectors for the purposes of better
describing the characteristics and behavior of these systems. The analytical study is
based on models constructed and calibrated using the results of previous testing of steel
composite deck diaphragm components and bays. 2D (vertical plane and horizontal
plane) and 3D models have been developed to examine collector action, diaphragm
capacity and diaphragm seismic demand. The recently initiated study has the following
objectives: (1) Determine global force paths through composite deck diaphragm; (2)
Characterize chord and collector load paths within steel floor systems; (3) Establish the
response of diaphragm bays within the global diaphragm system; and, (4) Quantify the
global properties and seismic performance of the composite steel deck floor system.

2. STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS

Diaphragm action is a horizontal in-plane membrane action through which the
lateral loads (e.g. from wind or earthquake) are transferred from the floor or roof system
to the primary (vertical plane) elements of the Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS),
e.g. shear walls, moment frames, braced frames.

Figure 1. Steel Deck Diaphragms: (a) Bare Metal-Deck (Rogers & Tremblay, 2003a);
(b) Composite Steel Deck (Hedaoo, et al., 2012).
In steel structures, diaphragm shear action is achieved by the floor plate, which for
floor systems is typically formed through composite action of the concrete slab with the
metal deck (Sabelli, et al., 2011), while for roof systems can often be unfilled metal deck,
particularly in low rise buildings (Essa, et al., 2003). The deck is made of corrugated
sheets attached to each other through side lap fasteners (welds, screws or button
punches) and to the supporting members through deck-to-frame fasteners, e.g. spot
welds, screws, powder-actuated or air driven pins, or shear studs (See Fig. 1a). In floor
systems, composite diaphragm action is attained through a combination of chemical bond
between the slab and deck, mechanical interlock by embossments in the deck profile,
and for composite floor systems, steel shear studs welded to the underlying framing that
project into the slab (See Fig. 1b). Note the distinction between composite floor systems,
which employ shear studs for gravity load, and composite diaphragm action, acting
between the deck and the slab, assumed to occur even in the absence of shear studs.

2
Steel Diaphragm Design
In design, the floor diaphragm is often treated as a horizontal deep beam, carrying
in-plane (horizontal) shear and flexure forces, and “collecting” forces back to the primary
vertical plane LFRS elements (See Fig. 2a). In steel structures, the floor or roof deck
system is designed to provide the in-plane shear resistance (analogous to a beam web),
while the underlying steel perimeter frame members are often counted on to carry in-
plane axial or “chord” actions, analogous to a beam flange (Sabelli, et al., 2011).
(a) (b)

Figure 2. Steel Diaphragms: (a) Diaphragm Internal Forces and Elements (AISC,
2010); (b) Diaphragm Bay and Deck Panel Forces (SDI, 2004).
In modern structures, the primary LFRS elements are often isolated from each
other in the floor plan, necessitating the need for “collectors” to bring the diaphragm forces
to these elements. Steel floor systems requiring significant collector action will utilize floor
system members for this purpose. Thus, chord and collector members are often part of
the underlying gravity-load resisting system (GLRS) frame, checked and modified, if
needed, for axial force. Due to the reversing nature of the earthquake loads, these
elements are designed both as tension members (i.e. connections) and as beam-columns
for the limit states of flexural, torsional, flexural torsional and lateral torsional buckling.
The lateral and torsional bracing inherent in the floor framing and deck is an important
consideration in design, including a “constrained” flexural torsional mode about the top
axis. Lateral bracing is ignored for parallel deck ribs. Torsional bracing is often ignored
for metal deck while considered continuous for composite deck. For wind or more modest
seismic loads, the collector and chord action may instead be provided by reinforcing bars
placed within the concrete deck (AISC, 2010).
Metal deck diaphragm shear strength is limited by fastener strength, except for
shallow decks with large floor beam spacing where shear buckling controls. Design shear
strength is based on edge fastener strength, using an elastic strain distribution for interior
fasteners, and providing corner fasteners with reduced capacity due to deck distortion
(See Fig. 2b). Tables are provided for individual fastener strength (SDI, 2004).
The design strength of a composite diaphragm is controlled by a modified version
of the ACI 318 (2014) diagonal cracking equation based on the thickness of the slab

3
above the metal deck (SDI, 2004). Counting on this strength requires meeting certain
fastener strength requirements to ensure this higher force can be developed, which
requires closely spaced fasteners or a lower number of shear studs.
Diaphragm design shear stiffness is based on an effective shear modulus, G’,
which incorporates the geometry, end warping restraint and fastener slip. For a typical
unfilled deck, G’ may be an order of magnitude lower than the G of steel due to the
corrugations (SDI, 2004). The added in-plane stiffness provided by the concrete make a
composite diaphragm panel significantly stiffer than the unfilled deck (SDI, 2004).

Diaphragm Design Forces

New diaphragm seismic design forces are being adopted in the code (BSSC, 2014)
in recognition of large peak diaphragm inertial forces that can develop during a seismic
event. These forces can be substantially larger than the design forces prescribed in
current code equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedures (ASCE 7, 2010), Fig. 3a,b.
Diaphragm forces are underestimated in design because the response modification factor
(R) used for LFRS design, which is tied to the fundamental mode is incorrectly applied to
diaphragm design, whose acceleration demands are tied to higher modes, Fig. 3c
(Rodriguez, et al., 2007). Fig. 3d shows a comparison of the current to the newly proposed
ASCE 7 diaphragm design forces. Explicit diaphragm design force reduction factors Rs
are also being introduced into code (BSSC, 2014). These factors reflect the capacity of
diaphragms to accommodate large instantaneous diaphragm forces through
overstrength, ductility and redistributive properties. Diaphragm forces also arise due to
transfer conditions where vertical plane LFRS elements are offset, for instance at
setbacks or podium slabs, or dissimilar, e.g. in a dual system (Sabelli, et al., 2011).

Figure 3. Earthquake forces: (a) ELF design; (b) Diaphragm design; (c) Instantaneous
inertial force; (d) Comparison of new to existing diaphragm forces.

3. KEY BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE STEEL DECK DIAPHRAGMS

The light weight and constructability of the concrete-filled deck floor systems make
them the preferred alternative in steel-frame construction. The concrete slab introduces
a stiffer alternate path through which shear forces may travel through the diaphragm, and
limits end warping and corner local buckling. For this, composite action with the deck must
be maintained and sufficient fasteners provide to develop the slab shear strength.
The fastener properties are often the key factor in describing the diaphragm stiffness,
strength, ductility and energy dissipation for metal deck (Essa, et al., 2003). Rogers and
Tremblay (2003a, 2003b) performed a series of tests on a variety side lap and frame
fasteners under cyclic loading protocols to determine the characteristics of these
4
elements. The fasteners exhibited a range of strengths and ductility, and detailing
recommendations were provided for improved behavior.
Easterling and Porter (1994a) summarized 32 full-scale composite diaphragm
tests with main design parameters steel deck/slab thickness, and connector type/number.
Three primary limit states were identified: (1) Composite Slab: Diagonal cracking across
the diaphragm panel, with a complimentary diagonal (X) crack on reversal leading to a
significant drop in load carrying capacity. Longitudinal cracking also occurred in thinner
slabs; (2) Deck-Slab Interface: Measurable end slip occurred between the concrete and
deck for welded frame fasteners (and not for shear studs), with end warping deformation
of the deck contributing to interface separation; (3) Edge Fasteners: The transfer of in-
plane load between frame members and the composite slab took place near the edge of
the bay. At locations away from the edge, the steel deck and fasteners were found to
contribute very little to the diaphragm resistance. Deck orientation had an impact for filled
diaphragms, with higher strength for loading perpendicular to ribs; gravity load did not
have a significant effect on diaphragm strength and stiffness.
Diaphragm collector beams must be able to
accumulate axial load through shear studs and transfer
these forces into the seismic resisting system through a
dependable, axially stiff load path across all the gravity
columns but one that does not develop high moments
(See Fig. 4) in the columns (Cowie, et al., 2013).
Figure 4. (a) Collector Detail
(Cowie, et al., 2013)
Discussion of Load Path
The diaphragm chord transfer, represented simply in design, is actually quite
complex. For elements in parallel, forces will follow the stiffest path. Thus, compression
chords might be assumed to be carried through the concrete slab at the perimeter; while
tension chords can flow either through the steel frame or through reinforcement in the
slab if present, depending on their relative stiffness (Cowie, et al., 2013). The deck
orientation also matters since ribs parallel to the chord will certainly participate, while ribs
perpendicular are assumed not to have a large effect (Cowie, et al., 2013). Gravity load
transfer to the chord can induce torsion for an edge (spandrel) beam, and requires proper
spandrel beam slab reinforcement (Clifton & El Sarraf, 2005). Note also that the relative
stiffness will change during the seismic event as elements soften, yield, slip, crack, or
crush. Further, the compression chord region reverses and becomes the tension chord
region with each oscillation of the diaphragm in the earthquake.
Though not considered directly in design, it is worth asking how the inertial forces,
which originate in both the slab and the framing, find their way to the foundation. Tests
performed on isolated diaphragm panels are not reproducing the boundary condition
provided by the adjacent slabs. Very little experimental evidence exists to distinguish the
strut action (Bull, 1997) that develops in the steel composite slab relative to the transfer
into the underlying frame (See Fig. 5). Designing significant collectors and collector
connections, often assuming inertial forces are making right angle turns into the LFRS
element, without knowledge of the load path spatially in the horizontal plane, nor the
percentage of the inertial force carried by the slab vs. the underlying frame at each
location may not lead to the most economical, or in cases safe diaphragm designs.

5
Figure 5. Composite Diaphragms Load Paths: (a) Horizontal-Plane; (b) Vertical Profile
The same elements in the floor system that are providing the diaphragm action are
also providing gravity load resistance during the earthquake. It is assumed that the
interaction of shear stud diaphragm force and gravity load force can be ignored
(Burmeister & Jacobs, 2008), because the horizontal shears due to lateral loads oppose
the gravity-induced values for half the beam, These design assumptions rely on sufficient
inelastic deformation capacity for plastic redistribution, low cycle fatigue life, and limited
degradation of surrounding concrete. Likewise these same framing members are
participating, at least secondarily, in the lateral load resistance. This frame action can
occur in moment frames that serving as part of the lateral force resisting system, but may
also be arise in as secondary lateral resistance provided by the gravity system. While
gravity framing is intended to be pinned, and collectors are typically detailed to prevent
moment, these connections nonetheless have some partial fixity, particularly when the
contributions of the slab are
considered. It is unclear how much
these systems interact, not only
producing force combinations in the
diaphragm, but also possibly
diaphragm forces acting on
connections in the underlying gravity
and lateral force resisting framing.
Likewise, the concrete slab detail at
the column can affect the magnitude
of the beam axial force developing
due to slab inertial effects in the floor
diaphragms (Chaudhari, et al.,
2014). Figure 6. Force Conditions at Different Bays.

4. ANALYTICAL STUDY DESCRIPTION

The analytical models will leverage products from the significant existing past
research on components steel diaphragm and composite structures. Key diaphragm
components and interfaces are listed in Table 1 along with the existing research and data
products to be leveraged in the research. The models developed for the study will rely on
these existing data products, component models and research findings.
An evaluation structure (Refer to Fig. 6) has been selected and designed for the
analytical study. The evaluation structure represents typical construction, and is both
straightforward and generic for easy parameter variation, and also capable of examining
6
critical conditions. The structure is designed for a site in Los Angeles according to the
current design codes (AISC,
Table 1. Existing Research and Data Products.
2011) (ASCE 7, 2010), as
well as in consideration of
possible future code changes
(BSSC, 2014). Building
heights of 4, 8 and 12 will be
evaluated. Different steel
LFRS types and layouts will
be considered, as well as live
loading conditions. Both floor
and roof diaphragm behavior
will be considered.

Analytical Modeling
Analytical models are being developed for steel floor diaphragms and structures.
The models include nonlinear material (steel), degrading material (concrete), interface
elements (slab to deck), contact elements (slab to column), slip elements (bolted
connections), nonlinear geometry (deck distortion) and non-ductile springs (welds, side-
lap and deck fasteners). The model functionality has been extended incrementally.
As seen in Figure 7, the models will be expanded from more detailed “micro”
models of key local behavior (e.g. shear stud bearing, profiled deck-concrete slip etc.) for
solid modeling, to “meso” models of key portions (diaphragm bay, chord or collector, etc.)
for nonlinear pushover models, to “macro” models of the entire structure for nonlinear
time history analysis (i.e., earthquake simulation). Models for the collector began as two-
dimensional plane stress representations (in the vertical plane) and are being extended
to three dimensional representations of the floor system.

(c)

(a)

(b)
Figure 7. Analytical Models: (a) Micro (Qureshi & Lam, 2012); (b) Meso; (c) Macro.

Analytical Study
The analytical study will have three stages (See Table 2): (1) Bay Properties:
Models of diaphragm bays will be used to determine diaphragm properties; (2) Diaphragm
Capacity: models of the entire diaphragm will be used to investigate load paths and steel
diaphragm capacity; (3) Diaphragm Demands: Design recommendations will be verified

7
through earthquake simulations of a realistic building structure model. Note that each step
involves different analyses: (1) Nonlinear static “pushover” (NP) analyses for determining
bay capacity and characteristic properties (stiffness, strength, ductility for shear, axial
force); (2) Body force analyses of the floor diaphragm to determine failure sequence and
plastic redistribution; and (3) Nonlinear time history (NTH) analysis for determining
anticipated demands in the design and maximum considered earthquake (DBE, MCE).
Table 2. Analytical Study Stages.
Study Title Structure Level Simulation
1 Dia. Properties Evaluation Bay Nonlinear Pushover
2 Diaphragm Capacity Evaluation Diaphragm Body Force
3 Diaphragm Demands Prototype Structure Nonlinear Time History
Table 3 shows the study matrix for the analytical study: (a) using the meso model
for the three primary regions of the steel diaphragm: interior shear bay, chord region and
collectors, and focusing on parameters related to detailing, behavior, models and design;
and (b) for the Macro-model under body force NP analyses focusing on load path and
characteristics of the diaphragm system, and nonlinear time histories of the entire
structure to determine diaphragm seismic demands.
Table 3. Study Matrix with Parameters Evaluated.

5. PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK

The analytical research has focused on model calibration to date and results from
the studies described are anticipated at the time of the workshop presentation. The
objectives of the analytical study to be presented at the workshop are to:
(1) Determine the global force paths through composite deck diaphragm, including: (a)
the horizontal-plane spatial distribution of force; (b) the relative participation of the
slab, deck, and underlying framing in horizontal force transfer; (c) the paths within the
floor system vertical profile; (d) the interaction of inertial and transfer force paths; and
(e) the effect of vertical plane elements (gravity system columns, moment frames).

8
(2) Characterize the chord and collector load paths within steel building floor systems,
including: (a) the efficiency of chords and collectors in a composite steel floor system
with respect to diagonal strut transfer mechanisms in the slab; (b) the performance of
discrete chords and collectors with different connection, bracing or reinforcing details;
and, (c) chords and collectors oriented parallel vs. transverse to decking.
(3) Establish the response of steel diaphragm bays within the global diaphragm system,
including determining the behavior of composite steel diaphragm bays under different
boundary conditions and varying levels of shear-flexure-tension combinations.
(4) Quantify the global properties and seismic performance of the composite steel deck
floor system, including characterizing the: (a) shear and flexural stiffness and the
shear and flexural strength; (b) the failure sequence and diaphragm system
overstrength; (c) the diaphragm ductility and ability to redistribute forces during
inelastic response; (d) the seismic demands relative to capacity.

Model Calibration
The models are being calibrated using existing test results prior to the analytical
studies. Since there is not an abundance of steel composite deck diaphragm test results
in existence, the models are also being calibrated using tests with other focus (e.g.,
composite gravity and moment frames) that contain portions of the floor system. Figure
8a shows an example of the test on a composite frame (Nakashima, et al., 2007) used to
calibrate the components of the collector model (Figure 8b) for the bare frame (Figure 8c)
and composite frame (Figure 8d). Likewise, Figure 8e shows a metal deck model being
calibrated to (Essa, et al., 2003), and a comparison of fastener response (Fig. 8f) where
in each case test results are shown in red and the model response is shown in blue.
(a) (c) (e)

(b) (d) (f)

Figure 8. Model Calibration: (a) Test Specimen (Nakashima, et al., 2007); (b) FE
Model; (c) Bare Frame Model; (d) Composite Frame Model; (e) Metal Deck Model; and
(f) Deck Fastener Calibration (Essa, et al., 2003).

9
 REFERENCES
ACI 318, 2014. ACI 318-1: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-14), s.l.: American Concrete Institute.
AISC, 2010. Seismic Design Manual 2nd ed. s.l.:s.n.
AISC, 2011. Steel Construction Manual 14th ed, s.l.: s.n.
ASCE 7, 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI
7-10), s.l.: American Society of Civil Engineers.
BSSC, 2014. Diaphragm Design Force Level. Proposal IT06-001 - Revise ASCE/DEI 7-
10 Chapters 11&12. s.l.:Building Seismic Safety Council, Committee IT6.
Bull, D., 1997. "Diaphragms", Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, s.l.:
Technical report No 20, new Zealand Concrete Society.
Burmeister, S. & Jacobs, W. P., 2008. Horizontal floor diaphragm load effects on
composite beam design. Modern Steel Construction, December.
Chaudhari, T. et al., 2014. Composite slab effects on beam-column subassemblies:
Further development. s.l., s.n.
Clifton, G. & El Sarraf, R., 2005. Composite Floor Construction Handbook, Namukau
City, New Zealand: HERA Report R4-107. N.Z. HERA.
Cowie, K. et al., 2013. Seismic Design of Composite Metal Deck and Concrete-filled
Diaphragms - a discussion paper. s.l., s.n.
Easterling, W. & Porter, M., 1994a. Steel Deck Reinforced Concrete Diaphragms I.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(2), pp. 560-576.
Easterling, W. & Porter, M., 1994b. Steel Deck Reinforced Concrete Diaphragms II.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(2), pp. 577-596.
Essa, H., Tremblay, R. & Rogers, C., 2003. Behavior of Roof Deck Diaphragms Under
Quasi-Static Loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(12), pp. 1658--1666.
Hedaoo, N. A., Gupta, L. M. & Ronghe, G. N., 2012. Design of composite slabs with
profiled steel decking: a comparison between experimental and analytical studies.
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 3(1).
Majdi, Y., Hsu, C.-T. T. & Punurai, S., 2014. Local bond-slip behavior between cold-
formed metal and concrete. Engineering Structures, Volume 69, pp. 271-284.
Nakashima, M., Tomohiro, M., Keiichiro, S. & Feng, Z., 2007. Full-Scale Test of
Composite Frame under Large Cyclic Loading. Jrnl of Str Engg, 133(2), pp. 297-304.
Qureshi, J. & Lam, D., 2012. Behaviour of Headed Shear Stud in Composite Beams
with Profiled Metal Decking. Advances in Structural Engineering, 15(9), pp. 1547-1558.
Rodriguez, M., Restrepo, J. & Blandon, J., 2007. Seismic Design Forces for Rigid Floor
Diaphragms in Precast Concrete Building Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering,
November, 133(11), pp. 1604-1615.
Rogers, C. A. & Tremblay, R., 2003a. Inelastic Seismic Response of Side Lap
Fasteners for Steel Roof Deck Diaphragms. Jrnl of Str Engg, 129(12), pp. 1637-46.
Rogers, C. A. & Tremblay, R., 2003b. Inelastic Seismic Response of Frame Fasteners
for Steel Roof Deck Diaphragms. Jrnl of Structural Engg., 129(12), pp. 1647-58.
Sabelli, R., Sabol, T. A. & Easterling, W. S., 2011. Seismic Design of Composite Steel
Deck and Concrete-filled Diaphragms, s.l.: NIST.
SDI, 2004. Diaphragm Design Manual, s.l.: Steel Deck Institute.

10

View publication stats