Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Modelling and analysis of two-way composite slabs

M.E. A-H Eldib ∗ , H.M. Maaly, A.W. Beshay, M.T. Tolba
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Egypt

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper deals with the modeling and analysis of the ultimate behavior of two-way composite slabs. A
Received 18 February 2008 software package of COSMOS/M 2.6 is used. Non-linear material properties are considered. The proposed
Accepted 14 January 2009 finite element model is validated by making a comparison with full-scale tests published in literature
for one and two-way composite slabs. Many parameters are studied, such as slab aspect ratio and slab
Keywords: slenderness ratio. The effect of embossments flattening is considered. The effect of cold steel straps which
Composite slabs
are fixed to the bottom steel deck flange perpendicular to corrugation direction is studied, including
Two-way slabs
Steel–concrete slabs
the variation of its thickness and distribution. Also the effect of shear studs is considered. The effect of
all previous parameters on the ultimate capacity, distribution of reactions into both weak and strong
directions, and slab deflection are investigated. The results are also recorded at the serviceability limit
state. The analytical results of the two-way composite slabs are compared with the corresponding results
of one-way composite slabs. A dramatic increase occurs on slab loads and distribution of reactions into
the weak direction. A considerable decrease occurs on slab deflection as a result of using steel straps and
studs.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The specimens without embossments generally achieved their

Composite slabs construction is structurally efficient because it
exploits the tensile resistance of the sheet and the compressive
resistance of concrete. Researches showed that composite slabs
construction leads to a notable reduction in the structure weight,
the construction cost, time, and deformations. The behavior of one-
way composite slabs subjected to bending was conducted by many
researchers such as [1–10]. The composite slab with concentrated
loads at the quarter points behaves in a similar manner to a
composite slab with uniform load [1]. A conservative prediction of
deflection at 50% of ultimate load can be obtained by averaging the
calculated deflections based on cracked and un-cracked moments
of inertia. A numerical analysis which is applicable to single
and continuous composite slabs was developed [2,3]. It only
requires the pull-out test to determine embossment load–slip
behavior and the push-off test to determine end anchorage
load–slip behavior with no need for full scale slab tests. The
effect of embossments and deck thickness on the bond strength
of composite slabs was experimentally studied [4–6]. The failure
of tested specimens mainly occurred due to the concrete riding
over the deck rather than concrete crushing. The embossments
had a relatively minor effect on specimens of dove-tailed sections
but had substantial effects on specimens with trapezoidal sections.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 20123474700; fax: +20 20552310103.
E-mail address: mea_hashem@Yahoo.com (M.E. A-H Eldib).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.01.002
maximum interface interlock strength soon after the chemical
bond failed and the strength was maintained over large slips. On
other hand, the specimens with embossments achieved higher
shear strength due to further slip after chemical bond. The depth of
embossments has higher effect on the shear resistance comparing
with the length and the shape of embossments. Also increasing
deck thickness improved shear resistance.
An experimental program was performed using 10 specimens
of different thickness and reinforcement ratio to study the behavior
of cold formed steel deck and concrete slab under hogging
moment [7]. The negative moment capacity of each slab predicted
using a simple analytical model was compared with that obtained
from the experiment. The experimental results indicated that the
steel deck contributed to the hogging moment capacity, and this
region exhibited a fair amount of ductility, which can be utilized
for moment redistribution. Seven tests of a simply supported one-
span composite slabs and two continuous composite slabs were
carried out to identify the shear-bond action in composite slabs [8].
Different end restraints were used in the simply supported slabs.
The slabs with end anchorage of steel shear connectors were found
to bear higher shear-bond strength than that of slabs without end
anchorage. The shear-bond strength was calibrated based on a
linear regression of the test results of the one-span slabs with
anchorage. The prediction of the shear-bond resistance was also
found in close agreement with the vertical shear force at the onset
of the initial shear-bond slip in the two-span continuous composite
slabs. Because of the shear-bond failure at the sheet-concrete
interface, composite slabs would not be capable of developing full
 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248
Fig. 1. 2VLI and 3VLI decks profile dimensions, Shen [4].
plastic moment in the spans. A ‘‘New Simplified Method’’ was
suggested which facilitated the calculation of the load-carrying
capacity of composite slabs by considering three phases of the
M–Φ behavior observed in composite critical cross-sections [9].
It requires the geometric dimensions of the slab cross-sections,
the material properties and the characteristic behavior of the
steel–concrete connection. This method proved less accurate for
brittle specimens since chemical bond is very inconsistent, but
proved to correspond well to experimental results for ductile
specimens. A simplified model to predict the partial-interactive
behavior of steel–concrete composite slabs was studied [10].
A series of nonlinear partial-interaction analyses with various
degrees of interaction and shear span ratios were conducted to
formulate the partial-interactive problem. Through the statistical
analysis of these data, a simplified model for the partial-interactive
structural performance was proposed. The proposed model was
verified by test program. It was clear that a simplified model based
on a partial-interaction analysis was a powerful tool to predict the
partial-interactive structural behavior of composite members. In
this method, only the push-out test for specimens with the same
profile as a steel–concrete composite slab was required
A few studies were carried out to investigate the behavior
of two-way composite slabs [11–14]. Five tests of full-scale
composite slabs with a single span and simply supported at four
edges were carried out to observe the loads transmitted into
both directions [11]. Four symmetrically placed concentrated loads
were applied on the slab. About 78% of first loads increment
was transmitted in the so-called strong direction which was
parallel to deck ribs, while the slab nearly behaved as one-way
composite slab at ultimate strength. A model for a structurally
orthotropic steel-deck-reinforced concrete slab using elastically
orthotropic plate bending elements was developed [12]. It was
concluded that the steel-deck-reinforced concrete slabs subjected
to a two-way bending respond more efficiently when the ribs
are in the longer direction. It was concluded that the collapse
mechanism was studied established by yield-line procedures
was utilized to establish the effective load-carrying-segment
width of the slabs [13]. After the width of this segment was
established, a shear-bond regression analysis was used to predict
the total shear force distributed to the reactive edges perpendicular
to the deck corrugations. A three-dimensional finite element
linear elastic model was used to study the effect of waffle on
composite slabs [14]. The linear elastic material properties was
used, therefore the obtained results were less accurate with
the corresponding experimental published data. The waffle slab
theoretically increased the ultimate load by 16% higher than the
corresponding one-way slab.
There is a lack of research findings about the elastic and
ultimate load behavior of two-way composite slabs; therefore
the present study is concerned with its behavior. Four full scale
tests of one-way composite slabs out of twenty [4] and one
test of two-way composite slab out of five [11], are analyzed
using COSMOS/M 2.6 [15]. The analytical ultimate strength versus
load deflection relationship is compared with corresponding
1237
Fig. 2. Deck profile dimensions, Porter and Ekberg [11].
experimental results to verify the accuracy of the proposed finite
element model. Various parameters are taken into consideration
such as slab aspect ratio r (rib length divided by perpendicular
slab dimension), slab slenderness ratio rs (rib length divided by
deck height), and the presence of studs at slab edge supports.
The effects of steel straps which are fixed to the bottom flange
of the steel deck perpendicular to the corrugation direction are
also investigated. The percentage of reactions distributed into both
strong direction which is parallel to the ribs and weak direction
that is perpendicular to the ribs of the slab are investigated.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. One-way composite slab tests
A comprehensive experimental program which consisted of
twenty full scale tests was carried out on one-way composite
slabs by Shen [4]. Two sets of corrugated cold steel deck with
embossments named 2VLI and 3VLI of deep 50.8 mm and 76.2 mm
were used, as shown in Fig. 1. All tests were simply supported by
span slab. The decks were approximately 0.9 mm thick (20 gage
steel). Shear bond tests were carried out for each composite slab to
investigate the relationship between shear stress and slip between
concrete and the steel deck. The concrete compressive strengths
were determined from compressive tests of 4 in. × 8 in. cylinders
according to ASTM C39-96 procedure. Steel deck yield was given by
the manufacturer and verified by tensile coupon tests performed
according to ASTM E8-00b procedure. Four tests out of the twenty
were chosen to validate the proposed finite element model. The
parameters of chosen tests are summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Two-way composite slab tests
Porter and Ekberg [11] studied two-way action of composite
slabs through tests conducted to determine the distribution of
reactions due to point loads. Five full-scale composite slabs of
a single span and simply supported edges were tested. All slabs
had nominal dimensions of 3660 mm by 4880 mm where the
shorter edge was parallel to the steel sheet ribs. Four symmetrically
concentrated loads located by 1200 mm in both directions were
applied on each slab. The deck profile was as shown in Fig. 2. The
steel deck was 0.9 mm thick (20 gage steel) and with embossments.
The total depth of the slab was 117.3 mm. The second slab of
that program was chosen to verify the proposed finite element
model. A reinforcement mesh was used at the top of the concrete
slab of 30.5 mm2 and 72 mm2 transverse and parallel to the ribs
respectively.
1238 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248

Table 1
One-way composite slap tests parameters, Shen [4].
Test no. Specimen designation Deck type Embossment depth (mm) Total slab depth (mm) Span length (mm)

Slab-1 2-0.10i-a 2VLI 2.54 114.4 2845

Slab-2 3-exit-b 3VLI 2.54 139.7 3455
Slab-3 3-0.125i-b 3VLI 3.175 139.7 3455
Slab-4 3-0.14io-a 3VLI 3.556 139.7 3455

Fig. 3. F.E. mesh of the quarter of the one-way composite slab without straps.
Fig. 4. F.E. mesh of the quarter of the two-way composite slab with straps.

2.3. Reduction factor due to flatting of embossments

Table 2
Boundary conditions of the one-way slab.
A reduction factor Rf of shear strength due to the flatting
of the embossments under tension-push test was studied by Face OO0 A0 A AA0 B0 B BB0 C 0 C OO0 C 0 C
Veljkovic [16], where experimental graphs as a function of strains δx F F R F
occurred within the steel sheet were produced. Translation δy F F F R
δz F R F F
θx F R F F
2.4. Shear studs Rotation θy F R R F
θz F F R F
Shear stud connectors are most commonly used as shear
transferring devices between the deck-slab and supporting steel
Table 3
member at slab edges. The force–displacement relation of
Boundary conditions of the two-way slab.
studs was experimentally investigated by tests performed by
Widjaja [17]. The relationship was modeled through this study Face OO0 A0 A AA0 B0 B BB0 C 0 C OO0 C 0 C
to investigate the effect of studs on the behavior of two-way δx F F R F
composite slabs, where all chosen experimental tests were carried Translation δy R F F R
out without shear studs. δz F R F F
θx F R F F
Rotation θy F R R F
3. Finite element analysis θz F F R F

3.1. Finite element model

In order to predict the behavior of two-way composite slabs

up to the ultimate strength state, a finite element modeling
using COSMOS/M 2.6 [15] was carried out considering material Fig. 5a. Cross section of composite slab with straps.

nonlinearity. The concrete slab was meshed using eight nodes

solid element with three translation degrees of freedom per node.
Steel deck was modeled using four nodes quadrilateral shell
element with membrane and bending behavior. The element has
six degrees of freedom, three translations and three rotations. In
order to minimize the computational effort one quarter of the each
slab with and without straps is modeled as shown in Figs. 3 and Fig. 5b. Meshing and distribution of the straps.
4 respectively, where x0 –x0 and z 0 –z 0 are the axes of symmetry
for both the slab geometry and loads. The boundary conditions
of corrugated sheets perpendicular to the ribs direction were
of the one-way and two-way slabs are as given in Tables 2 and 3
studied. The effect of straps thickness and its arrangement were
respectively. The steel reinforcement mesh, studs, slip interaction
investigated. The width of the strap was taken as 120 mm which
and perpendicular interaction at interface between steel deck and
equals the width of bottom flange of corrugated sheet, as shown
concrete were modeled by two nodes 3D truss element. This is
a uniaxial element for three-dimensional nonlinear analysis with in Figs. 5a and 5b. The spacing between center lines of straps was
three translation degrees of freedom. 304.8 mm equal to the width of one corrugated sheet rib. The
The behavior of the two-way composite slabs with steel straps preliminary thickness ts was 0.9 mm equal to the thickness of
which are attached by self drilling screws to the bottom flange corrugated sheet.
 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248 1239

Table 4
Material properties of one-way composite slabs, Shen [4].
Test no. Specimen designation fc0 (N/mm2 ) fut0 (N/mm2 ) fy (N/mm2 ) fu (N/mm2 )

Slab-1 2-0.10i-a 22.8 2.28 362 419

Slab-2 3-exist-b 23.4 2.34 364 428
Slab-3 3-0.125i-b 23.4 2.34 364 428
Slab-4 3-0.14io-a 23.4 2.34 364 428

Table 5 3.3. Modeling of the shear interaction between the concrete and the
Material properties of two-way composite slab, Porter and Ekberg [11]. steel deck
Test fc0 (N/mm2 ) ft0 (N/mm2 ) fy (reinf.) (N/mm2 ) fy (deck) (N/mm2 )
no. The shear stress–slip interaction between the concrete and steel
Slab-5 24.4 2.44 570 291 deck was experimentally obtained by Shen [4]. That shear–slip
interaction was modeled as normal stress–strain relationship of
the corresponding truss elements, where its properties are shown
in Fig. 7(a)–(d).
The two-way composite slabs tested by Porter and Ekberg [11]
have a lake of information about the shear stress and end slip
between the steel deck and concrete. Therefore, the relation
performed by Veljkovic [16] was used through the study, since the
properties of concrete and deck profile were nearly the same. That
shear–slip interaction w also modeled as normal stress and strain
of the corresponding truss elements as shown in Fig. 8.

3.4. Modeling of shear stud interaction between deck and slab edge
steel beams

Fig. 6. Stress–strain curve for concrete deck slab.
3.2. Material modeling
A typical stress–strain curve of concrete is shown in Fig. 6,
Baskar et al. [18]. It is assumed to be linear up to 0.3fc0 , where
fc0 is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete. The curved
part is represented by the Eqs. (1) and (2). In which, ε 0 is the
concrete strain corresponding to its compressive strength fc0 . The
ultimate tensile stress of concrete fut was constant and equal to
one tenth of the compressive strength. The elastic modulus for
concrete Ec was 21 000 N/mm2 . The steel deck was assumed
to have elastic–plastic material with strain hardening in both
tension and compression. The modulus of elasticity Es of the
steel elements was 210 000 N/mm2 and the strain hardening was
taken as 0.001Es . The yield stress and ultimate strength of steel
sheets are fy and fu respectively. The material properties of the
chosen experiments of the one-way slabs and two-way-slab are
summarized in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. The reduction factor
Rf is calculated as 0.75 according to Veljlovic [16]. The cracks
were taken into consideration by choosing a constant ultimate
tensile stress of concrete shown in Fig. 6. That is as results of the
limitations of the available version of the used software.
fc0 β(ε/εc0 )
fc= . (1)
β − 1 + (ε/εc0 )β
In which,
3
fc0

β= + 1.55
32.4
where, fc0 , is in MPa.
The chosen tests were carried out without shear studs between
slab deck and steel beam supports at slab edges, as shown in Fig. 9a.
Therefore the present study investigated the effects of such studs
on the two-way behavior. The experimental force–slip relation of
these studs was obtained by Widjaja [17], as shown in Fig. 9b. That
shear–slip interaction was modeled as normal stress and strain
of the corresponding truss elements, where its properties were
shown in Fig. 9c.
3.5. Modeling of the perpendicular interaction between the concrete
slab and the steel deck
The separation between concrete and steel deck interface at
the perpendicular direction was modeled by truss elements using
the concrete stress–strain curve. This concept allowed the transfer
of contact compressive stresses in the perpendicular direction
between concrete slab and steel deck not to be greater than the
ultimate compressive stress of concrete.
4. Verification of the proposed finite element model
A comparison between the finite element results with the
experimental results are plotted for one-way composite slabs,
as shown in Figs. 10–13. Also, a comparison of predicted and
experimental ultimate strengths of slabs with and without the
reduction factor Rf is shown in Fig. 14 and Table 6. The predicted
values obtained from the proposed model almost coincide with the
experimental results. The use of the reduction factor Rf through the
analysis led to more accurate results than the results without Rf .
This may be caused by the reduction of the mechanical interlocking
due to strains in the steel sheets at embossments. Therefore, the
effect of the reduction factor Rf is considered through the study.
The serviceability limit or the slab deflection should be limited
in order that false ceilings, pipe works, and partitions must
not damage. Deflection limits should, therefore, be considered
(2)
relative to the use of the slab, the execution procedure and
architectural aspects (aesthetics). The maximum deflection δmax
which is recommended by Eurocode 4 [19] and [20] for floors and
1240 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248

(a) Properties of stud element of slab-1. (b) Properties of stud element of slab-2.

(c) Properties of stud element of slab-3. (d) Properties of stud element of slab-4.

Fig. 7. Modeling of truss element properties corresponding to shear stress–slip interaction for the one-way composite slap tests, Shen [4].

Table 6
Comparison between the finite element and experimental ultimate strengths of one-way composite slabs.
Test Specimen w experimental (kN/m2 ) w F.E. with Rf (kN/m2 ) w FE without Rf (kN/m2 ) Ratio F.E. /exp. with Rf Ratio F.E./exp without Rf
no. designation

Slab-1 2-0.10i-a 23.04 23.5 26.1 1.02 1.13

Slab-2 3-exist-b 16.84 16.4 18.3 0.97 1.09
Slab-3 3-0.125i-b 22.26 22.6 24.3 1.015 1.09
Slab-4 3-0.14io-a 24.41 24.2 26.4 0.99 1.08

roofs in the buildings due to permanent loads, are calculated from
Eqs. (3) and (4).
δmax = L1 /250
δ2 = L1 /300.
In which, δmax is the total deflection of the floor or roof, including
any pre-camber and any variation of the deflection due to the
permanent loads immediately after loading including δ2 . L1 is
the rib span of the composite slab and δ2 is the variation of the
deflection due to variable loading acting on the slab plus any time-
dependent deformations due to the permanent loads.
The two-way composite slab which was experimentally tested
by Porter and Ekberg [11] was initially loaded up to about
65% of ultimate load, which was beyond the serviceability limit
load. Then it was loaded by a cyclic loading up to failure. The
load and midpoint deflection relationship of both experimental
and proposed model results is shown in Fig. 15, where the
first cycle of experimental load is considered. The results from
the proposed model coincide with the experimental results.
A comparison between the analytical and the experimental
results at serviceability and ultimate strengths are depicted in
(3)
Table 7. The serviceability limit is the rib length divided by
(4) 250 as recommended by Eurocode 4 [19] and Johnson [20]. The
distribution of reactions on weak and strong directions, which
are perpendicular and parallel to the slab deck ribs, are shown
in Fig. 16 and Table 8. The difference between the results of
the proposed model and experimental results were within an
acceptable accuracy. The deviation between those two results
could be related to the panel lap of steel sheets on the longitudinal
direction, where no moment and shear are transferred through the
weak direction through the test. The panel lap was ignored through
the proposed finite element model.
The mode of failure was mainly due to shear bond failure.
Extensive yielding of the steel deck or concrete compressive type
failure did not occur in both experimental and finite element
analysis.
 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248 1241

Fig. 8. Modeling of truss element properties corresponding to shear stress–slip Fig. 9c. Modeling of truss element properties corresponding to shear stud.
interaction for the two-way composite slap test, Veljkovic [16].

Fig. 9a. Placement of shear studs.

Fig. 10. Comparison between the experimental and analytical results slab-1.

Fig. 11. Comparison between the experimental and analytical results of slab-2.

Fig. 9b. Experimental force–slip relation of shear stud Widjaja [17]. 5. Parametric study

As a result of the acceptable comparison between the exper-

Table 7
Comparison between the analytical and experimental concentrated loads applied
imental and proposed finite element results, the tested one-way
on the two-way slab, slab-5. slab, slab-4, is used to study the behavior of the two-way com-
posite slabs. Many parameters affecting the behavior of two-way
Item F.E. (kN) Exp. (kN) Ratio F.E./exp.
composite slabs are considered through the study. The slab aspect
Load at L1 /250 34.69 36.68 0.95 ratio r equals L1 /L2 , where L1 and L2 are the slab spans parallel to
Ultimate load 66.04 68.52 0.96
the deck ribs and perpendicular edge respectively. The values of
the slab spans L1 are equal to 1800 mm, 2800 mm, and 3600 mm.
The considered values of aspect ratio r are taken as 0.50, 0.67, 1.00,

Table 8
Percentage of reactions transmitted to each direction, slab-5.
Item % FE results % Experimental results Absolute % difference TEST - FE
Strong direction Weak direction Strong direction Weak direction

Percent at the beginning of loading 80.3 19.7 79.7 20.3 0.6

Percent at the serviceability limit 85.7 14.3 90.4 9.6 4.7
Percent at the ultimate load 88.5 11.5 94.6 5.4 6.1
1242 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248
Fig. 12. Comparison between the experimental and analytical results of slab-3.
Fig. 13. Comparison between the experimental and analytical results of slab-4.
Fig. 14. Comparison between the experimental and analytical strengths with and
without the reduction factor Rf for slabs 1–4.
Fig. 15. F.E. model and experimental applied load vs. center-point deflection.
Fig. 16. F.E. model and experimental loads transmitted to each reaction.
Fig. 17. Load–midpoint deflection relationship for the slab of 1800 mm width
(rs = 13).
1.33, and 2.00, where the length of edge L1 is set to be constant
for each slab while L2 is changed to get the required aspect ratio.
The slab slenderness ratio rs which equals L1 /d, where d is the total
depth of slab deck which equals 139.7 mm. Therefore, the slender-
ness ratios which are considered equal to 13, 20, and 26. The steel
straps are distributed perpendicular and through the middle third,
half, and two third of slab edge L1 . Also, the thickness of straps is
taken as once, twice, and three times of steel deck thickness ts . The
effect of shear studs connecting the slab deck to the surrounding
steel beams at slab edges is considered. A parameter called load
factor rw is presented for comparison purposes. It equals to w/wo ,
where w is the distributed load acting on the two-way composite
slab and wo is the corresponding distributed load when the same
slab behaves as a one-way composite slab.
6. Results and discussion
6.1. Effect of the aspect ratio and slenderness ratio on the slab capacity
at the serviceability limit and ultimate strength
The relationships between the midpoint deflection and dis-
tributed load for aspect ratios r and slenderness ratios rs of 13, 20,
and 26 are shown in Figs. 17–19 respectively. The relationships be-
tween the slab aspect ratio r and load factor rw at serviceability
limit L1 /250 and ultimate strength are shown in Figs. 20 and 21 re-
spectively. The results are summarized in Table 9, where both the
larger aspect ratio and the larger slenderness ratio produce higher
load factor either for serviceability limit or ultimate strength states.
The load factor rw increases up to 193% and 155% of the correspond-
ing one-way composite slab at the serviceability limit and ultimate
strength respectively at aspect ratio r of 2 and slenderness ratio rs
 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248 1243

Table 9
Load factor rw of the serviceability limit and the ultimate strength.
rs Serviceability limit (L1 /250) Ultimate strength
r = 0.50 r = 0.67 r = 1.00 r = 1.33 r = 2.00 r = 0.50 r = 0.67 r = 1.00 r = 1.33 r = 2.00

13 1.05 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.18 1.06 1.07 1.12 1.14 1.22
20 1.11 1.17 1.27 1.39 1.64 1.10 1.13 1.19 1.26 1.40
26 1.23 1.29 1.42 1.56 1.93 1.14 1.18 1.27 1.33 1.55

Table 10
Percentage of increasing distributed loads for slabs with straps with respect to the load of two-way slab without straps.
r rs = 13 rs = 20 rs = 26
33% 50% 67% 33% 50% 67% 33% 50% 67%

0.50 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.09 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.15 1.18
0.67 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.12 1.14
1.00 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.09 1.11 1.13
1.33 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.11 1.12
2.00 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.11 1.12

Fig. 18. Load-midpoint deflection relationship for the slab of 2800 mm width Fig. 19. Load-midpoint deflection relationship for the slab of 3600 mm width
(rs = 20). (rs = 26).

of 26. It strongly indicates that the tendency of the slab to behave

as a two-way behavior with higher aspect ratios and slenderness
ratios or, in other words, the longer the rib span the higher ten-
dency the slab to behave in a two-way action. The results show
that the load factor rw , at ultimate behavior, is smaller than the
corresponding values at serviceability limit as a result of the slab
becomes closer to behave as one-way action at ultimate behavior.
However the effect of two-way action still produces loads greater
than the loads of one-way action even at ultimate strengths.
The relationships between the percentages of reactions trans-
ferred to slab edges and the aspect ratio for different slenderness
ratios at serviceability limit and ultimate strength are shown in
Figs. 22 and 23 respectively. When the aspect ratio r increases the
slab tends to behave through two-way action and the reactions in
the weak direction increased. For instance, when the slenderness
ratio rs is doubled from 13 to 26 the percentage of reactions trans-
fers to the weak direction increases from 5% to 15% at r = 0.5 and
from 17% to 42% at r equals 2 at the serviceability limit. This means
that there is a considerable effect of slenderness ratio on the per-
centage of distribution of reactions at the same aspect ratio. At the
ultimate strength, when the slenderness ratio rs is doubled from 13
to 26 the percentage of reactions transfers in the weak direction in- Fig. 20. Relationship between the aspect ratio r and load factor rw at the
creases from 6% to 11% at r = 0.5 and from 20% to 35% at r = 2. serviceability limit (L1 /250).
The results have emphasized the need to further investigation for
the two-way action of composite slabs. serviceability limit is shown in Fig. 24 for various slenderness ratio
rs . Also, Table 10 shows the percentage increase of the distributed
6.2. Effect of the steel straps attached to the bottom flange of steel deck load for slabs with straps with respect to the distributed load of
on the behavior of two-way composite slab the corresponding two-way composite slab without straps. They
are tabulated for slenderness ratios and straps distribution. The
The relationship between the aspect ratio r and the distributed steel straps introduce a remarkable increase of load, especially for
load w for the distribution of steel straps with thickness of ts at higher slenderness ratio slabs at which the slab becomes more
1244 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248
Fig. 21. Relationship between the aspect ratio r and load factor rw at the ultimate
strength.
Fig. 22. Relationship between the percentage of reactions and the aspect ratio for
slenderness ratios at the serviceability limit (L1 /250).
fixable. The highest percentage occurs when aspect ratio r equals
0.5 where mainly the slab behaves as one-way action but the
presence of straps transfers some loads into the weak direction.
The percentage distribution of reactions into both weak and
strong directions considering the effect of straps for different
slenderness ratios rs of 13, 20, 26 are as shown in Figs. 25, 26 and
27 respectively. The straps could increase the reaction in the weak
direction up to 50% at slenderness ratio rs of 26 and aspect ratio r
of 2.0 at the serviceability limit, as shown in Fig. 27(a).
6.3. The effect of the straps distribution with different thickness over
the mid-third of the rib length on the behavior of two composite slabs
Although the previously mentioned results indicate a remark-
able effect due to steel straps, there is no noticeable difference be-
tween the three positions of straps. So from the economic view
point, the straps distribution over the mid third is considered with
three different thicknesses of ts , 2ts and 3ts . The aspect ratio r which
equals unity is considered through the following parts for various
slenderness ratios rs .
Fig. 23. Relationship between the percentage of reactions and the aspect ratio for
slenderness ratios at the ultimate strength.
Fig. 24. Relationship between the aspect ratio and the distributed load for different
distribution of steel straps at serviceability limits L1 /250.
The relationships between the distributed load and mid-span
deflection for slenderness ratio rs of 13, 20, and 26 are shown in
Figs. 28, 29 and 30 respectively. Tables 8, 9 and 10 indicate the
loads, load factor, and percentage reaction into weak and strong
directions at serviceability limit for slenderness ratio rs of 13, 20,
and 26 respectively. Tables 14, 15 and 16 indicate the loads, load
factor, and percentage reaction into weak and strong directions
and deflections at ultimate capacity for slenderness ratio rs of
13, 20, and 26 respectively. All the parameters increase the load
factor where the thicker the straps thickness and the higher the
slenderness ratio, the greater the load factor.
The load factor corresponding to strap thickness of 3ts increased
by 86% and 38% of the total load at slenderness ratio rs of 26
at the serviceability limit and ultimate capacity respectively. The
corresponding increasing of the reaction in the weak direction
reached up to 36% and 32.6% of the applied load at the serviceability
limit and ultimate capacity respectively. The straps strongly reduce
the deflection of slabs especially for the flexible slabs with higher
slenderness ratio. The deflection at ultimate capacity was less than
two thirds of the deflection of one-way slab at slenderness ratio rs
of 26 using straps with 3ts thickness.
The load factor of the two-way composite slabs with strap
thickness 3ts is nearly equal to the load factor when the studs are
used alone as listed in Tables 11–16 either at serviceability limit
or ultimate capacity. That leads to the possibility to manufacture a
pre-cast two-way composite slabs reinforced by straps to gain the
same load factor of slab with studs castled in site.
 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248 1245

(a) At serviceability limit. (b) At ultimate load.

Fig. 25. Relationship between the percentage of distribution reactions and the aspect ratio due to the distribution of straps at rs = 13.

(a) At serviceability limit. (b) At ultimate load.

Fig. 26. Relationship between the percentage of distribution reactions and the aspect ratio due to the distribution of straps at rs = 20.

Table 11
Loads and percentage distribution of reactions for two-way composite slab with different parameters for slenderness ratio rs of 13 at serviceability limit.
Parameter type w (kN/m2 ) rw (w/wo ) % Reaction weak direction % Reaction strong direction

One-way slab 62.49 1.00 0.00 100

Two-way slab 68.84 1.10 9.32 90.68
Straps ts 71.13 1.14 11.00 89.00
Straps 2ts 71.69 1.18 12.40 87.60
Straps 3ts 78.44 1.26 16.00 84.00
Studs 77.92 1.26 8.64 91.36
Studs & straps ts 78.34 1.25 10.00 90.00
Studs & straps 2ts 80.57 1.29 11.60 89.40
Studs & straps 3ts 85.22 1.36 14.60 86.40

6.4. The effect of studs on the behavior of two composite slabs
The studs are ordinary used to produce the interaction between
the slab and underneath steel beams supports. The effect of
studs on the behavior of two-way composite slabs is also taken
into consideration. The results are shown in Figs. 28–32 and
Tables 11–16, where an aspect ratio r which equals unity is
considered for various slenderness ratios rs .
The cases of studs and straps with thickness 3ts produce a
dramatic increasing on the load factor, where it rises up to the
percentage of 132%, 190%, and 232% at serviceability limit for
slenderness ratio rs of 13, 20, and 26 respectively. The load factor
is nearly close at ultimate capacity whatever the value of the
slenderness ratio for corresponding cases.
On the cases of studs and straps, the studs increase the load
factor by 11%, 32%, and 44% greater than the cases of straps only at
1246 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248

(a) At serviceability limit. (b) At ultimate load.

Fig. 27. Relationship between the percentage of distribution reactions and the aspect ratio due to the distribution of straps at rs = 26.

Table 12
Loads and percentage distribution of reactions for two-way composite slab with different parameters for slenderness ratio rs of 20 at serviceability limit.
Parameter type w (kN/m2 ) rw (w/wo ) % Reaction weak direction % Reaction strong direction

One-way slab 22.00 1.00 0.00 100.00

Two-way slab 28.00 1.27 19.35 80.65
Straps ts 30.64 1.39 21.70 78.30
Straps 2ts 32.17 1.46 23.60 76.40
Straps 3ts 34.78 1.58 27.30 72.70
Studs 35.82 1.64 15.15 84.85
Studs & straps ts 37.91 1.72 18.00 82.00
Studs & straps 2ts 39.30 1.79 20.00 80.00
Studs & straps 3ts 41.90 1.90 23.20 76.80

Table 13
Loads and percentage distribution of reactions for two-way composite slab with different parameters for slenderness ratio rs of 26 at serviceability limit.
Parameter type w (kN/m2 ) rw (w/wo ) % Reaction weak direction % Reaction strong direction

One-way slab 11.60 1.00 0.00 100

Two-way slab 16.61 1.43 26.91 73.09
Straps ts 18.64 1.60 30.00 70.00
Straps 2ts 19.74 1.69 32.00 68.00
Straps 3ts 21.64 1.86 36.00 64.00
Studs 21.73 1.86 20.59 79.41
Studs & straps ts 23.94 2.06 24.00 76.00
Studs & straps 2ts 25.00 2.15 26.00 74.00
Studs & straps 3ts 26.98 2.32 29.60 70.40

Table 14
Loads, percentage distribution of reactions, and deflections for two-way composite slab with different parameters for slenderness ratio rs of 13 at ultimate capacity.
Parameter type w (kN/m2 ) rw (w/wo ) % Reaction weak direction % Reaction strong direction ∆max (mm) ∆max /∆o
One-way slab 82 1.00 0.00 100 37.35 1.00
Two-way slab 91.80 1.12 8.92 91.08 35.38 0.95
Straps ts 95.10 1.16 12.4 87.6 31.38 0.84
Straps 2ts 98.00 1.20 14.5 85.5 31.18 0.83
Straps 3ts 103.40 1.26 18.4 81.6 30.91 0.83
Studs 102.90 1.26 9.74 90.26 25.76 0.67
Studs & straps ts 105.10 1.28 11.5 88.5 25.06 0.67
Studs & straps 2ts 107.90 1.31 13.2 86.8 24.93 0.67
Studs & straps 3ts 113.40 1.38 16.7 83.3 24.72 0.66

slenderness factor rs of 13, 20, 26 respectively, as shown in Fig. 31.
As mentioned previously, the slab behaves as a two-way action
with higher slenderness ratios. Therefore the studs increase the
load factor especially at the serviceability limit because the studs
constrain the deformation in the weak direction. The increase in
the load factor due to studs at the ultimate capacity ranges from
7% to 18% as shown in Fig. 32, because the slab behaves closely to
the one-way behavior at ultimate loads.
The percentage of reactions in the weak direction is nearly close
either for serviceability limit or ultimate capacity for the same
slenderness ratio. This percentage reaches up to 29.6% of the total
load at slenderness ratio rs of 26 at the serviceability limit. On
 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248 1247

Table 15
Loads, percentage distribution of reactions, and deflections for two-way composite slab for slenderness ratio rs of 20 at ultimate capacity.
Parameter type w (kN/m2 ) rw (w/wo ) % Reaction weak direction % Reaction strong direction ∆max (mm) ∆max /∆o
One-way slab 36.00 1.00 0.00 100 76.49 1.00
Two-way slab 43.30 1.20 16.75 83.25 70.00 0.92
Straps ts 45.30 1.26 19.08 80.20 62.75 0.82
Straps 2ts 46.60 1.29 21.50 78.50 58.30 0.76
Straps 3ts 48.90 1.36 25.00 75.00 48.23 0.63
Studs 48.60 1.30 14.95 85.05 48.46 0.72
Studs & straps ts 50.9 1.41 18.00 82.00 48.24 0.63
Studs & straps 2ts 51.30 1.42 19.40 80.60 41.00 0.54
Studs & straps 3ts 52.3 1.46 23.00 77.00 30.90 0.40

Table 16
Loads, percentage distribution of reactions, and deflections for two way composite slab for slenderness ratio rs of 26 at ultimate capacity.
Parameter type w (kN/m2 ) rw (w/wo ) % Reaction weak direction % Reaction strong direction ∆max (mm) ∆max /∆o
One-way slab 22.90 1.00 0.00 100 98.28 1.00
Two-way slab 27.80 1.21 20.48 79.52 73.21 0.74
Straps ts 28.70 1.25 25.00 75.0 64.54 0.66
Straps 2ts 29.70 1.30 27.60 72.40 61.63 0.63
Straps 3ts 31.50 1.38 32.60 67.40 58.49 0.60
Studs 31.50 1.38 18.07 81.93 59.86 0.60
Studs & straps ts 32.70 1.43 22.20 77.80 57.34 0.58
Studs & straps 2ts 33.20 1.45 24.00 76.00 50.43 0.51
Studs & straps 3ts 33.30 1.45 28.00 72.00 31.08 0.32

Fig. 28. Load mid-span deflection relationships for the slab of slenderness ratio 13 Fig. 29. Load mid-span deflection relationships for the slab of slenderness ratio 20
and shape factor 1. and shape factor 1.

other hand, the case of slab with straps of 3ts thickness without
studs produces percentage reactions in the weak direction greater
than the case with studs as shown in the Tables 11–16. The studs
decreased the weak direction reactions by the maximum of 6.4%
and 4.6% at serviceability limit and ultimate capacity respectively.
That is because the studs constrain the ribs in the longitudinal
direction producing lower reactions in the weak direction.
The studs and straps strongly reduce the deflection of slabs
especially for the more flexible slabs with higher slenderness ratio.
It reached up to one third of the deflection of one-way slab at
slenderness ratio rs of 26 using studs and straps with 3ts thickness.

7. Conclusions

Based on the proposed numerical study, the following conclu- Fig. 30. Load mid-span deflection relationships for the slab of slenderness ratio 26
sions could be deduced: and shape factor 1.

1. It is recommended to take into consideration the reduction
factor due to the embossments flattening while modeling of
composite slabs. The results obtained by finite element model
are close to the experimental data.
2. The composite slabs tend to behave as a two-way action
at higher slenderness ratios and aspect ratios producing
a remarkable increasing in the load factor and reaction
distribution into the weak direction. That fact emphasizes the
importance to consider and activate the two-way behavior of
the composite slabs either to increase the strength of the slab
or redesign the cross section of the steel beams surrounding the
slab.
3. The load factor at serviceability limit and the percentage
reaction into the weak direction are greater than at ultimate
1248 M.E. A-H Eldib et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 1236–1248
Fig. 31. Increasing of load factor rw due to studs at serviceability limit.
Fig. 32. Increasing of load factor rw due to studs at ultimate capacity.
capacity because the slab at failure tends to behave closer to
one-way.
4. The arrangement of straps at middle third perpendicular to the
ribs is the most economic distribution. The presence of straps
and studs have dramatic effect to increase the load capacity
and decrease the deflection for composite slabs especially at
high slenderness ratio. The reactions transferred to the weak
direction are reduced as a result of presence of studs.
5. The straps strongly reduce the deflection of slabs especially for
the more flexible slabs with higher slenderness ratios.
6. The use of straps with thickness 3ts produce a dramatic
increasing on the loads either at the serviceability or ultimate
strength states.
7. This study is concerned with the behavior of composite slabs in
the weak direction which is perpendicular to the ribs. That gives
a good spot to handle the strengthening of composite slabs and
deals with the slabs with high slenderness ratio to reduce the
deflection or increase its ultimate load. The proposed concept
opens a considerable view to study experimentally the two-way
behavior of composite slabs.
References
[1] Klaiber FW, Porter ML. Uniform loading for steel-deck reinforced slabs. ASCE,
Journal of the Structural Division 1981;107(ST11):2097–110.
[2] Daniels BJ, Crisinel M. Composite slab behavior and strength analysis. Part I:
Calculation procedure. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1993;119(1):
16–35.
[3] Daniels BJ, Crisinel M. Composite slab behavior and strength analysis. Part II:
Comparison with test results and parametric analysis. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1993;119(1):36–49.
[4] Shen G. Performance evaluation of new corrugated-type embossments
for composite deck. M.Sc. thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia; 2001.
[5] Burnet MJ, Oehlers DJ. Rib shear connectors in composite profiled slabs. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57:1267–87.
[6] Makelainen P, Sun Ye. Development of a new profiled steel sheeting for
composite slabs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;46(1–3): Paper
no. 240.
[7] Lee LH, Quek ST, Ang KK. Negative moment behavior of cold-formed steel deck
and concrete composite slabs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;
57:401–15.
[8] Chen S. Load carrying capacity of composite slabs with various end constraints.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2003;59:385–403.
[9] Crisinel M, Marimon F. A new simplified method for the design of composite
slabs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60:481–91.
[10] Youn-Ju Jeong. Simplified model to predict partial-interactive structural
performance of steel–concrete composite slabs. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2007; doi:10.1016/jcsr.2007.05.03.
[11] Porter ML, Ekberg Jr CE. Behavior of steel-deck reinforced slabs. ASCE, Journal
of the Structural Division 1977;103(ST3):663–77.
[12] Kubic CR, Daniels JH. Two-way flexure of steel-deck reinforced slabs. ASCE,
Journal of the Structural Division 1979;105(ST6):1039–54.
[13] Porter ML. Analysis of two-way acting composite. ASCE, Journal of Structural
Engineering 1985;111(1):1–18.
[14] Mustafa SA. Waffle composite slabs. M.Sc. thesis. Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Zagazig University, Egypt; 2002.
[15] COSMOS/M Version 2.6. A finite element package by structural research and
analysis corporation. Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2000.
[16] Veljlovic M. Influence of load arrangement on composite slab behavior and
recommendations for design. Journal of Construction Steel Research 1998;
45(2):149–78.
[17] Widjaja B. Analysis and design of steel deck-concrete composite slabs.
Ph.D. thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia; 1997.
[18] Baskar K, Shanmugam NE, Thevendran V. Finite-element analysis of
steel–concrete composite plate girder. ASCE, Journal of Structural Engi-
neering 2002;128(9):1158–68.
[19] Eurocode 4. Common unified rules for composite steel and concrete structures.
ENV 1994-1-1. 1992.
[20] Johnson RP. Composite structures of steel and concrete. Beams, slabs,
columns and frames for buildings, vol. 1. London: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific
Publications; 1994.