# Experimental Investigation of Novel Corrugated Steel Deck under Construction Load for Composite Slim-Flooring

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Development of New Corrugated Deck Geometry

#### 2.1. Proposed Top-Hat Composite Deck

#### 2.2. Significance of Material Used for Top-Hat Composite Deck

## 3. Overview of Test Program

#### 3.1. Material Properties

#### 3.2. Tests on Single Hat Sections (Experiment Group (a))

#### 3.3. Tests on Multiple Hat Sections

#### 3.3.1. Test Set-Up for Single-Span Decks (Experiment Group (b))

#### 3.3.2. Test Set-Up for Continuous Span Multiple Hat Sections (Experiment Group (c))

#### 3.3.3. Test Set-Up for End Support Region of the Multiple Hat Section (Pure Shear Capacity) (Experiment Group (d))

## 4. Test Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Results of Single Hat Sections (Experiment Group (a))

#### 4.2. Results of Multiple Hat Sections

#### 4.2.1. Results of Single-Span Decks (Experiment Group (b))

^{2}is also considered. Therefore, the total construction load may be taken as 2.05 kN for the considered deck configurations. Mean capacities obtained from the test results show sufficient load capacity in the construction stage and thereby prove the adequacy of the proposed deck types to be used as profiled decks in composite construction. Seeing that no major material failure has occurred, the decks can be significantly strengthened when confined within concrete in the composite stage. The minimal buckling failure observed during tests prove that these decks offer better resistance to possible local failure than available trapezoidal and re-entrant decks. The details of the test results for the ultimate loads and deflections with the corresponding shear and moment capacities are summarised in Table 2.

#### 4.2.2. Results of Continuous Span Multiple Hat Sections (Experiment Group (c))

#### 4.2.3. Results of End Support Region of the Multiple Hat Section (Pure Shear Capacity) (Experiment Group (d))

_{u}and corresponding displacements at loading section d

_{u}are shown in Table 2. Figure 18 presents the load–deflection curves corresponding to the loading section for the end support tests. Figure 17 shows the distance from the internal edge of the end support to the end of the deck, shown as u = 50 mm, did not influence the failure mode. The sections failed prematurely under the loading region of the specimens rather than at the end support, and the collapsed deck showed only minor deformations at the ends. Hence, the observed failure was a combination of bending with some interaction with support reaction, which was not the expected outcome from the test. Nevertheless, due to the absence of significant web crippling, the results demonstrate that the proposed new deck types will not undergo early end support failure, and deck action will not be limited by this behaviour.

Sample No. | Ultimate Load F _{u} (kN) | Ultimate Moment Capacity M _{u} (kNm) | Ultimate Shear Capacity V _{u} (kN) | Ultimate Deflection d _{u} (mm) |
---|---|---|---|---|

Single Top-Hat Section—Flexure Test (Experiment Group (a)) | ||||

B1 | 0.88 | 0.15 | 0.44 | 46.90 |

B2 | 0.86 | 0.14 | 0.43 | 69.27 |

Average | 0.87 | 0.145 | 0.435 | 58.08 |

Multiple Top-Hat Composite Deck—Single-Span Test (Experiment Group (b)) | ||||

SSD1 | 2.05 | 0.34 | 1.03 | 83.78 |

SSD2 | 2.17 | 0.36 | 1.09 | 76.40 |

SSD3 | 2.08 | 0.34 | 1.04 | 73.95 |

SSD4 | 2.13 | 0.35 | 1.07 | 71.10 |

Average | 2.11 | 0.35 | 1.06 | 76.31 |

Multiple Top-Hat Composite Deck—Continuous Span Test (Experiment Group (c)) | ||||

CSD1 | 7.51 | 0.64 | 2.54 | 61.35 |

CSD2 | 7.45 | 0.63 | 2.52 | 63.78 |

Average | 7.48 | 0.635 | 2.53 | 62.56 |

Multiple Top-Hat Composite Deck—End-Span Test (Experiment Group (d)) | ||||

ESD1 | 8.61 | 0.39 | 7.75 | 15.31 |

ESD2 | 8.58 | 0.38 | 7.72 | 15.29 |

Average | 8.59 | 0.385 | 7.74 | 15.3 |

## 5. Comparison of Deck Strength with Design Strengths Predicted by the Australian Code

#### 5.1. Assessment of Hat Sections (Experiment Group (a)) and Single-Span Multiple Hat Sections (Experiment Group (b))

_{s}) of hat sections were determined as follows:

_{e}is the effective section modulus calculated with the extreme compression or tension fibre at f

_{y}. The nominal member moment resistance M

_{b}is then calculated from M

_{s}as per the provisions in the code.

#### 5.2. Assessment of Continuous Span Decks (Experiment Group (c))

_{s}at collapse load F

_{s}of internal support are compared to the design resistances R

_{c}calculated from the expressions provided in AS 4600-2018. The reactions at the middle support R

_{s}was determined from the test results to compare against those predicted using code equations, which provide a design concentrated load or reaction R

_{c}in the presence of the bending moment. Hence, for comparison, the resistance of the section is recognized as the reaction at the middle support from experimental and theoretical results. Therefore, the analysis of these decks is expressed in terms of the reaction force at failure around the internal support. Since the strength of continuous decks is directed by the bending moment and bearing force interaction at the internal support, AS 4600-2018 [32] presents the following expression for combined bending and bearing for unstiffened webs:

- R* = design concentrated load or reaction in the presence of the bending moment;
- R
_{b}= nominal resistance for concentrated load or reaction in the absence of bending moment; - ɸ
_{b}= capacity reduction factor for bending; - ɸ
_{w}= capacity reduction factor for bearing; - M* = design bending moment at, or immediately adjacent to, the point of application of the design concentrated load or reaction (R
^{*}); - M
_{s}= nominal section moment resistance about the centroid;

_{b}, which is bearing in the absence of holes or openings is given as

- C = coefficient;
- t
_{w}= thickness of the web; - $\mathsf{\theta}$ = angle between the plane of the web and the plane of the bearing surface and shall be within the limits of 90° ≥ $\mathsf{\theta}$ ≥ 45°;
- C
_{r}= coefficient of inside bent radius; - r
_{i}= inside bent radius; - C
_{l}= coefficient of bearing length; - l
_{b}= actual bearing length; - C
_{w}= coefficient of web slenderness; - d
_{l}= depth of the flat portion of the web measured along the plane of the web;

_{s}. The corresponding reactions obtained at middle support (R

_{s}) were compared to the design resistances calculated using Equation (3) as given by the Australian Code, and obtained results are presented in Table 5. Values for the required design parameters in Equation (3) were obtained from AS 4600-2018 [32].

_{s}) were compared with the relevant resistances (R

_{c}) predicted using Equation (3), which produced 27% conservative results. The observed conservatism may be attributed to the geometry of the decks as the present equation was proposed for flat hat sections or decks. In addition, the bending moment redistribution at the internal support may have contributed to this observed conservatism since the middle supports failed at load levels of almost 90% of the final capacities.

#### 5.3. Assessment of End Span Decks (Experiment Group (d))

_{s}are reported in Table 6 with the calculated design resistance R

_{end}. The nominal web crippling resistance F

_{end}of cold-formed sections at end supports is given by previously presented Equation (3). However, different classification based on the test were used for the coefficients. That is, the parameters used in Equation (3) conform to the end support conditions following information from AS 4600-2018 [32]. Other parameters such as bearing length was also changed according to the test set-up. Comparisons between the measured ultimate web crippling load F

_{u}and the predicted nominal web crippling load F

_{end}as per Equation (3) are also reported in Table 6.

_{int}and the corresponding resistance R

_{int}was obtained using Equation (3). It was observed that this technique produced results closer to the experimental values but are still conservative. This can be attributed to the observation that the failure behaviour of the conducted end support tests was not the typical support section failure; and suggested modifications to the test set-up, as outlined in Section 4.2.3, would help achieve targeted results. Nevertheless, due to the absence of significant web crippling, it may safely be assumed that that the new deck types will not undergo early end support failure and deck composite action will not be limited by this behaviour.

## 6. Conclusions

- (i)
- The proposed profiles efficiently resist construction stage loadings. Minimal buckling failure also indicates that the deck can be sufficiently strengthened when confined within concrete in the composite stage.
- (ii)
- The failure pattern of the single-span decks are comparatively different to regular decks due to limited buckling, but large deflections. Existing code equations for trapezoidal decks failed to accurately predict the test resistances of the proposed deck. Code predictions were overestimated by around 37% for the individual top-hat sections and by 31% for the top-hat composite decks.
- (iii)
- The comparative results showed that expressions in the codes may be generally applicable to the new sections, however, appropriate modifications should be introduced to obtain accurate prediction values. Resistances predicted through the standard equations for the sections are overestimated since the section properties of the complex geometry need to be investigated further. There is around 29% variation across the cross-section of the profile due to corrugations and accounting for this variation as a reduction factor will yield a result close to the experimental result.
- (iv)
- Continuous decks with two spans failed at the internal support by local buckling as a result of interaction between the bending moment and support reaction. The local buckling at the compressed area of the deck occurred only at nearly 90% of the ultimate loads. The resistance of the sections predicted using the interaction equation in AS 4600-2018 produced 27% conservative predictions.
- (v)
- End support tests also showed similar results with the bending moment and local transverse force interaction causing failure at the internal span and less significant web-crippling at end support regions. Code predictions were conservative when compared against test results.
- (vi)
- Based on the test observations of end support tests, it is suggested to modify the test set-up to maintain the span length very short and the bearing plate under the load much wider than the support bearing plates. Furthermore, strengthening of the midspan region of the test specimens is also suggested to avoid unnecessary flexural failure.

## 7. Future Research

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Wright, H.; Evans, H.; Harding, P. The use of profiled steel sheeting in floor construction. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**1987**, 7, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pelke, E.; Kurrer, K.-E. On the evolution of steel-concrete composite construction. In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Construction History, Construction History Society of America, Atlanta, GA, USA, 3–7 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Uy, B.; Hicks, S.J.; Kang, W.-H.; Thai, H.-T.; Aslani, F. Australasian advances in steel-concrete composite bridge and building structures. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures, Hong Kong, China, 7–9 December 2016; pp. 7–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmed, I.M.; Tsavdaridis, K.D. The evolution of composite flooring systems: Applications, testing, modelling and eurocode design approaches. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2019**, 155, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lawson, R.M.; Bode, H.; Brekelmans, J.W.P.M.; Wright, P.J.; Mullett, D.L. ‘Slimflor’ and ‘Slimdek’ construction: European developments. Struct. Eng.
**1999**, 77, 22–30. [Google Scholar] - Chen, S.; Limazie, T.; Tan, J. Flexural behavior of shallow cellular composite floor beams with innovative shear connections. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2015**, 106, 329–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pereira, M.; Simões, R. Contribution of steel sheeting to the vertical shear capacity of composite slabs. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2019**, 161, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Simões, R.; Pereira, M. Vertical shear behaviour of steel-concrete composite slabs. ce/papers
**2019**, 3, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cederwall, L.A.K. Slip and Separation at Interface of Composite Slabs. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Missouri University of Science and Technology, St. Louis, MO, USA, 18–19 October 1994; pp. 385–397. [Google Scholar]
- Marimuthu, V.; Seetharaman, S.; Jayachandran, S.A.; Chellappan, A.; Bandyopadhyay, T.; Dutta, D. Experimental studies on composite deck slabs to determine the shear-bond characteristic values of the embossed profiled sheet. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2007**, 63, 791–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hillman, J.R.; Murray, T.M. An innovative cold-formed floor system. In Proceedings of the 12th International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St. Louis, MO, USA, 18–19 October 1994. [Google Scholar]
- De Andrade, S.A.; Vellasco, P.C.S.; Da Silva, J.G.S.; Takey, T.H. Standardized composite slab systems for building constructions. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2004**, 60, 493–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, X.; Zheng, X.; Ashraf, M.; Li, H. Experimental study on the longitudinal shear bond behavior of lightweight aggregate concrete—Closed profiled steel sheeting composite slabs. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2017**, 156, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, X.; Zheng, X.; Ashraf, M.; Li, H. The longitudinal shear bond behavior of an innovative laminated fiber reinforced composite slab. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2019**, 215, 508–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crisinel, M.; Marimon, F. A new simplified method for the design of composite slabs. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2004**, 60, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mistakidis, E.S.; Dimitriadis, K.G. Bending resistance of composite slabs made with thin-walled steel sheeting with indentations or embossments. Thin-Walled Struct.
**2008**, 46, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ferrer, M.; Marimon, F.; Crisinel, M. Designing cold-formed steel sheets for composite slabs: An experimentally validated FEM approach to slip failure mechanics. Thin-Walled Struct.
**2006**, 44, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Siddh, S.; Patil, Y.; Patil, H. Experimental studies on behaviour of composite slab with profiled steel sheeting. Mater. Today Proc.
**2017**, 4, 9792–9796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thondel, S.; Studnička, J. Behaviour of Steel-Concrete Composite Beam with High Ribbed Deck. Procedia Eng.
**2012**, 40, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Widjaja, B.R.; Easterling, W. Developments in long span composite slabs. Eng. J.
**2000**, 37, 73–82. [Google Scholar] - Arrayago, I.; Ferrer, M.; Marimon, F.; Real, E.; Mirambell, E. Experimental investigation on ferritic stainless steel composite slabs. Eng. Struct.
**2018**, 174, 538–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arrayago, I.; Real, E.; Mirambell, E.; Marimon, F.; Ferrer, M. Experimental study on ferritic stainless steel trapezoidal decks for composite slabs in construction stage. Thin-Walled Struct.
**2019**, 134, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Degtyarev, V.V. Concentrated load distribution in corrugated steel decks: A parametric finite element study. Eng. Struct.
**2020**, 206, 110158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hofmeyer, H.; Kerstens, J.; Snijder, H.; Bakker, M. Combined web crippling and bending moment failure of first-generation trapezoidal steel sheeting. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2002**, 58, 1509–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lawson, R.M.; Popo-Ola, S. Load capacity of continuous decking based on small-scale tests. Thin-Walled Struct.
**2013**, 69, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Biegus, A.; Czepiżak, D. Research on the interactive resistance of corrugated sheets under combined bending and contact pressure. Thin Walled Struct.
**2006**, 44, 825–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Davies, J.; Jiang, C. Design procedures for profiled metal sheeting and decking. Thin Walled Struct.
**1997**, 27, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - FormFlow. 2020. Available online: https://formflow.net.au (accessed on 18 October 2020).
- Standards Australia AS/NZS 2327-2017: Composite Structures—Composite Steel-Concrete Construction in Buildings; Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2017.
- European Committee for Standrdization Eurocode 4: EN 1994-1-1:2005 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
- Standards Australia AS/NZS 4100-1998: Steel Structures; Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2016.
- Standards Australia AS/NZS 4600-2018: Cold-Formed Steel Structures; Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2018.
- Rackham, J.; Couchman, G.H.; Hicks, S. Composite Slabs and Beams Using Steel Decking: Best Practice for Design and Construction; Steel Construction Institute: Silwood Park, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Daniels, B.J.; Crisinel, M. Composite Slab Behavior and Strength Analysis. Part II: Comparisons with Test Results and Parametric Analysis. J. Struct. Eng.
**1993**, 119, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Qureshi, J.; Lam, D.; Ye, J. The influence of profiled sheeting thickness and shear connector’s position on strength and ductility of headed shear connector. Eng. Struct.
**2011**, 33, 1643–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Spennemann, D.H. Recording Historic Corrugated Iron: A guide to Techniques; Charles Sturt University: Albury-Wodonga, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Standards Australia AS 1391–2007 (R2017): Metallic Materials—Tensile Testing at Ambient Temperature; Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2017.
- Studnicka, J. Web Crippling of Wide Deck Sections. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structure, St. Louis, MO, USA, 23–24 October 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Avci, O.; Easterling, S.W. Web Crippling Strength of Multi-Web Steel Deck Sections Subjected to End One Flange Loading. In Proceedings of the 16th International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Orlando, FL, USA, 17–18 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Wallace, J.A.; Schuster, R.M. Web Crippling of Cold Formed Steel Multi-Web Deck Sections Subjected to End One-Flange Loading; American Iron and Steel Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 5.**Details of the proposed innovative profiles: (

**a**) proposed top-hat section; (

**b**) proposed multiple hat sections; (

**c**) cross-section properties of top-hat section geometry; (

**d**) cross-section properties of multiple hat section geometry; and (

**e**) the possible application of the proposed deck in composite slim-flooring.

**Figure 6.**Details of the tensile test: (

**a**) dimensions of the tensile coupon; and (

**b**) stress–strain curves of the material.

**Figure 7.**Details of the experimental bending test of the hat sections: (

**a**) schematic showing a four-point bending test arrangement used to test the hat section; (

**b**) flat timber block at support; (

**c**) bending test of the hat section; (

**d**) corrugated timber blocks for testing B1; and (

**e**) the loss of contact of timber block at support.

**Figure 8.**Details of the experimental test of single-span multiple hat sections: (

**a**) schematic showing the single-span test set-up for corrugated multiple hat sections; and (

**b**) the single span deck test set-up before loading.

**Figure 9.**Details of the experimental test of continuous span multiple hat sections: (

**a**) test arrangement for the continuous span test; and (

**b**) continuous span test.

**Figure 13.**Failure pattern of the tested single-span decks: (

**a**) deformed shape of the deck showing excessive deflection; and (

**b**) local failure around the loading regions.

**Figure 15.**Results from continuous span deck tests: (

**a**) load vs. deflection curve for CSD; and (

**b**) stress vs. strain curves for CSD close to middle support.

**Figure 16.**Failure pattern of the tested continuous span decks: (

**a**) deformed shape of the continuous span deck (CSD); and (

**b**) local squashing observed at internal support.

Sample No. | Young’s Modulus E (GPa) | Yield Stress σ_{y} (MPa) | Ultimate Stress σ_{u} (MPa) | Ultimate Strain ε_{u} (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|

S1 | 191.07 | 218.08 | 222.52 | 17.53 |

S2 | 202.06 | 252.64 | 258.58 | 26.66 |

S3 | 204.33 | 229.51 | 237.61 | 27.25 |

S4 | 202.38 | 219.80 | 227.49 | 26.05 |

S5 | 211.81 | 249.90 | 260.52 | 27.55 |

Average | 202.33 | 233.98 | 241.34 | 25.01 |

COV | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.17 |

**Table 3.**Experimental and calculated results for individual top-hat sections (experiment group (a)).

Beam No. | Ultimate Load F _{u} (kN) | Experimental Moment Capacity M_{u} (kNm) | Predicted Moment Capacity M_{b} (kNm) | M_{u}/M_{b} |
---|---|---|---|---|

B1 | 0.88 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.71 |

B2 | 0.86 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.66 |

Average | 0.87 | 0.145 | 0.21 | 0.69 |

Deck No. | Ultimate Load F _{u} (kN) | Experimental Moment Resistance M_{u} (kNm) | Predicted Moment Resistance M_{b} (kNm) | M_{u}/M_{b} |
---|---|---|---|---|

SSD1 | 2.05 | 0.34 | 0.48 | 0.71 |

SSD2 | 2.17 | 0.36 | 0.75 | |

SSD3 | 2.08 | 0.34 | 0.71 | |

SSD4 | 2.13 | 0.35 | 0.73 | |

Average | 2.10 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.73 |

Deck No. | Ultimate Load F _{u} (kN) | Middle Support Collapse Load F _{s} (kN) | Reaction Force R _{s} (kN) | Predicted Capacity R _{c} (kN) |
---|---|---|---|---|

CSD1 | 7.51 | 6.90 | 4.69 | 3.63 |

CSD2 | 7.45 | 7.20 | 4.88 | |

Average | 7.48 | 7.05 | 4.78 | 3.63 |

Deck No. | Web Crippling Load F _{u} (kN) | Ultimate Experimental Reaction R _{s} (kN) | Predicted Web Crippling Load F _{end} (kN) | Predicted Design Resistance R _{end} (kN) | Predicted Web Crippling Load F _{int} (kN) | Predicted Design Resistance R _{int} (kN) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(As End Support) | (As Internal Support) | |||||

ESD1 | 8.61 | 6.46 | 2.21 | 1.51 | 5.73 | 3.92 |

ESD2 | 8.58 | 6.40 | ||||

Average | 8.59 | 6.43 | 2.21 | 1.51 | 5.73 | 3.92 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

John, K.; Ashraf, M.; Weiss, M.; Al-Ameri, R.
Experimental Investigation of Novel Corrugated Steel Deck under Construction Load for Composite Slim-Flooring. *Buildings* **2020**, *10*, 208.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10110208

**AMA Style**

John K, Ashraf M, Weiss M, Al-Ameri R.
Experimental Investigation of Novel Corrugated Steel Deck under Construction Load for Composite Slim-Flooring. *Buildings*. 2020; 10(11):208.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10110208

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

John, Keerthana, Mahmud Ashraf, Matthias Weiss, and Riyadh Al-Ameri.
2020. "Experimental Investigation of Novel Corrugated Steel Deck under Construction Load for Composite Slim-Flooring" *Buildings* 10, no. 11: 208.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10110208