16-Civ-B2 Advanced Structural Design · December 2016
Question 4 of 7: Composite steel-concrete floor system (14 + 6 marks)
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. 98-Civ-B2 Advanced Structural Design,
December 2016, three hours, closed book (design handbooks and textbooks are permitted,
no notes). Seven design questions; any five constitute a complete paper and all
questions are of equal value (20 marks each). Because the whole paper is a study
resource, all seven questions are solved here. Page 1 states that all
loads shown on the figures are unfactored, and supplies the design data used
throughout.
Reference texts.
CSA S16:19, Design of Steel Structures — Clauses 11 (classification),
13.4 (shear), 13.5 (bending), 13.7 (bracing for plastic design), 13.8 (axial
compression and bending), 14 (plate girders), 17 (composite beams).
CISC, Handbook of Steel Construction, 12th ed. — section properties and
the beam-column selection tables.
National Building Code of Canada 2020, Part 4 — load combinations.
M. P. Collins and D. Mitchell, Prestressed Concrete Structures —
permissible-stress design and tendon-zone construction.
R. C. Hibbeler, Structural Analysis, 10th ed. — continuous-beam and
rigid-frame analysis.
Design data (page 1 of the examination paper)
Quantity
Symbol
Value
Concrete
f'c
30 MPa
Structural steel
Fy
350 MPa
Reinforcing bar
fy
400 MPa
Prestressed concrete at transfer
fci
35 MPa
Prestressed concrete
f'c
50 MPa
Modular ratio
n
6
Strand tensile strength
fult
1750 MPa
Strand yield strength
fy
1450 MPa
Initial strand stress
finitial
1200 MPa
Loss of prestress
Δfp
240 MPa
Effective strand stress
fse = 1200 − 240
960 MPa
Check — load factors. Page 1 says only that
“all loads shown are unfactored”; it gives no dead/live split, so no NBCC
combination can be formed exactly. Every solution below applies a single factor of
1.5 to the loads printed on the figures and 1.25 to
self weight that the solver itself introduces (girder, slab, frame members), and states
that assumption where it is used. The choice scales the required resistances but changes
neither the collapse mechanisms, the section classifications, nor any interaction
ratio, so the engineering conclusions are unaffected. Serviceability checks
(prestress stresses, deflections, bearing pressure) use the unfactored loads as
printed.
Question 4: Composite steel-concrete floor system (14 + 6 marks)
Given. A 12 m by 22 m floor with a 160 mm deck slab on
steel beams at 2.5 m centres, built unshored, carrying 8 kPa of live load with full
interaction assumed between slab and beam.
Question data
Quantity
Symbol
Value
Span
L
12 m
Floor width
—
22 m
Beam spacing
s
2.5 m
Slab thickness
ts
160 mm
Slab dead load
wD
0.160 × 24 × 2.5 = 9.60 kN/m
Live load
wL
8 kPa × 2.5 = 20.0 kN/m
Materials
Fy / f'c
350 / 30 MPa
Find. (a) The steel beam size, checked for the
construction stage on the bare steel and for the final stage on the composite section;
(b) the number of headed studs per beam.
Composite cross-section — 160 mm slab, 2500 mm effective width, W460×68 beam with 19 mm headed studs.
Approach. Unshored construction splits the design into
two stages: the bare steel carries the wet slab, and the composite section carries the
total factored load. Size on the composite ultimate moment, then confirm that the
construction-stage strength and deflection are acceptable, and finally develop the full
flange force with studs.
Part (a) — establish the two load stages. Ignoring the
steel self weight as instructed,
$$w_f=1.25(9.60)+1.5(20.0)=42.0\ \text{kN/m}\ \Rightarrow\
M_f=\frac{42.0(12)^2}{8}=\boxed{756\ \text{kN}\cdot\text{m}},\quad V_f=252\ \text{kN}$$
and during construction the bare beam carries only the wet slab,
$M_{f,\text{constr}}=1.25(9.6)(12)^2/8=216$ kN·m.
Fix the effective slab width. Clause 17.4.1 limits the flange
to the smaller of a quarter of the span and the beam spacing:
$$b_{\text{eff}}=\min\left(\frac{12\,000}{4},\,2500\right)=\boxed{2500\ \text{mm}}$$
The slab compressive resistance is then
$C_r=0.85\phi_cf'_cb_{\text{eff}}t_s=6630$ kN, far above anything the steel can
deliver, so the plastic neutral axis will lie inside the slab.
Select the beam on the composite resistance. Trying
W460×68 (459 × 154, 15.4 mm flange, 9.1 mm web,
$A=8640$ mm2),
$$T_r=\phi A F_y=0.9(8640)(350)=2722\ \text{kN}\ <\ C_r,\qquad
a=\frac{T_r}{0.85\phi_cf'_cb_{\text{eff}}}=65.7\ \text{mm}<160\ \text{mm}$$
so the whole steel section yields in tension and
$$M_r=T_r\!\left(\frac{d}{2}+t_s-\frac{a}{2}\right)
=2722\,(229.5+160-32.9)=\boxed{971\ \text{kN}\cdot\text{m}}\ \ge\ 756\ \text{kN}\cdot\text{m}$$
Check the construction stage. The bare beam has
$Z=1.47\times10^6$ mm3, so $\phi M_p=463$ kN·m, comfortably above
the 216 kN·m of wet concrete; the deck and its formwork brace the compression
flange, consistent with the question's bracing note. Deflection is the real
construction-stage control:
$$\Delta_{D}=\frac{5w_DL^4}{384EI_x}
=\frac{5(9.6)(12\,000)^4}{384(200\,000)(293\times10^6)}=\boxed{44.2\ \text{mm}}
=\frac{L}{271}$$
This is why W460×68 is chosen rather than the lighter W460×60, which
satisfies strength ($M_r=848$ kN·m) but deflects 51.6 mm, i.e. $L/232$,
outside the customary $L/240$ limit for wet concrete. Camber the beams 40 mm.
Check the in-service deflection and shear. With $n=E_s/E_c=8.11$
the transformed section has its neutral axis 122 mm below the slab top and
$I_{tr}=1102\times10^6$ mm4, so the live-load deflection is
$$\Delta_L=\frac{5(20.0)(12\,000)^4}{384(200\,000)(1102\times10^6)}=24.5\ \text{mm}
=\frac{L}{490}\ \le\ \frac{L}{360}$$
The web at $h/w=47.1$ is stocky, so $F_s=0.66F_y$ and
$V_r=\phi dwF_s=868$ kN against $V_f=252$ kN.
Part (b) — size the shear connection. With full
interaction the studs between the point of maximum moment and the support must
develop the smaller of $C_r$ and $T_r$, i.e. $V_h=2722$ kN. For a 19 mm headed stud
in normal-density 30 MPa concrete,
$$q_r=0.5\phi_{sc}A_{sc}\sqrt{f'_cE_c}
=0.5(0.80)(283.5)\sqrt{30(24\,648)}=97.5\ \text{kN}$$
which is below the cap $\phi_{sc}A_{sc}F_u=102$ kN, so
$$n=\frac{2722}{97.5}=27.9\ \rightarrow\ \boxed{28\ \text{studs per half span},\
56\ \text{per beam}}$$
Detail the studs and the floor layout. Place the 56 studs in a
single line at 200 mm centres over each 6 m half, which satisfies the 4d
minimum longitudinal spacing and the 800 mm maximum. Studs 100 mm long give
>4d embedment with 60 mm of cover in the 160 mm slab. Across the 22 m
floor width, 2.5 m spacing does not divide evenly, so provide nine bays at
2.44 m (eight interior beams plus two edge beams); the reduced spacing keeps
the tributary width below the 2.5 m used above, so the design remains
conservative.
Final results
Quantity
Result
Design loads
wf = 42.0 kN/m; Mf = 756 kN·m, Vf = 252 kN
Effective slab width
beff = 2500 mm
Steel section
W460×68
Composite resistance
Mr = 971 kN·m (a = 65.7 mm, PNA in slab)
Construction stage
φMp = 463 ≥ 216 kN·m; Δ = 44.2 mm = L/271
Live-load deflection
24.5 mm = L/490
Shear resistance
Vr = 868 kN
Shear connectors
56 studs of 19 mm per beam (28 per half span) at 200 mm
Floor layout
nine bays at 2.44 m over the 22 m width; camber 40 mm