Simplified Design of Composite Slabs Using Slip Block Test

Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 3, 403-412, October 2005 / Copyright © 2005 Japan Concrete Institute 403

Scientific paper

Simplified Design of Composite Slabs Using Slip Block Test G. Mohan Ganesh 1, Akhil Upadhyay 2 and Surendra K. Kaushik 3

Received 19 April 2005, accepted 21 August 2005

Abstract Steel-concrete composite slabs are a structurally efficient combination of constituents as they exploit the tensile re-sistance of the steel and compressive resistance of the concrete in an effective manner. Shear connection between the profiled steel sheet and concrete slab plays an important role in the design of these slabs. The verifications that are required for the design are long and complicated. Current design methods found in standards and guidelines rely on the results of costly and time-consuming large-scale laboratory tests. In this paper, a simplified approach for the de-sign of composite slabs is proposed. This approach utilizes the results of the slip block test with a simple calculation model to obtain the moment of resistance based on the partial interaction method of composite slab governed by horizontal shear resistance. The results obtained using this approach are verified by comparison with the results based on the m-k test method.

1. Introduction

Composite construction produces synergy not only between the materials used but also between the func-tional needs and the structural parameters. As a result, composite slabs contribute to significant cost reduction during construction (no formwork, quick installation, reduced dimensions, savings in material and reduction in self weight) and provide a satisfactory solution for the strength and serviceability requirements of com-mercial and residential buildings.

Composite slabs comprise profiled steel decking (or sheeting) as permanent formwork under the concrete slabs spanning between supporting beams. The decking acts compositely with the concrete under service load-ing. It also supports the loads applied to it before the concrete has gained adequate strength. Profiled deck shapes are chosen based on their ability to enhance the bond at the steel-concrete interface and provide stabil-ity while supporting wet concrete and other construc-tion loads. A detailed view of a composite profiled deck slab is shown in Fig. 1.

Composite construction offers new opportunities in steel-concrete construction but at the same time it poses some challenges. During the design of a compos-ite floor system, consideration of the interaction be-tween the profiled steel sheet and cement concrete is vital for developing safe and cost-efficient structures. However, the effectiveness of this action depends on the horizontal shear transfer mechanisms. There are

three types of shear transfer mechanisms present be-tween the profiled steel sheet and concrete slab. These mechanisms are ‘frictional interlock’, ‘mechanical in-teraction’ and ‘end anchorage’. The mechanical keying action of the embossments is of greater importance.

In the design of composite slabs, the horizontal shear transfer mechanisms are calculated by semiempirical formulae, and EC4 offers two approaches that both necessitate serious laboratory work. One is called the m-k method (Fig. 2), and the other is the partial con-nection method (Fig. 3).

In both methods, the effectiveness of shear connec-tion is determined by means of loading tests on simply supported composite slabs, as sketched in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Specifications for such tests are given in Clause 10.3 of EN 1994-1-1. However in the latter approach, the total number of test can be considerably reduced because once the longitudinal shear strength

u is

known, partial design theory can easily account for parameters such as different spans, slab depths, steel grades and concrete strengths. The current design pro-cedures depend on experiments, which is one of the major hurdles of the design procedure (Widjaja, 1997).

1Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T. Roorkee, India. 2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,I.I.T. Roorkee, India. E-mail: [email protected] 3Formerly Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T. Roorkee, India. Fig. 1 Details of composite profiled deck slab.

404 G. Mohan Ganesh, A. Upadhyay and S. K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 3, 403-412, 2005

Especially the assessment of the horizontal shear strength requires a substantial number of performance tests.

Nagy and Szatmari (1998) presented the behavior of profiled decks as well as a review of ongoing research approaches. Clear mention was made for the need of an alternative approach to get best profiled sheet cross-sectional geometries satisfying strength and stability constraints at the construction stage. According to the authors, questions including horizontal shear resistance and independence from test data still remain to be an-swered.

Normally, manufacturers of steel sheeting provide engineers and builders with design tables for com-monly used spans and thicknesses in order to facilitate the design of composite slabs. However, engineers who need to justify their calculations or wish to design slabs with non-standard dimensions generally will not have the information required to carry out the calculations on which these design tables are based. This is because the information in the tables is determined using cur-rent design methods that require experimental values. Similarly, a manufacturer wanting to develop a new sheeting profile currently does not have the means nec-essary to predict the degree to which it will be able to act compositely with the cast-in- place concrete (Crisi-nel et al., 2004, p. 482).

Therefore, the quest to minimize hurdles in the de-sign process and eliminate dependency of design on expensive and time-consuming experiments has led numerous researchers to develop new methods. Crisi-nel et al. (2004) have proposed a new design approach

for the prediction of composite slab behaviour. This new approach combines the results from standard ma-terials tests and small-scale tests (pull-out test) with a simple calculation model to obtain the moment–curvature relationship at the critical cross-section of a composite slab. Patrick, M. and Bridge, R.Q. (1990) tested 26 slabs for m-k test and concluded that ‘the plot showed considerable scatter with large variations over the range of parameters tested. All regression lines ex-hibited poor correlation when compared with the data; therefore, an alternative design test method was sought’ and proposed the slip block test. The authors of this paper also collected m-k test values from various manufacturers of profiled decks and found significant difference between m-k values obtained from various manufacturers for the same profile.

The literature review clearly indicates that full scale tests are very tedious and that simple test should be established to assess horizontal shear resistance. In the present paper, the slip block test method is used as an alternate approach for assessing the horizontal shear resistance of composite slab decks and especially for testing and developing non-traditional new profiles. The slip block test method is established by comparing the moment of resistance obtained by using the slip block test parameters described in this paper with the moment of resistance obtained by using the m-k test parameters collected from the manufacturers.

These comparisons between two results prove the utility of the slip block test especially in the develop-ment of the optimum design of composite deck by us-ing the new or non-traditional profile sheetings.

2. Slip block test

The longitudinal slip resistance of a profiled deck de-pends on a complex interaction between the steel sheet-ing and the surrounding concrete. Adhesion bond, fric-tional resistance and mechanical interlock collectively contribute to the total longitudinal slip resistance of a profiled deck, which can be separately identified using the slip block test. A controlled slip block test is per-formed on a small element of a composite slab by simulating the conditions during longitudinal slip fail-ure as shown in Fig. 4.

The small element of the composite slab is con-structed by taking a single ribbed piece of profiled sheeting as the width of slip block test specimen (b) and cutting it, typically to a length (l) of 300 mm. The piece of sheeting is positioned on a matching flat steel base plate with the rib centrally aligned and attached by spot welding. A formwork box supports the base plate while the specimen is cast horizontally with the desired grade of concrete.

At a suitable age, the block is removed from the formwork and the base plate is fixed to the solid base on the reaction frame. A steel plate is fixed on the top of the slip block test specimen and a second steel plate

Fig. 2 m–k method.

Fig. 3 Partial connection method.

G. Mohan Ganesh, A. Upadhyay and S. K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 3, 403-412, 2005 405

is additionally placed on the plate. In between the two steel plates, roller bearings are placed in the transverse direction so that, while the horizontal load is applied, the roller bearings can allow the concrete block to slide in the direction of the sheeting rib without interference (Fig. 4). Two proving rings of 100 kN capacity cali-brated using the UTM are used to measure horizontal and vertical loading. The jack and proving rings are placed in between the roller bearing assemblage and the reaction frame. Constant uniformly distributed ver-tical load ‘V’ is applied from the jack through the roller bearings and the value of loading is measured from the proving rings.

Another jack with proving rings is placed in between the face of the slip block test specimen and the reaction frame. Using this separate jacking system, a horizontal force, H, is gradually applied to the face of the block, in the direction of the sheeting rib through a 12 mm thick bearing plate. Slip between the sheeting and con-crete is measured using displacement transducers/dial gauges positioned at the back face, opposite to where the horizontal load is applied. All the above detailed loading arrangements are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5.

The adhesion bond between the sheeting and con-crete initially plays a part in this behavior. In this test, after breaking the adhesion bond, the clamping force is varied while the longitudinal slip resistance is continu-ously measured to determine the values of the profile rib resistance and the coefficient of friction. These pa-rameters can be used directly in a partial shear connec-tion model to predict the strength of composite slabs. The test setup is shown schematically in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, and a set of typical results are shown in Fig. 6.

3. Test procedure

The vertical load (V) is applied up to point O (Fig. 6 (a)). Then the first stage of the horizontal loading (H) is applied up to point A under constant vertical load. At point A, the adhesion bond suddenly breaks, the hori-zontal load reduces and a new equilibrium position, represented by point B, is reached. The initial value of the chosen vertical force is sufficient to prevent over-

turning of the block prior to reaching point A. For the next stage, vertical load (V) is increased to a

new point C without adjusting horizontal loading (H). Further horizontal loading (H) is increased to a new constant value at point D without adjusting vertical load (V). Next, ‘V’ is reduced at a slow constant rate without adjusting the horizontal jacking system. Due to the reduction in ‘V’, slip is induced and hence horizon-tal force is reduced up to point E. At this point, the block just begins to overturn, which is detected by the lifting of the front face of the block. The first cycle of testing is completed at this point. It can be observed from Fig. 6 (a) and Fig. 6 (b) that an approximately straight line has been traced out between points D and E by the multitude of data points and is plotted in the H-V plane. The first friction line D-E is thus estab-lished. The slope of the line equals the coefficient of friction µ between the sheeting and concrete. By ex-trapolating the line to intersect the vertical axis, the contribution to slip resistance offered by the mechani-cal interlock of the profile, u , can be determined.

Fig. 4 Schematic representation of slip block test.

(a) General.

(b) Slip block test specimen with roller bearing assem-blage.

Fig. 5 Loading arrangement.


In this slip block test plot shown in Fig. 6 (a), the value of u lb (Eq. 1) (R.P.Johnson, 1994, p. 43) is the intersection point of y axis. After breaking of adhe-sion bond, the horizontal shear resistance (H r) is,

r u µH b l V (1)

Based on the observations of the slip block tests, the corresponding H-slip curve over this slip increment is plotted and denoted as line D-E in Fig. 6 (b). This process can be repeated at different slip values (while for clarity the corresponding friction lines in Fig. 6 (b)have been numbered as F-G, H-I), thus establishing the relations of u and µ with slip as plotted in Fig. 6 (c),Fig. 6 (d), Fig. 11, Fig. 12 and Fig. 13.

4. Longitudinal shear resistance

The moment of resistance of the composite slab gov-erned by the longitudinal shear resistance which is cal-culated in this work by using the u value, obtained from the slip block test results. This u value is used to calculate the moment of resistance of the composite slab by using the partial interaction method, available in the Eurocode (EC4-1992, p. 94-96). To validate the adopted approach, slip block tests are carried out on

those specimens for which m-k test values are available. Finally, the moment of resistance obtained by the m-k test approach and slip block test based approach are compared. The details of the above two approaches are as follows:

4.1. m-k Method The maximum design vertical shear, V, for a width of slab b should not exceed the design shear resistance, Vl.Rd , determined from the following semiempirical relationship (Eq. 2), and this is used for finding the moment carrying capacity of the deck governed by horizontal shear resistance.

s p p s s vsl.Rd [ ( ) ] /V b d m A b L k (2)

4.2. Partial interaction method All the u values are calculated from intersection point in the y axis and µ from the slope of the plot from the results of slip block tests. From each group, the charac-teristic shear strength

u. R k should be taken as mini-

mum value obtained from all tests reduced by 10%. The design shear strength u R D is the characteristic strength

u. R k divided by vs = 1.25 and the length of

the shear span Lsf is calculated by,

0

1

2

3

4

5

1.5 2.5 3.5Vertical Clamping Force (Ton)

Hz.

Res

ista

nce

(Ton

)

AB C

D

E

O

0

1.5

3

4.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Slip (mm)

Hz.

Res

ista

nce

(Ton

) D

E G I

HF

A

B

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10Slip (mm)

Rib

resi

stan

ce (N

/sq.

mm

)

(a) H–V curve (b) H–Slip curve

(c)u–Slip curve (d) µ–Slip curve

Fig. 6. Slip block test results for profile TD 46.

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

0 2 4 6 8 10Slip (mm)

Coe

ff. o

f fric

tion µ


Lsf = Ncf / (b u R D ) (3)

where Ncf is the yield force of the steel and is given by (R.P. Johnson, 1994, p. 49, 66),

Ncf = Ap 0.85 fyp / ap (4)

The degree of shear connection is calculated by,

cx

sf cf f

NL xL N x

= = = (5)

The lever arm for the force is given by,

Z = h t – 0.5 x f – e p + ( e p – e ) (6)

The design resistance moment is calculated by,

pR pa pa1.25 [ 1 ]M M M= (7)

M pRd = Ncf z + M pR (8)

5. Test program

Based on the literature review, it was decided to inves-tigate the role and effect of the size of profiled decks and dimples on the horizontal shear strength of a com-posite slab (Mohan Ganesh et al., 2003, 2004). In this work, a first batch of trapezoidal specimens of two different sizes was prepared. The dimensions of the first type of specimens (TP 46, TD 46) were the same as those of CF 46 from Precision Metal Forming Lim-ited, UK and the dimensions of the second type of specimens (TP 80, TD 80) were the same as those of Ribdeck 80 from Richard Lee Steel Decking Limited, UK. Using these trapezoidal specimens, the resistance area of the dimples transverse to the loading direction was estimated. The same area was provided in the cir-

cular shape dimples in TD 46 and a 70% area was pro-vided in the circular shape dimples TD 80 profiles to check the influence.

The details of the dimensions of the first batch specimens are given in Table 1 (S. No. 1 to 4) and Fig. 7. Figure 8 shows all the specimens before casting. Three samples of plain profiled decks and three dim-pled profiled decks were prepared for each specimen size. In total, 12 specimens were prepared as the first batch. All were cast with M20 grade concrete and cured. After 28 days curing, the specimens were tested using the above-described procedure.

In the second batch, trapezoidal specimens in three different sizes (a total of 18 specimens) were prepared. The dimensions of the first type of specimens (TP 55, TDR 55, TDS 55, TD55) were the same as those of CF 70 from Precision Metal Forming Limited, UK. The dimensions of the second type (TP 60, TDR 60) of specimens were the same as those of TR 60 from Struc-tural Metal Decks Limited, UK. The resistance area of the dimples transverse to the loading direction was estimated and the same area was provided in the rec-tangular shape dimples in TDR 55, TDR 60 and circular shape dimples in TD 55 to check the influence. Addi-tionally, one more specimen (TDS 55) was prepared. In this specimen, dimples were provided in the web por-tion or side face, in an area equal to the area of dimples in the side face in TDR 55. In each case, profiled decks without dimples (plain) were also prepared.

The details of the dimensions of the second batch specimens are given in Table 1 (S. No.5 to 10) and Fig. 7. Figure 9 shows part of the specimens before casting. Three samples were prepared for each specimen size, thus a total of 18 specimens for the second batch. All were cast with M20 grade concrete and cured. After 28 days curing, specimens were tested using the above-described procedure. In all the specimens, the depth of

Table 1 Dimensions of profiled decks. *

S. No. Profile Type b (mm) b1 (mm) b2 (mm) d (mm) Type of Dimples 1. TP 46 225 52.5 67 46 No dimples 2. TD 46 225 52.5 67 46 Circular dimples 3. TP 80 300 67.5 115 80 No dimples 4. TD 80 300 67.5 115 80 Circular dimples (70%) 5. TP 55 300 136 112 55 No dimples 6. TDR 55 300 136 112 55 Rectangular dimples 7. TDS 55 300 136 112 55 Rectangular dimples - side

face only 8. TD 55 300 136 112 55 Circular dimples 9. TP 60 333 133 140 60 No dimples

10. TDR 60 333 133 140 60 Rectangular dimples

* Overall length = 300 mm, Overall depth including concrete depth = 150 mm, Depth of dimple = 3 mm.TP 46 / 80 – Trapezoidal shape without dimples (plain) of total depth 46 / 80 mm TD 46 / 55 / 80 – Trapezoidal shape with circular dimples of total depth 46 / 55 / 80 mm

TP 55 / 60 – Trapezoidal shape without dimples (plain) of total depth 55 / 60 / 80 mm TDR 55/ 60 – Trapezoidal shape with rectangular dimples of total depth 55 / 60 mm TDS 55 – Trapezoidal shape with rectangular dimples in the Side face of total depth 55 mm


the dimples was 3 mm. The dimension details of all 10 sets or 30 specimens are listed in Table 1.

6. Result and discussions

All the values of u R D , µ, m and k are tabulated in Table 2. It is evident that the horizontal shear resis-tance parameters predicted by using slip block test data are comparable with the parameters based on m–k test

data collected from manufacturers. u R D and m are the main parameters for determining the moment carrying capacity of composite slabs in the slip block test and m-k test, respectively. The following points were ob-served based on the test results.

Profiles having higher m values showed higher u R D value during the slip block test.

Fig. 7 Cross section of trapezoidal profile (pitch length).

Fig. 9 Slip block test specimens -TDS 55, TD 55 (second batch).

Table 2 u R D , µ, m and k values of profiled decks.

Slip Block Test (N/mm2) Values Collected from Manufacturers (N/mm2)S. No. Profile Type Type of Dimples

u R D µ m k

1. TP 46 No dimples 0.082 0.474 – – 2. TD 46 Circular dimples 0.133 0.428 86.8 0.036 3. TP 80 No dimples 0.160 0.256 – – 4. TD 80 Circular dimples 0.205 0.566 204.4 0.1562 5. TP 55 No dimples 0.169 0.367 – – 6. TDR 55 Rectangular dimples 0.223 0.414 178 0.01254 7. TDS 55 Rectangular dimples -

side face only 0.189 0.524 – –

8. TD 55 Circular dimples 0.212 0.463 178 0.01254 9. TP 60 No dimples 0.161 0.584 – –

10. TDR 60 Rectangular dimples 0.217 0.500 170.8 0.018

Fig. 8 Slip block test specimens (first batch).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

M

omen

t in

kN

m

Experiments-Slip Block Test m-k Test Data

TD 46 TD 80 TDR 55 TD 55 TDR 60

Fig. 10 Comparison of moment of resistance governed by horizontal shear.


0

1

2

3

1 2 3 4

V (Ton)

H (T

on) E

GIK

D,FH

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 3 6 9Slip (mm)

Rib

resi

stan

ce (N

/sq.

mm

)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

0 3 6 9

Slip (mm)

Coe

ff. o

f fric

tion µ

Fig. 11. Slip block test results for profile TP 46.

0

1

2

3

0 3 6 9 12Slip (mm)

H (T

on)

D F H J

KIGE

Fig. 12. Slip block test results for profile TP 80.

0

1

2

3

4

0 3 6 9Slip (mm)

H (T

on)

HFD

E G I

1.5

1.2

0.9

0.6

0.3

0

Coe

ff. o

f fric

tion µ

0 2 4 6 8

Slip (mm)

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5

V (Ton)

H (

Ton)

D, F

H

I

E

G

0

0.15

0.3

0.45

0 2 4 6 8

Slip (mm)

Rib

resi

stan

ce (N

/sq.

mm

)


The dimensions of profile TDR 55 (rectangular dimple) and TD 55 (circular dimple) as well as the projected area of the dimples are the same and for these profiles, the slip block test also gives nearly the same values of u R D and µ.

TDR 55, TD 55, TD 60 show less difference in the m-k values. A similar trend is also evidenced by the slip block test results carried on the same pro-file. Further, based on these results, dimples are neces-sary for profiles TP 46, TP 80, TP 55, TP 60 and TP 80, because all these are giving lower value of

u R D than dimpled profiles. Based on these u R D values, the moment carrying

capacities were calculated by using the partial interac-tion method using the above-described procedure. Fur-ther, for validation, these values were compared with the calculated moment carrying capacities based on the m-k test values supplied by the manufacturers. In gen-eral the comparisons showed little difference, as shown in Fig. 10. On the other hand, in TD 80, 70% fewer dimples were provided and hence the resistance pre-dicted by the slip block test data is lower than the m-k test data, in line with expectations.

7. Conclusions

Shear connection between the profiled steel sheet and concrete slab plays an important role in the design of composite slabs. Presently, the assessment of the longi-tudinal shear strength of composite slabs is based on extensive laboratory work, making the design of new profiles a long and complicated task.

The slip block test is quick, simple and economical to apply and can yield essential information about the shear connection performance of profiles with different characteristics. In this paper, u values are calculated based on the slip block test results of various trapezoi-dal profiles. Further these values are used in partial interaction method to get the moment of resistance of the composite slab. Finally, the moment of resistance obtained by the m-k test approach and slip block test based approach are compared. The test results and the comparisons reveal the following points:

Patterns reflected by m-k test results can also be observed in slip block test results. This fact quali-tatively establishes the utility of this simple test in predicting horizontal shear strength of composite slabs. A procedure for the interpretation of slip block test results is adopted and it is observed that the moment of resistance predicted by the slip block test and m–k test shows good agreement in quanti-tative terms.

Based on the above, the authors strongly feel that this simple and economically viable test should not be overlooked and that it can be used as an alternate ap-

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

V (Ton)

H (T

on) I

E, G

D, F

H

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Slip (mm)

H (T

on)

D F H

IG

E

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

0 2 4 6 8Slip (mm)

Rib

resi

stan

ce (N

/sq.

mm

)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

0 2 4 6 8Slip (mm)

Coe

ff. o

f fric

tion µ

Fig. 13. Slip block test results for profile TD 80.


proach for assessing horizontal shear resistance of composite slabs, especially to qualify the use of new geometries of composite decks. Design based on slip block test results will be considerably simplified.

List of symbols b = width of the slip block test specimen or

pitch length b1 = bottom flange width of the slip block test

specimen b2 = top flange width of the slip block test

specimen d, dp = depth of the slip block test specimen or

depth of profile l = length of the slip block test specimen µ = coefficient of friction between the sheeting

and concrete V = clamping force applied in the slip block test H = horizontal force applied in the slip block test b s = width of the slab L = span of the slab L s = shear span, L/4 for a uniform load applied to

the entire span m, k = design values for the empirical factors ob-

tained from tests carried out in accordance with EC 4

Vl.Rd = design shear resistance Vl.Rd

u = rib resistance force per unit length of Slip block test (b1) due to mechanical interlock.

u R D = design rib resistance force per unit length u. R k

= characteristic shear strength per unit length Ap = area of the profile deck

vs = partial safety factor for shear connection ( vs =1.25 )

Lsf = required length of shear span Ncf = yield force of the steel (full shear connec-

tion) Nc = compressive force in the concrete (partial

shear connection) , = degree of shear connection

Lx = distance from an end support x = depth to the neutral axis of stress block z = lever arm ht = total thickness of slab ep = distance of plastic neutral axis above base e = distance of centroid above base Mpa = resistance moment for the sheeting MpR = resistance moment MpRd = design resistance moment fyp = nominal yield strength of sheeting

ap = partial safety factor ( ap = 1.1).

Acknowledgements The authors convey their sincere thanks to the Ministry of Human Research Department, Government of India, India, for sanctioning the grant (MHR–114–CED) for this research project and providing financial support for further experimental work. The authors express

their heartfelt thanks to Prof. Roger P. Johnson, Uni-versity of Warwick, England and Prof. Mark Patrick, University of Western Sydney, Australia, for their valu-able suggestions and encouragement for the execution of the slip block test experiments. Finally, the authors also thank profiled deck manufacturers Precision Metal Forming Ltd., UK, Richard Lee Steel Decking Ltd., UK, and Structural Metal Decks Limited, UK, for sup-plying valuable m-k test data.

References British Standard Institution “Structural use of steelwork

in buildings; Part 4, Code of practice for design of floors with profiled steel sheeting.” BSI London, Part 4 – 1994, BS 5950 - Part 4.

Budi R. Widjaja (1997). “Analysis and design of steel deck – Concrete composite slabs.” Thesis (PhD), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Commission of the European Communities, British Standard Institution (2000). “Design of composite steel and concrete structures; General rules and rules for buildings.” BSI, London, DD ENV 1994-1-1.Draft Eurocode: 4 Part 1.1.

Crisinel, M. and Marimon, F. (2004). “A new simplified method for the design of composite slabs.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 60, 481-491.

Daniels, B. J. and Crisinel, M. (1993). “Composite slab behavior and strength analysis, Part I: Calculation procedure.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 199 (1), 16-35.

Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (1993). “Designers’ handbook to eurocode 4, Part 1.1: Design of composite steel and concrete structures.” Thomas Telford, London.

Johnson, R. P. (1994). “Composite steel and concrete structures – Vol. 1.” 2nd Edition, Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Mohan Ganesh, G., Upadhyay, A. and Kaushik, S. K. (2003). “Longitudinal shear strength of composite profile deck slab.” Proceedings of National Seminar on Advances in Concrete Technology and Concrete Structures for the Future, Annamalai University, India, 18-19, December 2003, 373- 380.

Mohan Ganesh, G., Upadhyay, A. and Kaushik, S. K. (2004). “Assessment of horizontal shear strength of composite slab by slip block test.” Proceedings of All India Seminar on Structural Steel for Construction Industry (SSCI – 2004), NIT Rourkela, 24-25, January 2004, 233-242.

Nagy, Z. V. and Szatmari, I. (1998). “Composite slab design.” Second International Symposium 1998,Technical University of Budapest, 1998, 1-7.

Patrick, M. (1990). “A new partial shear connection strength model for composite slabs.” Journal of the Australian Institute of steel construction, 24 (3), 2–16.


Patrick, M. and Pow, K. W. (1990). “Controlled test for composite slab design parameters.” Proceedings of IBASE Symposium on Mixed Structure Including New Material, Belgium, 1990, 227-231.

Patrick, M. and Bridge, R. Q. “Parameters affecting the design and behaviour of composite slabs.” Proceedings of IBASE Symposium on Mixed

Structure Including New Material, Belgium, 1990, 221-225.

Subcommittee of the ASCE Committee on Composite Construction (2002). “Construction considerations for composite steel-and-concrete floor systems.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128 (9), 1099-1110.

Documents

Simplified Design of Composite Slabs Using Slip Block Test