Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/256440888
Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
Chapter · May 2010

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13824.02565
CITATIONS READS
28 6,458
1 author:
Stephen James Hicks

The University of Warwick
126 PUBLICATIONS 579 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
steel fibre reinforced composite (SFRS) slabs View project
CFST Column Design View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen James Hicks on 25 June 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Eurocode 4: Design of composite
steel and concrete structures
Dr Stephen Hicks, Manager Structural Systems, Heavy Engineering
Research Association, New Zealand
Introduction
BS EN 1994 (Eurocode 4) is the Structural Eurocode that deals with composite

steel and concrete structures. It replaces the following national standards:
BS 5400-5, BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5950-4. Eurocode 4 consists of three Parts:
• Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings (BS EN 1994-1-1);

• Part 1-2, General rules — Structural fire design (BS EN 1994-1-2); and
• Part 2, General rules and rules for bridges (BS EN 1994-2).
To enable Eurocode 4 to be used, designers also need to make reference to

the national annex, which includes the national decision for Nationally
Determined Parameters (NDPs), the national decision regarding the use of
informative annexes and reference to Non-Conflicting Complementary
Information (NCCI). For BS EN 1994-1-1 and BS EN 1994-1-2, the website
http://www.steel-ncci.co.uk will provide all the necessary NCCI, whilst for
BS EN 1994-2 NCCI is given in PD 6696-2. In the interests of improving free
circulation of products and services in Europe, it is intended to reduce the number
of NDPs in the future, thereby leading to a gradual alignment of safety levels
across the member states. As a first step in this process, the European Commis-
sion Joint Research Centre (JRC) has commenced a pilot project that is consider-
ing the harmonization of NDPs, whose initial focus is Eurocode 2, Eurocode 3
and Eurocode 4 (http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/showpage.php?id=52).
To assist designers in understanding Eurocode 4, references [1], [2] and

[3] provide background information on the origin and objectives of the
code provisions, which are supplemented by a selection of worked
105
This complimentary chapter is brought to you by Eurocodes PLUS our online tool that helps with the Eurocodes transition, for more details go to: http://shop.bsigroup.com/transition
© BSI British Standards Institution

The essential guide to Eurocodes transition
examples that illustrate the use of a particular clause. In addition, background

information is freely available through the Eurocodes website of the JRC
(http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/).
The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the key aspects

to Eurocode 4 and consider the principal changes for UK designers. The
convention used is that, when the provisions are similar in different parts of
this Structural Eurocode, Eurocode 4 is referenced. However, when the rules
are specific to a certain type of structure, the relevant part is identified (e.g.
BS EN 1994-1-1 for buildings).
Materials
Structural steel
Although the use of structural steel with a nominal yield strength of not more
than 460 N/mm2 is permitted in bridge designs conforming to BS 5400-5,
Eurocode 4 offers opportunities for building designers, where previously a
yield strength of not greater than 355 N/mm2 was allowed in BS 5950-3.1.
According to Eurocode 3, the modulus of elasticity for steel should be taken
as 210 kN/mm2, rather than the value of 205 kN/mm2 given in BS 5400 and
BS 5950.
Concrete
The strength and deformation characteristics for normal weight and light-
weight concrete are given in Eurocode 2. The compressive concrete strengths
used in the design rules in according to Eurocode 4 are based on cylinder
strengths. Strength classes are defined as Cx/y for normal weight concrete and
LCx/y for lightweight concrete, where x and y are the characteristic cylinder
and cube compressive strengths respectively. For example, C25/30 denotes a
normal weight concrete with a characteristic cylinder strength of 25 N/mm2
and a corresponding cube strength of 30 N/mm2.
While BS 5950-3.1 covers the use of concrete grades C25/30 to C40/50 and
LC20/25 to LC32/40, the range of concrete grades that are permitted in
designs conforming to Eurocode 4 are much wider at C20/25 to C60/75 and
LC20/22 to LC60/66 respectively. Although Eurocode 2 provides guidance for
106

Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
lightweight concrete with dry densities of between 800 kg/m2 and 2000 kg/m2,
it is unlikely that a density of less than 1750 kg/m3 will be used in composite
design, owing to the fact that this is the lowest value that is permitted in the
Eurocode 4 equations for evaluating the resistance of headed stud connectors.
Profiled steel sheeting
Yield strengths of 280 N/mm2 and 350 N/mm2 are the common grades for
steel strip in the UK. Typically, profiled steel sheeting (or decking) is galvanized
for durability purposes and, for internal environments, a total zinc coating of
275 g/m2 is normal. Grades of steel for profiled steel sheeting are specified in
BS EN 10326 (this replaces BS EN 10147, which is the reference given in the
current version of BS EN 1994-1-1), which distinguishes both the yield strength
and the level of zinc coating. For example, the designation S 280 GD + Z 275
means 280 N/mm2 yield strength and 275 g/m2 of zinc coating.
The rules in BS EN 1994-1-1 are only appropriate for profiled steel sheeting
thicknesses above a certain bare metal thickness. The UK national annex uses
the recommended value of t ≥ 0.70 mm. Although an identical minimum sheet
thickness is given in BS 5950-4, bare metal thicknesses of between 0.86 mm
to 1.16 mm have generally been used in the UK to date. The thickness of a
275 g/m2 zinc coating is equivalent to approximately 0.02 mm on each face,
resulting in overall sheet thicknesses commonly used in the UK of between
0.9 mm to 1.2 mm. For design calculations the smaller bare metal thickness
should be used.
Reinforcement
In a similar way as BS 5950-3.1, to simplify calculations the modulus of elas-

ticity of the reinforcement may be taken as equal to the value for structural steel
in Eurocode 4 (i.e. 210 kN/mm2 rather than 200 kN/mm2 given in Eurocode 2).
Shear connectors
Headed stud connectors should be supplied according to BS EN ISO 13918

(rather than EN 13918, which is the reference incorrectly given in Eurocode 4).
107

To distinguish studs used for shear connectors, the designation SD is used,

for example, SD 19 × 100, is a headed stud shear connector with a 19 mm
diameter shank and a nominal height of 100 mm. Due to the limitations to
the Eurocode 4 design equations for calculating the resistance of headed
stud connectors, the stud shank diameters that will be used in practice
are likely to be between 16 mm and 25 mm for solid concrete slabs, and
not greater than 19 mm for studs through-deck welded within the ribs of
profiled steel sheeting. The performance of other types of shear connector
may be evaluated from standard tests given in the informative Annex B.2
of BS EN 1994-1-1, in the absence of guidelines for a European Technical
Approval (ETA).
In Eurocode 4, the nominal height of the stud rather than the length-
after-welding (LAW) is used in the design equations. However, LAW is needed
for detailing purposes, and is sometimes used to ensure that limits to design
rules are satisfied (e.g. LAW is required to determine whether a stud may be
taken as ductile in the rules for partial shear connection). As a consequence
of this, two values of stud height need to be considered by the designer:
the nominal height for calculating resistance; and LAW when detailing the
shear connection. Traditionally, the LAW is taken as 5 mm shorter than the
nominal height.
Composite beams
Effective width of concrete flanges to composite beams for shear lag
The rules for the effective width in Eurocode 4 are simpler than BS 5400-5,
but similar to those in BS 5950-3.1. The effective width at the ultimate limit
state is taken as a constant value for the middle portion of the span and tapers
towards the points of zero moment, as shown in Figure 4.1 (as opposed
to BS 5950-3.1 where a constant width is taken along the full length for
simply-supported beams); similar results for effective widths of steel plated
structural elements can be calculated from BS EN 1993-1-5. In addition,
when multiple shear connectors are provided, the effective width may be
increased by the distance between the outermost shear connectors measured
from their centre-lines, b0 (see Figure 4.1). However, for the serviceability
limit state, the Eurocode 4 provisions are similar to BS 5950-3.1 in that a
constant effective breadth may be assumed to act over the entire span, based
on the mid-span value.
108

b2
be2
beff
b0
b0
be1 beff,1
b1
Figure 4.1. Equivalent spans, for effective width of concrete flange

beff,2
L3
4
L2 /4
L2 /2
L2
3
L1/4 L2 /4
2
L1/2
L1
1
L1/4
2 Le = 0.25(L1 + L2) for beff,2
beff,0
1 Le = 0.85L1 for beff,1
3 Le = 0.70L2 for beff,1
beff,2
4 Le = 2L3 for beff,2
beff,1
Key
109

In both BS 5950-3.1 and Eurocode 4, the maximum value of the effective
width be1 = be2 = span/8 on each side of the beam (see Figure 4.1). As well
as considering this limit, the width assumed in design must not exceed the
actual slab width available, which is particularly relevant to edge beams and
beams adjacent to openings. The rules in Eurocode 4 are more generous for
cases when the slab is spanning parallel to the span of the beam in that, in
BS 5950-3.1, the width assumed in design could not exceed 80% of the actual
slab width available.
Creep and shrinkage
One of the differences from previous UK practice is that the elastic modulus
for concrete under short-term loading is a function of its grade and density.
As a consequence of this, instead of the short-term value, n0, of 6 and 10 for
normal weight and lightweight concrete respectively, a range of values should
be used. For design conforming to Eurocode 4, n0 ranges between: 5.2 to
6.8 for normal concrete; and 8.3 to 10.8 for lightweight concrete with a dry
density r = 1750 kg/m3.
In BS 5950-3.1, the effective modular ratio that should be used in design is

based on a consideration of the short- and long-term modular ratio, and the
proportion of the total loading that is long term. However, BS EN 1994-1-1
introduces a useful simplification for composite beams in buildings in that the
modular ratio may be taken as 2n0 for both short- and long-term loading if:
• first-order global analysis is acceptable (which is expected to occur in the

majority of cases);
• the floor is not mainly intended for storage; and
• the floor is not prestressed by controlled imposed deformations.
Shear connection
Partial shear connection
Ductile shear connectors are defined as those having sufficient deformation

capacity to justify the assumption of ideal plastic behaviour of the shear
connection (measured in terms of the slip at the interface between the steel
beam and the concrete slab). Sufficient slip capacity enables the longitudinal
110

shear to be redistributed between the shear connectors before any of them

fail, such that they may be taken to be equally loaded at the ultimate limit
state. In these situations, it is permitted to space the connectors uniformly,
which is helpful when the connectors are used with profiled steel sheeting,
due to the fixed pitch of the ribs. Unlike BS 5950-3.1, whose only requirement
is that other types of shear connectors should have at least the same defor-
mation capacity as headed studs, Eurocode 4 specifies that a shear connector
may be taken to be ductile if its characteristic slip capacity, duk, is at least
6 mm. In situations when the shear connector is not a headed stud, duk may
be evaluated from the standard test given in Annex B.2 of BS EN 1994-1-1.
According to BS EN 1994-1-1, headed studs with a shank diameter, d, of

between 16 mm and 25 mm, and an overall length after welding (LAW)
of not less than 4d may be considered ductile within defined limits to the
degree of shear connection, h. Unlike BS 5950-3.1, where the limits to the
degree of shear connection depended only on the beam span, the limits in
BS EN 1994-1-1 are a function of the beam span, the steel grade and whether
the steel section is symmetric or asymmetric (defined by the ratio of the
bottom flange area to top flange area of the steel section). The maximum
asymmetry that is permitted is for steel sections with a bottom flange area
equal to three times the area of the top flange. For steel sections in which
the ratio of flange areas is between 1 and 3, linear interpolation is permitted.
A graphical representation of the degree of shear connection requirements
in BS 5950-3.1 compared with BS EN 1994-1-1 is presented in Figure 4.2.
As can be seen from Figure 4.2, for symmetric steel sections, a much lower
degree of shear connection is permitted than in BS 5950-3.1.
A third set of rules where headed stud connectors may be considered as ductile
over a wider range of spans is given in BS EN 1994-1-1. However, these are
more restrictive in scope and only apply to profiled steel sheeting spanning
perpendicular to the supporting beam, with ribs not greater than 60 mm in
height and one 19 mm diameter stud per rib. Moreover, this third set of rules
can only be used when the simplified method is used (where the composite
moment resistance is linearly interpolated between full shear connection and
no shear connection), as opposed to the rules in Figure 4.2 where the tradi-
tional stress-block method is used, which gives a larger lever arm and moment
resistance.
The use of non-ductile shear connectors is permitted in Eurocode 4 (such as

headed studs used outside the ranges given in Figure 4.2, or block connectors).
111

Steel sections having a bottom flange

with an area equal to three times the
area of the top flange
1.0
Degree of shear connection, h = n/nf
0.8
0.6
SteeI sections with equaI flanges

0.4
BS EN 1994-1-1 Grade S355

0.2
BS EN 1994-1-1 Grade S275
BS 5950-3.1
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Span (m)
Figure 4.2. Minimum shear connection requirements from BS 5950-3.1 and

BS EN 1994-1-1
However, the spacing of the shear connectors must be based on an elastic

analysis of the longitudinal shear.
Resistance of shear connectors embedded in solid slabs and concrete

encasement
Although only design rules for headed stud connectors are given in Eurocode 4,
the UK national annex to BS EN 1994-2 provides guidance for block connec-
tors with hoops through PD 6696-2. Specific design rules for horizontally
lying studs are provided in Annex C of BS EN 1994-2 which, according to
the UK national annex to BS EN 1994-1-1, may also be used for buildings.
Unlike BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5400-5, where the characteristic resistances of
headed stud connectors were presented in tabular form, the stud resistance
in Eurocode 4 is taken to be the lesser of two equations (one representing
stud shank failure, the other representing crushing of the concrete around
the stud). A comparison of the characteristic resistances of typical 19 mm
112

Table 4.1. Characteristic resistances of 19 mm diameter × 95 mm LAW stud

connectors embedded in normal weight concrete
Standard Characteristic resistances of shear connectors (kN)

for concrete grade
C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C35/45 C40/50
Eurocode 4 81 93 104 113 113
BS 5400 and BS 5950-3.1 95 100 106 114 119
Table 4.2. Characteristic resistances of 19 mm diameter × 95 mm LAW

stud connectors embedded in lightweight concrete (with a dry density
r = 1750 kg/m³)
Standard Characteristic resistances of shear connectors (kN)

for concrete grade
LC20/22 LC25/28 LC30/33 LC35/38 LC40/44
Eurocode 4 64 74 83 91 99
BS 5400 and BS 5950-3.1 83 88 92 97 102
diameter studs embedded in solid concrete slabs is presented in Table 4.1 and

Table 4.2 for normal weight and lightweight concrete respectively.
Unlike BS 5950-3.1, where the design stud resistance is reduced in hogging

moment regions, in Eurocode 4 it is assumed that the design resistance is not
dependent on whether the surrounding concrete is in compression or tension.
Although test evidence suggests this assumption is slightly unconservative for
hogging moment regions [4], this is compensated by the fact that only full
shear connection is permitted by BS EN 1994-1-1 in these areas.
While BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5400-5 recognize that appropriate resistance to

uplift should be provided by the shear connectors, only BS 5400-5 provides
specific rules on the influence of tension on the shear resistance of headed
studs. According to Eurocode 4, the design shear resistance of headed studs,
PRd, may be assumed to be unaffected, provided that the design tensile force
does not exceed 0.1PRd; for situations when the design tensile force exceeds
this value, the connection is not within the scope of Eurocode 4. However, for
situations where significant tension forces may develop in shear studs (such as
may be encountered over long web-openings, tension-field action, etc.), guid-
ance to UK designers is given in PD 6696-2.
113

Design resistance of headed studs used with profiled steel sheeting in

buildings
The BS EN 1994-1-1 reduction factors that are applied to stud connectors

welded within the ribs of profiled steel sheeting are calculated using identical
equations to those in BS 5950-3.1, except that a lower multiplier is used for
cases when the sheeting ribs are perpendicular to the supporting beams. Also,
while the limiting values to the reduction factors in BS 5950-3.1 were based
on the number of studs per rib, the limits in BS EN 1994-1-1 are a function
of the number of studs per rib, the thickness of the sheet and whether the
studs are through-deck welded or welded through holes in the sheet. Unlike
BS 5950-3.1, no reduction factor equations are provided for more than two
studs per rib.
The geometry of existing UK profiled steel sheets have been designed such
that the limiting value dominates, so the reduction factors in BS EN 1994-1-1
are independent of the geometry and are therefore based on the number of
studs per rib and the orientation of the sheet. As a consequence of this, for
through-deck welded 19 mm diameter × 95 mm LAW studs, the reduction
factor values from BS EN 1994-1-1 are identical to those given in BS 5950-
3.1 for sheet thicknesses greater than 1.0 mm, but up to 15% lower for sheet
thicknesses less than 1.0 mm. Nevertheless, when concrete grades less than
C35/45 and LC40/44 are used, the resistance of headed stud connectors will
be lower than those given by BS 5950-3.1, irrespective of the sheet thickness
(see Table 4.1 and 4.2).
Detailing of the shear connection
One of the significant differences in the detailing rules to Eurocode 4

compared to BS 5950-3.1 is the requirement that the underside of the head of
a stud should extend not less than 30 mm clear above the bottom reinforce-
ment to provide adequate resistance to separation; this rule appears to have
been developed from a consideration of the performance of studs in solid
slabs, or composite slabs with shallow re-entrant profiled steel sheeting. In
60 mm deep profiled steel sheets commonly used in the UK, the presence of a
shallow re-entrant stiffener to the top flange of the sheet results in an overall
depth closer to 70 mm, meaning that this detailing rule cannot be achieved for
typical 19 mm diameter × 95 mm LAW studs. Nevertheless, recent full-scale
114

beam tests have indicated that this rule could be relaxed for typical 60 mm
deep profiled steel sheets used in the UK [5].
Design resistance to longitudinal shear in concrete slabs
In evaluating the amount of transverse reinforcement required to prevent longi-

tudinal splitting caused by the forces from the shear connectors, Eurocode 4
refers to the provisions in Eurocode 2 for reinforced concrete T-beams. The
rules in Eurocode 2 are based on a truss analogy, where it assumed that
successive concrete struts form in the flange to the beam with the transverse
reinforcement acting as ties to maintain equilibrium and prevent the concrete
struts from rotating (see Figure 4.3). This approach is a significant depar-
ture to the rules for transverse reinforcement in BS 5400-5 and BS 5950-3.1,
which were developed from a semi-empirical relationship.
Like BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5400-5, the design longitudinal shear resistance of

the concrete slab should exceed the design resistance of the shear connectors
to ensure that the more ductile shear connectors are the critical design case.
Where a combination of precast and in-situ concrete is used, the longitudinal
shear resistance should again be evaluated according to Eurocode 2, but in
these situations using the provisions for shear at the interface for concrete
moment of
point load
Maximum
Potential surfaces of
Support
shear failure beff
Fd a a
a a
beff a a
a a
Fd
qf a–a Potential surfaces

of shear failure
Dx 45° ≥ qf ≥ 26.5°
Figure 4.3. Truss model for transverse reinforcement
115

cast at different times. These rules are different to those currently recom-
mended in UK practice [6].
In a similar way as in BS 5950-3.1, when profiled steel sheeting spans perpen-

dicular to the supporting beam and is either continuous, or discontinuous but
anchored (from the provision of through-deck welded stud connectors), the
sheet may be taken to contribute to the transverse reinforcement. However,
for the case when the sheets are discontinuous and anchored, the rules in
BS EN 1994-1-1 are more consistent than BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5950-4, in that
the basis for calculating the bearing resistance of the stud is identical for both
transverse reinforcement considerations and end anchorage in composite slabs.
Serviceability limit state
Deflections
The additional deflection due to partial shear connection need not be consid-
ered if the shear connection is:
• designed according to the methods for headed studs in BS EN 1994-1-1

(see Figure 4.2);
• the degree of shear connection, h, is not less than 50%; and
• when the ribs of the profiled steel sheet are perpendicular to the supporting
beam their height does not exceed 80 mm.
Shrinkage of the concrete results in forces on the shear connectors to act in

the opposite direction to that due to the vertical loads, and can therefore be
neglected when designing the shear connection. However, the shrinkage forces
can cause the beam to deflect in the same way as if the beam was subject to
vertical loading, which leads to additional deflections and flexural stresses. In
BS 5950-3.1, it was not necessary to consider the effects of shrinkage if the
calculation procedures provided in that Standard were adopted. According
to BS EN 1994-1-1, the additional deflection due to shrinkage need not be
included in design if the span-to-depth ratio of the beam is not less than 20
and normal weight concrete is used. For other cases, guidance is given by
Johnson and Anderson [1].
116

Irreversible deformation
As opposed to BS 5950-3.1, there are no specific requirements to limit stresses

at the serviceability limit state in BS EN 1994-1-1. However, to ensure that
it is appropriate to base the calculations for deflections on elastic theory, it is
considered good practice to use similar limitations as BS 5950-3.1. On this
basis, it is recommended [7] that in designs conforming to BS EN 1994-1-1
the calculated stresses should be limited to the yield strength of the steel, fy,
and the concrete stress to 0.63fck.
Vibrations
Owing to the fact that limits to vibrations are material-independent,

Eurocode 4 refers designers to BS EN 1990. For vibration limits in buildings,
BS EN 1990, Annex A1.4.4 refers to ISO 10137. However, no guidance is
given to the designer on how these limits should be verified; it is expected
that, for steel-framed buildings, an appropriate NCCI will be given, such as
reference [8]. For bridges, specific vibration limits are provided in Annex A2.4
of BS EN 1990.
Crack widths
Where composite beams and composite slabs are designed as simply-supported,

but the slab is continuous, a minimum percentage of reinforcement should
be provided over the intermediate supports. According to BS 5950-4, rein-
forcement equivalent to 0.1% of the cross-sectional area of the concrete
should be provided as a minimum for unpropped construction. However, UK
industry has already moved away from this value and adopted the following
BS EN 1994-1 provisions as good practice when the control of crack widths
is not required:
• 0.2% of the cross-sectional area of the concrete (taken as the depth

above the ribs of the sheeting, hc, for composite slabs) for unpropped
construction;
• 0.4% of the cross-sectional area of the concrete (taken as the depth above
the ribs of the sheeting, hc, for composite slabs) for propped construction.
117

When limits to the crack widths are required, reference should be made to
Eurocode 2 for composite slabs and slabs to beams.
Design for fire resistance
The fire resistance of a composite beam may be evaluated using the bending
moment resistance model in BS EN 1994-1-2, which is similar to the moment
capacity method given in BS 5950-8. When the ribs of the profiled steel
sheeting are perpendicular to the supporting beam, voids are created between
the sheeting and the top flange of the steel beam. Unlike BS 5950-8, where
limiting temperatures were only provided when the voids were filled with
non-combustible filler, according to BS EN 1994-1-2 the voids may be ignored
if at least 85% of the surface of the top flange is in contact with the slab. As a
consequence of this, the voids do not need to be filled for re-entrant profiles,
but they must be filled for trapezoidal profiles (or the effect of the voids on
the beam temperature must be considered).
An alternative method for evaluating the fire resistance of a composite beam

is the critical temperature model in BS EN 1994-1-2, which is used to estimate
the critical temperature of the lower flange of the steel beam under a given
sagging bending moment. Although this method is simple, for a composite
beam designed for partial shear connection at ambient temperature, the crit-
ical temperature method is likely to be more conservative compared to that
achieved using BS 5950-8.
Composite columns
Rules for composite columns in buildings were intended to be provided

in BS 5950-3.2, but this standard was never published. However, rules for
composite columns were published in BS 5400-5, and have been used in
the UK for the design of bridge piers. The rules for composite columns in
Eurocode 4 are appropriate for concrete filled steel hollow sections, fully
concrete-encased and partially concrete-encased steel H-sections. The advan-
tages of using composite columns are that they possess a high bearing resist-
ance and, in buildings, significant periods of fire resistance can be achieved
without the need for applied external protection.
118

Composite joints
Although design guidance for composite beam-to-column connections has

been available since 1998 [9], the design rules are formalized through the
publication of BS EN 1994-1-1. The benefit of using composite connec-
tions in braced frames is that beam depths and section sizes can be reduced,
improved serviceability performance is achieved (in terms of deflections) and,
due to the improved continuity between the frame members, greater robust-
ness is possible.
Composite slabs
Flexure
The m-k method in BS 5950-4 is the traditional approach for evaluating the
longitudinal shear resistance of composite slabs; however, this method has
limitations and is not particularly suitable for the analysis of concentrated
line and point loads. As well as the m-k method, in BS EN 1994-1-1 another
approach known as the partial connection method is given, which is based
on the principles of partial shear connection. This method provides a more
logical approach to determine the slab’s resistance from applied concentrated
line or point loadings, but may only be used when ductile longitudinal shear
behaviour has been demonstrated by tests on composite slabs.
Both the m-k and partial connection method in BS EN 1994-1-1 rely on
tests on composite slabs to evaluate the longitudinal shear strength, or ‘shear
bond’ value, for the variables under investigation. However, design values
that have been evaluated from tests according to BS 5950-4 cannot be used
directly in Eurocode 4, unless they have been converted by a method such
as that described in [10]. It is expected that, once the national standards are
withdrawn, design tables and software according to the Eurocodes will be
provided by profiled steel sheeting manufacturers for their specific products.
Concentrated point and line loads
Concentrated point and line loads often occur in buildings from, for example,
temporary props during construction, wheel loads, columns, solid masonry
119

partitions, etc. In these situations, the effect of the smaller effective slab width
available for bending and vertical shear resistance needs to checked at the
locations of these loads. The BS EN 1994-1-1 equations for determining the
effective width of composite slabs are identical to those given in BS 5950-4,
with the exception that their applicability is limited to cases when the ratio
of the sheet height to the overall slab depth hp/h does not exceed 0.6. More-
over, although an identical nominal transverse reinforcement area of not less
than 0.2% of the area of concrete above the ribs of the sheet is specified in
BS EN 1994-1-1, a significant difference is that this level of reinforcement is
only appropriate for characteristic imposed loads not exceeding 7.5 kN for
concentrated loads, and 5.0 kN/m2 for distributed loads. In situations when
this loading is exceeded, the appropriate transverse reinforcement should be
determined in accordance with Eurocode 2.
Vertical shear
The vertical shear resistance of a composite slab should be determined using

Eurocode 2, which depends on the effective depth of the cross-section to the
centroid of the tensile reinforcement. Although not specified in BS EN 1994-
1-1, in BS 5950-4 and the ENV version of BS EN 1994-1-1 it was permitted
to take the profiled steel sheeting as the tensile reinforcement provided that
it was fully anchored beyond the section considered. However, for heavily
loaded slabs additional reinforcement may be required at the support when
the profiled steel sheeting is discontinuous and only has limited anchorage.
Design for fire resistance
The required fire performance of floor slabs is defined by the Approved Docu-
ment B to the UK National Building Regulations. The Approved Document
requires the slab performance to be assessed based on criteria for insulation
(criterion I), integrity (criterion E) and load bearing capacity (criterion R). In
BS EN 1994-1-2, it may be assumed that composite slabs satisfy the integrity
criterion. Moreover, according to BS EN 1994-1-2, composite slabs that have
been designed to BS EN 1994-1-1 may be assumed to possess 30 min fire
resistance when assessed according to the load bearing capacity criterion.
Nevertheless, the slab’s ability of achieving the insulating criterion still needs
to be verified.
120

The insulation criterion is satisfied by providing adequate slab thickness to

ensure that the temperature of the unexposed surface of the slab does not
exceed 140 °C. The UK national annex to BS EN 1994-1-2 provides a table
of recommended slab thicknesses for both trapezoidal and re-entrant profiles
to satisfy the insulation requirements for common periods of fire resistance.
These slab thicknesses are identical to those given in BS 5950-8.
Despite the fact that Annex D of BS EN 1994-1-2 provides a calculation
model for estimating the fire resistance of composite slabs, the UK national
annex does not recommend its use, owing to the fact that many UK profiled
steel sheets are outside the limits to its field of application. In an attempt to
resolve this issue, alternative design temperatures based on BS 5950-8 are
presented in the UK national annex.
Typically, design tables that satisfy the load bearing criterion are given by
profiled steel sheeting manufacturers, which are based on the extended appli-
cation of a single fire test on a particular product. Although the extended
application of fire test results in the UK is already based on a design model
that is in the spirit of BS EN 1994-1-2, extending the application of fire
tests will be formalized in the future through the publication of a series of
European Standards with the designation EN 15080. For projects in other
European countries, where the use of Annex D of BS EN 1994-1-2 is recom-
mended, it is likely that the manufacturer’s fire design tables will be the only
valid method of design for UK profiles; in particular, when the contribution
of the tensile resistance of the profiled steel sheet is included in the calculation
of the sagging moment resistance (a practice that has hitherto been included
in UK design, which often eliminates the need for reinforcement bars within
the ribs).
Conclusions
Eurocode 4 brings both benefits and challenges to UK designers who are

familiar with the earlier national standards for composite steel and concrete
structures. To assist designers in the transition to the Eurocodes, the Steel
Construction Institute (SCI) have issued a suite of design guides that provide
advice on designing structural elements and frames.. In addition to the design
guides, the European steel industry’s multilingual Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 4
website, Access Steel (www.access-steel.com), contains further guidance.
121

References
[1] Johnson R.P. and Anderson D. Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1: Eurocode 4: Design
of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, Thomas Telford, London, 2004
[2] Moore D., Bailey C., Lennon T. and Wang, Y. Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-2,
EN 1992-1-2, EN 1993-1-2 and EN 1994-1-2, Thomas Telford, London, 2007
[3] Hendy C.R. and Johnson R.P. Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-2 Eurocode 4: Design
of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges,
Thomas Telford, London, 2006
[4] Johnson R.P., Greenwood R.D. and van Dalen K. Stud shear-connectors in hogging
moment regions of composite beams, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 47, No. 9,
September 1969, pp345–350
[5] Hicks S.J. Strength and ductility of headed stud connectors welded in modern profiled
steel sheeting, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 85, No. 10, May 2007, pp32–38
[6] Hicks S.J. and Lawson R.M. Design of Composite Beams using Precast Concrete
Slabs, SCI Publication 287, The Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, 2003, p92
[7] Rackham J.W., Couchman G.H., and Hicks S.J. Composite Slabs and Beams using
Steel Decking: Best Practice for Design and Construction (Revised Edition), SCI
Publication 300/MCRMA Technical Paper No. 13, The Metal Cladding and Roofing
Manufacturers Association in partnership with the Steel Construction Institute,
Wirral, 2009, p110
[8] Smith A.L., Hicks S.J. and Devine P.J. Design of Floors for Vibration: A New Approach,
SCI Publication 354, Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, 2007, p124
[9] Couchman G.H. and Way A.G.J. Joints in Steel Construction – Composite Connec-
tions, SCI Publication 213, Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, 1998, p98
[10] Johnson R.P. Models for the longitudinal shear resistance of composite slabs and the
use of non-standard test data, In Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V,
Leon R.T. and Lange J. (eds). ASCE, New York, 2006, pp157–165
122
View publication stats

Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Chapter · May 2010

Stephen James Hicks

steel fibre reinforced composite (SFRS) slabs View project

CFST Column Design View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BS EN 1994 (Eurocode 4) is the Structural Eurocode that deals with composite

• Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings (BS EN 1994-1-1);

To enable Eurocode 4 to be used, designers also need to make reference to

To assist designers in understanding Eurocode 4, references [1], [2] and

© BSI British Standards Institution

examples that illustrate the use of a particular clause. In addition, background

The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the key aspects

© BSI British Standards Institution

Profiled steel sheeting

In a similar way as BS 5950-3.1, to simplify calculations the modulus of elas-

Headed stud connectors should be supplied according to BS EN ISO 13918

© BSI British Standards Institution

To distinguish studs used for shear connectors, the designation SD is used,

Effective width of concrete flanges to composite beams for shear lag

© BSI British Standards Institution

Figure 4.1. Equivalent spans, for effective width of concrete flange

3 Le = 0.70L2 for beff,1

© BSI British Standards Institution

Creep and shrinkage

In BS 5950-3.1, the effective modular ratio that should be used in design is

• first-order global analysis is acceptable (which is expected to occur in the

Partial shear connection

Ductile shear connectors are defined as those having sufficient deformation

© BSI British Standards Institution

shear to be redistributed between the shear connectors before any of them

According to BS EN 1994-1-1, headed studs with a shank diameter, d, of

The use of non-ductile shear connectors is permitted in Eurocode 4 (such as

© BSI British Standards Institution

Steel sections having a bottom flange

SteeI sections with equaI flanges

BS EN 1994-1-1 Grade S355

Figure 4.2. Minimum shear connection requirements from BS 5950-3.1 and

However, the spacing of the shear connectors must be based on an elastic

Resistance of shear connectors embedded in solid slabs and concrete

© BSI British Standards Institution

Table 4.1. Characteristic resistances of 19 mm diameter × 95 mm LAW stud

Standard Characteristic resistances of shear connectors (kN)

Table 4.2. Characteristic resistances of 19 mm diameter × 95 mm LAW

Standard Characteristic resistances of shear connectors (kN)

diameter studs embedded in solid concrete slabs is presented in Table 4.1 and

Unlike BS 5950-3.1, where the design stud resistance is reduced in hogging

While BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5400-5 recognize that appropriate resistance to

© BSI British Standards Institution

Design resistance of headed studs used with profiled steel sheeting in

The BS EN 1994-1-1 reduction factors that are applied to stud connectors

Detailing of the shear connection

One of the significant differences in the detailing rules to Eurocode 4

© BSI British Standards Institution

Design resistance to longitudinal shear in concrete slabs

In evaluating the amount of transverse reinforcement required to prevent longi-

Like BS 5950-3.1 and BS 5400-5, the design longitudinal shear resistance of

shear failure beff