Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine

International Specialty Conference on Cold- (1982) - 6th International Specialty Conference

Formed Steel Structures on Cold-Formed Steel Structures

Nov 16th, 12:00 AM

Composite Cold-formed Steel-concrete Structural System

George Abdel-Sayed

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/isccss

Part of the Structural Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Abdel-Sayed, George, "Composite Cold-formed Steel-concrete Structural System" (1982). International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. 2.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/isccss/6iccfss/6iccfss-session9/2

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been
accepted for inclusion in International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures by an authorized
administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including
reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please
contact scholarsmine@mst.edu.
 Composite Cold-Formed Steel-Concrete Structural System

by

George Abdel-Sayed*

ABSTRACT

Composite beams and columns are developed using soffits made

of cold-formed steel sections and cast-in-place concrete.

Soffits made in the form of stiffened channels with embossments

performed well as integral parts of composite beams or columns. The
combined action of the embossments and the channel's lips lead to
very good bond characteristics between the soffit and the concrete.
This can be explained, that the concrete has to be lifted up in
order to slide over the embossments, while this movement is restrained
by the lips of the channel.

Test results show good characteristics of the composite beams,

especially with regard to their ultimate load carrying capacity
and bond strength. The experimental study shows that by replacing
the standard reinforcing bars by cold-formed steel sections of
equal areas, the structural performance of the beams could be almost
unchanged, while saving is achieved in the cost of forms and shorings.

Similar system is also applied to build columns with channels

placed at two parallel faces. Preliminary testing show the per-
formance of the composite columns to be comparable to identical
ones reinforced with deformed bars. Using composite columns leads
to considerable savings in time and material of construction due to
the elimination of the ties as well as part of the forms.

INTRODUCTION

The construction of cast-in-place concrete beams requires the

installation and removal of form work and shoring, which constitutes
a considerable part of their cost. The construction cost can be
reduced by using soffits made of cold-formed steel sections as
forms to carry the wet concrete and then to become integral part of
the beams, Fig. la (1). Experimental studies (1, 3, 8) show good
characteristics of these beams especially with regard to their
ultimate load carrying capacity, bond strength, as well as the crack
width and spacing in the concrete components. The study shows that
by replacing the standard reinforcing bars by a cold-formed steel
section of equal area, the structural performance of the beam
could be unchanged while saving is achieved in the cost of forms
and shoring.

* Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor,

Ontario, Canada.

485
486 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

In a similar manner an alternate design for reinforced concrete

columns can be made by replacing the longitudinal reinforcing bars
by cold-formed steel sections placed at two parallel sides of the
column, Fig. lb (6). Herein, the steel sections replace the forms
at two sides. In addition, major saving in the construction cost
can be achieved by eliminating the ties required for standard
reinforced concrete columns. The main function of the ties is to
laterally support the longitudinal reinforcing bars in order to
reduce their unsupported length and prevent their local buckling.
The need for these ties is eliminated (or reduced) due to the
continuous bond between the concrete and the steel soffits, as well
as, due to the relatively high rigidity of the soffits when compared
with standard reinforcing bars.

The present paper outlines the development of cold-formed steel

soffits in composite action with concrete beams and columns. It
presents tests conducted showing the feasibility of this type of
composite components and provides the basic information on their
performance and characteristics.

A - SOFFIT SECTIONS

The cross-section of cold-formed steel soffits can take the

form of unstiffened channel, stiffened channel, or two angles
connected back to back, Fig. lao Experimental studies (3, 6) show
that the stiffened channels are the most suitable sections for use
in composite beams. Furthermore, the performance of the channels
can be considerably improved by forming embossments as proposed in
Figs. 2a, b. At bond failure the concrete has to be lifted off the
soffit in order to slide over the embossments while this movement
is restrained by the lips of the channel. This leads to the increase
in the bond strength between the soffit and concrete.

The present paper reports a testing program using soffits of

stiffened channels. These channels were either plain (C.P.); or
provided with rounded embossments (C.R.); or provided with oval
embossments (C.O.). The dimension and detailed properties of the
channels tested are given in Table No.1.

B - COMPOSITE BEAMS

The function of cold-formed steel soffits in composite beams

is similar to that of cold-formed steel panels in composite deck
floors (7). In both cases the steel performs a dual role as form
during construction and as positive reinforcement for the deck or
beam. However, it should be noted that the two systems differ in
the mechanism of grip and bond between the steel and concrete. The
uplift of the concrete and its separation from the steel, which takes
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 487

place at bond failure in composite decks, is restrained by the lips

of the soffits in composite beams. Also, the ratio of depth of the
steel deck to the total depth of the deck is considerably high when
compared with the corresponding ratio in beams. Therefore, while
the concrete tension cracks are covered and have no effect on the
deck design, they present a major concern when designing composite
beams.

B-1 TEST PROGRAM

Four test series were conducted on composite beams using

stiffened channels for soffits (Table 2). The objective of each
series is as follows: Series A examined the effect of variation
in the depth, d', and thickness, t, of the soffits made of plain
stiffened channel. Series Band C examined the effects of rounded
and oval embossments respectively on the behaviour of soffits
identical to the ones of series A. Series D tested beams with
different dimensions using high tensile soffits of plain and
embossed channels.

The beams were cast with the cleaned steel soffits simply
supported at the ends of the span, except the beams in test series
D, which were provided with additional support at the middle of span.
This arrangement simUlates the construction conditions in which the
steel soffit is to carry the weight of the wet concrete. Equivalent
standard beams reinforced with bars were cast on bottom wooden forms
resting on the floor. Standard concrete cylinders were also cast
out of each mix to determine the actual f~ for the concrete used in
each beam.

All beams were tested as simply supported with span S (Fig. 3,

Table 2). The loads were transmitted from a two point loading beam.
The top surface of all tested beams were leveled at the point of
loading to ensure a line of uniform pressure across the width. The
load was applied at a shear distance L' from the centreline of the
closest support. Dial gauges were placed at the middle of the span
to record the deflections and at the two ends of the beam to record
the slip between the soffit and concrete. Fig. 4, Sand 6 show the
load versus deflection of three of the beams tested with observed
failure as follows:

Test B-6, tension failure, Figs. 4a, b

Test C-4, shear failure, Figs. Sa, b
Test D-3, bond failure, Figs. 6a, b

Table No.2 shows the tests conducted together with the experi-
mental and analytically obtained results of the ultimate load.
488 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

B-2: ANALYSIS OF THE COMPOSITE BEAMS

The behaviour and ultimate load carrying capacity of composite

beams can be determined by examining their responses to the induced
bending-, shear- and bond stresses.

a) Bending Stresses

In general the beams are not shored during construction and

the wet concrete is carried by the steel section alone. Bending
stresses, f, due to this case of loading are calculated using the
section properties of the soffits alone:

in which MD = bending moment due to the weight of wet concrete;

y = distance to neutral axis; and I = moment of inertia of soffit
about its neutral axis.

After hardening of the concrete, the section acts as a composite

and, under superimposed bending moment, ML , tension is induced over
the soffit. The ultimate load carrying capacity is reached when
the whole section of the soffit reaches its yield limit (Table VIII,
Reference 8). This observation follows the generally accepted
characteristics of composite sections in which the initial stresses
caused by the weight of wet concrete have no effect on the ultimate
load carrying capacity of the composite section. The ultimate
moment, M', can be calculated using the standard formulas of rein-
u
forced concrete beams:

M' = A f (d - a/2) (2)

u s y
in which As = cross-sectional area of soffit; fy = yield stress of
soffit material; d = distance from extreme compression fiber to the
centroid of soffit; and a = depth of the effective compression zone
of concrete:

A f
s y
a (3)
0.85 f' b
c
in which f~ = specified compression strength of concrete; and
b = width of compression face of member.
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 489

The ultimate moment is calculated for each of the beams tested

and the results are listed in Table No.2.

b) Bond Strength

The bond force, Vb' (longitudinal shear per unit length) acting
between the soffit and concrete can be calculated as follows:

V
b
= (4)

in which V = the shear force at a given section; Ic = moment of

inertia of the transformed uncracked section; and Qc = the statical
moment of the tranformed steel section about the neutral axis of the
transformed composite section.

Eq. 4 may govern the design of beams with plain soffits (no
embossments) in which the bond forces are resisted only by the
chemical bond between the concrete and steel. However, for soffits
with embossments, bond failure does not occur until complete slip
takes place over the whole shear length L'. Herein, the bond
strength is related to the tensile force in the soffit, T, and the
shear length L' :

T
L' (5)

in which T = M /(d - a/2).

u
Considering the test arrangement with, two concentrated loads,
M = V·L', therefore:
V
u
(6)
Dub = (d - a/2)

The average ultimate bond strength,Uub,can be obtained experimentally

and are listed (underlined) :.in Table 2 for the cases with observed
bond failure.

c) Shear Strength

Tests on standard reinforced concrete beams (2) show that the

nominal shear force, Vcr' at which diagonal flexure-shear cracking
develops is conservatively predicted from:
490 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

~ Vd ~
V
cr
b.d . (1.9 v f~ + 2500 P M) " (3.5 v f~ ) b.d (7)

in which P = As/bd; ViM = the ratio of shear to bending moment

occurring simultaneously.

Once a diagonal crack is formed, the shear force is transmitted

by the uncracked portion of the concrete, V , and across the soffit,
c
Vd ' The force, Vd ' creates vertical tension stresses as shown in
Fig. 7. These stresses cause the splitting of the concrete along
the plane of the lips of the soffits as shown in Fig. 5b (Test No.
C-4). It was observed from the test programme that this splitting
(or complete failure) occurred under loading that is slightly higher
than the one initiating the diagonal crack.

The shear force at the initiation of diagonal cracks, Vcr' is

calculated using Eq. 7 for each of the beams in Table No.2. However,
it should be noticed that Vcr is affected by the soffit especially
by its two legs. parallel to the web of the beam. The stresses in
the soffit at the initiation of diagonal cracks are difficult to
determine. Therefore, and in the absence of a proper approach to
calculate the shear carried by the soffit, Eq. 7 may be used to
determine a lower limit for the shear crack developments. This can
be observed in Table 2, which shows the experimental shear capacities
in most of the beams governed by shear failure to exceed Vcr as
calculated using Eq. 7.

d) Shear Bond Strength

Schuster (8) suggested the following expression to calculate

the shear bond strength of composite steel deck slabs subjected to
the combined action of shear and bending moment:

(8)

in which Kl and K2 are constants obtained from experimental results.

Eq. 8 was developed by analytically calculating the tensile

stresses induced, in the concrete as a result of the combined effect
of shear and bending moment and comparing i t with the tensile
strength of the concrete. That is to say, Eq. 8 determines the
initiations of the diagonal cracks in the concrete. These cracks
lead to the uplift of the concrete and to its separation from the
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 491

steel deck and thus justified considering Eq. 8 as governing the

shear-bond failure of composite decks.

with the existence of the lips in the stiffened channels, the

diagonal shear failure is not always accompanied with bond failure,
Fig. 5b. Herein, the concrete did not lift off the soffit, but
failed due to vertical tension in the web. However, the diagonal
crack still has an effect on the bond strength, but in different
mechanism, since it reduces the shear length L' to (L'-d). Therefore,
it is often difficult to separate the pure shear, or bond failures
from the combined shear-bond failure. with this understanding Eq. 8
may also be applied to composite beams after determining the constants
KI and K2 experimentally. The relation between Vu/Pbd and

;-[I'd/PL' are given in Fig. 8 as obtained from the present testing

c
program.

B-3 OBSERVATIONS ON BEAM BEHAVIOR

1. The load carrying capacity of composite beams is found to be of

equal or higher magnitude than equivalent standard concrete
beams reinforced with deformed bars (referred to as S.R.),
Table 2. Also, the first crack is developed at a load PI which
is of the same order in composite and standard reinforced beams
(see test series Band D-3 to D-6). However, attention should
be paid to the ratio of Pl/P u which is found to be often lower,
and to the number of cracks which is considerably less when
comparing the performance of the composite beams to that of
standard ones. More studies are required to establish crack
control criteria and possible to adjust the load factors for the
design of composite beams.

2. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the composite beams may

be governed by one or the combined effects of more than one of
the failure criteria discussed above. This was observed through
the testing program and can be summarized as follows:

(a) Tension failure in which the soffit reaches its yield limit.
Herein, the vertical tension cracks in the concrete propagate
reducing the compression zone until failure takes place,
Fig. 4b. Tests with observed failure are marked with T in
Table No.. 2 under type of failure. For these tests the
analytically calculated Mu (underlined in Table 2) -show
reasonable agreement with the test results. Also, the
analytical results for M are found, in general, to be
u
higher than the experimental ones for the tests in which
492 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

other criteria were observed to cause failure.

(b) Bond failure in which slip occurs between the soffit and
the concrete. This type of failure was observed in test
series D in which tension failure was avoided by using
soffits of high tensile strength. Bond failure was also
observed in a few of the beams with plain channel soffits.
Herein, the failure is accompanied with the development of
vertical cracks out of which one crack increases in width
and propagates through the whole depth of the beam, Fig. 6a.
This is accompanied with sliding of th~ concrete over the
soffits as shown in Fig. 6b. The ultimate bond strengths
are calculated per unit length and are listed in Table No. 2
and underlined for the cases with observed bond failure.

3. The effect of the depth of the soffit, d', on the shear or shear
bond capacity of the beams is examined in test series A, B, and
C. The ultimate shear Vu is plotted versus the depth d' in
Fig. 9 showing a trend of increase in Vu with the increase of d'.

4. Fig. 8 shows the relation of V /pbd versus ;-to·d/PL' as obtained

u c
from the presented test program. These results are limited and
additional testing is required before conclusive evaluation of
the validity of Eq. 8 is reached. However, at present the
inconsistency and lower level of shear loading capacity of plain
soffits can be observed when compared with those of soffits with
embossments. This can be understood since only chemical bond is
active in plain channels while both chemical and mechanical bond
take place in the embossed ones.

5. The test program was conducted on under-reinforced beams with no

web (shear) reinforcement. Additional tensile reinforcement
and/or web reinforcements may be provided. It is anticipated
that the newly developed beams will follow the established
behavior of equivalent standard reinforced beams, but in the
meantime, further testing may be required to substantiate this
assumption.

C - COMPOSITE COLUMNS

Composite columns can be built as shown in Fig. lb. The channels

are placed at two parallel faces while removable forms are used to
cover the remaining sides. Lateral ties are eliminated along the
column. However, the two ends of the columns should be provided with
means of lateral restrain in order to avoid local failure at these
ends. Practical applications usually provide such restrain by the
beams or footings through which the load is transmitted to the column.
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 493

C - 1 TEST PROGRAM

Tests were conducted on composite columns using stiffened

channels with round embossments (6). Equivalent standard columns
reinforced with bars and ties were also tested for comparison.
Axial as well as eccentric loads were applied. The test results are
listed in Table No. 3 together with the analytically calculated
ultimate load of each column.

A number of columns failed prematurely due to local conditions

at the supports, Fig. 10. This affected the load carrying capacity
of both the composite and the standard reinforced concrete columns,
Tests No.1 to 4, 7 and 8. The conditions at the supports were
improved by providing a steel cap at the loading points. Future
tests should be modified to represent the actual conditions at the
column ends.

C - 2 ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS

Test results show that adequate bond exists between the concrete
and the steel channels until the columns reach their ultimate load
carrying capacity. Therefore, composite columns can be analyzed
using the procedures established for standard reinforced concrete
columns (5,9). However, more accurate analysis may be developed
in which consideration can be given to the local rigidity of the
channel, the channels depth, d', and their orientation with respect
to the eccentricity.

C - 3 OBSERVATIONS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS

The following observations are based on the test results listed

in Table No. 3 after excluding columns 1 to 4, 7 and 8 because of
their premature failure.

1. The experimental ultimate load carrying capacity compares

reasonably well with the analytical results for the cases of
axial loading and loading with eccentrically ex I 0 and e y 0.0.
Failure takes place by sudden concrete crUShing accompanied by
bulging of the steel channel, Fig. 11. Herein, separation took
place between the channel and concrete. It should be noted that
the width of the lip of the channel is in the order of 0.5 in.
(12 rom) and that such failure may be delayed by changing the
size of the lip. Further study could determine the optimum size
of the lips which delays separation without excessive cutting in
the concrete section.

2. Columns subjected to eccentric loading with respect to the y-axis

(e I 0, Fig. lb) show considerably low load carrying capacity
y
494 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

when compared with the analytical results (Tests 13 to 15). This is

contrary to the case with ex f O. This can be explained since the
concrete face with maximum compression is un-restrained in the
former case while it is confined in the latter case by the channels
section.

CONCLUSION

A testing program was conducted and proved the feasibility and

favorable behavior of cast-in-place concrete beams and columns
reinforced with cold-formed steel soffits. The proposed soffits are
embossed to provide consistent strength in bond. The composite
system leads to considerable savings in the cost and time of
construction without increasing the area of steel required for
reinforcement.

Appendix I REFERENCES

1. Abdel-Sayed, G., "Composite Cold-Formed Steel-Concrete Beams",

to be published by the ASCE Journal of Structural Division.

2. American Concrete Institute, "Building Code Requirements for

Reinforced Concrete" (ACI 318-77), Detroit, Michigan, 5th print,
1979.

3. Chan, H. B. R. and Ponsworno, S., "Light Gauge Cold-Formed Steel

Composite Beams", Undergraduate Fourth Year Project, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario,
1980.

4. Evans, R. H. and Kong, F. K., "The Extensibility and Micro Cracking

of the In-Situ Concrete in Composite Prestressed Concrete Beams",
The Structural Engineer, June 1964, pp. 181-189.

5. Hudson, F. M., "Reinforced Concrete Columns: Effect of Lateral

Tie Spacing on Ultimate Strength", ACI-Symposium on Reinforced
Concrete Columns, Detroit, Michigan, 1965.

6. Santoso, G., Darmali, 0., and Taniwan, S., "Composite Cold-

Formed Steel-Concrete Columns", Undergraduate Fourth Year
Project, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Windsor,
Windsor, Ontario, 1982.

7. Schuster, R. M., "Strength and Behavior of Cold-Rolled Steel-Deck

Reinforced Concrete Floor Slabs", Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa, 1970.
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 495

8. Tanasal, J. B., "Cold-Formed Steel Composite Beams", Undergraduate

Fourth Year Project, Department of civil Engineering, University
of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, 1979.

9. Winter, G. and Nilson, A. H., "Design of Concrete Structures",

McGraw-Hill Publisher, New York, 1979.

Appendix II NOTATIONS

A cross-sectional area of the soffit or reinforcing bars on

s
tension side

A' cross-sectional area of the soffit or reinforcing bars on

s
compression side

a depth of effective compression zone of concrete

b width of beam or column

d distance from extreme compression fiber of beam to the

centroid of soffit

d' depth of soffit

e distance between the centroid and bottom edge of soffit

(Fig. 1)

f' compression strength of concrete

c
f yield stress of soffit or reinforcing bars
Y
h depth of composite beam or column

H height of columns

I moment of inertia of the transformed uncracked composite

c
section about its centroid

Kl , K constants obtained from test

2
L' shear length

L span of beam

M bending moment due to weigth of wet concrete

D

ML superimposed bending moment

496 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

M ultimate bending moment

u
statical moment of the transformed steel section about
the neutral axis of the transformed composite section

load at the initiation of first crack in beams

ultimate load

T tensile force in soffit

bond strength

average ultimate bond strength

shear force

v ultimate shear force

u

vuc ultimate shear bond strength

p A /bd
s
 COMPOSITE STRUcrURAL SYSTEMS 497

Table No. 1

DETAILS OF COLD-FORMED STEEL SOFFITS

Channel b d t A e
No. in in s
in in
2
in

1 4.0 1.0 0.075 0.501 0.31

2 4.0 1.5 0.075 0.576 0.49

3 4.0 1.5 0.600 0.453 0.46

4 4.0 2.0 0.600 0.513 0.66

5 4.0 2.5 0.600 0.573 0.87

6 4.0 2.5 0.048 0.461 0.84

7 4.0 3.0 0.048 0.509 1.05

8 4.0 3.5 0.048 0.557 1.28

9 5.0 2.0 0.074 0.74 0.62

10 6.0 2.0 0.074 0.81 0.65

Soffits are identified with their number and the

letters, C.P. for plain channels; C.R. for channels with

round embossments (Fig. 2a); c.o. for channels with oval

embossments (Fig. 2b).

 ~
00

Table No. 2

'l'EST AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR COMPOSITE COLD-FORMED STEEL CONCRE'l'E BEAMS

Ul tima te Load Tes t Analytical

Test Soffit A ;' S b h d 100 P f' L' PI --
y c
No. ID . s2
10 Ksi
in in in in
Ksi
in
Kips
N P
u
V
u
M
u
Fai1- V
u ;f; PI V
u
V
cr
M
u
Kips Kips Kips' ft
ure
pbd pr:-;-d Pu (d-a/2) Eg. 7
Eq. (3)
Kips' ft
r:/.l

A-I CP-l 0.501 40 114 4. 12. 11. 69 1.07 4.83 43 4.40 7 9.3 4.65 16.7 S.B. 9.28 1766 0.47 0.42 6.18 18.50
~::r:
A-2 CP-2 0.576 39 114 4. 12. 11. 51 1. 25 4.65 43 6.90 5 10.8 5.40 19.3 S.B. 9.38 1460 0.64 0.50 6.35 20.22
r:/.l
A-3 CP-3 0.453 42 114 4. 12. 11. 54 0.98 4.50 43 3.40 6 7.4 3.70 13.3 S.B. 8.17 1837 0.46 0.34 6.19 18.74 ~
A-4 CP-4 0.513 42 114 4. 12. 11. 34 1.13 4.70 43 3.90 4 7.4 3.70 13.3 B 7.21 1600 0.53 0.35 6.25 18.29 o
A-5 CP-5 0.573 42 114 4. 12. 11.13 1. 29 3.92 43 9.3 6 12.8 6.40 22.9 B 11.17 1256 0.73 0.62 5.67 19.62
~
-<
A-6 CP-6 0.461 42 114 4. 12. 11.16 1. 03 5.67 43 2.0 3 4.4 2.20 7.9 B 4.77 1897 0.45 0.21 6.68 17.20

A-7 CP-7 0.509 43 114 4. 12. 10.95 1.16 4.30 43 3.4 6 10.9 5.45 19.53 S.B. 10.71 1440 0.31 0.53 5.78 18.61
8
A-8
--
CP-8 0.557 41 114 4. 12. 10.72 1. 30 5.41 43 4.4 4 8.9 4.45 15.9 B 7.99 1411 0.49 0.44 6.16 20.51
----
~
~
I--- f--- -

B-1

B-3
SR

CR- 3
0.61

0.453
66.0

39.0 96
96 4.

4.
12.

12.
10.50

11. 54
1.40

0.98
4.67

5.08
34

34
6.4

5.4
20

7
13.36

11. 30
6.68

5.65
18.9

16.0
S.

S. 12.47 2468
0.48

0.48 0.51
5.91

6.58
29.87

17.60
g
B-4 CR-4 0.513 42.0 96 4. 12. 11. 34 1.13 4.66 34 4.9 6 12.76 6.38 18.1 S. 12.44 2015 0.38 0.60 5.89 19.14

B-6 CR-6 0.461 42.0 96 4. 12. 11.16 1.03 4.70 34 5.4 5 13.25 6.63 18.8 T 0.41 0.63 5.82 17 .12

B-7 CR-7 0.509 43.0

9" 4. 12. 10.95 1.16 4.64 34 6.0 5 14.85 7.43 21.0 T 0.40 0.72 6.08 18.71

B-8 CR-B 0.597 41 96 4. 12. 10.72 1. 30 4.97 34 5.4 6 15.22 7.61 21.6 S .B. 13.66 1710 0.35 0.76 6.18 20.38
---- ~-
- - ----_ . - - - - _. ---- f-- ~
----
C-3 CO-3 0.453 39 96 4. 12. 11.54 0.98 4.50 34 4.95 6 11.28 5.64 15.98 S. 12.45 2323 0.44 0.51 6.26 16.14

C-4 CO-4 0.513 42 96 4. 12. 11. 34 1.13 4.53 34 5.44 7 13.86 6.93 19.63 S.B. 13.51 1987 0.39 0.65 6.23 19.11
 Table No.2 (cont'd)

'l'EST AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR COMPOSITE COLD-FORMED STEEL CONCRETE BEAMS

-
Ul tima te Load 'l'es t Analytical
Test Soffi t A F S b h d 100 p f' L' PI
s y c
No. lO
in 2 Ksi
in in in in
Ksi
in
Kips
N P
u
V
u
M
u
Fail-
ure
V
u t::
----" d
PI V
u
V
cr
M
u
Kips Kips Kips 'ft pbd pL' Pu (d-a/2) Eq. 7
Eq. (3)
Kips'ft

C-6 CO-6 0.461 42 96 4. 12. 11.16 1.03 4.58 34 4.06 5 13.11 6.56 18.59
S.B.
T
14.23 2157 0.31 0.62 6.12 15.34
8$';
C-7 CO-7 0.509 43 84 4. 12. 10 .95 1.16 4.48 34 4.95 8 14.35 7.18 20.33 T 0.34 0.75 5.98 17.35
25r./l
C-8 CO-8 0.557 41 96 4. 12. 10.72 1. 30 4.66 34 4.45 6 14.43 7.22 20.44 S.B. 12.96 1656 0.31 0.72 6.60 19.03
::J
tIl
0-1 CO-9 0.74 74.4 121 5. 14 13.38 1.1 4.24 38 5.47 7 18.91 9.46 29.9 B 12.78 2103 0.29 0.80 8.92 54.38 r./l
>-l
~
0-2 CP-9 0.74 74.4 121 5. 14 13.38 1.1 3.84 38 5.47 4 12.44 6.22 19.7 B 8.41 2001 0.44 0.51 8.52 53.65

0-3 CO-I0 0.81 74.4 121 6. 16 15.35 0.87 3.94 38 8.71 5 25.63 12.82 40.6 8 15.83 2943 0.34 0.93 11. 79 69.56
Q
0-4 CR-I0 0.81 74.4 121 6. 16 15.35 0.87 3.80 38 8.71 5 30.6 15.30 48.5 8 18.89 2890 0.28 loll 11.60 69.28 c:::
0-5

0-6
CP-lO

SR
0.81

0.81
74.4

67.3
121

121
6.

6.
16

16
15.35

14.80
0.87

0.96
4.21

4.11
38

38
7.96

10.54 20
3 21.4

21. 89
10.70

10.95
33.9

34.66
B

S.B.
13.21 3042 0.37

0.48
0.77 12.16

10.98
70.04

57.7
~
r./l
>-<:
~
r./l
@
PI load at the development 0 f first cracK $';
r./l
N number of cracks developed at the ultimate load

~
1.0
1.0
 Table No.3
VI
TEST AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR COMPOSITE COLD-FORMED STEEL-CONCRETE COLUMNS g

Eccentricity Ultimate Load

rest Soffit A F f' b h H e e Exper. Analytical Type of

s y e x y Kips Failure
~o . I.D. in in in Kips
Ksi Ksi in in
A'
s
2
in
(Jl

1 SR 0.47 58.0 5.5 4 8 72 0.0 0.0 75.5 145.2 Pre-mature

g
2 CR-4 0.51 59.0 5.45 4 8 72 0.0 0.0 65.7 144.5 Pre-mature ::c
3 SR 0.47 58.0 5.43 4 8 72 0.0 0.0 52.5 144.7 Pre-mature
~
4 CR-4 0.51 59.0 5.76 4 8 54 0.0 0.0 69.1 212.2 Pre-mature o
5 CR-5 0.74 74.4 6.51 5 10 90 0.0 0.0 253.3 246.7 Bulging of Chan nel ~
CR-4 0.51 59.0 6.44 4 8 72 0.0
I 0.0 157.8 157.0 BUlging of Chan nel ~
o-J
6

~
7 CR-4 0.51 59.0 6.44 4 8 72 1.5 0.0 50.9 134.5 Pre-mature

8 CR-4 0.51 59.0 6.43 4 8 54 1.5 0.0 52.2 144.1 Pre-mature

g~
9 CR-6 0.81 74.4 6.60 6 10 90 2.5 0.0 208.5 225.7 No failure

0 CR-6 0.81 74.4 6.6 6 10 90 4.0 0.0 178.7 165.1 Bulging of Chan el

CR-6 0.81 74.4 6.7 6 10 90 4.0 0.0 199.5 167.4 Bulging of Chan el
1
2 CR-6 0.81 74.4 6.67 6 10 72 4.0 0.0 181.7 175.3 Bulging of Chan el

3 CR-4 0.51 59.0 6.96 4 8 54 0.0 1.0 42.8 70.0 Concrete failu e

4 CR-4 0.81 74.4 6.26 6 10 90 0.0 2.0 59.6 98.7 Concrete failu e

SR 0.78 58.0 5.72 6 10 72 0.0 2.0 64.5 115.3 Concrete failu e

5
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 501

r---l r--' r---l ,--,

I
h
I
:
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
I I I I I
I \ I I

1
I I I 1
I
IL0 __o~
I
lIJ LJ U d
i
\

I- b -----i I- b-l I-b~ f.- b ~

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Fig. la: Beam Cross-Section

(i) Standard Reinforced

(ii) Soffit Made of Two Angles Back to Back
(iii) Soffit of Unstiffened Channel
(iv) Soffit of Stiffened Channel

T-[--I--'1
h "'I

E-t-'1
r h ·1

:~l-:r e~ r-Jr
(v) (vi)

Fig. lb: Column Cross-Section

502 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

Section through Embossment Section through Embossment

T T

i-- 2.25" --.I

Plan View Plan View

Fig. 2a: Channels with Round Embossments Fig. 2b: Channels with Oval Embossments

gauge (2)
gauge (3)

o
gauge (1)

I-- L'
s j
Fig. 3: Load Conditions in Testing
 COMPOSITE STRUcrURAL SYSTEMS 503

Load
p 14
kips

12

10

De flection crt Gau ge No1

6
Deflection at Gauge No 2

Deflection at Gauge No 3

o 0·1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 4a: Load, P, versus Deflection, 6, for Beam No. B-6

504 SIXTH SPEGALTY CONFERENCE

Fig. 4b: Beam No. B-6 after Failure (Tension Failure)

Fig. Sb: Beam No. C-4 after Failure (Shear-Bond Failure)

 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 505

Load
P14w---------------------------------------~
kip'S

12

10

Deflection at Gauge No 1

6 Deflection at Gauge No 2

o
Fig. Sa: Load, P, versus Deflection, 6, for Beam No. C-4
506 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

Load
p
30~-----------------------------------------'
kips

25 ,. ~
./ ..,.......,
./
./
./ /.~
/ .
1/
20

15
Deflec t ion at Gauge No1

_.- Deflection at Gauge No2

10
- - - - Deflection at Gauge No 3

o 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.500 0.525 o· 75

6,
Fig. 6a: Load, P, versus Deflection, 6, for Beam No. D-3
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 507

Fig. 6b: Beam No. D-3 after Failure (Bond Failure)

r-----l I
Vc ~-;::;-?

+4+4+.+4 I
+.. + , + +.. , f===-=--=--=-~~\
Vd
Reaction

Fig. 7: Shear Forces After Development of Diagonal Cra c k

508 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

20-------------------------------------------,
vu
p bd

•
)(
x
•
x
• ~
~ x
• •
0
0

10 f---
0 0

0
0

5 I-
o Plain Channels

x Ch onneis with Rounded Emb ossment

• Channel s with Oval Emb ossment

o I I
o 1000 2000
I"""? d
c
----p:r;t
Vu
Fig. 8: Relation between and
p bd
 COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 509

Load
p
kips
7.0r-
?~::~:rOO'8(BJ
\.0 ':r-0.048(AJ
6.0 I-

",
, / "-
5.0 r- ,/ i / "- "-
./ 0.075
/ ,
4.0 r-
i 0.06 /
i /0.048
_ . _ . ....J

3.0 f-
LJ id l-

~4'\>-
/
I I
i I I
2.0~--------~----------~----------~--------~--~
1.0 2.0 3.0- 4.0 cf

Fig. 9: Ultimate Shear Force, Vu, versus the Depth of the Channel, d'
510 SIXTH SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

Fig. 10 : Premature Failure

at Support (Column No.4)

Fig. 11: Bulging Failure

(Column No.5)
>=