BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE BEAMS

WITH COLD-FORMED STEEL

JOISTS AND CONCRETE SLAB
Cheng-Tzu Thomas Hsu, Pedro R. Munoz, Sun Punurai, Yazdan Majdi, and
Wonsiri Punurai

 Professor and Director of High Performance Concrete Laboratory,

1

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of

Technology, Newark, New Jersey, USA

 2
Principal, PRM Engineering, LLC, Newburyport, Massachusetts, USA

 3
Senior Engineer, Expressway Authority of Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand

 4
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New
Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey, USA

 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

5.

Mahidol University, Nakornpathom, Thailand

 Abstract
 A new composite beam and floor system has been developed herein to achieve a
stronger strength and ductility, as well as to yield a more economical design
purpose. This new composite beam system consists of three elements: reinforced
concrete slab on corrugated cold-formed metal, back to back cold-formed steel
joists, and cold-formed furring shear connector. The shear connectors are screwed
through the top flange of the support joists in order to provide vertical
interlocking and horizontal shear resistant between the concrete slab and the cold-
formed steel joists. The self-drill fasteners are used for fastening the furring shear
connector through the metal deck into supporting joists.

 To understand the behavior of the new composite beam, a total of six large-scale
bending tests were conducted to obtain the positive moment capacity, vertical
deflection, and end slip of proposed composite beam system. Comparing with the
non-composite section, the proposed composite section presents a better
performance for both strength and ductility.

 The present experimental test results are also compared with the proposed
analysis and design method which is not currently available in either the AISC or
AISI specifications.
 Introduction
 In the late twenty century, a new composite section system was introduced to the building construction industry.
This new composite system uses a cold-formed steel beam to substitute for a hot-rolled steel beam to provide a
lighter weight structural system. Several new types of shear connector have also been proposed (Abdel-Sayed
(1982), Ruiz, et al (1995), Maximiliano, et al (1998, 2000), Hanaor (2000), Nakamura (2002), Gemini Structures
Systems (2005), Yu and LaBoube (2010)).
 In this research, a recently patented composite beam and floor system by Hsu, et al (2010) (Figures 1 and 2) which
has been experimentally and analytically studied, and was designed to achieve a higher strength and ductility, as
well as to yield a more economical design purpose. This new composite beam system consists of three elements:
reinforced concrete slab on corrugated cold-formed metal deck, back to back cold-formed steel joists, and
continuous cold-formed furring shear connector. The continuous shear connector is screwed through the metal deck
and the top flange of the support joists in order to provide vertical interlocking and horizontal shear resistance
between the concrete slab and the cold-formed steel joists. The hex screws are used for fastening the furring shear
connector through the metal deck into the supporting steel joists. Thus, the key success of an efficient composite
system comes from an innovative shear connector, fasteners, and the strength of the cold-formed steel joists. The
new configuration of composite beam system provides an easier procedure to construct with lower cost and lighter
weight.

Figure 1 – Composite beam system before casting

Figure 2 - Composite section and details of connection (Specimens CB2, CB4 and CB5)

Figure 3 - Non-composite section and details of connection (Specimens CB1and CB 3)

 Experimental Program
 The experimental program described herein was used to study
the structural behavior of both non-composite (Figure 3) and
composite beams (Figure 2). To investigate the composite
behavior, a set of beam specimens were tested under flexural
bending. Axial strain gages were installed on each beam to
evaluate the strain distribution of the beam section under
bending until failure. Moreover, the non-composite section
without shear connector was examined to reveal the
improvement of the composite section. The strength and
deformation results from these half-scale structural tests
provide the design guideline and background information for
the proposed composite section. The improvement of
composite beam action in terms of loading capacity, deflection,
and ductility of the composite section are verified and discussed
herein.
 Composite and Non-composite
Beam Specimens
 In this research, a total of six beam specimens were tested: Two non-
composite Specimens CB1 and CB3, three composite Specimens CB2,
CB4 and CB5, and a steel section CB6.

Materials
 Cold-formed steel joists (C section) with lips ID section 600S200-68
(12 ft or 3.7 m), Fya = average yield strength= 45 ksi or 310 MPa.
 Normal Strength Concrete of 3,000 psi (21 MPa) (unit weight: 145
lb/ft3 (23.89 kN/m3).
 Cold-formed furring channel (Shear Connector) (Figure 4). The
continuous shear connector has an elastic modulus of 29,000 ksi
(20.26 GPa) and its yield strength is 33 ksi (228 MPa).
 Self-Drilling Fastening Hex Screw #10-16-3/4”, 0.19 in.-diameter
(4.83 mm), #12-14-2”, 0.21 in.-diameter (5.33 mm).
 Gage 20 Cold-formed steel deck (0.036 in.- thickness (0.914 mm)).
 Figure 4 - Furring channel section

 All beam configurations are listed in . A total of six beam

specimens were tested under four-point loading. Three types of
the beam specimens were tested. They are composed of a steel
section, two non-composite sections and three composite sections
at present study. The span length of beams was 12-ft (3.6 m). The
concrete flange width was design using the effective width
concept (Span length (ft) /48). The cold-formed steel joist sizes
were chosen on the basis of an innovative design concept to locate
the position of neutral axis of a gross section within the solid
concrete slab. In doing so, the local buckling in steel joists could
be effectively prevented.
 Instrumentation and Testing
Procedure
 A four-point loading configuration was used to induce a bending moment
(Figure 5). Loading was performed using a closed loop Material Testing
System (MTS) with a 220-kip (980 kN) load cell. The vertical deflection
measurements were measured at the mid-span of the beam. Five electrical
strain gages were placed at different five locations at the mid-span of all
beam specimens to reveal the strain distribution and the location of neutral
axis. The five locations include bottom steel flange, middle steel web, top
steel flange, shear connector or top level of metal deck, and top fiber of
concrete flange. The strain data obtained were plotted to obtain the strain
distribution across the beam section. The strain distribution under different
applied loading stage was used to verify the composite action.

 All beams were statically and monotonically tested to failure in a single load
cycle to obtain the ultimate flexural load. The beam specimens were
prepared and the bending tests were conducted at the Structures Laboratory,
New Jersey Institute of Technology. The maximum deflection was controlled
at 5.0 in. (127 mm) with the initial rate of 0.1 in./min (2.54 mm/min) and the
maximum rate of 0.5 in./min (12.7 mm/min).
 Flexural Test Results and
Discussions
 Table 2 summaries all present flexural test results. In Figure 6, a
similar load-deflection behavior from zero until 8000 lbs (35.58
kN) for Specimens CB1 and CB2 is shown. During the
experiment, the non-composite Specimen CB1 showed
separations between the concrete slab and cold-formed steel
joists on both end supports, while the composite Specimen CB2
had smaller separations. For composite Specimen CB2, the tilting
and bearing of fasteners was noticed at the shear zones of the
specimen. Subsequently, Specimen CB1 could not carry any
more applied load after reaching 9950 lbs (44.46 kN), whereas
Specimen

 CB2 reached a loading capacity of 11300 lbs (50.26 kN) at

flexural failure. As illustrated in Figure 6, the composite section
has substantially increased its ductility as compared to that of the
non-composite section.
Figure 5 - Four-point bending test setup
Test Specimens
Table 1 - Configurations of the Tested Beam Specimens
Table 2 - Summary of Flexural Test Results
As illustrated in Figure 7, both Specimens CB3 and CB4
show a similar structural stiffness from zero until 9000 lbs
(40.03 kN). During the tests, the non-composite section
CB3 developed the separation between the concrete slab
and cold-formed steel joists on both end supports. The
concrete slab and cold-formed steel joists deformed at
different rate since no shear connector was provided for
the section. Due to the stronger concrete strength of slab
than the previous Specimens CB1 and CB2, the tensile
cracks were not run through the top section of the slab.
Consequently, the slab was able to carry more applied
load by itself. The cold-formed steel joists started to carry
the load alone after completely separating from the
concrete slab. The compression buckling started to show
up under a line load at 12000 lbs (53.38 kN). Finally, the
non-composite section failed and buckled at applied load
of 14200 lbs (63.16 kN). For composite section CB4, the
applied load arrived at 18100 lbs (80.51 kN).
Figure 6 - Applied loads versus mid-span deflection curve for Specimens CB1
and CB2
Figure 7 - Applied loads versus mid-span deflection curve for Specimens CB3
and CB4
For Specimens CB4 and CB5 as illustrated in Figure 8, the
experiments were aimed at studying the composite action
of the composite section when the shape of the continuous
shear connector was modified in Specimen CB5 by
increasing the bond resisting area of the proposed shear
connector. Both lips of the continuous shear connector
were cut and bend up every 2 in. to add the bearing
contact area to the concrete. The proposed composite
section CB4 failed at applied load of 18100 lbs (80.51
kN), whereas the composite section with modified shear
connector CB5 failed at applied load of 18348 lbs (81.61
kN). Both Specimens CB4 and CB5 reached the flexural
failure and achieved large ductility. The loading capacity
of the proposed composite section was increased by less
than 2% as compared to the proposed composite section
with modified shear connector. The ductility of the
structure was increased by 15%. More details of the test
results can be found in Punurai (2007), and Punurai, et al
(2012).
Neutral Axis and Assessment of
Composite Action
 The integrity of the composite action was assessed by
measuring the strain distribution of a section under
applied bending loads. The strain gages were installed at
mid-span location of bottom, middle web, top flange,
proposed shear connector, and top of concrete slab,
respectively. Figure 9 depicts the neutral axis of
composite section CB4, and the neutral axis of this section
is located at the concrete slab which is about 7.45 in.
(189.2 mm) from the bottom flange of cold-formed steel
joists. Based on the test results of Figure 9, one can
conclude that the centroid of proposed composite beam
cross section, has been purposely located at the concrete
slab so that the cold-formed steel joists are subjected to
only tensile forces, thus preventing the cold-formed steel
joists from compression buckling.
Analysis and Design Methods
 The shear design strength including tilting and bearing of fasteners can be
determined based on Section E4.3 of the AISI Specifications (2002). The
tension design strength of the fasteners including pull-out, pull-over is based on
Section E4.4 of the AISI Specifications (2001). The Specification requirements
can be applied to fasteners with diameter between 0.08 in. (2.03 mm) to 0.25 in.
(6.35 mm). The flexural design procedures for non-composite section, as
recommended by the AISI Specifications (2001), are composed of two
procedures: The Procedure I is called as the initial of yielding while the
Procedure II is named as the inelastic reserve capacity.

Figure 8 - Applied loads versus mid-span deflection curve for Specimens CB4 and CB5
Figure 9 - Applied loads versus strain distribution at midspan for composite
section CB4
 Flexural design procedures of composite sections consisting of cold-formed steel
joists and concrete slab are not readily available in the existing literature, and the
current AISI Specifications (2001) do not provide any guidelines and provisions
at all for such a composite section. Recently, Hsu, et al (2012) proposed the
analysis and design procedures of composite section that are similar to those for
the built-up and composite sections described in the AISC Specifications (2010)
with some modifications. The structure is assumed to bend in a plane parallel to
the webs, and the twisting effect can be ignored when the section strength is
computed. Thus the flexural design procedures of composite section are also
composed of two procedures: The procedures I is named as the initial of
yielding, and the Procedure II is called as the inelastic reserve capacity.

 For Procedure I, the area of concrete solid is transformed to an equivalent area of

cold-formed steel joists. The total force equilibrium of the section is then used to
locate the position of neutral axis when the bottom fiber of the section has
reached the yielding stress. The flexural moment can thus be determined using
the moment equilibrium equation. For Procedure II, the cold-formed steel joist
section has been assumed to reach their full plastic stress when the outer fiber of
concrete slab reaches a strain value of 0.003. The total force equilibrium in then
used to locate the position of plastic neutral axis. The flexural moment can
therefore be calculated from the summation of forces multiplied by their moment
arms. More detailed analysis and design procedures can be found in Hsu, et al
(2012), and Majdi and Hsu (2011).
 Comparison of Analysis and
Test Results
 Table 3 shows the comparisons between the present flexural test
results and the calculated ultimate strengths using the proposed
analysis and design methods by Hsu, et al (2012). For Specimens CB1
and CB2 when rebar No.3 has not been transversely reinforced in the
concrete slab, the analytical maximum loads using Procedure I
bending are closer to those of experimental maximum loads. For
Specimens CB3 and CB4, however, their analytical maximum loads
using Procedure II bending are closer to those of experimental
maximum loads. It is because that rebar No.3 has been properly
reinforced in the concrete slabs of Specimens CB3 and CB4, thus
prevent the concrete from the longitudinal shear crack. Note that
Specimen CB5 has cut and bent in the ribs of the continuous shear
connector , thus the experimental maximum load has been increased
slightly. Specimen CB6 is a simple beam made of steel joists only; it
was tested for the comparison with composite and non-composite
beams. The design of Specimen CB6 is based on the AISI
Specifications (2001).
Table 3 - Comparisons between Test Results and Calculated Values
Conclusions
Based on the experimental and proposed analysis results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:

 The study of six large scale composite beams indicates that the proposed system presents the better performance
of structural ability for both ultimate strength and ductility of the section. Based on present test results, the
ultimate strength and ductility of proposed composite section can be increased by 14-38% and 56-80%,
respectively, as compared to a non-composite section or built-up section.

 The continuous cold-formed furring shear connector and self-drill fastener can withstand the integrity of the
composite section long enough for the section to reach the flexural strength failure. According to the present
experiments, the non-composite section and proposed composite section have similar behavior at the initial
stage. After the concrete slab starts to crack, the compression buckling in compression flange of steel joists has
been observed in the non-composite section, while the composite section can withstand more loads without
buckling and can reach its full flexural strength.

 The continuous cold-formed furring shear connector can help distribute the transfer mechanism of horizontal
shear force. According to the load and end slip measurements, the proposed composite section shows a better
continuity of slip behavior than the non-composite section which allows the fasteners to well adjust their
position. From the observations, the composite specimen failure is caused by the tilting and bearing of fasteners,
and is then followed by the compression buckling of compression flange of steel joists.

 As presented in Table 3, the proposed analysis and design methods herein have been found to be able to predict
the ultimate strength capacity of the new composite beam and floor system in terms of both shear strength of
fasteners and flexural strength of composite beams. Furthermore, Elastic Analysis Approach (Procedure I) can
be used to determine the flexural strength of the new composite system if the concrete slab has not been
properly reinforced by the transverse bars, or Inelastic Analysis Approach (Procedure II) will be used to
evaluate the flexural strength if the transverse bars have been properly designed in the concrete slab.
 Appendix - References
 Abdel-Sayed, G. (1982), “Composite Cold-Formed Steel-Concrete Beams”, Journal of Structures Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108
(ST11), pp. 2609-2622.
 American Institute of Steel Construction. (2010), “Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10)”, Second Printing, Chicago, IL.
 American Iron and Steel Institute Standard. (2001), “North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members”, 1 st Edition,
Washington, DC.
 Gemini System III Floor System. (2005), “Gemini Structure Systems”, A Canada Corporation, Composite Buildings, Multi-floor Buildings, website.
Retrieved March 1, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.geministructures.com/c_multi-floor.htm.
 Hanaor, A. (2000), “Tests of Composite Beams with Cold-Formed Sections”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 54(2), pp. 245-264.
 Hsu, C.T.T., Punurai, S., and Munoz, P.R. (2010), “Composite Floor System Having Shear Force Transfer Member”, U.S. Patent No. 7,779,590. Filed on
June 19, 2007. Patent Article Published in www.FreshPatents.com, Jan. 3, 2008. Received the U.S. Patent on August 24, 2010.
 Hsu, C.T.T, Majdi, Y. and Punurai, S. (2012), "Analysis and Design of Composite Beams with Cold-Formed Steel Joists and Concrete Slab", Technical
Report 2012-02, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, January 23, 34 pages.
 Maximiliano, M., Walter A.N., Jose., J.S, and Roberto, M.G. (1998), “Cold-Formed Shear Connectors for Composite Constructions”, 14 th International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, October 15-16, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. pp. 409-421.
 Maximiliano, M., Walter A. N., Roberto, M. G., and Jose., J. S. (2000), “On the Structural Behavior of Composite Beams using Cold-Formed Shapes”, 15 th
International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, October 19-20, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. pp. 307-319.
 Majdi, Y. and Hsu, C.T.T. (2011), "Technical Manual for Analysis and Design of Composite Floors with Cold-Formed Steel and Concrete Slab Having
Continuous Furring Channel", Technical Report 2011-01, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ,
 87 pages.
 Nakamura, S. I. (2002), “Bending Behavior of Composite Girders with Cold-Formed Steel U Section”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, September,
Vol. 128(9), pp. 1169-1176.
 Punurai, S., Hsu, C.T.T., Munoz, P.R. and Punurai, W. (2012), “Experimental Investigation of Composite Beams with Cold-Formed Steel Joists and
Concrete Slab”, Technical Report 2012-01, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, January 23, 33
pages.
 Punurai, S. (2007), “Behavior of Composite Beams with Cold-Formed Steel Joists and Concrete”, Ph.D. Theses, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey, U.S.A., May, 205 pages.
 Ruiz, A., Clark, M. P. and Tooth, R. G. (1995), “Reinforced Structural Member for Building Construction”, United States Patent Number 5,414,972.
 Yu, W. W. and LaBoube, Roger A. (2010), “Cold-Formed Steel Design”, Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., September.

Appendix - Notations
 Fya = Average yield strength; f'c = Maximum compression strength of concrete