Steel Innovations Conference 2013

Christchurch, New Zealand

21-22 February 2013

SEISMIC DESIGN OF COMPOSITE METAL DECK AND CONCRETEFILLED DIAPHRAGMS A

DISCUSSION PAPER

K. Cowie1, S. Hicks2, G. MacRae3, G.C. Clifton4, A Fussell5

ABSTRACT
In steel structures, floor diaphragms are most commonly constructed using composite steel deck with
concrete fill, although other systems such as precast floors with topping may also be used. Somewhat
surprisingly, given the importance of diaphragms to the overall building response, there is no universally
agreed design procedure for determining the diaphragm actions and distribution into the seismic-resisting
systems. In addition, the specific issues related to beam design for members collecting lateral loads in
composite floor systems have gone largely undocumented.
This discussion paper presents a suggested method for determining diaphragm action using a modification of
the part and components method of the Loadings Standard NZS 1170.5. Internal component forces are
determined by using the deep beam analogy. The Steel Structures Standard is used to determine the
strength of components for the shear transfer between the lateral resisting systems and the diaphragm.

Introduction
One of the most neglected elements in the design of buildings is the horizontal floor diaphragm and its
interaction with the lateral load resisting systems. Most multi-story structures depend on the floor slab and
roof systems to act as horizontal diaphragms to collect and distribute the lateral loads to the vertical framing
members, which provide the overall structural stability.
This discussion paper presents a suggested method for determining the design diaphragm actions at a given
floor level, how to proportion their transfer into the seismic resisting systems and how to design and detail the
supporting beams/composite metal deck for these actions. This methodology is based on a North American
publication modified for New Zealand practice. This publication is entitled Seismic Design of Composite
Steel Deck and Concrete-filled Diaphragms and was produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a
partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg. While this
guide (Sabelli et al, 2011) contains much useful information there is still additional guidance required for a
New Zealand application. Readers of this paper are encouraged to read the guide, which is available on the
internet at: www.nehrp.gov. This discussion paper is written to fill in some of the gaps. This paper only
considers simple regular floor plates. Sources of guidance for more complex floor arrangements such as
large openings and re-entrant corners are referenced in the body of this paper for both non-transfer and
transfer diaphragms.

Structural Engineer, Steel Construction New Zealand Inc

Manager Structural Systems, New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association
3
Associate Professor, University of Canterbury
4
Associate Professor, University of Auckland
5
Manager, Steel Construction New Zealand Inc.
2

Determining the Design Diaphragm Actions at a Given Floor Level

The floors in a multi-storey building with a composite metal deck are typically designed as rigid elastic
diaphragms, which couple all the seismic-resisting systems together and enforce behaviour of the floor as a
rigid unit. The forces generated in a diaphragm come from principally two sources simultaneously (Bull 2004)
inertia and the forces generated by the vertical lateral forceresisting systems in the building fighting each
other in terms of deformation compatibility between each lateral load resisting system and the overall
structure. Especially when the deformed shapes of each vertical lateral force-resisting system are inherently
incompatible (eg combination of MRFs and shear walls) these incompatibility forces can be very large.

Figure 1. Deformation compatibility of a dual frame. (Bull, 2004)

Diaphragm Actions for a Floor that is not a Transfer Structure
One method to determine the diaphragm forces at given floor level is using the part and components method
of NZS 1170.5. This approach is suitable only for floors where the floor does not act as a transfer diaphragm.
The peak ground acceleration is magnified up the building by the influence of the more lightly damped
superstructure. The maximum value of the parts floor height coefficient CHi is given in NZS 1170.5 Clause
8.3. However research presented at the 2009 NZSEE Conference by Uma et al (Uma, Zhao et al. 2009)
showed this factor to be overly conservative. Figure 4 of their paper shows that a value of 1.6 would
correspond to the maximum floor acceleration for the 4 storey to 11 storey structures they analysed and that
value is being recommended to be used. That factor accounts for the inertial force contribution only, not the
incompatibility of deformations contribution. However, it gives design shears that are as high or higher than
those generated by the method being developed by Bull and so is likely to be adequate for both contributions.
It is also simple to apply and is applied on a floor by floor basis. Because of the potential incompatibility of
systems contribution to floor diaphragm actions the value of CHi, diaphragm = 1.6 is applied at all floors. Note that
in a paper at the 2012 NZSEE Conference by Dantanarayana et al (Dantanarayana et al 2012) this value may
not always be conservative and further research is required to confirm the value.
The expression for the design diaphragm shear force at level i is given by equation 1:

Vdia,i CdiaWt ,dia ,i

(1)

where:

Vdia ,i = the design diaphragm shear force for the floor at level i
Cdia Ch 0mod al ZRu S pCHi ,diaphragm
Ch 0mod al = the spectral shape factor for T=0 seconds for the modal response spectrum
from Table 3.1 of NZS 1170.5

(2)

Z = the zone factor

Ru = the return period factor from Clause 3.1.5
Sp = the structural performance factor for the category of structural system from NZS
3404 Clause 12.2.2.1(b)
CHi,diaphragm = 1.6
This diaphragm shear force is applied through the centre of mass at level i in and distributed into all seismicresisting systems parallel to the direction of motion under consideration.
Diaphragm Actions for a Floor that is Transfer Structure
For diaphragms that are transfer diaphragms, the overstrength capacity of the seismic resisting system
between the levels being transferred in addition to the general design actions from above, with both acting in
the same direction to generate the particular design action being considered.
Internal Component Forces
Once the building is appropriately modeled and diaphragm inertial and transfer forces are determined, an
analysis of the internal forces within the diaphragm must be done in order to determine the design forces for
the diaphragm components. There are several analytical methods. The diaphragm analysis method should
use diaphragm inertial and transfer forces that are consistent with those in the building analysis.
Deep Beam Analogy
The deep beam analogy considers the diaphragm spans between vertical elements of the lateral load
resisting system that act as lateral supports. The diaphragm has in effect tension and compression chords
and the web resisting shear.

Figure 2. Deep Beam Analogy (Sabelli et al, 2011)

The compression chord is through the concrete slab at the compression face of the beam and if there are
discontinuities there then the designer must determine an appropriate load path around those discontinuities,
in accordance with the following principles:
1. The loads will follow the stiffest load path
2. Be aware of component forces introduced when a compression load changes direction and ensure
that slab reinforcement is put in to resist any tension forces introduced when the compression chord
force changes direction (eg as required to flow around an opening in the slab)
The tension chord must be assessed using the same two principles, but in this case the tension forces can
flow either through the steel frame or through reinforcement in the slab. They will follow the stiffest load path.
If there is a moment resisting seismic frame along the edge of the slab they will go through that; if it is a
gravity system only the stiffest path is through reinforcement in the slab. If the decking is running parallel to
the tension chord then the decking will provide a very stiff load path except at the joins.

Collectors, or drag struts, occur where the deck forces are transferred to a frame line over a partial length,
that is, where the beams that are part of the braced or moment frame do not extend the full depth of the
diaphragm. This is illustrated in Figure 3a at the outer frame lines. The remaining spandrel members in
Figure 3a are attached to the deck through fasteners collecting inertial forces from the deck and in turn
delivering those forces to the frame members. These collector members must transfer the forces to each
other across their connections to the columns. Collector forces are illustrated in Figure 3b.

Figure 3. Diaphragm Collectors. (Sabelli et al, 2011)

For more complicated floor and lateral system arrangements refer to guidance from (Sabelli et al, 2011).
Local Effects at Discontinuities
Discontinuities in the diaphragm, such as openings, steps, and reentrant corners, require consideration by
the designer. The specifics for designing for these are beyond the scope of this paper. For further guidance
refer to (Sabelli et al, 2011).
Openings in a diaphragm should be located to preserve as much of the overall diaphragm as possible about
any axis. Designers should avoid locating openings in such a way that narrow sections of diaphragm are
used to connect different parts of the diaphragm, because of the large forces that must be transferred
through the small section of remaining diaphragm. For similar reasons, clusters of diaphragm openings at
reentrant corners or along a single edge of the diaphragm should be avoided. It is generally better to locate
diaphragm openings so that they are surrounded by substantial portions of the diaphragm or are separated
as much as possible. Openings in the diaphragm may be idealized similarly to openings in the web of a steel
beam. The impact of the reduced area on the portions of the diaphragm that remain must be taken into
account as well as the need to transfer forces around the opening. In some cases, additional walls or frames
may be required in order to prevent isolating one section of the diaphragm from another.
Component Design
Should diaphragm component forces be combined with other design checks?
Diaphragm component actions are considered separate to other design actions checks. All components used
in the diaphragm design are checked for adequacy to resist the diaphragm design actions and have a
dependable load path for each of these checks. The diaphragm checks are carried out in isolation to any
other role of those components. The rationale for this is principally based on four factors:
1.
The diaphragm design actions required from above are reasonably conservative
2.
It is unlikely that those peak actions will combine with peak design actions from other design
scenarios,
3.
When it comes to the action effects generated on structural elements from diaphragm
actions compared with those generated by other design actions, in some elements the action
effects are in opposition, thereby making the interaction effect less than the effect of each
considered separately, while in other elements the action effects are cumulative. Thus in a
typical floor system the interaction will only overload some elements in the building system at
any one time.
4.
Well designed and detailed diaphragms and building systems designed to less than the
above proposed provisions have performed well in recent severe earthquakes, especially

including the Christchurch earthquake series of 2010/2011 which tested diaphragms

designed and built to New Zealand practice.
Longitudinal Shear Strength of Composite Deck
The longitudinal shear resistance of the composite metal deck slab must be checked to ensure that the
diaphragm forces can be transferred into the lateral resisting system chords and collectors.
Current
research is being carried out by University of Canterbury on the influence of any shrinkage or crack effects on
the effect of the longitudinal shear strength. In the meantime the longitudinal shear provisions in NZS 3404
are considered should be used.
According to NZS 3404: 1997, 13.4.10.2, the design shear resistance for normal density concrete along any
potential shear surface is given by:

Vr 0.80 Art f yr 2.76c Acv 0.50c fc' Acv

(3)

Potential shear surfaces of shear failure when decking is used are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 4: Typical potential surfaces of shear failure where decking is used. (Hicks, 2011)
For decking with ribs perpendicular to the beams, which is continuous across the top flange of the beam, its
contribution to the transverse reinforcement for a shear surface of type a-a may be allowed for by replacing
Equation (3) by:

Vr 0.80 Art f yr 2.76c Acv Ape f yd 0.50c fc' Acv

(4)

where is the strength reduction factor for reinforcement given in NZS3404, Table 13.1.2(1), A pe is the
effective cross-sectional area of the decking (neglecting embossments), f yd is the yield stress used in design
according to AS/NZS 4600, 1.5.1.4(b)
Where the decking with ribs perpendicular to the beam is discontinuous across the top flange of the beam,
and the stud shear connectors are welded to the steel beam directly through the profiled steel sheets, the
term Ape fyd in Equation (4) should be replaced by:

k d

do

tf yd
s

Ape f yd

(5)

where ddo is the diameter of the weld collar, which may be taken as 1.1 times the diameter of the shank of the
stud dsc, t is the nominal base steel thickness of the deck, s is the longitudinal spacing centre-to-centre of the
stud shear connectors effective in anchoring the deck and k is:

k 1 a

d sc

6.0

(6)

where a is the distance from the centre of the stud to the end of the sheeting, to be not less than 1.5 ddo

Where the ribs of the decking run at an angle to the span of the beam, the effective resistance should be
determined from the following expression:

Vr V1 sin 2 V2 cos2

(7)

where V1 is the value of Vr for ribs perpendicular to the beam and V2 is the value of Vr for ribs parallel to the
beam
The contribution of the decking to the longitudinal shear resistance should always be neglected where it is not
properly anchored at discontinuities, or where the decking ribs run parallel to the beam. In theory, when the
decking is parallel to the beam and properly anchored, some contribution to the longitudinal shear resistance
could be included. However, including this contribution is not recommended because the decking resistance
is affected by the (unpredictable) presence of laps on site. Studs fixed in a single line at a butt joint in the
decking do not provide sufficient anchorage for the decking to contribute to the transverse reinforcement.
However, decking contribution to transverse reinforcement can be taken into account where they are welded
alternately on one sheet and then the other as shown in figure 5.

Figure 5. Butt joint in decking (correct positioning of single stud per trough)
Slab Edge Beam Detailing
The recommended edge detail for spandrel beams is shown in Figure 6(a) for a secondary spandrel beam
and Figure 6(b) for a primary spandrel beam. The decking is terminated with 50mm minimum seating on the
top of the beam flange and end closers installed. The outside edge can be formed with either a light gauge
steel or a trimmer edge form. The outside edge must be at least six stud diameters beyond the centreline of
the nearest stud. In addition to the mesh (longitudinal and transverse) reinforcement, transverse hooked bars
together with a lapped longitudinal edge trimmer bar are provided. Figure 7 shows an example in practice
The bottom leg of the hook should extend back past the shear stud into the span of the beam by at least
50mm to help suppress shear splitting at the base of the stud. This is the mechanism that limits the load
carrying capacity of a shear stud in a concrete slab, unless the concrete is very strong.

Figure 6: Spandrel beam reinforcement. (Clifton, El Sarraf, 2005)

Notes to figures 3:
(1) The mesh is placed at the specified cover, supported off the deck by chairs.
(2) The spacing of the DH12 edge bars is given by the lesser of the following:
* the distance between shear studs
* in the case of the secondary spandrel beam, the distance between deck troughs
* requirement for fire and seismic resistance (e.g. for fire as given by the Slab Panel Method, the spacing is
250mm which is closer than the minimum spacing requirements for seismic action)
(3) One edge bar should be placed close to each shear stud
(4) The edge bars are tied to the mesh and to the support bar, if this is used
(5) The hook dimensions for the edge bar are from NZS 3101 Clause 7.3.1(a). Lap dimensions for the trimmer bar are to
NZS 3101 Clause 7.3.7.
(6) The DH12 reinforcement is grade 500E or 500N to AS/NZS 4671
(7) A typical slab edge form is shown in Figure 9-4
(8) Bars extend into the slab past the edge of the beam by the anchorage length from NZS 3101, which can be taken as
600mm.

Figure 7: Slab edge form at spandrel beam (Clifton, El Sarraf, 2005)

Shear Stud Requirements

The longitudinal shear connection between the steel section and the concrete is provided by shear
connectors, which normally take the form of studs welded to the top of the steel section. Design resistances
of shear studs are given in NZS 3404.
Typically, the beams are designed as composite members for the gravity loads applied to the floor system.
Diaphragm forces can be considered separately and additional shear studs to transfer the superimposed
horizontal load into the beam may not be required. There are two primary reasons for this.

First, the quantity of shear studs selected for a composite beam is usually determined based on a gravity load
combination, such as 1.2G+1.5Q. When lateral loads are applied in conjunction with the gravity loads, the
load combinations of AS/NZS 1170 reduce the live load levels. Under these reduced live loads, the shear
studs provided to develop the composite action required for the gravity loads will be under-used and thus
have additional capacity available for the transfer of the diaphragm forces.
Second, the interaction of the shear flow from the different loading conditions is additive for some studs but
opposite for others. The distribution of horizontal shear from beam flexure is assumed to flow in two
directions from the point of maximum moment to the point of zero moment. For a typical simple-span
composite beam with uniform gravity loads, this shear flow is as indicated in Figure 8. While the beam shear
is greatest at the ends of the beams, it is common practice to assume that the shear studs will deform and
redistribute the shear uniformly to all studs.
Conversely, lateral loads induce shear in only one direction. When these beams are used to collect the
diaphragm forces, the shears due to the lateral loads are superimposed on the horizontal shears due to the
gravity loads, as indicated in Figure 9. On one side of the beam, the lateral loads increase the horizontal
shears over the gravity-induced values, while on the other side of the beam, the lateral loads oppose the
gravity-induced horizontal shears.
Assuming the shear studs have sufficient ductility to distribute the horizontal shears evenly along the beam, a
composite beam can transfer a horizontal shear due to lateral loads between the floor diaphragm and steel
beam that is equal to the summation of the strengths of all the shear studs on the beam regardless of
demand on the shear studs from the gravity loads.

Figure 8: Shear Flow due to Gravity Loads Only (Burmeister,

2008).

Figure 9: Shear flow due to Gravity and Lateral Loads in Combination. (Burmeister,

2008).

Shear stud requirements for Non-Composite Chords and Collectors

Designers encounter many conditions where steel beams are designed as non-composite members under
gravity loads. Shear studs placed on these beams for transfer of lateral forces still will be subjected to
horizontal shears due to flexure from gravity loads. This is unavoidable. Therefore, in order to ensure the
shear studs are not overloaded under the gravity loads, it is recommended that all beams that transfer
diaphragm forces to the lateral load resisting systems have enough shear studs to achieve a minimum 25%
partial composite action. When less shear studs than this are provided, large deformations of the studs may
occur under the gravity load case, inhibiting the ability of the beam to function as intended under lateral
loading.

Secondary Shears and Moments

Once the designer deals with the transfer of force from the floor diaphragm into the supporting steel beam,
the effect of the diaphragm forces on the design of the beam and its connections to the remainder of the
lateral load resisting system must be considered. Of particular concern is the effect of the vertical offset
(eccentricity) between the plane of the diaphragm and the centerline of the supporting beam as indicated in
Figure 9. Intuitively, one would anticipate additional moments imposed on the beam as a result of the
eccentricity. However, this is not the case.
As an example, consider a simple-span beam with uniform horizontal shears from the lateral loads and
resulting reactions as shown in Figure 10. For this scenario, assume the member is connected to the lateral
load resisting system at the left end of the beam only.
The free body diagram in Figure 10 shows the internal member forces that result from this applied uniform
load. The axial load in the beam will increase linearly toward the end of the beam designed to transfer the
collected force to the lateral load resisting system, but the internal moment, m1. due to this applied lateral
load, even considering the d/2 eccentricity, will be zero. The member should be designed as a beam-column,
considering the combined effects of the axial forces due to the lateral loads and the flexural forces due only
to the gravity loads. The shear is a constant value and must be considered in the connection design at both
ends of the member.

Figure 10. Consideration of any secondary moments for a simple supported collector beam (Burmeister,
2008).
Chords and Collectors Connections
If you have an eccentrically braced frame (EBF) or concentrically braced frame (CBF) then you will likely need
the diaphragm collector beams to help drag the diaphragm shear into the seismic resisting system. This
requires the diaphragm collector beams to accumulate axial load through the shear studs and transfer that
into the columns of the seismic resisting system through a dependable, axially stiff load path but one that
does not develop high moments in the columns.
The solution is very simple use a bolted top flange connection that looks the same as the top flange
connection in a Sliding Hinge Joint in conjunction with the flexible end plate (FE) or web side plate (WP)
connection to carry the vertical shear. See figure 11. The net effective tensile area is considered to be the top
flange and half the beam web. The connection also has to be detailed to develop inelastic rotation without
bolt or weld failure and so will handle the connection rotation due to the top flange pin. Adjacent to the top
flange plate in the column must be a continuity stiffener to take the anchorage force into the column and the
seismic resisting system. The stiffener must be welded so as to develop the full tension capacity of the
stiffener at each flange and transfer this into the column web. This will avoid any crippling or local failure of
the column. Alternatively the beam web connection must transfer both vertical and horizontal shear.

Figure 11. a) Top flange plate connection to transfer collector beam axial loads, b) Axial loads transferred
through top flange and half the beam depth
Bolts in tension bearing (TB) mode will provide adequate connection stiffness for either a top flange or a web
connections.
Conclusion
Composite metal deck with concrete fill floors has been shown to act as good diaphragms. There is a lack of
documented guidance on the design of these of these diaphragms. This paper provides some additional
information which can be used in conjunction with an American publication to design these diaphragms.
Specifically, an approach to determining diaphragm actions based on a modification of the parts and
components method of the loadings standard is presented. The distribution of these actions into individual
components can be made using the deep beam approach. Diaphragm component forces can be considered
to be independent of other actions. Design of the interface between the floor and the seismic lateral collector
beams is provided using modified provisions of the Steel Structures Standard NZS 3404. A good connection
detail between the collector beam and the seismic resisting column is using a bolted top flange connection.
This allows for an axially stiff load path but does not develop high moments in the column.
References
AS/NZS1170set (2004). Structural Design Actions. Wellington New Zealand, Standards New Zealand.
Bull, D. (2004). "Understanding the Complexities of Designing Diaphragms in Buildings for Earthquakes."
Bulletin of the National Society for Earthquake Engineering 37(2).
Clifton, G. C. and R. El Sarraf (2005). Composite Floor Construction Handbook, HERA Report R4-107. N. Z.
HERA. Manukau City, New Zealand.
Dantanarayana H., MacRae G. A., Dhakal R. P., Yeow T. Z. Quantifying building engineering demand
parameters in seismic events, New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference,
Christchurch, 13-15 April 2012. Paper 50.
Hicks, S., (2011) Longitudinal shear strength and effective width of the concrete flange to composite beams,
New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, Manukau City, New Zealand
NZS 3404:1997 + Amendment 2:2007, Steel Structures Standard, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New
Zealand
Rafael Sabelli, Thomas A. Sabol, W. Samuel Easterling, Seismic Design of Composite Steel Deck and
Concrete-filled Diaphragms A Guide for Practicing Engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical
Brief No. 5, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2011
Susan Burmeister, P.E., and William P. Jacobs, P.E. Horizontal floor diaphragm load effects on composite
beam design. December 2008 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Uma, S. A., J. Zhao, et al. (2009). Floor Response Spectra for Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States of
Earthquakes. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2009 Annual Conference.
Christchurch, New Zealand, NZSEE.