International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN (Online): 2319-7064

Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391

Effectiveness of Slabs in Restraining Lateral

Torsional Buckling of Steel Floor Beams
Ehab G. Al-Hasany1, Dr. Salah R. Al-Zaidee2
1
M.Sc. Student, Civil Eng. Department, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
2
Instuctor, Civil Eng. Department, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract: This research aims to study experimentally if one could depend on friction forces between beams and slab and on slab in-
plane stiffness in resisting lateral torsional buckling of the supporting floor beams. Four scale-down models have been adopted in the
experimental work. In the first model, a single beam has been subjected to a uniform pressure to estimate its strength. In the second and
third experimental models, concrete slabs have been casted against rough and smooth top flanges respectively. Finally, in the fourth
experiential model, concrete slab has been cast against a corrugated metal plate that in turn has been supported on top flange of the
beam. This study indicates that friction between slab and top flange of the beam, pressures acting on top flange, and lateral stiffness of
slab all of them have large influence in restrain floor beams against lateral torsional buckling.

Keywords:Stability, Lateral torsional buckling, Steel structure, Non-composite action.

1. Introduction shown inFigure 1.

The continued importance of the research on stability

problems is due to the technical and economic developments
that demand the use of ever-stronger and ever-lighter
structures in an increasingly wider range of applications. The
demands of structures with higher strength in addition to
lighter weight inevitably lead to a consideration of stability
must play a main role in the design [1].

Instability condition occurs where a compression member or

structural system loses its ability to resist additional applied
loads and shows instead a decrease in load-carrying capacity.
In summary, instability occurs at the maximum point of the
load-deflection curve [1].
Figure 1 : Lateral-Torsional buckling
Typically, beams, girders, joists, and trusses designed for As with a compression member, instability can be in an
flexure have relatively greater strength and stiffness in the overall sense or it can be local. When a beam bends, the
plane where the loads are applied than in the plane associated compression region (above the neutral axis) is analogous to a
with bending about their minor principal axis. When these column, and in a manner similar to a column, it will buckle if
sections in not braced laterally in a proper form, they will the member is slender enough. Unlike a column, however,
buckle laterally before reaching their full plastic strength. the compression portion of the cross section is restrained by
This buckling mode is usually called the lateral torsional the tension portion, and the outward deflection (flexural
buckling, (LTB), and represents one of limit state of buckling) is accompanied by twisting (torsion). Lateral-
structural usefulness[1]. torsional buckling can be prevented by bracing the beam
against twisting at sufficiently close intervals[2].
This paper aims to show the effect of concrete slab in
restraining lateral torsional buckling of steel floor beam in The moment strength of compact shapes is a function of the
non-composite action i.e. without using shear connectors.
unbraced length, , defined as the distance between points
of lateral support, or bracing. The relationship between the
2. Review of Literature nominal strength, , and the unbraced length is shown in
Figure 2. If the unbraced length is no greater than , to be
2.1 Beam Strength
defined presently, the beam is considered to have full lateral
support, andthe nominal moment strength, , is the full
Lateral torsional buckling is a limit state of structural
plastic moment capacity of the shape, . If is greater
usefulness where the deformation changes from
predominantly in-plane bending to combined lateral than but less than or equal to the parameter , the
deflection and twisting. The final failure pattern involves strength is based on inelastic LTB. If is greater than ,
lateral deflection and twisting in combination with various the strength is based on elastic LTB.
extents of yielding and flange and/or web local buckling
depending on the specific member characteristics [1]as
Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2353
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
strength is based on inelastic behavior. The moment
corresponding to first yield is

where the yield stress has been reduced by 30% to account

for the effect of residual stress. As shown in Figure 2, the
boundary between elastic and inelastic behavior will be for
an unbraced length of , which is the value of obtained
from the equation of critical stress above when is set
equal to with . The following equation
results:

(4)

As with columns, inelastic buckling of beams is more

complicated than elastic buckling, and empirical formulas
are often used. The following equation is used by AISC:
Figure 2 : The relationship between the nominal strength
and the unbraced length (5)

The equation for the theoretical elastic lateral-torsional where the term is the yield moment adjusted for
buckling strength can be found in Theory of Elastic Stability residual stress [2], and
[3]. With some notational changes, the nominal moment
strength is: (6)
(1)

where is the elastic buckling stress and is given by

2.2 Floor Beam system
(2)
In a floor system with a corrugated metal deck, there are
steel beams where the deck ribs will run perpendicular to the
where axis of the beam and steel beams where the deck ribs are
= unbraced length (in.) parallel with the beams. In building construction, the
= moment of inertia about the weak axis of the cross members that are oriented perpendicular to the span of the
section (in.4) slab system are usually referred to as beams, and the
= shear modulus of structural steel = 11,200 ksi members that support the beams and are oriented parallel to
= torsional constant (in.4) the span of the slab system are usually called girders as
= warping constant (in.6) shown in Figure 3.
Equation 2 is valid as long as the bending moment within the
unbraced length is uniform (nonuniform moment is
accounted for with a factor ). The AISC Specification
gives a different, but equivalent, form for the elastic buckling
stress . AISC gives the nominal moment strength as

where

(3)

and Figure 3 : Floor beams and floor girders

= factor to account for nonuniform bending within the
unbraced length . The concrete floor deck can be constructed in various forms,
Figure 4 : Types of composite beams.Figure 4shows the
most common forms of concrete floor deck. In steel
structures, the corrugated metal deck is commonly used as
for doubly-symmetric I shapes shown in Figure 4a. in which its provide a form for wet
for channels concrete as well as its adding strength to the overall floor
deck system. Another type of floor deck is the reinforced
= distance between flange centroids concrete slab shown in Figure 4b which is constructed
If the moment when lateral-torsional buckling occurs is without corrugated metal deck, this system is more
greater than the moment corresponding to first yield, the commonly used in bridge construction[4].
Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2354
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391

Figure 4 : Types of composite beams.

The beams are treated as a non-composite if the headed studs

are not used to engage the concrete slab with the steel beams
as shown in Figure 5. By contrast, usually the headed studs
are used in floor system, in that case the system is designed
as a composite system [4].
Figure 7 : Strain variation in composite beams.

When beam system acts compositely Figure 7 b and c no

relative slip occurs between the slab and beam. Horizontal
forces (shears) are developed that act on the lower surface of
the slab to compress and shorten it, while simultaneously
they act on the upper surface of the beam to elongate it[5].
Figure 5 : Non-composite beam By an examination of the strain distribution that occurs when
there is no interaction between the concrete slab and the steel
2.3 Composite and non-composite action beam Figure 7a, it is seen that the total resisting moment is
equal to
Composite action is developed when two load-carrying (7)
structural members such as a concrete floor system and the
supporting steel beam are integrally connected and deflect as Its noted that for this case there are two neutral axes: one at
a single unit as in Figure 6b. The extent to which composite the center of gravity of the slab and the other at the center of
action is developed depends on the provisions made to insure gravity of the beam. The horizontal slip resulting from the
a single linear strain from the top of the concrete slab to the bottom of the slab in tension and the top of the beam in
bottom of the steel section. The non-composite beam of compression is also indicated.
Figure 6a, wherein if friction between the slab and beam is
neglected, the beam and slab each carry separately a part of The case where only partial interaction is present as shown in
the load. This is further shown in Figure 7. When the slab Figure 7b. The slab and the beam neutral axis is closer to
deforms under vertical load, its lower surface is in tension each other. The horizontal slip has been decreased, due to the
and elongates, while the upper surface of the beam is in partial interaction. The result of the partial interaction is the
compression and shortens. Thus a discontinuity will occur at partial development of the maximum compressive and
the plane of contact. Since friction is neglected, only vertical tensile forces and , in the concrete slab and steel beam.
internal forces act between the slab and beam[5]. respectively. The resisting moment of the section would then
be increased by the amount or .

When complete interaction "full composite action" between

the slab and the beam is developed, no slip will occurs and
the resulting strain diagram can be plotted as shown in
Figure 7c. Under this condition. There is a single neutral axis
which lies below that of the slab and above that of the beam.
In addition, the compressive and tensile forces and '',
respectively, are larger than and existing in partial
interaction. The resisting moment of the fully developed
composite section then becomes
[5].

In this work the strength of the steel-concrete beam with

non-composite action will be investigated, taking into
Figure 6 : Composite and non-composite action. consideration the frictional forces effect between the
concrete slab and the steel beam.

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2355
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
3. The Experimental Work. Where in the third model the friction force between the
concrete slab and the steel beam were reduced by greasing
3.1 The Specimens construction the top flange furthermore it was covered by isolated layer.
Finally, in the fourth experiential model, concrete slab has
Four scale-down models have been adopted in the been cast against a corrugated metal plate that in turn has
experimental work. In the first model, a single steel beam has been supported on top flange of the beam as shown in Figure
been constructed as shown inFigure 8.This beam was 11.
constructed to investigate the steel beam strength without
lateral constraints.

Figure 11 : Steel beam with concrete slab and metal deck

construction
Figure 8 : Steel beam model.
3.2 The specimens Property
In the second and third experimental models, concrete slab
has been casted againstrough and smooth top flanges 3.2.1 Steel frame
respectively were wooden deck has been used as shown in Characteristics for steel sections adopted in this study
Figure 9 and Figure 10. Degree of lateral constraints which have been presented with referring to Figure 12and
will caused by the concrete slab has been investigated in Table 1below.
addition to whole system strength.

Figure 12: Reference dimensions for the adopted steel

section

Table 1: Steel Parts details in millimeters.

Part Length
Figure 9 : Construction of the steel beam with concrete slab Main Beam, IPE140 142 75 8 6 2900
Girder, IPE220 200 99 8 5.5 2000
Angle 100 100 5 100
Bolts diameter 16

Figure 10 : Steel beam with concrete slab and wooden deck Figure 13 : Beam-Girder connection
after greasing top flange

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2356
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
From coupon test, the measured yield tensile strength for the
steel beam was 309MPa, and the modulus of elasticity was
200,000MPa.

3.2.2 Reinforced Concrete Slab

The adopted concrete slab has following characteristics
1. Thickness and width are
respectively
2. The concrete slabs were reinforced by steel rebars as
indicated below:
 long direction: mm top and bottom
 short direction: mm bottom
 short direction: mm top

From concrete cubes test, the measured compressive strength

of the concrete slab was 34 MPa. and the steel rebar tensile
yielding stress was 415MPa.
Figure 15 : Dial gauges installation
3.3 Tests Setup
4. Experimental Tests Results
The specimens were examined by applying a uniform
distributed load, the specimens with a total length of 2.9 m The general failure mode was inelastic lateral torsional
was set up on testing machine, two steel rods were buckling for the single steel beam. For the other models the
supporting the specimens at each corner, the load were then test results showed that the concrete slab will prevent the
applied by the hydraulic jack.
lateral torsional buckling. The three remaining models were
failed by flexure at ultimate loads as shown in
The hydraulic jack applies the load to the steel beams which Table 2.
will distribute the load to the sand bags were it was furnished
above concrete slab. The lateral torsional buckling changes the deformation from
predominantly in-plane bending to combined lateral
The test setup is shown in test lab in Figure 14.
deflection and twisting. The final failure pattern involves
lateral deflection and twisting in combination with various
extents of yielding and flange and/or web local buckling
depending on the specific member characteristics [1].

When the concrete slab is supported by the steel beam, the

beam upper flange is in compression, and restrained at all
points. The twist of thatbeam will be counteracted by the
concrete slab. Therefore, the concrete slab will prevent the
steel beam form twisting due to the massive pressure
subjected to the beam top flange as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 14 : Test setup.

3.4 Deformation measurement

The in-plane deflection and lateral displacement of the tested Figure 16 : Slab restraining the top flange from twisting.
beams were measured using two dial gauges as shown in
Figure 15. the dial gauges were placed at the mid span to Table 2 : Failure loads
record the lateral and vertical movements of the beam. Analytical
Experimental Analytical
Evaluation
Tests Evaluation
Model type forFull
(Total load Non-composite
composite
) (Total load )
(Total load )
Single steel beam 71.87 72.94
Steel-concrete
124.78 150 76.4
beam with Rough

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2357
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
top flange
Steel-concrete
beam with 109.04 150 76.4
Smooth top flange
Steel-concrete
beam with
119.78 131 72.69
Corrugated metal
deck

A yielding stress of were adopted in the

analyticalevaluation where the yield stress has been reduced
by 30% to account for the effect of residual stress [2].
Figure 19 : Steel-Concrete Beam (smooth flange) load-
The load versus in-plane vertical deflection and out-plane displacement curves.
lateral deflection curves, are shown in Figure 17,

Figure 20 : Steel-Concrete Beam with corrugated metal deck

Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20. load-displacement curves

The lateral displacement appeared in Figure 19 and Figure

20, was caused by local deformation as shown in Figure 29.
The failure mode shapes for all models are presented in the
figures below.

Figure 17 : Single Steel beam load-displacement curves

Figure 21 : Single steel beam after failure.

Figure 18 :Steel-Concrete Beam (rough flange) load-

displacement curves

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2358
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391

Figure 25: Steel-Concrete Beam (smooth flange) after

failure.

Figure 22 : Single steel beam after failure.

Figure 26: Steel-Concrete Beam (smooth flange) after

failure.
Figure 23 :Steel-Concrete Beam (rough flange) .

Figure 27: Steel-Concrete Beam with corrugated metal deck

Figure 24 : Steel-Concrete Beam (rough flange) after after failure.
failure.

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2359
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
[5] C. G. Salmon, J. E. Johnson and F. A. Malhas, STEEL
STRUCTURES DESIGN AND BEHAVIOR, United
states of America: Person Education,Inc., 2009.

Author Profile
Dr. Salah R. Al‐Zaidee received the B. Sc. degree in
1998 (with firstrank), the M. Sc. in 2001, and Ph. D. in
2008 all from CivilEngineering Department/College of
Engineering/University of Baghdad. He supervised
eleven M. Sc. theses; three of them are under process. He
publishedeight papers in local and international journals. He taught
eleven courses(undergraduate and graduate) in Civil Engineering
Department and Department ofWater Resources.

Figure 28: Steel-Concrete Beam with corrugated metal deck Ehab G. Al-Hasany received the B. Sc. degree in
after failure. 2008 from Civil Engineering Department/College of
Engineering /University of Baghdad. He is a M.Sc.
student in Civil Engineering department/University of
Baghdad. He published two papers in international
journals. Since 2008, he is an engineer in the PMT/Ministry of
Education/Projects Financed by World Bank.

Figure 29 : Top flange for consrete-steel beam after failure.

5. Conclusions
This study indicates that friction between slab and top flange
of the beam, pressures acting on top flange, and lateral
stiffness of slab all of them are adequate to restrain floor
beams against lateral torsional buckling.

In all of experimental models, it has been noted that, the

residual stresses have significant effect of beams
behavior.This effect has been used to approximate the
difference between the experimental works and the
analyticalevaluation.
The actual strength of the steel-concrete beam without using
shear connectors, was between the full composite action and
non-composite action, i.e. partial-composite action is
appeared due to the effectiveness of friction force which will
make the beam behave as composite before the slip is occur.

References
[1] R. D. Ziemian, Guide to Stability, New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 2010.
[2] W. T. Segui, Steel Design, United States of America:
Cengage Learning, 2013.
[3] Timoshenko and Gere, Theory of Elastic stability, New
York: DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC., 1961.
[4] Abi Aghayere, Jason Vigil, Structural Steel Design, New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009, pp. 1-10.

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20173028 DOI: 10.21275/ART20173028 2360