Robustness of Composite Floor Systems with Shear

Connections: Modeling, Simulation, and Evaluation

Fahim Sadek1; Sherif El-Tawil, M.ASCE2; and H. S. Lew3

Abstract: This paper presents a computational investigation of the robustness of a typical concrete deck–steel beam composite floor
system with simple shear connections in the event that a center column has been removed. The study provides insight into the behavior
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and failure modes of simple shear connections and composite floor systems comprised of such connections. Analyses of a connection
subassemblage indicate that loads are primarily resisted by cable action of the beams after column loss resulting in increasing tensile
forces in the beams and connections that could eventually precipitate failure. Simulation results show that the floor deck contributes
significantly to the floor system response through: diaphragm action to prevent the exterior columns from being pulled inward and
membrane action primarily through the reinforcement mesh and metal deck. The analyses indicate that the capacity of the analyzed floor
system under the column removal scenario is significantly less than the load specified by the General Services Administration’s current
progressive collapse guidelines. This suggests that applying these guidelines, the composite floor system studied would be vulnerable to
collapse if a center column is lost.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2008兲134:11共1717兲
CE Database subject headings: Floors; Finite element method; Collapse; Composite materials; Connections.

Introduction
Steel moment resisting frame systems are commonly used in low-
to midrise construction in seismically active regions in the United
States. The lateral load resistance of such systems is often con-
centrated in a few “moment” frames, whereas the remainder of
the gravity system derives its stability by “leaning” on the perim-
eter frames. The gravity system is typically comprised of beams
connected to columns through simple shear connections in con-
junction with a concrete deck that acts compositely with the steel
beams. The motivation behind such systems stems from the need
to reduce construction costs by limiting expensive-to-construct
moment resisting connections between beams and columns and
by locating them in a small number of moment resisting bays.
Shear connections in the gravity system are generally modeled as
pinned and their moment resistance is typically ignored in routine
design calculations.
Few researchers have investigated the collapse resistance, or
structural robustness, of composite floor systems with shear con-
nections in the event of a loss of a center column. The resistance
1 nonseismically designed buildings. Two key areas are investi-
Research Structural Engineer, Building and Fire Research Labora-
tory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
20899-8611. E-mail: fahim.sadek@nist.gov
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: eltawil@umich.edu
3
Senior Research Structural Engineer, Building and Fire Research
Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers-
burg, MD 20899-8611. E-mail: hsl@nist.gov
Note. Associate Editor: James S. Davidson. Discussion open until
April 1, 2009. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on August 16, 2007; approved on March 21, 2008. This
paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 11,
November 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2008/11-1717–1725/
$25.00.
of such systems to collapse depends upon the strength of the shear
beam-to-column connections. Astaneh-Asl et al. 共2001兲 con-
ducted an experimental study to explore the ability of a typical
composite floor system to resist progressive collapse. The shear
connections were a combination of single shear plate 共shear tab兲
beam-to-beam and single-angle-web-with-seat angle beam-to-
column connections. The tests indicated that the system could
absorb removal of a middle perimeter column and successfully
resist, without collapse, the dead and live loads and associated
dynamic effects through catenary action in the floor system com-
ponents. Using an analytical approach, Foley et al. 共2006兲 showed
that in the event of a center column loss, a composite floor system
with bolted clip angle gravity connections could be expected to
carry the dead and service live loads, but without the full dynamic
load effects.
The study reported in this paper utilizes computational struc-
tural simulation to evaluate the robustness of concrete deck-steel
beam composite floor systems under the assumption that a center
column has been removed. The beam-to-column shear connection
considered is a single plate shear connection, which is a configu-
ration commonly used in the gravity portions of seismically and
gated: 共1兲 the behavior and failure modes of shear connections
and 共2兲 the behavior and failure modes of the composite floor
system; in particular, the relative role of the steel beams and their
connections, the metal deck, and the concrete slab including the
wire mesh reinforcement in resisting collapse.
The investigation is carried out using two different simulation
models. In the first, a beam–column subassembly is modeled
without the contribution of the floor deck under the notional re-
moval of a center column. This analysis provides insight into the
behavior and failure of the shear connection and forms the basis
for a reduced model that is subsequently used in the analysis of
the floor system. In the second model, the floor system, including
steel beams and their connections, columns, floor slab, and metal

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008 / 1717

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.

 N A B C D E
6.1 m
6.1 m
6.1 m
W14x22
Typical
W16x26
Typical
6.1 m
Moment Bays
6.1 m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
9.14 m 9.14 m 9.14 m 9.14 m
Fig. 1. Plan layout of ten-story building designed for Seismic Design
Category C 共Liang et al. 2008兲. Highlighted area indicates floor bays
considered in this paper.
deck is analyzed to evaluate its response under the loss of a center
column.
Description of Prototype Floor System
The National Institute of Standards and Technology designed pro-
totype steel framed buildings for the purpose of studying their
response to an event that may cause progressive collapse 共Liang
et al. 2008兲. The buildings are ten-story office buildings with plan
dimensions of 30.5 m ⫻ 45.7 m and utilize moment-resisting
frames as the lateral load resisting system. Two seismic design
categories were considered to study the effectiveness of seismic
design and detailing, including seismic connections, in resisting
progressive collapse. As a result, the buildings were designed for
共1兲 Seismic Design Category C 共SDC C兲 共Atlanta兲, which resulted
in a design using intermediate moment frames as defined in the
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲 Seismic Provi-
sions 共2002兲, and 共2兲 Seismic Design Category D 共SDC D兲 共Se-
attle兲, which resulted in a design using special moment frames.
The design loads on the buildings were determined based on
the International Building Code 共IBC兲 共ICC 2003兲. The material
design standards used in the design of members and their connec-
tions were those referenced in American Society of Civil Engi-
neers 共ASCE兲 7-02 共2002兲 including the AISC Load and
Resistance Factor Design 共LRFD兲 Specifications for Structural
Steel Buildings 共AISC 1999兲 and the AISC Seismic Provisions
for Structural Steel Buildings 共2002兲. For typical floors, the dead
load consisted of the self-weight of the floor of 2.2 kN/ m2 and a
super-imposed dead load of 1.44 kN/ m2; whereas the design live
load was assumed to be 4.79 kN/ m2. For the roof, the self-weight
of the slab was 2.2 kN/ m2, the superimposed dead load was
0.48 kN/ m2; and the design live load was 0.96 kN/ m2. The re-
duction in live loads was based on Section 1607.9.1 of IBC 共ICC
2003兲.
The lateral load resisting system, comprised of moment
frames, was located only around the perimeter of the buildings.
Gravity frames 共not part of the lateral-force-resisting system兲
were used for the interior of the buildings. As a result, the design
of all interior floors and columns was the same for the SDC C and
SDC D buildings. A plan view of the Building in the SDC C zone
is shown in Fig. 1. The highlighted area in Fig. 1 indicates the
1718 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008
F Gap=25.4mm
1
2
W16x26
ASTM A992 steel
3
4
3 A325 HSB of D = 22.2 mm
PL (9.5 x 228.6 x 101.6) mm
5
6
8mm
9.14 m
38.1mm 38.1mm
Fig. 2. Single-plate shear connection used in the gravity frames
floor portion that is considered for the analysis reported herein.
The floor system consisted of 82.5 mm lightweight concrete
共17.3 kN/ m3兲 topping on 76.2 mm metal deck. The slab acts
compositely with the steel beams through shear studs. The steel
beams are connected to the columns using single plate simple
shear connections 共shear tab connections兲, which were designed
according to the AISC LRFD Specifications. The shear tab is fillet
welded to the column and bolted to the beam web as shown in
Fig. 2.
The lightweight concrete topping slab has a nominal com-
pressive strength of 20.7 MPa. ASTM A992 structural steel
共Fy = 344.8 MPa兲 was used in the beams and columns. For the
shear connections, 22.2 mm diameter ASTM A325 high strength
bolts were used, whereas the 9.5 mm thick shear tabs were ASTM
A36 steel 共Fy = 248.2 MPa兲. For the purpose of the analyses re-
ported in this paper, the thickness of the light-gauge metal deck
was assumed to be 20 gauge 共0.9 mm兲 and the concrete slab was
reinforced using a wire mesh 共welded wire fabric兲 152 mm by
152 mm, W1.4⫻ 1.4 steel.
Modeling of Shear Connections
The performance of shear tab connections under seismic 共cyclic兲
loading was reported in Liu and Astaneh-Asl 共2004兲. In their
study, the connection experienced primarily rotational demands.
This study, however, focuses on the performance of the connec-
tion under the notional removal of a center column. As a result,
the connection is subject to not only large rotations, but to axial
forces as well due to the large deflections that the beam experi-
ences as a result of column removal. As no experimental data are
available to quantify the response of these connections under the
column removal scenario, computational models with various lev-
els of complexity are used to understand the response character-
istics of the connections. The simulations presented in this study
are conducted using LS-DYNA; an explicit, general purpose,
finite-element software package 共Hallquist 2006兲. In all analyses,
loads are applied at a slow rate to ensure a static response 共no
dynamic amplification兲.
High Fidelity Connection Model
The beam selected for analysis is the shorter-span beam 共6.1 m
span兲 oriented in the north-south direction 共Fig. 1兲. The beam is a
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. 共Color兲 Illustration of the detailed model of the shear connec-
tion: 共a兲 beam–column subassembly model 共1 / 2 model shown兲; 共b兲
connection details; 共c兲 failure of beam web; and 共d兲 example of tear-
out failure of a connection recovered from the 7th floor of the World
Trade Center 5, FEMA 403 共2002兲
W16⫻ 26 section connected to W14⫻ 74 columns. For the shear
connection, the bolt holes are standard holes with an edge dis-
tance 共between the center of the standard hole to the plate edge兲
of 38.1 mm for both the beam web and shear tab, resulting in a
clear distance 共between the edge of the hole and the edge of the
plate兲 of 27 mm. The gap between the beam end and column
flange is 25.4 mm 共see Fig. 2兲. Due to symmetry, only one half of
the beam–column subassembly is considered in the analysis. The
high fidelity connection 共HFC兲 model, shown in Fig. 3, consists
of solid 共brick兲 elements representing the column, shear tab, bolts,
and beam web and flanges in the vicinity of the connection 关Fig.
3共b兲兴. Four layers of solid elements are considered for all plates,
which results in an element edge length in the range of
1.5– 3.8 mm. Away from the connection, the beam is modeled
with shell elements and appropriate constraints are imposed at the
interface between both types of elements. Hand calculations show
that the stresses in the fillet weld connecting the shear tab to the
column flange are low compared to their strength. As a result, the
shear tab is modeled as rigidly connected to the column flange.
Contact is defined between the bolts, shear tab, and beam web to
account for the transfer of forces between the beam web and
column. Only the details of one connection are included in the
Fig. 4. 共Color兲 共a兲 Applied vertical load versus center column vertical displacement for detailed and reduced model analyses; 共b兲 horizontal
reaction versus center column vertical displacement for detailed and reduced model analyses
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008 / 1719
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.
analysis, the other end is modeled as pinned to keep the model
size manageable 关Fig. 3共a兲兴. The column is pushed down under
displacement control until failure occurs.
The steel for the beam, column, and connection components is
modeled using a piecewise linear plasticity model with nominal
material properties. Elements are eroded when a prespecified
strain-to-failure is reached, signifying fracture of the steel. As the
strain-to-failure depends on the element size, a procedure similar
to that used in Sadek 共2005兲 was used to estimate the failure
strain for various mesh densities.
The system responds initially in a flexural mode where the
shear tab transfers moment 共top bolt moves toward the column,
whereas bottom bolt moves away from the column兲, before
switching to a cable-like behavior at a vertical column displace-
ment of about 125 mm, where the deflected shape of the beam is
almost a straight line. Under large displacements, cable-like ac-
tion is the primary response mode of the beam, i.e., the applied
vertical load is resisted by axial tensile forces in the beam. The
beam 共between the bolts and the pin support at the other end兲
remains in the elastic range. The failure mode observed in this
model is a tear out of the beam web as shown in Fig. 3共c兲. The
shear tab and the bolts experience substantial plastic strains, but
no failure is observed. The tear-out failure observed in the analy-
sis is similar to the failure observed, albeit under fire, in one of
the floor beams in the World Trade Center 5 building 共FEMA
2002兲, which suffered partial collapse on September 11, 2001, see
Fig. 3共d兲.
Fig. 4共a兲 shows the applied vertical load versus vertical dis-
placement computed for the center 共removed兲 column, whereas
Fig. 4共b兲 shows the horizontal reaction at the beam ends. Figs. 4共a
and b兲 show that the beam experiences a displacement of about
533 mm at the center column prior to softening and loss of
strength, which corresponds to a rotation at peak strength of
0.088 rad.
Reduced Component Connection Model
The reduced component connection 共RCC兲 model, shown in Fig.
5共a兲, consists of: 共1兲 beam elements representing the beam and
column members and 共2兲 a series of nonlinear horizontal springs
at the location of the bolts representing the connection behavior.
Rigid elements are provided as shown to model the finite size of
the panel zone and to link the beam and springs together. As for
this case, failure of the connection in shear is not expected to
 Column
lt Column
Shear Connection
Rigid Member

Rigid Panel
Beam
dbg si Spring Element

Beam Web

Nonlinear springs
Column
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Reduced Component Connection (RCC) Model (b) Reduced Coarse Shell Connection
(RCSC) Model

Fig. 5. Reduced models for the shear connection

occur, and the contribution from shear deformation of the shear
tab is likely small, the beam is connected to the column using a
rigid constraint equation in the vertical direction.
The force–deformation response for the nonlinear springs used
in the connection model is shown in Fig. 6共a兲. The rotational
stiffness, ks, of the connection without any contribution from the
floor slab is given in FEMA 355D 共2000兲 as
tional elastic rotational capacity of these connections is estimated
as 0.02 rad. This gives a total estimated rotational capacity for
such connections as
␪t,max = 0.17 − 0.00014dbg 共3兲
Therefore, the deformation limit for a bolt spring is

ks = 124,550共dbg − 142.2 mm兲 kN mm/rad 共1兲 ⌬u,i = smax␪t,max 共4兲

where dbg = depth 共vertical dimension兲 of the bolt group 共mm兲. where smax = distance from the center of the bolt group to the most
Thus, the stiffness of an individual bolt 共or spring element兲, Kb,i, distant bolt. For this analysis, ␪t,max is calculated to be approxi-
can be estimated as mately 0.14. For bolt tear out, the displacement of the spring at
postultimate zero load, ⌬ f,i is selected as the edge distance
ks 共38.1 mm in this case, see Fig. 2兲. The subassembly fails when
Kb,i = 共2兲
兺is2i the spring elements sequentially reach ⌬ f,i in tension.

where si = distance of each bolt from the center of the bolt group
关Fig. 5共a兲兴.
The yield and ultimate forces of each spring, Fy,i and Fu,i,
respectively, are calculated based on the governing failure mode
or limit state of the connection under horizontal 共axial兲 loading.
These can be estimated based on the following considerations
with a resistance factor ␾ = 1:
• The bolt yield and ultimate capacity in shear with threads
excluded;
• The ultimate strength of transversely loaded fillet welds along
the side of the shear plate based on the AISC Specification
共2005a,b, Sec. J2.4兲. In this case, Fy,i = Fu,i;
• The block shear yield and ultimate capacity of the web or
shear tab based on the AISC Specification 共2005a,b, Section
J4.3兲; and
• The tear-out 共bearing at bolt holes兲 yield and ultimate capacity
through the beam web or through the shear tab based on the
Reduced Coarse Shell Connection Model
Another reduced model using a coarse shell element mesh is used
to represent the beam, the column, and their connection 关Fig.
5共b兲兴. The element size is about 38 mm. The connection is repre-
sented using one row of shell elements with a thickness equal to
that of the beam web. The stress-strain characteristics of these
shell elements are derived based on the bolt spring parameters in
Eqs. 共1兲–共4兲. The model is supplemented with a spring element as
shown in Fig. 5共b兲 to ensure accurate shear rigidity and strength.
The spring has an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior with an ulti-
mate load calculated as the difference between the actual shear
capacity of the connection and the shear capacity based on ana-
Force Force
COMPRESSION COMPRESSION

AISC Specification 共2005a,b, Section J3.10兲. Fu,i

fC
For the analysis considered in this study, tear-out failure of the Fy,i

beam web was found to be the governing failure mode, which is

∆f,i ∆u,i Kb,i Deformation kC Deformation
also confirmed by the results of the HFC model. The spring dis-
Kb,i ∆u,i ∆C,max
placement corresponding to the ultimate load Fu,i, ⌬u,i, is esti-
mated using FEMA 355D 共2000兲, which showed that the plastic
TENSION
Fy,i
rotational capacity of simple shear connections in radians, de- Fu,i
(a) (b)
TENSION
signed using the AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) Specifications, and with adequate clearance between
beam flanges from column to prevent bearing, i.e., binding, can Fig. 6. Force–deformation response 共a兲 of bolt springs; 共b兲 for con-
reasonably be calculated as ␪ p,max = 0.15− 0.00014dbg. The addi- crete contact spring

1720 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.

 lyzing the coarse shell model alone. Failure of the subassembly 120
Test Test data not provided
occurs due to sequential failure/erosion of the shell elements rep- beyond this point
100
resenting the connection.
80

Load (kN)
Comparison between Model Results and Discussion 60 Model
Results of the three models are shown in Fig. 4. The plots indicate 40
good agreement between the detailed and reduced model results.
The analyses confirm that the loads under a column removal sce- 20
nario are primarily resisted by cable action, which results in al-
0
most uniform axial tensile forces in the beam. These tensile forces
0 10 20 30 40 50
increase until the connection can no longer sustain this axial load,
after which the connection could fail in one of the failure modes Displacement (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

discussed previously. The beam 共between the bolts and the pin
support at the other end兲 remains in the elastic range.
The rotation at peak load is 0.088 rad, substantially less that
the rotation capacity of this connection based on seismic testing,
which is 0.14 rad. The reason for this discrepancy in rotations is
due to differences in the mechanisms by which the applied loads
are resisted. Under seismic loading, the beam rotates about a cen-
ter of rotation, moving some bolts toward the column and others
away from the column. Ductility demands in this case are mainly
dependent on the distance of each bolt from the center of rotation.
Under the column removal scenario, the cable force that develops
in the beam is transmitted through the bolts, forcing all bolts to
move away from the column. Ductility demands in this case are
dictated by the geometry of the subassemblage, i.e., by the need
for the beam and its connections to stretch to accommodate
the increased chord length associated with the new deformed
configuration.
The General Services Administration’s 共2003兲 progressive col-
lapse guidelines recommend a rotation of 0.015– 0.025 rad as an
acceptance criterion for partially restrained connections. The De-
partment of Defense Guidelines 共UFC 2005兲 use a rotation range
of 0.9–2° 共⬍0.035 rad兲 based on the governing limit state and the
level of protection as acceptance criteria. These acceptance crite-
ria appear to be quite conservative when compared to the rota-
tional capacity calculated for the beam configuration and span
considered in this study.
Validation
Two levels of validation exercises are conducted to provide con-
fidence in the proposed models. In the first, the proposed tear-out
model results are compared to test results for Specimen 41 in Rex
and Easterling 共2003兲, which also failed by tear out. The compari-
Fig. 7. Comparison between model and test data for tear-out failure
The force–deformation characteristics of the spring are shown in
Fig. 6共b兲. The spring stiffness, kC, and strength f c are estimated
according to FEMA-355D 共2000兲
Ecbfcts
kC = 共5兲
lt
f C = 0.85f ⬘c bfcts 共6兲
where Ec = Young’s modulus for concrete; bfc = column flange
width; ts = concrete slab thickness; lt = spring length; and f ⬘c
= specified concrete strength.
The extra moment capacity provided by composite action of
the slab is lost when the plastic rotation 共in radians兲 reaches a
critical value 共FEMA-355D 2000兲
␪c,max = 0.029 − 0.0000079dbg 共7兲
Therefore, the deformation limit for the spring is
⌬C,max = dt␪C,max 共8兲
where dt = distance between the center of the bolt group and the
center line of the slab. At this displacement, the compression
capacity of the spring is assumed to drop to zero.
As shown in Fig. 8, individual bolt failures are manifested as
sudden drops in the moment capacity of the connection, with the
connection losing all resistance when all three bolts fail. Fig. 8
also shows that the effect of binding on negative bending strength
is significant. The model underestimates negative moment capac-
1.5
Moment / Maximum Positive Moment

son, shown in Fig. 7, indicates that the initial stiffness is well

represented in the model and that even though the ultimate 1.0
strength is underestimated by 14%, the general shape of the load- 0.5
deformation curve up to peak load is reasonably reproduced. 0.0
In the second exercise, the RCC model is compared to cyclic -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05-0.50.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
test data in Liu and Astaneh-Asl 共2004兲. As the experimental mo-
ment results in Liu and Astaneh-Asl 共2004兲 are normalized to the Calibrated shear
-1.0
Range of test data (Liu &
maximum positive moment, the analysis herein considered the connection -1.5 Astaneh-Asl, 2004)
same beam and connection used in this study 共Fig. 2兲 with a bolt model (Gap =
12.7 mm) -2.0
size of 19 mm instead of 22.2 mm. This was done to ensure that
the failure mode of the connection matches the failure mode ob- -2.5
served in the tests, which was bolt shear. A gap of 12.7 mm, Rotation (rad)
consistent with the test parameters, is assumed between beam and
column flanges. A spring is added to the RCC model at the level Fig. 8. Computed and experimentally observed moment versus rota-
of the floor slab between the beam and column to account for the tion response of composite shear tab connections 共Liu and Astaneh-
possibility that the concrete slab might bear against the column. Asl 2004兲

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008 / 1721

J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. 共Color兲 Floor system model 共quarter model shown兲
ity at low plastic rotations ranging from 0 to − 0.035 rad. This is
attributed to the fact that the reinforcing steel, metal deck, and
tension stiffening in the concrete slab are not represented in the
model. These effects, however, become less significant at larger
rotations and the model response approaches the experimental
data when binding does not occur. At larger negative plastic ro-
tations and for all positive plastic rotations, the model captures
the overall behavior well.
Modeling of Floor System
Simulations are conducted for the notional removal of the center
column for the shaded region in Fig. 1 to understand the response
characteristics of the floor system. Due to symmetry consider-
ations, only one-quarter of the 2 ⫻ 2 bay is considered in the
analysis with proper boundary conditions along the axes of sym-
metry. The overall model is shown in Fig. 9 and details are shown
in Fig. 10. The model consists of the following components.
• Framing: Steel framing for the columns and beams is modeled
using relatively large shell elements 共about 38 mm each兲 as
shown in Fig. 10共b兲. The shear connections between the floor
beams and the columns are modeled using the previously de-
scribed reduced coarse shell connection 共RCSC兲 model 关Fig.
10共c兲兴. The columns extend one story above and below the
Fig. 10. 共Color兲 Details of floor system model
1722 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.
floor level, and the column upper and lower ends are both
modeled as pinned;
• Metal deck: Shell elements are used to model the corrugated
light-gauge metal deck, see Figs. 10共a and b兲. The metal deck
is assumed to have a bilinear stress–strain relationship with a
yield stress of 248 MPa and a failure strain of 0.25. The metal
deck is further assumed to be continuous with no separation
共i.e., if puddle welds or TEK screws are used to connect metal
deck sheets, the sheets are assumed to overlap over the beams
and are connected to the beam via shear studs兲, and thus the
deck is capable of providing membrane action;
• Concrete slab: Solid elements are used to model the concrete
slab as shown in Fig. 10共a兲. Concrete behavior is modeled
using the Concrete Damage Model 共Material Model 72 in LS-
DYNA兲. The concrete model uses a three-invariant, damage-
based, nonassociated plasticity formulation to model the
inelastic behavior of concrete along multiple radial paths, in-
cluding uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial tensions and compres-
sions. The formulation employs a damage index that
accumulates as a function of both the effective plastic and
volumetric strains;
• Shear studs: The shear studs connecting the beam top flanges
to the concrete slab through the metal deck are modeled using
beam elements that are embedded in the concrete slab 共fully
bonded兲. They are assumed to have a bilinear stress-strain re-
lationship with a yield stress of 448 MPa 共see Rambo-
Roddenberry 2002兲. Beam elements with a spot weld failure
criteria 共Material Model 100 in LS-DYNA兲 are used to repre-
sent 共1兲 the portion of the shear stud between the bottom of the
concrete slab and the metal deck and 共2兲 the puddle welds
between the metal deck and the top flanges of the beams. This
material model has a failure shear force criterion calibrated to
experimental results in Rambo-Roddenberry 共2002兲; and
• Slab reinforcement: The welded wire fabric mesh in the slab is
modeled using truss elements, which have a bilinear stress–
strain relationship. The mesh bars are assumed to be located
28 mm below the concrete top surface. The bars are assumed
to be fully bonded to the concrete slab.
Multiple contact constraints are defined between: the concrete
slab and the metal deck, and the metal deck and the top flanges of
the steel beams. The purposes of these contact conditions are to
allow one part to rest on the other without penetrating it, and
apply a friction force between the two surfaces, where the coef-
ficient of friction is assumed to be 0.3. Contact is also defined
between the side of the concrete slab and column flanges to ac-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. 共Color兲 Applied vertical load versus center 共removed兲
column vertical displacement for floor model analyses
count for the possibility that the concrete slab might bear against
the column.
Discussion of Simulation Results
Pushdown analysis is conducted using the developed model,
where the unsupported center column is statically pushed down
under displacement control until the system collapses. The devel-
oped model is exercised as follows, by successively including the
contribution of various system components to gain insight into
how these components influence system response:
Framing Only
This simulation includes only the columns, beams, and their con-
nections. The metal deck, concrete slab, slab reinforcement, and
shear studs are removed from the model. The applied load versus
the vertical displacement of the center 共removed兲 column is
shown in Fig. 11. The system fails when the shell elements rep-
resenting the shear connections reach the failure strain and are
sequentially eroded. The analysis indicates that due to the large
axial tensile forces generated in the affected beams, the perimeter
columns facing the removed column are pulled inward 共Fig. 12兲.
In particular, the column to the north of the removed column with
the minor axis facing the sagging beam experienced excessive
deformations and yielding. Although the stability of this column
might be questionable in this scenario due to the large displace-
ments of the columns and the subsequent second order P – ⌬ ef-
fects, this behavior helps reduce the demand on the shear
connections, and as a result the failure of the floor model occurs
at a larger vertical displacement when compared to the failure
displacement obtained from the analysis of the beam–column
subassembly 关compare, e.g., Fig. 11 to Fig. 4共a兲兴.
The analysis is repeated after adding a constraint to prevent the
horizontal displacement of the columns at the floor level. This
constraint is intended to represents the large in-plane stiffness of
the floor slab, which is not included in this simulation. The results
of this analysis are also shown in Fig. 11. Similar to the previous
analysis, the model fails when the connections fail. The vertical
displacement at failure, however, is more consistent with the dis-
placement at which the shear connection fails when a single
beam–column subassembly is analyzed 关compare Fig. 11 to Fig.
4共a兲兴.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008 / 1723
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.
Fig. 12. 共Color兲 Response of the framing of the floor system at a
displacement of 1,041 mm 共framing only, columns unrestrained
laterally兲
Framing and Metal Deck
This model includes the columns, beams, and their connections
along with the metal deck, which is connected to the top flange of
the beams via puddle welds as previously explained. The concrete
slab and its reinforcement are not included in this model. The
applied load versus the vertical displacement of the center 共re-
moved兲 column is shown in Fig. 11. The model fails when the
shell elements representing the shear connections reach the failure
strain and are eroded. The metal deck experiences large displace-
ments and some localized yielding, but remains intact and at-
tached to the floor beams. At peak load, the perimeter columns
facing the removed column are pulled slightly inward, but the
displacements are an order of magnitude smaller than those ob-
tained from the analysis with the framing only without con-
straints. Fig. 11 indicates that the vertical loading capacity of the
floor framing with the metal deck is larger than that without the
metal deck. This shows that the metal deck is capable of provid-
ing significant membrane action 共mainly one-way membrane ac-
tion in the direction of the flutes兲, and thus contributing to the
floor system strength.
Detailed Floor Model (Framing, Metal Deck, and Concrete
Slab)
This model includes all the elements of the floor system. The
applied load versus the vertical displacement of the center 共re-
moved兲 column is also shown in Fig. 11, which indicates that the
capacity of the floor framing with the concrete slab is larger than
that without the slab. This demonstrates that the concrete deck is
capable of providing significant membrane action, and thus con-
tributes to the floor system strength. The simulations show that
the concrete slab is, however, severely damaged 共cracked兲 due to
the large tensile strains imposed on it as a result of the membrane
action. Fig. 13 shows the damage contours in the concrete slab at
a vertical displacement of about 635 mm, where damage indices
of 0 and 2 signify no cracking and severe cracking, respectively.
Two observations are evident from Fig. 13: 共1兲 the damage
共cracking兲 contours are arranged in a diamond pattern around the
central column and 共2兲 the beams remain straight and the slab is
kinked at the beam locations, i.e., yield lines form there.
It is evident from the analysis results that, although membrane
action is generated by the reinforcement in the slab, the damaged

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. 共Color兲 Damage index for the floor slab at a vertical dis-
placement of 635 mm 共a damage index of 0 signifies no damage,
whereas 2 implies severe damage, which corresponds to substantial
cracking in this case兲
concrete slab is nevertheless able to provide sufficient in-plane
stiffness and strength 共through in-plane compression ring action兲
to prevent the columns from being pulled inwards. In fact, con-
trary to the previous analyses in this paper, the perimeter columns
facing the removed column are actually pushed slightly outward
instead of being pulled inward. As in all previous simulations, the
model fails when the shell elements representing the shear con-
nections reach the failure strain and are eroded.
Design Implications
The simulation results indicate that the floor slab along with the
metal deck and the wire mesh play two important roles in the
performance of the floor system: 共1兲 they act as a rigid diaphragm
to prevent the exterior columns from being pulled inward, thereby
compromising the second order stability of the exterior columns,
and 共2兲 they significantly contribute to the capacity of the floor
system through membrane action. Fig. 11 shows that the floor
deck increases the capacity of the floor framing from about
105.0 to 244.5 kN. Thus the contribution of the composite deck
to the floor system capacity is on the order of 55%. It also appears
to somewhat improve postpeak system ductility, preventing the
load capacity from degrading too quickly.
Fig. 11 shows that the capacity of the floor under the column
removal scenario is about 4.3 kN/ m2 关244.5 kN/ 共6.1 m
⫻ 9.14 m兲兴. According to the GSA Guidelines 共2003兲, the floor is
required to support an equivalent static uniform load of ␤dynamic
共Dead Load+ 41 Live Load兲 = 9.67 kN/ m2, where ␤dynamic is a dy-
namic amplification factor set to 2.0 for the case of a sudden
removal of the support. The results, therefore, indicate that it is
unlikely that the floor system considered herein is capable of
sustaining such load, even if ␤dynamic = 1.0 共load of 4.835 kN/ m2兲.
These results indicate that using the GSA design criteria, this
particular floor system would be vulnerable to collapse under this
scenario and that special precautions should be made when de-
signing composite floor systems such as the one considered herein
if center columns are deemed vulnerable to failure. Methods to
enhance robustness and improve the progressive collapse resis-
tance of this floor system could include using a stronger shear
1724 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.
connection, thicker metal deck, or replacing the welded wire fab-
ric with mild steel reinforcement. Another alternative is to use
moment connections instead of shear connections 共on every floor
or intermittently兲. Such remedies, however, might alter the design
of the lateral load resisting system of the building.
Comparison with Other Research Studies
As discussed in the introduction, research by Astaneh-Asl et al.
共2001兲 suggests that the composite floor tested was capable of
surviving column loss. On the other hand, Foley et al. 共2006兲
showed that the floor would survive only if ␤dynamic ⬍ 1.14. The
study reported herein suggests that the composite floor studied
would likely not survive for any ␤dynamic.
Several reasons may be cited for the lack of agreement regard-
ing the robustness of composite floor systems. The composite
floor system tested by Astaneh-Asl et al. 共2001兲 was comprised of
beams that are substantially stronger, deeper and shorter than the
beams used in this study. Moreover, the connections were a com-
bination of shear tab beam-to-beam and single-angle-web-with-
seat angle beam-to-column connections, all of which were
significantly stronger than the shear tab connections considered in
this work. Further, their test considered an edge section of the
floor 共1 ⫻ 2 bays兲, where three beams are connected to the vul-
nerable middle column, which supports a tributary area of
16.7 m2. In the present study a 2 ⫻ 2 bay system is considered,
where four beams are connected to the vulnerable middle column,
which supports a tributary area of 55.7 m2.
The study by Foley et al. 共2006兲 also employed a different
connection type, i.e., bolted clip angle connections as opposed to
the shear tab connections used here, and considered different floor
dimensions 共18.3 m ⫻ 18.3 m as opposed to 18.3 m ⫻ 12.2 m
used in this study兲. Foley’s study also employed a number of
assumptions that were not made in this study. For example, Foley
et al. 共2006兲 used the procedure by Hawkins and Mitchell 共1979兲
to estimate membrane forces. This procedure, however, is an ap-
proximation as it assumes that membrane action produces uni-
form strains and rotations along the slab boundaries, whereas in
reality, strains and rotations vary considerably 共zero at the ends to
a maximum at the middle of the plate boundaries兲. Further, Foley
et al. 共2006兲 assumed that the slab membrane capacity is additive
with the grillage 共beam兲 system and made certain assumptions
about bolt behavior that differ from the model used in this study.
Given the differences in geometry, connection types, and mod-
eling assumptions employed, it is not surprising that there are
differences in the outcomes of the various studies. The current
study, as does Foley’s, suggests that composite floor systems with
shear connections are potentially vulnerable to center column
loss.
Conclusions
This paper presented a computational simulation assessment of
the robustness of concrete–steel beam composite floor systems
with simple shear connections under the assumption that a center
column has been removed. A number of models were developed
and after validation were used to gain insight into the behavior
and failure modes of the shear connections and the composite
floor system. Analysis results for a simple shear connection sub-
assemblage indicate that loads are initially resisted by flexural
behavior followed by cable action in the beam when a center
column is removed. Under increasing tensile forces in the beam,
 the connection may fail in a variety of modes, including fillet
weld failure, bolt failure, block shear, and tear-out failure. The
ultimate rotation sustained by the shear connection prior to failure
under the column removal scenario was 0.088 rad for the connec-
tion subassemblage considered in this study.
Analysis of the composite floor system showed that the floor
deck contributes significantly to the floor response through two
mechanisms: it acts as a rigid diaphragm preventing the exterior
columns from being pulled inward, and it behaves like a mem-
brane primarily through the reinforcement mesh and metal deck
that provide two- and one-way membrane action, respectively.
The capacity of the floor under the column removal scenario is
4.3 kN/ m2, which is significantly less than the gravity load 共in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cluding dynamic effects兲 specified by the GSA guidelines of
9.67 kN/ m2. Thus, applying the GSA design criteria, this particu-
lar floor system would be vulnerable to collapse under the speci-
fied column removal. Further research must be conducted in order
to generalize this conclusion. Research is also needed to develop
design oriented models for evaluating the robustness of composite
floor systems.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology 共NIST兲. The writers acknowledge the in-
valuable comments and through review by John L. Gross of NIST
and Kurt Gustafson of AISC. The second writer acknowledges the
discussions and helpful insight of Professor Kapil Khandelwal at
Notre Dame University, South Bend, India. Certain commercial
products, software, or materials are identified in this paper to
describe a procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is
not intended to imply recommendation, endorsement, or implica-
tion by NIST that the products, software, or materials are neces-
sarily the best available for the purpose.
References
AISC. 共1999兲. Load and resistance factor design specifications for struc-
tural steel buildings, Chicago.
AISC. 共2002兲. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago.
AISC. 共2005a兲. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago.
AISC. 共2005b兲. Specifications for structural steel buildings, Chicago.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2008 / 1725
J. Struct. Eng. 2008.134:1717-1725.
ASCE. 共2002兲. “Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
tures.” ASCE 7-02, Reston, Va.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Madsen, E., McCallen, D., and Noble, C. 共2001兲.
“Study of catenary mechanism of cables and floor to prevent progres-
sive collapse of buildings subjected to blast loads.” Rep. to Sponsor:
General Services Administration, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 共FEMA兲. 共2000兲. “State of the
art report on connection performance.” FEMA-355D, SAC Joint Ven-
ture and FEMA, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 共FEMA兲. 共2002兲. “World Trade
Center building performance study: Data collection, preliminary ob-
servations, and recommendations.” FEMA 403, Washington, D.C.
Foley, C. M., Martin, K., and Schneeman, C. 共2006兲. “Robustness in
structural steel framing systems.” Rep. No. MU-CEEN-SE-06-01,
Marquette Univ., Milwaukee, Wis.
General Services Administration 共GSA兲. 共2003兲. “Progressive collapse
analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and
major modernization projects.” GSA, Washington, D.C.
Hallquist, J. 共2006兲. LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual, Version 971, Liv-
ermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, Calif.
Hawkins, N. M., and Mitchell, D. 共1979兲. “Progressive collapse of flat
plate structures.” ACI J., 76共7兲, 775–808.
International Code Council 共ICC兲. 共2003兲. International building code,
Falls Church, Va.
Liang, X., Shen, Q., and Gosh, S. K. 共2008兲. “Assessing ability of seismic
structural systems to withstand progressive collapse: Design of steel
frame buildings.” Rep., submitted to the Building and Fire Research
Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers-
burg, Md.
Liu, J., and Astaneh-Asl, A. 共2004兲. “Moment rotation parameters for
composite shear tab connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 130共9兲, pp. 1371–
1380.
Rambo-Roddenberry, M. D. 共2002兲. “Behavior and strength of welded
stud shear connectors.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Va.
Rex, C. O., and Easterling, W. S. 共2003兲. “Behavior and modeling of a
bolt bearing on a single plate.” J. Struct. Eng., 129共6兲, 792–800.
Sadek, F. 共2005兲. “Federal building and fire safety investigation of the
World Trade Center disaster: Baseline structural performance and air-
craft impact damage analysis of the World Trade Center towers.”
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Gaithersburg, Md.
Unified Facilities Criteria 共UFC兲. 共2005兲. “Design of buildings to resist
progressive collapse.” UFC 4-023-03, Dept. of Defense, Washington,
D.C.