# Structural Behavior of Floor Systems Made by Floor Plates--Mechanical Model Based on Test Results
## 2 Materials and Methods
### Test Setup  
The test setup was a four-point or three-point bending test, as shown in Figure 3. Dimensions are modified depending on the size of the voiding elements; the width (or span direction) must be a multiple of the grid. The solid reference test specimens were made with the same dimensions as the ones with voiding elements. The distance a/d was kept above 2. The three-point bending test setup was used to test the load transfer mechanism of transversal joints for two reasons: limitation of the available floor plate dimensions and, in most cases, this type of joint also does have to transfer shear forces (but more limited bending moments). In total, 20 tests were performed, which are listed below. Each test series was dedicated to a specific topic. Reference solid and hollow composite slabs were made in series A and B. For series C this was limited to solid and for D to hollow composite slabs. Most important properties of all tests can be found in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Series**} & **Compressive Strength** & **Standard Deviation** \\  & **(N/mm\({}^{2}\))** & **(N/mm\({}^{2}\))** \\ \hline A—28 days 1[26] & 42.0 & 2.8 \\ A—test [26] & 45.0 & 6.0 \\ B—28 days 1[27] & 40.8 & 1.6 \\ B—test [27] & 44.9 & 3.6 \\ C—60 days 1[21] & 40.9 & 0.9 \\ C—60 days 2[1] & 46.3 & 1.5 \\ C—304 days 1 & 48.2 & 1.0 \\ C—304 days & 52.4 & 1.1 \\ D—56 days [22] & 55.4 & 2.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 1  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean compressive cube strength of concrete topping. Figure 3: _Cont_. Figure 3: Test setup (**a**) with specifications for each series of tests and (**b**) overall view. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Series and** \\ **Loading Type** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Dimensions Span X B** \\ **X H** \\ **(mm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **A** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Lattice** \\ **(Grider)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Voiding** \\ **Element** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Interface**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **Position** \\ **Overlap** \\ **Bar-O** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Position** \\ **Lattice** \\ **Grider** \\ \end{tabular}  } \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mm\({}^{3}\))**} & & & & **(mm)** \\ \hline A01 & 3160 \(\times\) 900 \(\times\) 340 & 650 & DW & Airdeck & U & O–6Ø16 & 300 \\ A02 & 3160 \(\times\) 900 \(\times\) 340 & 650 & DW & Airdeck & I & O–6Ø16 & 300 \\ A03 & 3160 \(\times\) 900 \(\times\) 340 & 650 & DW & Airdeck & U & C–6Ø16 & 300 \\ A04 & 3160 \(\times\) 900 \(\times\) 340 & 650 & DW & Airdeck & I & O–6Ø16 & 300 \\ A05 1 & 3160 \(\times\) 900 \(\times\) 340 & 650 & DW & Airdeck & I & O–6Ø16 & 70 \\ A06 2 & 3160 \(\times\) 900 \(\times\) 340 & 650 & DW & Airdeck & U & C–6Ø16 & 300 \\ A10 & 3160 \(\times\) 900 \(\times\) 340 & 650 & DW & Solid & I & C–6Ø16 & 300 \\ B01 & 1360 \(\times\) 1200 \(\times\) 340 & 680 3 & DW & & & & \\ B02 & 1360 \(\times\) 1200 \(\times\) 340 & 6  
First series of seven tests was performed with solid and Airdeck(r) voiding elements (roughly boxes of 19 \(\times\) 19 cm\({}^{2}\) in a grid of 30 \(\times\) 30 cm\({}^{2}\)), investigating mainly the presence of voiding elements, length, and the position of the overlap bars, and roughness for a longitudinal joint. b. The second series of five tests were performed again with solid and Airdeck voiding elements, regarding the same aspects for transversal joints (indicated with the \(r\) symbol in Table 3). These specimens were tested in three-point-bending, as mentioned above. Transverse rebar of 10 mm was used as a spacer on the floor plate.