Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Experimental study on semi-rigid composite joints with steel beams and

precast hollowcore slabs
F. Fu, D. Lam
School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
Received 8 July 2005; accepted 30 November 2005

Abstract
The concept of semi-rigid composite connection has been widely researched in the past; however, most of the researches are limited to
composite joints with metal deck flooring and solid concrete slabs. Composite construction incorporating precast concrete hollowcore slabs
(HCU) is a recently developed composite floor system for buildings. The research on the structural behaviour of the semi-rigid composite joints
with HCU is new and without any previous experimental database. In this paper, eight full-scale tests of beam-to-column semi-rigid composite
joints with steel beams and precast hollowcore slabs are reported. The variables are stud spacing, degree of the shear connections, area of the
longitudinal reinforcement and slab thickness. The test set-up and instrumentation is described in detail. The experimental behaviour is analysed
and based on the test data the structural behaviour of these semi-rigid composite joints is discussed. Based on the experimental data, a simplified
method to predict rotation and moment capacity for this type of composite connection is proposed.
c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Semi-rigid; Composite; Joints; Precast; Hollowcore; Steel; Connections; Beamcolumn

1. Introduction
In the area of composite construction, extensive research
works have been focused on semi-rigid connection design since
it was first proposed by Barnard [1] in the 70s. They showed
these forms of connections when used in design will lead to
reduction in beam sizes, which in turn will reduce the beam
depth, the overall building height and cladding cost, etc. The
moment rotation characteristic of the semi-rigid composite
connections was first investigated by Johnson and Hope-Gill [2]
in 1972, they found that neither simple nor rigid beamcolumn
connections are ideal. Simple joints are too unpredictable while
rigid joints are often too stiff in relation to their strength and are
expensive; therefore, the semi-rigid joint with a large rotation
capacity and a predictable flexural strength that does not require
site welding or accurate fitting is needed. Numerous researches
have been carried out on semi-rigid composite connections [3,
4], the most common types of floor slab used being solid R.C.
slabs or profiled metal deck floors.
Corresponding author.

E-mail address: d.lam@leeds.ac.uk (D. Lam).

c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0143-974X/$ - see front matter 
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.11.013

Composite beams incorporating precast hollowcore floor

slabs are a newly developed composite floor system for
buildings. Compared with the other two types of floor system, it
has the following advantages: HCU can be manufactured up to
500 mm in depth, meaning that simply supported floor spans of
up to 20 m are possible; however, the most common depths are
150400 mm. HCU has an excellent structural capacity to selfweight ratio, with span/depth ratios in the order of 35 being
possible for normal office loadings. The volume of the hollow
cores accounts for up to 50% of the cross section, therefore a
10 m span floor only weighs 3.5 kN/m2 . The standard width
of the units is 1.2 m, enabling fixing rates of around 2000 m2
per week. The floor system does not require a structural screed
to carry horizontal diaphragm forces thus further reducing the
dead weight of the floor. Welding of the shear studs may
be carried out in a factory or at ground level on site with
mobile welding equipment using the semi-automatic drawn arc
process.
Although the use of precast hollowcore slabs dates back to
the 1940s, research on composite construction incorporating
steel beams with precast hollowcore slabs is relatively new. The
first commercial testing in this area was carried out at Salford
University and reported by Hamilton [5]. Tests were carried out

772

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

Fig. 1. General arrangement of test set-up.

Fig. 3. Test specimen before concrete infill.

Fig. 2. End plate connection.

using 150 mm deep slabs and 406 178 60 UB with 19

mm diameter 125 mm long headed shear studs. The results
showed more than 70% increase in ultimate moment capacity
when compared with its bare steel counterpart. Mode of failure
was due to shearing off of the headed studs.
Research on shear connector strength in precast solid
concrete planks was carried out by Moy and Tayler [6] in 1996.
Twenty-seven push-off tests were carried out and the results
showed a reduction in strength as the gap of in situ concrete
decreased. It is recommended that the width of in situ concrete
should be a minimum of 100 mm to avoid reductions in shear
strength of the shear connectors. It is also recommended that
two layers of reinforcement must be used in the structural
topping to avoid any tensile splitting.
A test on composite beams with precast solid planks was also
conducted by Jolly [7] at Southampton University. A 16 m span
composite beam with 110 mm deep precast concrete planks
was tested. The results showed that the dynamic response of
long span, shallow composite construction complied with the
requirements of BS5950 [8] without the need to increase the
minimum number of shear connectors as specified in the code.
Shim et al. [9] studied the behaviour of headed shear studs
in a precast post-tensioned bridge deck at the Seoul National
University. Push-out tests were carried out to determine the
structural behaviour of the shear connection in the precast deck.
It is found that as the thickness of the bedding layer increases,
the ultimate strength of the shear connection decreases.
Horizontal push-off tests with precast hollowcore slabs were
first performed by Lam et al. [10] in 1998. They showed that
the shear capacity of the stud for this type of construction
was not only affected by the tensile capacity of the stud itself,

Fig. 4. Load versus slip curve from push-off test.

Fig. 5. LVDTs position for measuring beam rotation and interface slip.

but also affected by the gap width, the amount of transverse

reinforcement, the strength of the in situ concrete infill and
the presence of the longitudinal and transverse joints. Three
full scale simply supported composite beams with variable
parameters were also carried out by Lam et al. [11] to study the
flexure behaviour and was compared with the non-composite
bare steel beams. The results showed two modes of failure;
failure due to loss of shear studs and failure of the concrete slab
due to yielding of the transverse reinforcement. Nevertheless,
the residual moment capacity of all the beams remained at
least 40% above the moment capacity of the bare steel section
only. A beam with a pre-cracked in situ/precast concrete joint
was also tested. Modelling of the headed studs in steel-precast
composite beams using the finite element analysis software

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

773

Fig. 6. Strain gauge on steel reinforcement.

Fig. 8. Bolt strain gauges.

Fig. 7. Strain gauge mounted on steel beam flanges and web.

ABAQUS [12] was carried out by El-Lobody and Lam [13],

good agreement was obtained when compared with the test
results.
The use of the precast hollowcore slabs in current buildings
design is so far limited to simple beamcolumn connections.
As semi-rigid connection has many advantages over the
simple connection, the main objective of this research is to
investigate the structural behaviour of the composite semi-rigid
connections with precast hollowcore slabs and to determine
whether these kinds of joints can provide sufficient moment
capacity and rotation capacity to develop the mid-span plastic
hinge for the plastic analysis uses in the composite beam
design.
2. Test arrangement
2.1. Test specimens
All specimens were of cruciform arrangement as shown in
Fig. 1 to simulate the internal beamcolumn joints in a semirigid composite frame. The specimen was assembled from two
3300 mm long; 457 191 89 kg/m; grade S275 universal

Fig. 9. Test set-up and loading arrangement.

beams and one 254 254 167 kg/m; grade S275 universal
column to form the cruciform arrangement. The beams are
connected to the column flanges using 10 mm thick flush endplates with two rows of M20 Grade 8.8 bolts as shown in Fig. 2.
The steel connection is a typical connection currently used in
UK practice for simple joints, this is to ensure that the enhanced
performance of the composite joint is not provided by the bare
steel connection. A single row of 19 mm diameter headed shear
studs is pre-welded to the top flange of the steel beams. Finally,

774

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

Table 1
Strength of concrete from test results
Ref.
CJ1
CJ2
CJ3
CJ4
CJ5
CJ6
CJ7
CJ8

Compressive strength (N/mm2 )

7 days
Test day
30.9
43.1
40.6
35.7
30.6
33.2
32.8
35.2

40.1
49.6
47.9
43.8
41.0
37.3
40.2
42.96

28 days

Tensile strength (N/mm2 )

7 days
Test day

28 days

Density
(kg/m3 )

45.0
53.5
57.1
41.8
46.8
44.4
44.3
44.7

2.25
2.15
2.63
2.15
2.75
2.16
2.43
2.55

2.50
2.90
3.19
3.14
3.45
2.45
2.99
3.17

2330
2384
2367
2340
2336
2318
2352
2346

two 305 102 28 kg/m universal beams were connected to

the column web to make up the full joint arrangement.
Fig. 3 shows the semi-rigid composite joint before casting,
it can be seen that the ends of the HCUs are chamfered and the
top of the alternative cores of the units opened for a length of
500 mm for the placement of transverse reinforcement. A gap of
65 mm is formed between the ends of the units. In situ concrete
is used to fill the gap between the HCUs and the opened slots. A
nominal concrete strength of 40 N/mm2 is used for the in situ
infill. The HCUs are tied together transversely by the 16 mm
diameter high strength reinforcing bars 1 m long. Longitudinal
reinforcement is provided by the high strength steel reinforcing
bars across the joint for continuity.

2.49
2.49
3.55
2.50
3.05
2.48
2.40
2.63

Table 2
The mechanical properties for the reinforcing bar
Ref.

Yield strength
(N/mm2 )

Ultimate tensile strength

(N/mm2 )

Cross section area

(mm2 )

T16
T20

536
534

621
634

195.9
305.4

Table 3
Tensile test results for steel beam
Ref.

Yield strength
(N/mm2 )

Ultimate tensile strength

(N/mm2 )

Yield strain
()

Web
Flange

382.1
341.7

549.4
503.0

2379
2285

2.2. Material properties

The compressive and tensile strength of the in situ concrete
is shown in Table 1. The in situ infill concrete strength is
tested at the 7th day, the test day and the 28th day. The
characteristic concrete strength for the precast hollowcore units
is taken to be 55 N/mm2 as specified by the manufacturer.
The tensile strengths of the T20 and T16 reinforcing bars
were determined in accordance with BS 4449 [14] and the
results are shown in Table 2. Test coupons of the web and
flange with thickness of 10.9 mm and 17.7 mm respectively
were cut from the ends of the steel beams after the tests
where stresses had been low. Tensile tests of coupons were
conducted according to BS EN 10002-1 [15] and the test
results are shown in Table 3. Tensile tests for M20 Grade
8.8 bolts were performed and an average ultimate strength of
678 N/mm2 is obtained. 19 mm diameter 125 mm height
TRW-Nelson headed shear connectors are used with an average
ultimate strength of 610.5 N/mm2 . Horizontal push-off tests
were conducted to determine the loadslip characteristics of
the head shear stud and the average loadslip curve is shown
in Fig. 4, the result is used to determine the shear capacity and
degree of shear connection for the semi-rigid joint tests.

measure the in situ concrete strain at the slabs surface. The

strain gauges used to monitor the strain and yielding of the rebar
and steel beam were of the type FLA-5-11 with a gauge length
of 6 mm. The gauges have 120 0.3  resistances with a gauge
factor of 2.13. Strain gauges are placed on the longitudinal bar
and on the transverse reinforcement as shown in Fig. 6. The
strain gauges on the surface of the rebar were coated with epoxy
to protect them from damage during concreting. Strain gauges
were also placed on the top flange of the steel beam and on the
web to measure the strain on the steel beam to determine the
position of the neutral axis throughout the test (Fig. 7). Strain
in the bolts was measured using BTM-1C bolt strain gauges
as shown in Fig. 8 and their gauge parameters are shown in
Table 4. The gauges were calibrated before the test and used
to measure the bolt forces and elongation of the bolts.
Load is applied by hydraulic jacks simultaneously to each
ends of the steel beams as shown in Fig. 9. An elastic test is
carried out before test to failure to check the instrumentation
and the system. The load was applied at 10 kN intervals and
continued until failure occurred.
2.4. Test parameters

2.3. Instrumentation and loading procedure

Instrumentation comprised of linear voltage displacement
transducers (LVDTs) for measuring slip, beam deflection and
beam rotation is shown in Fig. 5. Electrical resistance strain
gauges (ERSGs) are used to measure strain in reinforcing bars,
steel beams and bolts at the joints. Demac gauges are used to

In order to investigate different variables affecting the

behaviour of the composite joint, different emphases are
adopted for each test. For the first five tests, the main variables
are stud spacing and the degree of the shear connections. In CJ6
and CJ7, the main variables are the cross sectional area of the
longitudinal bar and for the CJ8, the variable is the thickness of

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

Fig. 10. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges for Test CJ1.

Fig. 11. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges for Test CJ2.

Fig. 12. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges for Test CJ3.

Fig. 13. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges for Test CJ4.

775

776

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

Table 4
Parameters of the BLM bolt strain gauge
Type
BTM-1C

Gauge (mm)
Length

Width

Base (mm)
Length

Width

Gauge centre
a

Hole Dia. (mm)

0.7

5.6

1.4

1.8

3.8

1.6

Table 5
Test arrangement
Reference

In situ
concrete cube
strength
(N/mm2 )

Longitudinal
bars and cross
section area
(mm2 )

Hollowcore
slabs
thickness
(mm)

Studs
spacing
(mm)

Position of
first stud
(mm)

No. of
shear
stud per
beam

CJ1
CJ2
CJ3
CJ4
CJ5
CJ6
CJ7
CJ8

39
50
48
44
41
37.3
40.2
42.9

2 T20(628)
2 T20(628)
2 T20(628)
2 T20(628)
2 T20(628)
4T16(800)
2T16(400)
4T16(800)

200
200
200
200
200
200
200
250

300
600
900, 1200a
400
500
310
1200
450

235
235
990, 540a
510, 710a
645
465
900
705

7
4
2
3
3
6
2
4

19 125 mm long headed shear connectors were used for all the tests.
a Stud on the east side.

Fig. 14. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges for Test CJ5.

Fig. 15. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges for Test CJ6.

the precast hollowcore slabs. The test arrangement is shown in

Table 5 and Figs. 1017. Strain gauges were put on the surface
of the shank of the stud near the weld collar to measure the
stresses in the studs. In CJ6, CJ7 and CJ8, bolt strain gauges
were used at the connection to monitor the bolt forces and
elongation of the bolt.

3. Test results
Results of all eight composite joint tests are shown in
Table 6 and Fig. 18. All tests except Test CJ3 failed in a
ductile manner with beam rotation well in excess of 30 mrad
and obtained a moment capacity above 0.3 Mp of the beams,

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

777

Fig. 16. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges Test CJ7.

Fig. 17. General arrangement and position of the strain gauges Test CJ8.
Table 6
Test result
Reference

CJ1

CJ2

CJ3

CJ4

CJ5

CJ6

CJ7

CJ8

Moment capacity (kN m)

Rotation capacity (mrad)
Long. reinf. capacityyield (kN)
Long. reinf. capacityUlt. (kN)
Shear connector capacity (kN)
Degree of shear connection (%)a
Degree of shear connection (%)b
Max. strain in long. reinf. ()
Maximum end slip (mm)
Failure mode

370
35.4
326
387
896
>100
>100
26,000
0.34
RF

363
33.5
326
387
512
>100
>100
23,000
0.8
RF

250
6.1
326
387
256
78.5
66
2031
5.8
CF & SF

368
37.4
326
387
384
>100
98
16,000
3.5
CF

363
31.7
326
387
384
>100
98
13,706
3.5
CF

425
46.8
424
486
512
>100
>100
26,000
0.84
RF

274
30
212
243
256
>100
>100
23,000
0.4
RF

439
42.3
424
486
512
>100
>100
23,000
1.6
RF

RF reinforcement fracture; CF connector fracture; SF slab shear failure.

a Calculated using the yield strength of longitudinal steel bar.
b Calculated using the ultimate strength of longitudinal steel bar.

it can be concluded that these types of joints can provide

sufficient moment capacity and rotation capacity. Tests CJ1,
CJ2, CJ6, CJ7, and CJ8 failed due to the fracture of longitudinal
reinforcement while Tests CJ3, CJ4 and CJ5 failed by fracture
of the shear connectors. No yielding or buckling to the column
was observed. For all the tests conducted, no bond failure
between the in situ and the precast concrete was observed. It can
therefore be concluded that the in situ and the precast concrete
are acting compositely throughout.
The mode of failure can be divided into two main categories:
(a) fracture of the longitudinal bar as shown in Fig. 19, and (b)
fracture of shear studs as shown in Fig. 20. No other mode of
failure was observed in any of the tests.
Fig. 21 shows the strain measurement of the longitudinal
rebars during the test, it can be seen that with the only exception
of Test CJ3, the longitudinal bars in all tests developed strain
hardening with the longitudinal rebars in Tests CJ1, CJ2, CJ6,

Fig. 18. Moment versus rotation curves.

CJ7 and CJ8 fractured at the end of the tests. For Tests CJ4 and
CJ5, stud fracture occurred before fracture of the longitudinal

778

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

Fig. 21. Strain measurement of the longitudinal reinforcement.

Fig. 19. Mode of failure due to fracture of the longitudinal reinforcing bars.

Fig. 20. Mode of failure due to stud fracture.

Fig. 22. Typical strain profile of longitudinal reinforcing bar along the length.

bar due to partial shear connection. From these results, it can

concluded that full shear connection should be provided to
enable full mobilisation of the longitudinal reinforcement and
partial shear connection will lead to low moment and rotation
capacity as the longitudinal bars cannot be fully mobilised.
A typical strain profile of the longitudinal rebar along
the beam is shown in Fig. 22. It shows that yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement occurred at the distance between
the centre line of the column and the second stud position,
the strain in the other part of the steel bar is very small and
remained elastic. This further demonstrates that the position of
the headed studs played an important role in rotation capacity
of the composite connections.
Fig. 23 shows the end slip for all the tests. As predicted,
larger slip is obtained for the partial shear connection tests CJ3,
CJ4 and CJ5 where the amounts of slip are smaller for the full
shear connection tests. For CJ6 and CJ8, as the ratios of the
force in the longitudinal rebar to the longitudinal shear force
provided by the studs are larger than that of CJ1, CJ2 and CJ7,
larger connector slip resulted.
Strain is measured at the steel top and bottom flange of
the steel section for all the tests and the steel beam of all
eight tests remained elastic throughout. The development of
the crack pattern around the concrete slab was similar to the
one shown in Fig. 24 for all the composite joint tests. The first
cracks were visible at the column flange tips and propagated

Fig. 23. Moment versus end slip for all the tests.

towards the slab edges before eventually forming the dominant

transverse cracks across the complete breadth of the slab. As the
widths of these cracks developed further, a significant loss of
connection stiffness resulted. This in turn led to a considerable
widening of these cracks, causing a high localised strain in
the longitudinal reinforcement. Consequently, fracture of the
longitudinal reinforcement occurred.
Fig. 25 shows the strain measurement of the transverse bar
for all the joint tests. It showed that the strain in the transverse
bar is very small. The maximum strains measured in all the tests

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

779

4.2. Effect of stud spacing

From the comparison of Tests CJ1 and CJ2, it can be seen
that although different stud spacings and numbers of studs are
used, no distinct difference of moment and rotation capacity
was found from the test results. Therefore, it can be concluded
that provided the same degree of shear connection and position
of first stud is used, the numbers of studs and their spacing did
not have much influence on the moment capacity and rotation
capacity of the connection.
4.3. Effect of the degree of shear connection
Fig. 24. Typical crack pattern of the joint test.

Fig. 25. Strain measurement of the transverse reinforcement for all the tests.

were less than 900 and hence the transverse rebars remained
elastic. It can be concluded that the transverse bar has little
effect on the connection moment capacity.
4. Discussions
4.1. Effect of distance between first stud and column flange
The formation of cracks would appear to be related to the
position of the first stud. Fewer cracks are formed in Tests
CJ1 and CJ2 with a main crack opening near the column
faces and eventually leading to the fracture of the longitudinal
reinforcement. At failure, little interface slip is recorded and
hence little steel connection deformation is observed. The
amounts of slip observed in Tests CJ1 and CJ2 were very small.
When the specimen was dismantled after the test, the studs were
found to be intact.
In Tests CJ4 and CJ5, the first stud position is placed further
away from the face of the column. After the formation of the
first crack, additional cracks were formed between the column
face and the position of the first stud. Cracks between the
column face and the first stud distributed evenly rather than
concentrated at a single crack around the column face, this
led to lesser demand on the percentage of elongation required
by the longitudinal reinforcement. Large interface slip is also
observed.

In this series of experiments, two methods for calculating

the degree of shear connection are employed. The first method
is based on the yield strength of the longitudinal rebars
as assumed by many researchers and ignoring the ultimate
strength of the reinforcing bars. The second method is based on
the ultimate strength of the longitudinal rebars to determine the
degree of shear connection, which takes into consideration the
ultimate tensile strength of the longitudinal bars. In accordance
with method 1, if the shear stud capacity is greater than the yield
strength of the longitudinal rebars, then it should be classified as
full shear connection. However, as shown in Table 6, the mode
of failure in Tests CJ3, CJ4 and CJ5 is due to stud fracture.
It is because the shear stud capacities were less than the force
of longitudinal rebars as calculated using method 2. Therefore,
it suggested that the ultimate strength of the longitudinal rebars
should be taken into consideration when determining the degree
of shear connection. In test CJ3, the values of interface slip
increased with lower degree of shear connection, which led to
low moment and rotation capacity.
Comparison between CJ3 and CJ7 shows that although only
two studs were used in both the tests, Test CJ3 has a very
low degree of shear connection in compared with Test CJ7
and hence a small amount of rotation was recorded. It can be
concluded that for a joint with partial shear connection, as long
as the shear stud can allow the longitudinal bar to be mobilised
until the yielding stage, there will be no obvious deduction of
the moment and rotation capacity. Otherwise low degrees of the
shear connection will lead to low moment and rotation capacity
as yielding and elongation cannot occur in the longitudinal
rebars.
4.4. Effect of amount of longitudinal reinforcement
Comparison among Tests CJ1, CJ2, CJ6 and CJ7 showed
that with full shear connection and same slab thickness,
increases in the amount of longitudinal reinforcement led
to higher moment and rotation capacity. Therefore, it can
be concluded that increases in the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement will not only lead to increases in moment
capacity but also larger rotation capacity.
The analysis of the test results showed that the inclusion
of a large amount of localised reinforcement is one of the
most effective ways of achieving good rotation capacity. The
reinforcement enables cracks to be distributed evenly in the

780

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

concrete, thereby reducing localised strains and allowing high

average strains to develop in the reinforcement. Appropriate
connection details can be used to ensure that the average strain
occurs over a substantial length, for example by placing the
first shear stud on the beam further away from the column
face. High strains over a substantial length result in large
deformation of the reinforcement. The reinforcement also helps
to develop large compressive forces in the lower parts of the
steel section, causing plastification which leads to large strains
in the steel. Large tensile deformations in the reinforcement and
compressive deformations in the steel beam will in turn equate
to significant connection rotation.
4.5. Effect of concrete cracking on the shear connectors
capacity
Shear studs placed within the concrete in the hogging
moment region did not show any deterioration in its strength.
The shear stud capacity in the tests agreed well with the push
tests carried out in the horizontal push test [16]. Although
the concrete was severely cracked, the reinforcing bars were
effective and able to transfer the tensile force. Good interaction
between the shear studs with the concrete and the concrete
with the longitudinal rebars were observed, which enables the
transmission of the longitudinal shear forces.

Fig. 26. Force diagram and the components of the composite joint.
Table 7
Comparison of test results and the proposed method for rotation capacity
References

Test results (mrad)

Calculated results (mrad)

CJ1
CJ2
CJ3
CJ4
CJ5
CJ6
CJ7
CJ8

35.4
33.5
6.1
37.4
31.7
46.8
30
42.3

28.8
37.5
8.2
39.7
36.3
40.1
50.4
47.8

4.6. Effect of precast slab thickness

With the only difference between Test CJ6 and CJ8 being
the depth of the precast hollowcore slabs, the result showed
that by using deeper slabs, an increase in moment capacity was
obtained. The increases in moment capacity are purely due to
the increases in the lever arm, but a slight reduction of the
rotation capacity with the Test CJ8 was observed with deeper
slabs.
5. Proposed method to calculate rotation capacity
A simple calculation method [17] based on the component
method is proposed to predict the rotation capacity, u for
this form of composite joints as shown in Eq. (1) and Fig. 26.
The strain profile of the longitudinal reinforcing bar taken
from the test data shows that the steel bar yielded only in
the region between the column centre line and the second
shear stud, the strain in the other part of the steel bar is
small and remained elastic. Therefore, the elongation zone of
the longitudinal reinforcement, L can be taken as between
the centre line of the column and the position of the second
stud. Hence, it can assumed that the length for calculating the
elongation is p1 + p2 + D/2, where p1 is the distance between
the column face and the centre line of the first stud; p2 is the
distance between the centre line of the first stud and the second
stud and D is the depth of the column.
L
Slip
+
Db + Dr
Db



D
L = sh p1 + p2 +
.
2

u =

(1)
(2)

For full shear connection, reinforcement strain, sh is

taken as the ultimate strain developed in the longitudinal
reinforcement. It is because for full shear connection, the
longitudinal reinforcing bars can developed into the strain
hardening whereas for the partial shear connection, sh is
taken as the maximum strain developed in the longitudinal
bar. For simplicity, it can be taken as the yield strain of
the steel bars if enough shear studs are provided to enable
yielding of the longitudinal bars. Composite joints with
partial shear connection unable to develop yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars will lead to low rotation capacity
as demonstrated in Test CJ3. Table 7 shows the comparison
between the test results and the calculated results using the
proposed method. The results show that the method gave good
prediction of the test results on composite connection with steel
beams and precast hollowcore slabs.
6. Proposed method to calculate moment capacity
No calculation method for the prediction of moment
capacity of composite connection with precast hollowcore slabs
is currently available. A method to predict the moment capacity
for this type of semi-rigid connection is proposed [17].
The proposed method assumes that
R f Rb + Rr ,
where,
R f = compressive resistance of the bottom flange of the
steel beam,
Rr = the lesser of the ultimate tensile strength of the
longitudinal reinforcement or the studs capacity,

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

781

Table 8
Comparison of test results and the proposed method for moment capacity

precast hollowcore slabs, the following conclusions can be

made:

References

Test results (kN m)

Calculated results (kN m)

CJ1
CJ2
CJ3
CJ4
CJ5
CJ6
CJ7
CJ8

370
362
250
368
363
425
274
439

365.8
365.8
284.5
365.0
366.6
422.3
274.0
446.7

1. Semi-rigid composite joints with precast hollowcore slabs

can provide sufficient moment and rotation capacity as
required by the design code as a suitable type of connection
for plastic design.
2. Two failure modes are observed from the joint tests. Mode
of failure was either fracture of the longitudinal rebars or
fracture of the headed studs.
3. Adequate shear connection should be provided to enable full
mobilisation of the longitudinal reinforcement. Partial shear
connection in the hogging moment region will lead to low
moment and rotation capacity as the longitudinal bars cannot
be fully mobilised. It is recommended that the minimum
percentage of shear connection provided should enable the
longitudinal reinforcement to develop yield.
4. The ultimate tensile strength of the longitudinal reinforcement should be taken into consideration when calculating
the degree of shear connection.
5. Close spacing of the shear stud near to the column face
will affect the crack pattern and demanded high degree of
elongation from the longitudinal reinforcement to achieve
the same rotation capacity with the same joint with larger
stud spacing between the column flange and the first stud.
It is recommended that the first stud should be placed at a
spacing equivalent to two times the column width.
6. The spacing between other shear studs has little effect on
the moment capacity and rotation capacity of the connection
provided the degree of shear connection is the same.
7. The in situ concrete infill and the precast hollowcore slabs
acted compositely throughout, no separation was observed
from any of the tests carried out.
8. A simple method to predict the moment and rotation
capacity is proposed and compared with the test results, it
is found to be acceptable for use to predict the behaviour of
this form of composite joints.

Rb = effective tensile resistance of the bolt group.

The moment resistance of the composite connection, Mcc
Mcc = Rr (Db + Dr 0.5t f ) + Rb (Db r1 0.5t f )

(3)

where Db is the depth of the beam; r1 is the distance of the first

row of bolts below the top of the beam; Dr is the distance of
the reinforcement above the top of the beam and t f is the flange
thickness of the steel beam.
For R f < Rb + Rr ,
(R +R R )
The neutral axis, yc = r tw bPy f
where, tw is the web thickness and p y is the design strength
of the steel section.
The moment resistance of the composite connection, Mcc
Mcc = Rr (Db + Dr 0.5t f )
+ Rb (Db r1 0.5t f ) Rw

yc
2

(4)

where Rw = yc tw p y .
The comparison of the test results and the results from
the proposed method above is shown in Table 8. The results
showed that the moment capacity of the semi-rigid composite
connections is dependent on the strength and the ability to
mobilize the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The influential factor
to their mobilization is dependent on the degree of the shear
connection between the slabs and the steel beams, which is
determined by the number and the capacity of the shear studs
in the hogging moment region. In all five tests carried out, all
factors but the shear studs were kept constant. All tests with
the exception of Test CJ3, the shear connection capacity is
larger than the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement,
therefore the tensile strength of the longitudinal bars can be
mobilized, and hence adequate moment and rotation capacity
can be achieved.
7. Conclusions
The behaviour of eight full-scale semi-rigid composite
connections with precast hollowcore slabs was examined.
Different levels of shear connection, spacing and position
of first studs from the column face have been examined.
Tests showed these joints combine simple and efficient
construction and yet provide worthwhile levels of moment
capacity, rotational stiffness and ductility with the introduction
of longitudinal reinforcement across the column. From the
experimental study of the semi-rigid composite joints with

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
from International Precast Hollowcore Association (IPHA) and
Overseas Research Scholarship (ORS), the support provided
by SeverfieldRevee Structures Ltd. for supplying the steel
specimens and Bison Concrete Products Ltd. for supplying the
precast hollowcore slabs. The skilled assistance provided by
the technical staff in the School of Civil Engineering at Leeds
University is also appreciated.
References
[1] Barnard PR. Innovations of composite floor systems. In: Canadian
structural engineering conference. Canadian Steel Industries Construction
Council; 1970. p. 1321.
[2] Johnson RP, Hope-Gill M. Semi-rigid joints in composite frames. In:
International association for bridge and structural engineering, ninth
congress. 1972. p. 13344.

782

F. Fu, D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 771782

[3] Bernuzzi C, Salvatore N, Zandonini R. Semi-rigid composite joints:

Experimental studies. In: Connections in Steel Structures II: Behaviour,
strength and design conference. 1991.
[4] Li TQ, Moore DB, Nethercot DA, Choo BS. The experiment behaviour of
a full-scale, semi-rigid connected composite frame: Overall consideration.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1996;39(3):16791.
[5] Hamilton TR. Composite steel and precast concrete slab construction.
Chartered Membership thesis. UK: The Institution of Structural
Engineers; 1989.
[6] Moy SSJ, Tayler C. Composite steel and precast concrete slab
construction. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1996;36(3):
20113.
[7] Jolly CK. Long span composite beams for car parks. In: Proceeding
of the joint IStructE/City university international seminar. London: City
University; 1996.
[8] BS5950, Part 3-1, Structural use of steelwork in building: Code of practice
for design of simple and continuous composite beams. London: British
Standards Institution; 1990.
[9] Shim CS, Lee PG, Chung CH. Design of shear connections in composite
steel and concrete bridges with precast decks. Journal of Constructional

Steel Research 2001;57:20319.

[10] Lam D, Elliott KS, Nethercot DA. Push-off tests on shear studs with
hollow-cored floor slabs. The Structural Engineer 1998;76(9):16774.
[11] Lam D, Elliott KS, Nethercot DA. Experiments on composite steel
beams with precast concrete hollow core floor slabs. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings 2000;140(May):
12738.
[12] ABAQUS. Version 6.2. Hibbitt, Karlson and Sorensen, Inc.; 2001.
[13] El-Lobody E, Lam D. Modelling of headed stud in steelprecast
composite beams. Steel & Composite Structures 2002;2(5):35578.
[14] BS4449. Specification for carbon steel bars for the reinforcement of
concrete. London: British Standards Institution; 1997.
[15] BS EN 10002-1. Metallic materials: Tensile testingPart 1: Method
of test at ambient temperature. London: British Standards Institution;
2001.
[16] Lam D. New test for shear connectors in composite construction.
In: Composite construction in steel and concrete, IV. American Society
of Civil Engineers; 2000. p. 40414.
[17] Fu F, Lam D. Modelling semi-rigid composite joints with precast
hollowcore slabs in hogging moment region (under review).