Proc. InstnCiu.

Engrs, Part 2,1985,79, June, 349-364

PAPER 8890 STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING GROUP

The fatigue strength of stud shear

connections incomposite beams

D. J. OEHLERS, PhD,MSc, MICE*

L. FOLEY, BE, MEngSct

Analyses of 129 push tests, which include eleven new push tests,and computer studies show
that the static strengthof a stud shear connection reduces as soon as cyclic loads are applied.
They also lead to a method of predicting the fatigue life which depends on the maximum
static shear strength, the uni-directional ranges of the shear loads and the maximum possible
shear load. The method is applicable to all types and combinations of longitudinal shear
load.

Notation
area of the fatigue crack
area of the fatigue crack as a proportion of the area of the cross-section
at the failure
zone
constant of fatigue life prediction equation
diameter of the shank of the stud
cube strengthof concrete
ultimate tensile strengthof the stud material
dU/da as a proportion of dU/da as a'+ 0
exponent of fatigue life prediction equation
slope at N = 106
endurance, numberof cycles
endurance of uni-directionally loaded specimen
theoretical fatigue life
endurance at lower95% confidence limit
endurance at upper 95% confidence limit
predicted enduranceof push specimen
maximum shear load
peak cyclic shear load
computed shank failure load for stud connector subjected to static loads only
total range of cyclic shear load
tensile rangeof cyclic shear load
strain energy
slip as a proportion of the diameter of the shank of the stud
range of stress intensity factor in a cycle
coefficient of friction

~ ~ ~______ _____ ~

Written discussion closes15 August 1985; for further details see p. ii.
* Lecturer, Departmentof Civil Engineering, University College, Cork.
t Former post-graduate studentat above.
349
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 O E H L E R S AND F O L E Y
Introduction
Stud shear connections under static load can fail in four modes:' fracture of the
shank of the stud or failure of the slab by splitting, shear or embedment. The latter
three modes are designed against by ensuring adequate cover to the stud and by
the use of lateral reinforcement. The ultimate strength of a stud under static loads
is determined, therefore, by the fracture strength of the shank of the stud. Under
fatigue-loading, the stud does not fracture until the fatigue crack has progressed
sufficiently through the shank to reduce the fracture strength to that of the peak
load P , in Fig. 1.
2. Various methods of predicting the fatigue strength of studs2-? are compared
in Fig. 2 for the case of a 19 X 100 mm stud embedded in normal density concrete
with a cube strengthof 35 N/mm2, andsubjected to uni-directional loadings ( N , is
the predicted endurance and R is the range of the cyclic load in newtons). The
magnitude of the slope (m) varies from 2.9 to 13.9. The range of the fatigue lives is
not so large; atlog,, N equal to 6, the upper end of the range is 70% greater than
the lower end.
3. The design rules in the Bridge Code,? unlike those in C P 117,' assume that
the fatigue crack growth is independent of the maximum load because of the
presence of large residual stresses; this assumption is used in the analysis deve-
loped here. This analysis determines the fatigue crackgrowth rate, the reduction in
the static strength that the fatigue crack causes and hence the fatigue life which
depends on the maximum load.

_______j
Time

Fig. I . Fatigue loadings

3 50

Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FATIGUESTRENGTHOFSTUDSHEARCONNECTIONS
Experimental work
4. Eleven push specimens of the type used in static tests' were tested under
uni-directional fatigue 10ads.~ Thestiffness and compressive strength of the con-
crete, the height of the weld collar and the ultimate tensile strength of the stud
material were measured in order to determine the theoretical failure loads' P,, for
stud shear connectors subjected to static loads only. The range of the load was
varied from O.lOP,, to O.47Psh and the peak load .was varied from 0.18Ps,to
O.75Psh.The endurances ranged from5 thousand to 5.3 million cycles.
8.5

A-B N,
A-C N,
A-D N.

I - -Slutterand Fisher:m = -5.3 Y, ?.'

4.51 --
. -Mainstone andMenzies.3
I -. __
load ratio = 0.1. m = - 8 . 8
Mainstone' (CP 1171.
load ratio = 0, m = - 8 . 3
-. .- Mainstone' (CP 1171,
load ratio = 0.5, m = -13.9
- -Hallam?allresults,~= - 6 . 7
-xx- Hallam~recommended,m= - 2 . 9
-0- L06
BridgeCode,'mean-ZSD.m=-E
- - - - - Bridge Code,' mean, m = - 8

LogmR(N1
Fig. 2. Fatigue strength predictions
351
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 OEHLERS A N D FOLEY
5. Failure occurred either at the weld-collar/flange interface or at the weld-
collar/shank interface (Fig. 3). The fatigue crack started at the perimeter and
progressed along an almost straight front until the strength of the remaining steel
was weaker than thepeak load; fast fracture then occurredas shown by the bright
irregular zone. In three of the specimens, the fatigue tests were stopped after
several million cycles and it was found that the remaining static strengths had
reduced to 51%. 58% and 73% of the expected maximum static strengths. Main-
stone and MeMes3noted a similar reduction in the static strengths during fatigue
loadings.
6.All thetestsshowedthattheslipincreasedon commencement of cyclic
loading and that the stiffness over the range of a cycle of load remained nearly
constant. Typical variations of the slip ratio at the peak load, minimum load and
near to the zero load are shown in Fig. 4, for a specimen in which R was O.ZOP,, ,
P, was 0,61P,, and which failed at 446000 cycles (6is the slip as a proportionof
the diameter of the shank); the variations are linear and agree with the experimen-
tal workof H a l l a ~ n Roderick
,~ and Ansourian," and Lo.6

crack
Propagation of tbe fatigue
7. Because studs are welded, cracks will be present and hence the endurance of
a stud depends on the crack growth rate. For many materials this rate can be
expressed by the Paris equation"
da
-K (AK)"'
dN
where a is the areaof the fatigue crack andAK is the range of the stress intensity
factor ina cycle of load.

Fig. 3. Failure at the weld-collar/shank interface

352
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FATIGUESTRENGTHOFSTUDSHEARCONNECTIONS

X+
X +
X +
X + 0
X
+
+ 0
X

f O
Experimental slips:
0
X At peak load
C At minimum b a d
0 Nearzero(0.05P.J

I I I I I L
0 1 2 3 4 5
N 106

Fig. 4. Variation in slip duringfatigue loadings

Experimental derivationof m
8. Pariss equation can be adapted for stud shear connections by considering
the behaviour of push specimens subjected to constant uni-directionalcyclic loads.
As the change of slip per cycle and the stiffness per cycle have been shown experi-
mentally to be constant, the strain energy U released per cycle is also constant;
hence dG/dN is proportional to dU/dN.If it is assumed that AK remains constant
as the area of the fatigue crack increases then, by definition of the stress intensity
factor, the strain energy released per unit area of crack is constant and, therefore,
the energy released per cycle is proportional to the crack extension per cycle.
Therefore, daldN is proportional to dGldN and because AK is proportional to
RIP,, , equation (1) can be written in the form

That is, the exponentm can be determined from thestiffness.

9. The experimental research of Hallam,5 L o , ~and Foleyg provided sufficient
data to determine the exponent m. The results of a linear regression analysis of
each series and of a parallel regression analysis of all theresults are shown in Table
1 ;m varies from 4.0 to 6.7.
10. Pariss equation can be written in an alternative form by integrating and
substituting AK cc RIP,, ,as follows
353
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 O E H L E R S AND F O L E Y
Table 1. Derivation of m from stiffness
andendurance

Reference m

Stiffness, Endurance,
equation (2) equation (4)
Hallam 6.1 4.0
Lo6 5.0 4.8
Foley 4.0 4.6
All 5.3 4.5

N cc

Fast fracture, that is static failure as opposed to fatigue failure, occurs when the
strength of the uncracked area of the shank is less than the peak of the cyclic load.
The static strengthof uncracked stud shear connectionsis proportional to the area
of the shank and the static strength of fully fatigue cracked studs is zero.It will be
shown that, because the scatter of fatigue tests is large, it is reasonably accurate to
assume a linear variation between these two extremes, that is the static strengthof
a partly fatigue cracked stud is directly proportional to the unfailed area of the
stud; in which case, the area of the fatigue crack, when fast fracture occurs, as a
proportion a of the total areais given by
a = 1 - P,/P,,
and equation(3) can be written in the form

That is, the exponentm can be determined from theendurance.

11. The values of m derived from the experimental endurances in Fig. 5 show
a reasonablyclose agreement with the values of m derived from thestiffness (Table
1). Of the two assumptions madein deriving equations (2) and (4), it will be shown
in the statistical analysis of push tests (0 19) that the inclusion of the peak load in
equation (4) alters m by only a small amount (9%) and hence the otherassumption
that AK is constant would appear to be correct. Therefore, at a given load the
stress intensity factor remains constant as the fatigue crack progresses, and hence
at agiven range thecrack progresses uniformly.The reason for this is shown in the
following qualitative finite element analysis of a studshear connection.

Finite element analysis

12. A two-dimensionalelasticfiniteelementanalysis program was used to
determine the variation of the stress intensity factor as the crack propagated for a
push specimen subjected to a constant shear load,P , in Fig. 6. The program used
isoparametric elements to simulate the stud and spring elements along the stud-
shanklconcrete interface (BG) which could resist frictional forces and compressive
3 54

Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FATIGUESTRENGTH O F STUDSHEARCONNECTIONS
forces normal to the interface, but not normal tensile forces. The strain energy
release rate per unit area (Fig. 7), is given as a proportion (G) of the strain energy
release rate when a+ 0. The graph indicates, therefore, the variation in the stress
intensity factor as the crack progresses.
13. If the stud is assumed to be a cantilever and hence the normal forces along
BC (Fig. 6) remain constant as the crack propagates, then there would be a very
large increase in the stress intensity factor at the crack tip, as shown in Fig. 7,
which would mean a very large increase in the rate of crack propagation. If the
stud is assumed to be a beam on an elastic foundation, then as the crack propa-
gates, the stiffness of the stud reduces, causing the position of the resultant of the

- - - - Equationi7)
- - - Fatiguestrength of con~rete~~~
I

Experimental results:

+ Hallam
X L06

Folef

Log,, RIeh

Fig. 5. Predicted and experimental endurances

355
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 O E H L E R S AND F O L E Y

!,,, Line of stud/flangeinterface

Stud

Fatiguecrack
7
L.
Resultant of normal force
across interface
Friction across
interface
G
/
\ I E F

Stud-shankJconcrete
interface

Stress distributions normal

C

Fig. 6. Forces acting ona stud

normal forces (Fig. 6) to move towards the line of the stud/flange interface. This
would cause the stress intensity factor to reduce (Fig. 7), which would mean a
reduction in the rate of crack propagation. But as the position of the resultant
normal force (Fig. 6) approaches the line of the stud/flange interface, the normal
stresses increase causing the concrete tofail. Therefore, the actual variation in the
stress intensity factorlies between these two extremes.
14. If it is assumed that the concrete hasa hi-linear stress/strain relationship as
in mild steel, then as the crack propagates, the normalstresses change from C F t o
CDE in Fig. 6, and the stress intensity factor lies between the two extremes, as
shown inFig. 7. If there is also a frictional force across the shank/concreteinterface
(Fig. 6), then this force reduces thestress intensity factor considerably(Fig. 7).
15. The stress intensity factor, and hence the rate at which the crack propa-
gates, can thereforebe assumed to be constant over much of the fatigue life because
of the friction across the shank/concreteinterface and because the maximum stress
in the concrete can increase as the crack propagates. Fast fracture occurs when the
stress intensity factor increases on account of a breakdown of the frictional force,
crushing of the concrete orwhen the areaof the fatigue crack is large.

Uni-directional shear flow

16. The endurance of the stud shear connection hasbeen determined from the
results of push specimens subjected to uni-directional shear flow. The left-hand
side of equation (4) can be writtenin the form
356
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FATIGUESTRENGTH O F STUDSHEARCONNECTIONS

where N e is the experimentally determined endurance and P,,, is the maximum

shear load which only differs from the peak load P, when specimens are failed
statically after fatigue loading. N , is therefore a theoretical fatigue life; it would be
the fatigue life if the fatigue crack were able to pass through the whole of the stud
without the stud breaking as a result of fast fracture. In order to analyse experi-
mental data, equation(4) can be written in the form

N, = c[$]-"
where R, is the tensile range of the cyclic load which is equal to the total rangein
uni-directional loads (Fig. 1) and C is a constant. Themaximum static strength P,,

/
/
/
,/

i
I

Cantilever
Beam on elastic foundation

-.-
-
Bi-linear stress/strain relationship
Bi-linear,p = 0.2
- Bi-1inear.p = 0.5

Fig. 7. Strain energy released perunit area of crack

351
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 O E H L E R S A N D FOLEY
occurs when the stress in the failure zone reaches the ultimate tensile strength of
the stud material. The loads P , and R, (equations (5) and (6)) have, therefore, been
non-dimensionalized in terms of P,, in orderto relatethefatigue life tothe
magnitude of the stress in the stud as a proportion of the ultimate strength of the
stud material.

Statistical analysis
17. The slabs in push specimens are more likely to split than those in compos-
ite T-beams, particularly when the base of the slab isfree to slide. In order toomit
results in which splitting could have occurred, the static splitting strength of the
slab was calculated,3.4 and from this the fatigue life was determined from work
by T e p f e r ~ . ~and Kutti on the tensile and compressive fatigue strength of
plain concrete. Tepferss and Kuttis variations of the endurances for tensile and
compressive stresses took the same form. An example of the variation is plotted in
Fig. 5 by assuming that the dependent variable is log N and that Psh,in the
independent variable, is the static splitting strength of the slab; the plot is for a
uni-directional cyclic load in which the minimum load is zero. Because the varia-
tion is very steep, it can be implied that fatigue failure resulting from splitting of
the slab andpossibly also from the tri-axial compressive stresses in the concrete at
the base of the stud, only occurs when the peak loads are near the static ultimate
strengths.
18. Comprehensive details of the method of determining the static strength of
the shear connection, the methodof determining the splitting strength of the slab,
the reasons foromitting results and thestatistical analyses aregiven elsewhere. It
was found that an allowance for axial loads in the studs had asignificant effect on
reducing the scatter between setsof results. Out of a total of 180 push specimens
(references 2,3,5,6,9,10, 17-19), 13 were omitted because complete fractureof the
stud had not occurred at the end of the test, 21 were omitted because the concrete
slab may have split,twelve were omitted because fatigue failure of the flange may
have occurred, threewere omitted because the load at fast fracturewas not known,
and two were omitted as outliers. Of the remaining 129 push specimens, 99 had
been tested under uni-directional constant amplitude load and30 at either reverse
or variable load. The 99 uni-directional, constant amplitude loadedspecimens had
the following ranges of applied loads: 0.15 R/P,, < 0.54 and 0.17 < PJP,, <
0.78; the following ranges of endurances: 13 900 < N e < 24 300000 and 26 500 <
N , < 31 700000; the range of stiffness: 1.9 X 10-9 < dG/dN < 5.5 X 10-5; and
thefollowingranges of materialproperties and dimensions:13 d , 22 (mm),
25 <feu < 71 (N/mm2) and 416 <f, < 640 (N/mm2), where d , is the diameter of
the shank of the stud,f,, is the cube strength of the concrete andf, is the ultimate
tensile strengthof the stud material.
19. All the results for constant uni-directional loaded specimens are shown in
Fig. 8. Also shown are the results from Teraszkiewiczs specimens which were
subjected to constant symmetrical reverse loadings ( R , being the same in both
directions in Fig. l), because, as the next section will show, they are a special case
of constant uni-directional loadings. A linear regression analysis of each series of
the logs of the variables (equation (6)) are summarized in Table 2. It can be seen
that the variations (m)are almost parallel but that there is a large scatter in the
magnitudes (log C). The latter, which is a measure of the scatter between each
series, is probably caused by incorrect assumptions having been made about the
materialpropertiesinthederivations of The best estimate of thevariation
358
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 F A T I G U ES T R E N G T HO FS T U DS H E A RC O N N E C T I O N S

-- Mean
- - - - Mean*2SD(individualresults) /
__ - -
Mean 2 Pstandard /

7.0 -

+
6.5 -

0
/
r
g 6.0-
2
0 /
/ /
/ /
/ /
5.5-
+
/?lni-directional:
o Slutterand Fisher2
Hallam5
A Mainstoneand Menzies3
/ V Menzies
0 RoderickandAnsourian
/
Foleg
/
Reversesymmetrical:
A Terasziekiewicz
/
/
4
-0.2
, /
-0.3 -0.4
, -0.5 -0.6 -0.7
I
-0.8 -0.9 -i
Log10 f l t t p . ,

Fig. 8. Endurances of uni-directional loaded specimens

Table 2. Results of statistical analysesof endurances

Reference Log,, C m Standard

deviation
Slutter and Fisher 4.8 3.5 0.22
Teraszkiewicz 3.6 4.1 0.10
Hallam 4.1 4.0 0.52
Lo6 2.9 4.8 0.21
Foley 0.54 4.6 3.3
Best estimate 3.37 0,305* 4.55
0.046t
* of experimental error
t ofmean
359
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 O E H L E R S AND F O L E Y
(m = 4.55) was determined from a statistical analysis in which it was assumed that
the variations in each of the five series of tests were parallel. The best estimate of
the magnitude of the regression (log,, C = 3.37) was determined from the mean of
all the uni-directionalresults,excluding Teraszkiewiczs. The exponent m was
determined from 95 results (Fig. 8), log C from 99, and the 95% confidence limits
shown for the individual results and for the mean were derived from the standard
deviation of the analysis of all the uni-directional results. The standard deviation
of the individual results due to experimental error (0.305 in Table 2) was obtained
from a statistical analysisof the variance about each of the five regressions; hence
the ratiobetween the upperand lower confidence limits( N J N , ) equals 17, which is
much closer to the results in the Bridge Code for welds where N J N , ranges from
5 to 10, than for stud shear connections where N J N , equals 104. The same pro-
cedurewas used to determine the variation of N , and the two equations are
compared below

log,, N , = 3.37 - 4.55 10g,,[2]

The inclusion of the peak load in deriving theendurance reduced m by 9%.

20. The two fatigue predictions in equations (7) and (8) are compared with
other research predictions in Fig. 2 by considering the strength of a 19 X 100 stud
embedded in concrete witha cube strengthof 35 N/mmz. In equation(8), line AD,
the magnitude of the slope (m = -4.95) has a closer agreement to the American
and Australian results than to theBritish. Equation (7), line AB, can be compared
only for specific peak loads such as N , , line AC, where R, was assumed to equal

r m .
21. A curvilinearregressionanalysis,centered aboutthe origin, of theuni-
directional loaded specimens gave

This result (Fig.5) may be of more use than thelinear regression at very high loads,
where the fatigue strengthof the concrete may govern the life, or at very low ranges
of stress, where therate of crack propagation maybe non-uniform.
22. Inderiving equation (4) it was assumed that during fatigue loading the
remaining static strength is linearly related to the uncracked area of the stud,
because the relationship is correct at the two extremes of fatigue cracking (a = 0
and a = 1). This relationship and the scatter about it is shown in non-log form in
Fig. 9; in this form the extremes are also correct because when P,,+ P& N , % N e
and when F,,+ 0 N , + N e . Even though there is a very large scatter of results, the
experimental results do converge onto the origin, that is, the endurance is depen-
dent on the peak load. However, trying to predict a possible non-linear variation
between the two extremes would require a very large number of tests. It is sug-
gested, therefore, that the linear relationship is a reasonable first choice as the
scatter of results, in non-log terms, is very large.
23. The effect on the fatigue lifeof varying the maximum load, which may be
the peak load or an overload, is much more importantin beams, where thereare a
360

Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FATIGUESTRENGTH O F STUDSHEARCONNECTIONS
large number of shear connections, than in push specimens. For instance, if P ,
were reduced from 2/3P,, to 1/3P,, in push tests, then the fatiguelife would double
(equation (4)). It has been shown that for individual shear connections N J N , = 17
(9 19); therefore, variations in the maximum load have only a very small effect on
the scatter of push-test results and this is confirmed by statistical analyses, which
show the peak loadto be not significant. In beams, however, thestandard error of
the mean, which is inversely proportional to the square root of the number of
connectors,isconsiderably less than the standard deviation of theindividual
results. If the bridge had a hundred shear connections in a shear span, then N , / N ,
would equal 1.3; therefore, doubling thelife would have an appreciable effect.

4.5-

4-

3'1
3

l
I
l
/
+

/
/
/
/
/ __
___
Linearvariationinstrength
Confidence limits based on
experimentalerror
Confidencelimitsforall

0 Slutterand Fisher'
+
A
Hallam5
Mainst~neandMenzies~
2.5- / o T Menzies'O
0 RoderickandAnsourianW
i X L06

+ Foleg
2- /

/'+ +
I i / O+P
0

1 - P,/p.h

Fig. 9. The effect of the maximum load on the endurance

361
Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 O E H L E R S AND F O L E Y
Variable shear load
24. Equation 5 can be written in the form of an accumulated damage law as
follows

where N is the numberof cycles of the ith range of a total of r ranges. The left-hand
side of the equation is the proportion of the stud which has failed as a result of
fatigue cracking, and the right-hand side of the equation is the proportion of the
stud that can failby fatiguecrackingbefore fast fractureoccursat P,. This
accumulated damagelaw assumes that each cycle of load propagates thecrack and
that the fatigue life is independent of the order of loading except in the sense that
as the numberof cycles increases the load to cause fast fracture reduces. Therefore,
it can be inferred that an overload does not affect the fatigue life, unless it is great
enough tocause fast fracture.
25. It can be deduced from the definitionof the stress intensity factor,and from
Pariss equation (equation(l)),that it is the range of the shear load causing tension
on one side of a stud (R, in Fig. 1) which propagates the crack and not the total
range, because the stiffness of the stud when the crack is closed by compressive
forces is hardly different from the uncracked specimen. A shear connection which
is subjected to a complete cycle of reverse loading ( R )is in effect subjected to two
applications of uni-directional loading, given by R, upper and R, lower in Fig. 1.
Symmetric reverse loading is a special caseof uni-directional loading because each
cycle of load exerts two applications of fatigue load at a range of half the total
range.
26. The results of thirty push tests subjected to awide variety of variable loads
(Fig. 10) showed good agreement with the predicted lives, as given in equations (7)
and (lO), because the mean of the results (-0.016) was very close to zero and the
total variance (0.15) lay between the total variance of all the uni-directionally

+2-
- Mean
___ MeanePSD

+l -
_-____-_---__-_---- ---------
++
++ Q ooo
0 0
n Q
0 - oa 0. U 0 A b
0 A A A
____________- A --_- --------
1 A Experirnentalresults:
0 Slutterand Fisher
0 Slutterand Fisher2withoverload
-2- A Teraszkiewicz
+ HallarnS
A Main~toneandMenzies~
Q Roderick and Ansourian
-3 L 1 l
4 5 6 7
Log10 nb
Fig. 10. Endurances of variably loaded specimens
362

Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FATIGUESTRENGTH O F STUDSHEARCONNECTIONS
loaded specimens (0.21) and the experimental variance (0.09). Both Roderick and
Ansourian" and Hallam' tested their specimens under uni-directional block load-
ings at five or six differentranges; Mainstone and Menziesj and Slutter and
Fisher' tested their specimens using constant non-symmetrical reverse loadings.
Slutter and Fisher also tested specimens under constant uni-directional loadings
but with the occasional overload; and Teraszkiewicz" used constant symmetrical
reverse loadings.

Conclusions
27. The following conclusionsrelate to the fatiguestrength of headedstud
shearconnectionsincomposite T-beams in which theconcreteslabhas been
designed against failureby splitting, shearor embedment.
28. The endurance is dependent on the range of the shear load which causes
tension on one side of the stud(R, in Fig. 1).
29. At a given range, the rate at which the fatigue crack propagates in a stud
can be assumed to be constant over much of the fatigue life, both because of the
friction across the shank/concrete interface, and because the maximum stress in
the concrete can increaseas the crack propagates.
30. The remaining static strength during fatigue loading can be assumed to be
directiy proportional to the uncracked area of the stud. Hence the static strength
reduces assoon as cyclic loads areapplied.
3 1. The peak load or anoccasional overload does not affect the rate of fatigue
crack propagation, but it does affect the endurance by limiting the amount of
fatigue crackingthat can occur before thestud fractures.
32. The fatigue life, if the fatigue crack were able to pass through the whole of
the stud without fracture occurring, is given by equation (7). This equation was
derived from the statistical analysesof 99 uni-directionally loaded push specimens
and has a standarddeviation of 0.305.
33. The accumulated damage law in equation (10) allows for the effect of the
peak load on the endurance. It was found to have a good agreement with 30
variably loaded push tests.
34. The fatigue life, if the peak load is not included in the analysis which is the
method used in most codes,is given byequation (8); the exponent m is 5.

Acknowledgements
35. The Authorswouldlike to thank Professor R. P. Johnson of Warwick
University and Professor E. C. Dillon of University College,Cork, for their advice
during the preparationof this Paper.

References
1. JOHNSON R. P. and OEHLERS D. J. Analysis and design for longitudinal shear in compo-
site T beams.Proc. InstnCiu. Engrs, Part 2, 1981,71, Dec., 989-1021.
2. SLUTTER R. G. andFISHER J. W. Fatigue strength ofshear connectors.Highway Research
Record No. 147,1966.
3. MAINSTONE R.J. and MENZIES J. B. Shear connectors in steel-concrete composite beams
for bridges. 1 : Static and fatigue tests on push out specimens.Concrete, 1967, 1, Sept.,
NO.9,291-302.
4. MAINSTONE R. J. Shear connectors in steelkoncrete composite beams for bridges and
the new CP 117, Part 2. Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs,1967,38, Sept., 83-106.
363

Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 OEHLERSANDFOLEY
5. HALLAM M. W. The behaviour ofstud shear connectors under repeated loading, University
of Sydney, Schoolof Civil Engineering, 1976, Aug., Research Report 281.
6. LOK. K. Fatigue testing ofstudshear connectors. MEng thesis, Universityof Melbourne,
1978.
7. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Part 5 : Code of
practice for design of composite bridges. Part 10: Code of practice for fatigue. BSI,
London, 1979, BS5400.
8. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Composite construction in structural steel and concrete.
Part 2 : Beamsfor bridges. BSI, London, 1967,CP 117.
9. FOLEY L. T h efatigue strength ofstud shear connectors in push specimens. MEngSc thesis,
University College, Cork, 1983, Aug.
10. RODERICK J. W. and ANSOURIANP. Repeated loading ofcomposite beams. School of Civil
Engineering, University of Sydney, 1976,Feb., Research Report R280.
11. PARIS P. C. and ERDOGAN F. A critical analysisof crack propagation laws.J . Bas. Engng,
1963,SS, No. 4,528.
12. OEHLERS D. J. Analysis of180 push specimens subjected to&ttigue loadings. Department of
CivilEngineering,UniversityCollege, Cork,Ireland.1984,May.(Availableon
request).
13.OEHLERSD. J. Stud shear connectors for composite beams. PhD thesis,Universityof
Warwick, 1980, Mar.
14. OEHLERS D. J. and JOHNSON R. P. The splitting strength of concrete prisms subjeaedto
surface strip or patch loads.May. Concr. Res., 1981,33, Sept.,No. 116, 171-179.
15. TEPFERS R. and KUTTI T. Fatigue strengthof plain, ordinary and lightweight concrete. J .
Am. Concr. Inst.,1979,76, May, 635-52.
16. TEPFERS R. Tensile fatigue strength of plain concrete. J . Am. Concr. Inst., 1979,76, Aug.,
919-33.
17. TERASZKIEWICZ J. S . Static and fatigue behaviour of simply supported and continuous
composite beams ofsteel and concrete. PhD thesis, University of London, 1967, Sept.
18. MENZIES J. B. CP 117 and shear connectors in steel-concrete composite beams made
with normal-density or lightweight concrete. Struct. Engr, 1971, 49, Mar. No. 3, 137-
154.
19. GOSLING A. P. Fatigue ofshear connectors in composite bridges. MSc thesis, Universityof
London, 1966, Sept.

364

Downloaded by [ York University] on [17/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.