Behavior of Headed Stud Shear Connectors

in Composite Beam
Dennis Lam, M.ASCE,1 and Ehab El-Lobody2

Abstract: In composite beam design, headed stud shear connectors are commonly used to transfer longitudinal shear forces across the
steel–concrete interface. Present knowledge of the load–slip behavior and the shear capacity of the shear stud in composite beam are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

limited to data obtained from the experimental push-off tests. For this purpose, an effective numerical model using the finite element
method to simulate the push-off test was proposed. The model has been validated against test results and compared with data given in the
current Code of Practices, i.e., BS5950, EC4, and AISC. Parametric studies using this model were preformed to investigate variations in
concrete strength and shear stud diameter. The finite element model provided a better understanding to the different modes of failure
observed during experimental testing and hence shear capacity of headed shear studs in solid concrete slabs.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(96)
CE Database subject headings: Composite beams; Connectors, mechanical; Pull-out resistance; Shear deformation; Finite element
method; Steel structures.

Introduction vestigate the variations in concrete strength and shear stud

The strength of connector and the concrete strength are the main
factors affecting the behavior of shear connections. Because of
this, experimental push-off tests were used to evaluate both the
shear connector capacity and the load–slip curve of the connector.
Because full-scaled push-off tests remain a costly and time-
consuming option, analytical procedures that can predict the non-
linear response and the ultimate load capacity of the push-off test
are developed in order to replace most of the experiments once
the verification of the analytical method has been established
from selective, well-controlled experimental results. Due to the
complexity of the three-dimensional stress–strain state and inter-
action between shear connector and concrete, there is little suc-
cess in mathematical modeling of the push-off test. The main
objective of the writers is to develop a three-dimensional finite
element model using ABAQUS (2001) to simulate the behavior
of headed shear stud connectors, which are commonly used in
composite beams. The push-off test arrangement is modeled and
all linear and nonlinearity behavior of all the components is taken
into consideration to establish the modes of failure, the ultimate
strength, and the load–slip behavior of the shear connectors. The
results of the present FE model are compared with selected push-
off tests and the tabulated values given in current codes of prac-
tice. Parametric studies using this model were carried out to in-
1
Senior Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Leeds, Leeds,
LS2 9JT, U.K. E-mail: d.lam@leeds.ac.uk
2
PhD Student, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Leeds, Leeds,
LS2 9JT, U.K.
Note. Associate Editor: Donald O. Dusenberry. Discussion open until
June 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa-
pers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on October 8, 2002; ap-
proved on April 26, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 1, January 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2005/1-96–107/$25.00.
diameter.
Push-Off-Test
Description of Push-off Test Specimen
The properties of shear connector most relevant to composite de-
sign are the shear capacity and the load–slip characteristic at the
interface. The load–slip curve should ideally be found from a
full-scale composite beam test, but in practice, a simpler push-off
test is adopted. A push-off test specimen is formed from a short
length of steel beam that is connected to two small concrete slabs
by means of shear connectors as shown in Fig. 1. The slabs are
then conventionally bedded down on mortar directly onto the re-
action floor with load being applied to the upper end of the steel
member. Slip between the steel member and the two slabs is
measured at specified load or displacement increments, and the
average slip is typically plotted against the load per connector.
This push-off test specimen is similar to the standard push-off test
specimen according to CP 117 (BSI 1965), but only one stud is
connected to each flange since it is assumed that the load is trans-
ferred equally from the steel beam to each shear connector. The
predicted shear capacity will be independent of the number of
shear connectors used in the experimental work and it can be
obtained for different stud diameters by adjusting the finite ele-
ment mesh only and without changing the concrete dimensions.
The push-off test specimen shown in Fig. 1 consists of a 254
⫻ 254 UC 73 共W10⫻ 49兲, two concrete slabs attached to the
flanges of the steel beam with dimensions of 619 mm long,
469 mm wide, and 150 mm thickness for each slab, and one stud
connector attached to each flange with a shank diameter of
19 mm and 100 mm in height. The distance from the connector to
the concrete edges, in the direction of loading, is taken as
200 mm with a concrete recess over the steel beam equal to
50 mm similar to CP117. In the perpendicular direction, it is
taken as 300 mm with the total length of concrete slab being

96 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Details of push-off test specimen
619 mm similar to EC4 (BSI 1994). The procedure of testing was
carried out in accordance with EC4. The load was applied in
increments of 20 kN up to 40% of the expected failure load, the
load was then removed and this loading cycle was repeated 25
times. After the initial cycles, the load was applied up to the
failure. At each load increment, readings of the slip between the
steel beam and the concrete slab and the strain in the reinforce-
ment bars were recorded. Repeat experiments without the initial
cycles showed that the load–slip behavior was not affected by the
initial cycles at all.
Ultimate Strength of Headed Shear Stud Connectors
The design standards for shear studs in solid concrete slabs are
covered in BS 5950 ( BSI 1990),AISC (1999), and EC4 (BSI
1994). The resistance of headed stud connectors embedded in
solid concrete slabs is presented in a tabulated form in BS 5950.
The table is based on a linear relationship between the stud
strength and the concrete cube strength established empirically by
Menzies (1971) from regression analyses of experimental results
obtained from standard push-off tests. In AISC, the nominal shear
of a stud shear connector is governed by
Qn = 0.5Asc冑 f c⬘Ec ⬍ AscFu
共1兲
EC4 took a similiar approach by presenting the formulas below
for determining the ultimate resistance of stud connectors, PR,
which is taken the lesser of
Fig. 2. Three-dimensional solid elements
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 97
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.
PR = 0.29␣d2冑 f ckEc 共2兲
and
␲d2
PR = 0.8f u 共3兲
4
Eq. (2) represents the concrete failure around the connector and
Eq. (3) represents the shear failure of the shear connector.
Finite Element Model
For a successful numerical model of the shear connector, all dif-
ferent components associated with the connection must be prop-
erly represented. ABAQUS, which is a general purpose finite ele-
ment modeling package, was selected for this purpose. It is
capable of conducting finite element analyses considering both
geometric and material nonlinearity and includes interface ele-
ments and constraint conditions. The essential components in a
push-off test are concrete slab, steel beam, and the shear connec-
tor.
Finite Element Mesh
Combinations of three-dimensional solid elements, which are
available in the ABAQUS element library, are used to model the
push-off test specimen. These are a three-dimensional eight-node
element (C3D8), a three-dimensional fifteen-node element
(C3D15), and a three-dimensional twenty-node element (C3D20)
as shown in Fig. 2. In the modeling of the concrete slab around
the stud, C3D15 elements are used and C3D8 elements are used
elsewhere. The shank of the stud consists of C3D15 elements and
the stud head consists of both C3D15 and C3D20 elements. The
width of the head is 1.5 times the stud diameter and its thickness
is 0.5 times the diameter as specified by Menzies (1971).
Fig. 3 shows the finite element (FE) mesh used to represent a
quarter of the push-off test specimen. Because of symmetry, only
a quarter of the push out arrangement is modeled. The concrete
slab is divided into 22 elements along the X direction, 16 ele-
ments along the Y direction, and seven elements along the Z
direction. The shank of the shear connector consisted of one
C3D15 element in the X direction, one element in the Y direction,
and four elements along the Z direction. The head of the stud
connector consisted of one C3D15 element and two C3D20 ele-
ments along the X direction and one element in the Y direction
and one element in the Z direction. The mesh satisfies the limits
and the aspect ratio of the three-dimensional solid elements. The
steel beam is divided into four elements along the X direction,
two elements along the Y direction, and one element in the Z

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Finite element mesh of the model
direction. The web of the steel beam is divided into six elements
along the X direction, one element in the Y direction, and one
element in the Z direction.
A basic observation by Jayas and Hosain (1987) suggested that
the separation of the concrete behind the shear connector occurred
even at a low load level. According to this observation, only the
nodes in front of the stud, in the direction of loading, are con-
nected with the surrounding concrete nodes with the other nodes
of the stud detached from that of the surrounding concrete.
Boundary Conditions
For the application of the support conditions, all nodes of the
concrete slab in the opposite direction of loading (surface 1 in
Fig. 4) are restricted from moving in the X direction to resist the
compression load. All nodes along the middle of the steel beam
web (surface 2) are restricted from moving in the Z direction due
to symmetry. All concrete nodes, stud nodes, steel beam flange
nodes, and steel beam web nodes that lie on the other symmetry
surface (surface 3) are restricted from moving in the Y direction
because of symmetry as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Finite element model of push-off test specimen
98 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.
Fig. 5. Bilinear stress–strain curve for concrete model
Application of Load
A static concentrated load is applied at the center of the steel web
as shown in Fig. 4. Load is applied using the modified RIKS
algorithm available in the ABAQUS software. The basic of this
algorithm is the Newton method, in which the solution is obtained
as a series of increments with iterations to obtain equilibrium
within each increment. The RIKS method is generally used to
predict unstable and nonlinear collapse of a structure. It uses the
load magnitude as an additional unknown and solves simulta-
neously for loads and displacements. Therefore another quantity
must be used to measure the progress of the solution. ABAQUS
uses the arc length along the static equilibrium path in load-
displacement space. An initial increment of displacement is given
on the data line and the initial load proportionality factor is equal
to this initial increment using the automatic incremental scheme.
This initial increment will be adjusted if the increment fails to
converge. From then on, the value of load after each increment is
computed automatically. The solution ends either by specifying
the maximum value of the load or a maximum displacement value
at a specified degree of freedom. Because of the observation made
from the tests that there is little or no effect from the initial cycles,
the initial cycles of loading were not carried out in the FE mod-
eling.
Material Model of Concrete
To model the behavior of the reinforced concrete slab in the push-
off test, concrete is treated as an elastic-plastic material as shown
in Fig. 5. The writers realized that no FE model could handle
unloading cycles with concrete due to cracking, and that the ob-
jective of this paper is to show that a simple FE model could
predict modes of failure of shear studs in composite slabs and
could replace expensive experimental testing procedures. This
model takes into account the inelastic behavior of the concrete
material. The option (* PLASTIC) in ABAQUS is used to specify
the plastic region of the material model for the elastic-plastic
materials that use the Mises yield surface. Maximum amount of
transverse reinforcement is assumed to ensure that tensile split-
ting of the concrete slab is prevented. The concrete behaves as a
linear-elastic material up to the yield stress and plasticity is ob-
tained when the yield stress is reached. Following the BS 8110
(BSI 1997), average values of yield strain, Young’s modulus of
concrete, and the yield stress can be calculated from the following
relations:
␧yc = 0.00024冑 f cu 共4兲
f yc = 0.8f cu 共5兲
Ec = f yc/␧yc 共6兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Bilinear stress–strain curve for headed stud

Material Model of Headed Shear Stud The second mode of failure is that the stud connector was fully
yielded and no concrete failure is observed. This mode of failure
The shear stud material is of great importance in modeling the
is identified as the stud failure mode where the yield stress is
shear interaction between steel and concrete since the region
reached by the stud element while maximum concrete stress of
around the stud is a region of severe and complex stresses. The
the concrete element is not reached.
shear forces are transferred across the steel–concrete interface by
Finally, the third mode of failure is the combined failure of the
the mechanical action of shear connectors. To determine the me-
stud and concrete slab when maximum stresses are reached in the
chanical properties of the stud material, three coupons were ma-
stud and concrete elements. All three modes of failure were ob-
chined from the headed studs. The average of the three coupon
served in the experimental push-off tests.
tests were 470.8 N / mm2. This average is taken as the maximum
By using the ABAQUS postprocessing package, it can follow
allowed yield stress, f ys, in simulating the stud material. The
the stress distribution across the stud and the concrete slab of the
stress–strain curve of the headed stud is shown in Fig. 6 together
finite element model at each load increment. In addition, from
with the simulated bilinear stress–strain model. The stud material
data files, the load at each increment can be obtained. Therefore
model behaved as linear elastic material with Young’s modulus Es
the modes of failure can be easily observed and failure capacity
up to the yield stress of stud, f ys. After this stage, it becomes fully
can be determined.
plastic. In the present study, the following values are used for the
stud material: Es : 200,000 N / mm2 and f ys 470.8 N / mm2.
Results and Discussion
Material Modeling of Steel Beam
The steel beam is modeled with yield stress of 275 N / mm2 in this As part of the present study, push-off tests were carried out to
study using the same bilinear curve shown in Fig. 6. It is believed determine the load-slip behavior of the headed stud connector in
that the effect of the steel beam is insignificant in a push-off test. solid RC slabs. Four specimens of different concrete grades were
Its function is to allow for the transmission of applied load to the tested to validate the present finite element model. The mechani-
connectors and hence the characteristic load-slip characteristic in cal behavior of the materials used was determined from material
the steel–concrete interface can be studied. tests. The concrete slab was cast horizontally according to the
requirements of the EC4. Twelve 100 mm cubes were made in
batches per specimen to evaluate the concrete cube strength. The
Modes of Failure slab was reinforced longitudinally and transversely in two layers
In the experimental test, the ultimate capacity of the shear con-
nector is determined when the maximum load from the push-off
test is observed. Although the push-off measured displacement
with increasing load provide valuable insight into the problem, it
is very difficult to determine the exact failure mode of the speci-
men. Generally, three modes of failure were observed from the
push-off test. The first mode of failure is the concrete cone failure
where no stud failure is observed. For this mode of failure, the
concrete around the stud started to fail in compression before the
stud was yielded, the compression failure progresses through the
thickness of the concrete forming a conical shape around the stud
as explained experimentally by MacMackin et al. (1973). The
conical failure planes are shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7. Conical failure planes

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 99

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.

 Table 1. Comparison of Test Results and Finite Element Solution
Diameter of Concrete Push-off test FE model Push-off
Test headed stud strength results results test/
reference (mm) 共N / mm2兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 FE model
SP1 19 50 130.4 116.6 1.12
SP2 19 20 71.6 74.4 0.96
SP3 19 30 93 91.8 1.01
SP4 19 35 102 97.3 1.05

of reinforcement. Each layer consists of six longitudinal and six

horizontal bars. All bars were 10 mm diameter according to the
requirements of the EC4. The steel beam used in the test was a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

254⫻ 254 UC 73. The flanges of the steel beam were not greased
so natural adhesion is not prevented. The studs were 19 mm di-
ameter by 100 mm long and the as-welded height was 95 mm.
Table 1 shows the results of the four tests together with a com-
parison with the finite element solution.
Test Specimen SP1
In test SP1, a high concrete strength of 50 N / mm2 was used, the
test ended when the headed studs were sheared off. No crack on
the surface of the concrete slab was formed during the test. After
the test, several small cracks were noticed at the concrete surface
perpendicular to the direction of loading. The mode of failure is
stud yielding where the studs were sheared off near the collar. A
sudden drop in the load-slip curve was noticed after the studs
were sheared off. Fig. 8 shows the failure shape of the headed
stud after the slabs were removed.
Fig. 9 shows a comparison between the load-slip curves ob-
tained experimentally and numerically using the finite element
method. The maximum load per stud was recorded at 130.4 kN
compared with 116.6 kN obtained from the finite element (FE)
solution with the same concrete strength. Fig. 10 shows the stress
contour and the deformed shape of the FE model at different load
levels up to failure. Fig. 10 also shows that the shear stud was
fully yielded before full yielding of the concrete was reached.
From the deformed shape of FE-SP1, it shows the concrete
around the headed stud was intact and double curvature bending
of the stud was observed as in the experimental test.
Test Specimen SP2
2
In test SP2, a low concrete strength of 20 N / mm was used. The
test was terminated when the slabs separated from the steel beam,
all the studs were intact and conical concrete failure was noticed
Fig. 9. Comparison between push-off test and finite element (FE)
model for SP1
around the stud. A maximum load of 71.6 kN per stud was re-
corded compared to the 74.4 kN obtained from the finite element
solution with the same concrete strength, as shown in Fig. 11. Fig.
12 shows the conical failure of concrete in compression around
the stud in specimen SP2 and Fig. 13 shows the single curvature
bending of the headed stud after the concrete is removed. The
stress contour and deformed shape of the finite element solution,
FE-SP2, are shown in Fig. 14.
Test Specimen SP3
For test SP3 with 30 N / mm2 concrete, the failure load from the
push-off test was 93 kN compared with 91.8 kN obtained from
the finite element solution. Fig. 15 shows a comparison between
both load-slip curves obtained from experimental investigation
and FE solution. Yielding of the stud element was noticed near
the stud collar followed by maximum compressive stress reached
by concrete elements around the stud. The shear connection failed
due to combined stud yielding and concrete failure. Fig. 16 shows
the headed stud in test SP3 after failure. The stress contours and
deformed shapes of the FE model of FE-SP3 at various load
levels up to failure are shown in Fig. 17.
Test Specimen SP4
This specimen had a concrete cube strength of 35 N / mm2. The
load versus slip curve obtained from experimental investigation is
compared in Fig. 18 with that obtained numerically using the FE
method. The figure shows good agreement between the two
curves. The maximum load was 102.0 kN per stud at a slip of
6.1 mm compared with 97.3 kN at a slip of 4.4 mm obtained from
the present finite element solution at the same concrete strength.
Like test specimen SP3, the test specimen SP4 failed in a
combined failure mode of concrete failure and stud yielding but
the tendency to the stud failure mode is higher. The concrete
formed a conical failure shape while the studs bound as shown in
Fig. 19. Also the bending curvature of the studs is between the
double and single curvatures shapes explained earlier for speci-
mens SP1 and SP2, respectively.

Comparison of Finite Element Solution with

Available Literature

Fig. 8. Shear failure of headed stud in SP1 A further study is conducted to compare the FE solution with
available push-off test results. Fig. 20 shows the comparison of a

100 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Stress contours and deformed shapes of FE-SP1 at various load levels

Fig. 11. Comparison between push-off test and finite element (FE)
model for SP2 Fig. 12. Conical concrete failure

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 101

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Comparison between push-off test and finite element (FE)
Fig. 13. Single curvature bending of headed stud in SP2 model for SP3

Fig. 14. Stress contours and deformed shapes of FE-SP2 at various load levels

102 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Comparison between push-off test and finite element (FE)
model for SP4
Fig. 16. Headed stud in SP3 after failure

Fig. 17. Stress contours and deformed shapes of FE-SP3 at various load levels

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 103

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 19. Stress contours and deformed shapes of FE-SP4 at various load levels

Fig. 20. Load per stud in percentage versus slip for Fig. 21. Load per stud in percentage versus slip for
19 mm diameter⫻ 100 mm headed stud in 40 N / mm2 concrete 19 mm diameter⫻ 75 mm headed stud in 40 N / mm2 concrete

104 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 22. Load-slip curves for various headed studs in 25 N / mm2
concrete
Fig. 23. Load-slip curves for various headed studs in 30 N / mm2
concrete
Fig. 24. Load-slip curves for various headed studs in 35 N / mm2
concrete
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 105
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.
Fig. 25. Load-slip curves for various headed studs in 40 N / mm2
concrete
FE solution and push-off test results by Menzies (1971) and Lam
et al. (1998). Menzies presented his push-off test results as a
percentage of the maximum load per stud against slip at the in-
terface. Fig. 20 shows the load-slip characteristic of
19 mm diameter⫻ 100 mm headed stud observed in push-off
tests with 40 N / mm2 normal density concrete. The figure shows
good agreement between the experimental results and the present
finite element solution.
Fig. 21 shows the comparison of a load-slip behavior of
19 mm␾ ⫻ 75 mm headed stud in 40 N/mm2 concrete, the load is
expressed as a percentage of the maximum load per stud. The FE
solution obtained from this study is compared with that obtained
experimentally by Li and Krister (1996). Once again, the FE so-
lution shows good agreement with the experimental result.
Parametric Study
A parametric study was conducted using the FE model for 13, 16,
19, and 22 mm diameter headed studs with various concrete
strength of 25, 30, 35, and 40 N / mm2. The results were used to
compare with the tabulated values specified in BS 5950 and the
calculated value obtained from the equations given by EC4. Figs.
22–25 show the obtained load-slip curves of headed studs with
various diameters in different concrete strength using the FE
model with the results of the parametric study shown in Table 2.
Parametric study has been carried out to investigate the effect
to the shear capacity of the headed stud with the variation in
concrete strength and stud diameter. The results are also com-
pared with the tabulated values specified in BS 5950 and the
calculated value obtained from the equations given by EC4. Figs.
26–29 show the comparison between the results of the parametric
studies and the characteristic resistance of the headed stud speci-
fied in BS5950 EC4 and AISC (1999).
Table 2. Results of Parametric Study
Shear capacity 共kN兲 C25 C30 C35 C40
13 mm⫻ 65 mm 38 43 47 50
16 mm⫻ 75 mm 56 63 70 75.3
19 mm⫻ 100 mm 80 90 99 106
22 mm⫻ 100 mm 99.6 112.9 124.5 136
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 26. Codes comparison of shear capacity for 13⫻ 65 mm headed
shear stud in various concrete strength
Fig. 27. Codes comparison of shear capacity for 16⫻ 75 mm headed
shear stud in various concrete strength
Fig. 28. Codes comparison of shear capacity for 19⫻ 100 mm
headed shear stud in various concrete strength
106 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.
Fig. 29. Codes comparison of shear capacity for 22⫻ 100 mm
headed shear stud in various concrete strength
Fig. 26 shows that the shear capacity of the 13⫻ 65 mm
headed stud increased with the increase in the concrete cube
strength. The results from parametric study showed a close cor-
relation to the calculated results from EC4 with a maximum dif-
ference of 1.9% with 25 N/mm2 concrete. At the lower concrete
strength, the failure load is governed by concrete failure while at
higher concrete strength, the failure is governed by yielding of the
headed stud. Fig. 27 shows the relationship between the maxi-
mum load per stud for a 16⫻ 75 mm headed stud with various
concrete strength. The results showed that the tabulated values in
BS 5950 are remarkably higher than both the FE solutions and
values obtained from the EC4 especially at lower concrete
strengths. The failure load of these headed studs is governed by
the failure of concrete around the stud except when high strength
concrete was used. Figs. 28 and 29 show the results obtained from
the FE solution of a 19 and 22 mm headed stud, respectively.
It is interesting to note that the calculated results from AISC
and the tabulated results given in BS 5950 indicated a much
higher shear capacity than those results obtained using both EC4
and the present finite element solution. From the parametric study,
it is suggested that experimental push-off tests should be carried
out on a 22 mm diameter headed stud to verify the result, as most
of the data used in the BS5950 and EC4 were derived from push-
off tests with a 19 mm diameter headed stud.
Conclusions
A finite element model has been developed to simulate the load-
slip characteristic of the headed shear stud in a solid RC slab. The
model takes into account the linear and nonlinear material prop-
erties of the concrete and shear stud. The FE results compared
well with the results obtained from the experimental push-off
tests and specified data from the codes. All the modes of failure
were accurately predicted by the FE model. From the parametric
study, it showed the formulas given in EC4 gave a good correla-
tion with the experimental results and FE solutions, while it
would appear that the BS5950 and the AISC may have overesti-
mated the shear capacity of the headed stud. Furthermore, all the
codes seem to overestimate the shear capacity of the 22 mm di-
ameter headed stud. Since only a small number of push-off tests
were carried out on the 22 mm diameter headed stud, further tests
should be carried out to verify their shear capacity. In conclusion,
 with developments of this type of finite element model, it may be
possible to replace the need for expensive experimental push-off
tests in the future to determine the shear capacity of the shear
connectors.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the support provided by
the Egyptian Government, Bison Concrete Products Ltd.,
Severfield-Reeve Plc., and the skilled assistance provided by the
technical staff of the School of Civil Engineering at the Univer-
sity of Leeds.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 04/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Asc ⫽ cross-section area of the shear stud;
d ⫽ diameter of stud;
dsh ⫽ stud shaft diameter;
Ec ⫽ static Young’s modulus of elasticity of concrete;
Es ⫽ static Young’s modulus of elasticity of steel;
Fu ⫽ minimum specified tensile strength of the stud shear
connector;
f cu ⫽ cube strength of concrete;
f c⬘ ⫽ compressive strength of concrete;
f ck ⫽ concrete cylinder compressive strength;
f u ⫽ ultimate tensile strength of the headed stud material;
f yc ⫽ yield stress of concrete;
f ys ⫽ yield stress of steel;
h ⫽ overall length of stud;
hsh ⫽ stud shaft height;
PR ⫽ resistance of a stud;
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 107
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:96-107.
Qn ⫽ shear strength of a stud shear connector;
␣ ⫽ modification factor ⫽0.2共h / d + 1兲 ⬍ 1.0; and
␧yc ⫽ yield strain of concrete.
References
ABAQUS. (2001). User’s Manual, Ver. 6.2, Hibbitt, Karlson and So-
rensen, Inc.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (1999). Load and resis-
tance factor design specification for structural steel buildings, Chi-
cago.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1965). “Composite construction in
structural steel and concrete: Simply supported beams in building.”
CP 117 Part 5, London.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1990). “Code of practice for design
of simple and continuous composite beams.” BS 5950, Part 3: Section
3.1 Structural use of steelwork in building, London.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1994). “Design of composite steel
and concrete structures. Part 1.1, General rules and rules for buildings
(with U.K. National Application Document).” DD ENV 1994-1-1,
London, EC4.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1997). “Code of practice for design
and construction.” BS 8110, Parts 1,2, Structural use of concrete, Lon-
don.
Jayas, B. S., and Hosain, M. U. (1987). “Behaviour of headed studs in
composite beams: Push-out tests.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 15, 240–253.
Lam, D., Elliott, K. S., and Nethercot, D. A. (1998). “Push-off tests on
shear studs with hollow-cored floor slabs.” Struct. Eng., 76(9),167–
174.
Li, A., and Krister, C. (1996). “Push-out tests on studs in high strength
and normal strength concrete.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 36(1), 15–29.
MacMackin, P. J., Slutter, R. G., and Fisher, J. W. (1973). “Headed steel
anchor under combined loading.” Eng. J., 2Q, 43–53.
Menzies, J. B. (1971). “CP 117 and shear connectors in steel-concrete
composite beams made with normal-density or lightweight concrete.”
Struct. Eng., 49(3),137–153.