Strength of headed studs in composite structural connection with SFRCC

Y. Luo & S. Song

Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Kyoto University, Japan
Y. Cui
Center for Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
K. Hoki & M. Nakashima
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan

ABSTRACT: The paper presents the results obtained from a series of push-out tests of studs embedded in un-
reinforced SFRCC slab are presented. A total of 5 push-out tests of headed studs embedded in SFRCC slab
are conducted, with the number of studs, the gauge length, and pitch length as the test parameters. When em-
bedded in SFRCC, the studs arranged densely with a pitch length of 3.4 times the stud diameter can still pos-
sess the shear strength (per stud) not smaller than 90% of the shear strength of a single stud. The shear
strength of a single stud is significantly larger than the strength stipulated by leading codes, and it is because
of the significant increase in the shear resistance in the bottom collar portion. Detailed finite element analyses
are conducted to supplement the experimental data, and the effect of the collar portion and the pitch length on
stud shear strength is investigated by using the verified finite element model. The results of the parametric
study are treated statically and design equations are proposed for the shear strength of a single stud and the
reduction in the shear strength (per stud) when the studs are densely arranged with a smaller pitch length.

1. INTRODUCTION ever until now, understanding of the behavior and

Headed stud shear connectors are the most widely
used shear connectors in steel-concrete composite
construction. The strength of a stud depends on the
stud details (height, diameter and strength), as well
as on the surrounding concrete environment, such as
concrete properties and reinforcement detailing
(Oehlers et al. 1983). In recent years, the use of fiber
reinforced concrete (FRC) has become more com-
mon, and the research on FRC is gaining attention.
Because of the contribution of the fibers, the proper-
ties of concrete along with durability can be im-
proved significantly. Steel fiber reinforced cement
composites (SFRCC) is a type of FRC. SFRCC has
four times larger in the compressive strength
(120~160 MPa) and five times larger in the tensile
strength (12~20 MPa) in comparison with the con-
ventional concrete (Nelson 1995). Particularly, un-
like brittle concrete/mortar, SFRCC reveals a high
damage-tolerant behavior under stress concentration
induced by steel/concrete interaction in a number of
experimental (Kaneko et al. 2002). These observa-
tions suggest the possibility of adopting SFRCC to
replace concrete in stud connections to achieve bet-
ter performance.
Enhancement in structural performance by the em-
ployment of SFRCC is expected to be applicable to a
wide range of engineering structures where steel and
concrete are connected through headed studs. How-
strength of headed stud connectors in SFRCC slab is
still insufficient. Furthermore, it is expected that in
SFRCC the headed stud shear connectors can be ar-
ranged much more densely than the currently permit-
ted distances that are stipulated for concrete in lead-
ing design codes.
The objectives of this study are to quantify the be-
havior and shear capacity of headed studs in the
SFRCC slab and examine the reduction of shear ca-
pacity caused by a small interval of studs when studs
are arranged in a group.
2. PUSH-OUT TESTS
2.1 Overviews of tests and specimens
To investigate the resistance capacity of a stud or a
group of studs, a series of push-out test were con-
ducted. Five specimens were tested with the global
dimensions as shown in Figure 2. Each specimen
consists of two SFRCC slabs, each of which is con-
nected to a structural tee in which headed shear
studs are welded. Each slab is cast horizontally, lo-
cating the shear studs in a vertical position. SFRCC
test cylinders were cast along with the specimens
and cured in the same condition. It is notable that the
slabs were cast without any rebar. The push-out
specimen halves were then bolted through the webs
as shown in Figure 1.
 Table 1. Specimens details and test results.
Details of specimens Test results
Specimens d L Dp Dg Pstud
Steel SFRCC slab Dp/d Dg/d n Failure mode
mm mm mm mm kN
SP1G1 - - - - 1 110.2
SP2G2 90 60 6.9 4.6 4 104.4 Stud shear
SP3G2 CT-75x150x7x10 305x176x77 13 47 45 60 3.5 4.6 6 93.1 fracture
SP3G3 45 30 3.5 2.3 9 93.6
SP4G2 30 60 2.3 4.6 8 76.6 Slab split
d : Stud diameter; L: Stud length; Dp: Stud Pitch length (stud space along loading direction); Dg :Stud gauge length (stud space
perpendicular to loading direction; n: the number of studs; Pstud: Per stud shear capacity.

One objective of this research is to investigate
how to arrange a stud group to obtain the largest
transmittable shear force as possible in a relatively
small area with the length of 90 mm and width of 60
mm, which is slightly larger than the permitted min-
imum pitch length and gauge length. They are 6
times (78 mm) and 4 times the stud diameter (52
mm). This area was specified as the stud zone, and
the studs are arrayed in a different arrangement
within this zone. The longitudinal spacing Dp, trans-
verse spacing Dg, and the number of studs n are cho-
sen as the test parameters to investigate the interac-
tion between studs, named “group effect” herein.
The details of the specimens are as listed in Table.1.
Steel plate
100x260x6 CT-75x150x7x10
40
394 MPa and ultimate tensile strength of the stud of
472 MPa are obtained from its inspection certificate.
2.3 Test Setup and Loading Program
Figure 3 shows the experimental test setup used for
the test. The test specimen is placed in the loading
frame shown in Figure 3. The load capacity of the
loading system is 2MN. The load is applied to a
40mm thick steel plate, placed on the upper end on
the tees. Eight linear variable displacement trans-
ducers (LVDTs) were used to measure the slip be-
tween the beam and slabs. The average taken from
the eight values measured by LVDTs was defined as
Beam
the slip between the slab and steel flange.
(unit: mm)
LVTD

Dg
88

Stud
d13, L=47 Dp
90
305

Bolt F10T
M16 Loading Oil
LVTD location
87

Direction jack SFRCC

（On slab） Steel tee
to cast Slab
40

Restrain
77 150 77 58 60 58 beam
304 176
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Details of specimens: (a) Front view; (b) Eleva-
tion view
Specimen
60 60 30 30 60

45 30 LVTD location
45 ` 90 30 90 Base
90
45
90
45
（On steel flange）
30

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Layout of studs: (a) SP1G1; (b) SP2G2; (c)
SP3G2; (d) SP3G3; (e) SP4G2
All the specimens and arrangement of studs in the
respective specimens are illustrated in Figure 2.
2.2 Material properties
The compressive strength and tensile strength of
SFRCC was obtained from the associated cylinder
compressive tests and splitting tests. The cylinders
were 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height. Ac-
cording to the test results, the compressive strength
of SFRCC was 119.1 MPa and the splitting tensile
strength was17.0 MPa, respectively. Material tests
on studs were not conducted; the yield strength of
60
Figure 3. Test setup and measurement
(c) (d) (e)
3 TESTS RESULTS
3.1 General
In the tests, the ultimate strength of the shear con-
nector was determined when the load from the push-
out test reached its maximum. The shear capacity of
the tested specimens and the failure modes are
summarized in Table 1. The per stud shear load,
Pstud, is the average shear force induced per stud, and
defined as the measured applied force divided by the
number of studs.
Two failure modes were observed from the push-
out test. As indicated in Figure 4, Specimen
‘SP4G2’ failed by slab split, while the other speci-
mens failed by shear fracture of studs. For the spec-
imens that failed in stud shear fracture, the fracture 3.2 Load-slip relationship
occurred in the shank close to the welding collar and Curves of per stud load-slip relationship are as
the welded collar encountered a very large compres- shown in Figure 6. For the specimens failed in stud
sive force that the SFRCC is crushed obviously in fracture, they reach their respective maximum
front of the welded collar. strength at the slip about 2.3 mm ~ 3.7 mm. The
load-slip curves show ductile plastic plateau until
stud fractures. In the Specimen 'SP4G2' that failed in
Loading Loading
Splitting
slab splitting, it reaches the maximum strength at a
slip about 0.46 mm, and then the splitting crack
along the loading direction was found in the slab.
Fractured Fractured The load-slip curve exhibits a ductile decrease with
stud stud
the growth of the split crack.
SFRCC 120

Per stud load (kN)

Slab SFRCC SP1G1
Slab SP2G2
100 SP3G3
SP3G2
(a) Stud fracture (b) Slab split 80 SP4G2
Figure 4. Failure modes 60

As an objective of the test was to investigate how 40 SP1G1 SP2G2

to arrange a stud group in a limited zone to obtain SP3G2 SP4G2
20 SP3G3
the largest transmittable shear force, both the 0
strength of each stud (Pstud) and the ultimate shear 0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip (mm)
load transferred to the beam flange (Pmax) are com- Figure 6. The load-slip relation curves
pared in Figure 5.
900 120
3.3 Comparison between tests and analysis
800 The design standards for shear studs in solid con-
100
700
crete slabs are available in AISC (2005) and other
600 80
(kN)

500
design specifications. It prescribes the nominal
Pmax 60 strength of one stud shear connector embedded in
(kN)

400 Pstud
Beam
300 Beam Beam Beam
40 solid concrete or in a composite slab as:
flange flange flange flange
sg sg sg sg
200
sp sp sp sp
20 0.5𝐴s 𝐸𝑐 𝑓𝑐′ (1)
Slab 100
Stud
Slab
Stud
Slab
Stud
Slab
Stud
𝑃𝑢 = min
(a)
0
(b) (a)
(c) (a)
(b)
(d) (a)
(b)
(e)
(c) (b)
(c)
(d) (c)
(d)
(e) (d)
(e) (e)
0 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑢 (2)
SP2G2 SP3G2 SP3G3 SP4G2
where As = the cross-sectional area of the stud, fu =
Figure 5. Comparison of Pmax and Pstud
tensile strength of the stud shear connector, Ec = the
modulus of elasticity of concrete, and fc' = the com-
For the per stud strength, when compared to pressive strength of concrete cylinders.
Specimen 'SP2G2', Specimens 'SP3G2' and "SP3G3' It can be seen in Figure 6 that when compared to
show 10.3% reduction, while the strength of Speci- the AISC design strength, all of the tested maximum
men ‘SP4G2’ failed by slab split was reduced by per stud strengths (Pstud in Fig.6) are significantly
26.7%. This means that the strength per stud is re- larger than 62.9 kN (referred as the dash line in
duced by about 10% and 20% when the pitch was Fig.6), the design strength obtained from Equation 2
changed from 90 mm to 45 mm and 30 mm, respec- of Pu = Ascfu. The current design equation for shear
tively. It was proven that when embedded in connectors were developed based on the tests with
SFRCC, the studs arranged densely with a 45mm conventional concrete material. When SFRCC is
pitch length (3.5d, d as the stud diameter) can still adopted instead of concrete, the current strength es-
possess the shear strength not smaller than 90% of timation equation may be too conservative.
the shear strength of a single stud. To gain a deeper insight on the strength charac-
For the shear load transferred to the beam flange teristics of headed stud shear connector embedded in
Pmax, it is notable that the transferred shear load in- SFRCC slab, detailed finite element analyses were
creased as the number of studs increased with the carried out to supplement the experimental data.
reduction in stud spacing, except for Specimen
‘SP4G2’, in which the splitting cracks formed in the
slab. Compare Specimen 'SP2G2' and Specimen 4. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
'SP3G3', shows that, within a space of 90 mm by 60
mm, only 4 studs are permitted to be placed for con- 4.1 General
crete, but for SFRCC, it is possible to place 9 studs Figure 7a shows the finite element mesh of a steel
and the transferred shear force increases more than 2 beam and a SFRCC slab with headed stud. Due to
times of what can be achieved in concrete.
the symmetry of the specimen, only a quarter of the
push-out test arrangement was modeled. Compo-
nents including SFRCC slab, beam flange, beam
web and studs were modeled with solid C3D8R el-
ements to improve the rate of convergence. As
shown in Figure 8b, headed stud includes weld col-
lar part to allow for its influence on the shear
strength. Contact interaction with a friction coeffi-
cient of 0.4 was defined between the slab and beam
flange surface. Contact interaction without friction
behavior was defined between the stud and slab sur-
face. Therefore, contact and detachment between the
different surfaces were considered automatically.
The load was applied by imposing a forced dis-
placement in the Z direction up to 6 mm, which was
close to the displacement when stud fractures (4 to 5
mm), observed in the test. The displacements of all
SFRCC
slab
Beam Stud
flange
Weld
Stud collar
Surface 3 y Surface 1
Surface 2 z
x 0
Figure 7. Model meshes: (a) Specimen; (b) Headed stud.
nodes in the slab (Surface 1 in Fig. 7a) were re-
strained. Considering the symmetry, the displace-
ment in the X direction of all nodes was restrained
along the web end (Surface 2); likewise, the displa-
cement in the Y direction of all nodes was restrained
for the slab, stud and steel web (Surface 3).
A classical metal plasticity was adopted to define
the material properties of the elements that represent
the headed stud and steel beam based on the data
available in the inspection certificate. A bilinear and
tri-linear stress-strain model with Young’s modulus
Es = 205 GPa was adopted to simulate the beam and
the stud.
The damage plasticity model was adopted to rep-
resent material characteristics of SFRCC. According
to the research of Nielsen (1995), the compressive
stress-strain relationship of SFRCC is defined by the
following Equation 3,
𝜀
𝜎 2.5
𝜀𝑐
= 2.5
𝑓𝑐′ 𝜀 In the past study on numerically simulating the be-
1.5 +
𝜀𝑐
where εc and fc' are the compressive strain and stress
at the peak point. The tensile behavior of the applied
material model was defined independently in two
strain levels. Up to cracking, the stress-strain rela-
tion was linear; and post-cracking behavior was de-
fined by a linear stress-crack opening displacement
relationship.
The compressive stress at the peak point fc' =120
MPa was determined by the material test; the tensile
stress at the peak point ft = 19.6 MPa were estimated
by the equation developed by Kaneko (2002) using
the tested split strength. Young’s modulus of E0 = 49
GPa and fracture energy of Gf = 6.6 N/mm were also
determined by equations recommended by Kaneko.
4.2 Analytical results
By use of the ABAQUS post processing, the overall
load-displacement relationship as well as the per
stud strength of each specimens were obtained.
Figure 8 shows comparison between the tested
and analytical load-displacement relation curves for
Specimens 'SP2G2'. Figure 9 shows comparison be-
tween the per stud resistances obtained from the
tests and analyses. A fairly good agreement between
the two results is observed in both Figures 8-9, and
the difference in maximum strength obtained from
the tests and analyses ranged from 2% to 14 %.
Per stud strength (kN)
120 120
(kN) 80 80
Test
40
40 Test
Analytical FEM
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Slip(mm)
Displacement (mm)
Figure 8. Load displacement Figure 9. Comparison on
curve of specimen SP2G2 test and numerical results
It is notable that the FEM model with studs in-
cluding the welded collar can predict the maximum
strength of the specimen reasonably. Further para-
metric study using the verified model is conducted
as shown below.
5. PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
In the experimental study, two issues were found to
be worthy of further interpretation, i.e., the contri-
bution of the weld collar to stud capacity and the in-
fluence of the stud pitch length on the shear capaci-
ty. The following parametric study will focus on
these two issues.
5.1 Effect of the weld collar
(3)
havior of headed stud in concrete slab, the weld col-
lar is generally not included in the model and thus
its effect on the stud strength is neglected. In this
paper, to investigate the effect of welded collar on
the shear capacity of headed stud in SFRCC slab, a
FEM model without the collar portion is created for
Specimen "SP1G1' and compared to that modeled
with the collar .
The distributed shear load along the stud height is
obtained at the maximum strength of each model
and shown in Figure 10a. As shown in Figure 10a, The shear bearing capacity of a single stud in
the distributed shear load is mainly concentrated on SFRCC slab is:
the lower part of the stud, and the stud with collar
𝑃𝑢 = 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑢 + 3𝑓𝑐 ′𝑑wc 𝑙wc (5)
bears larger shear load than the stud without collar.
The shear bearing force of stud in each model is ob- Figure 11 shows comparison of the shear strength
tained by integrating the distributed shear load along determined using the proposed Equation 5 and the
the stud height and shown in Figure 10b, in which shear strength determined experimentally and by
the stud strength obtained from the test and predict- numerical analyses. It is found that the proposed
ed by Equation 2 (AISC 2005), is also provided for equation can reasonably estimate the shear bearing
comparison. It is seen that, the stud strength of the capacity of the headed stud connector embedded in
model without collar is close to the strength calcu- solid high strength concrete slab.
lated by AISC equation; while the stud strength ob-
tained from the model including collar portion is 300
Test

(kN)
close to the test results.

FEM(kN)
250 An Li's test (1996)
FEM (Series 1)
200 FEM (Series 2)

andFEM
50 120
Stud height from bottom (mm)

With Collar 150

Test

Testand
Without Collar 100 AISC 100
Stud strength (kN)

40

Test
Without collar
80 50
30 With collar
0
60
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
20
40 Predict
Predict (kN)
(kN)
10 20 Figure 11. Comparison between predict and test/FEM results
0 0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 Test AISC Without With
Distributed shear load (kN/mm) collar collar 5.2 Effect of the stud spacing
Figure 10. Comparison between models with/without collar: In order to investigate the effect of stud pitch length
(a) distributed shear load; (b) Stud shear bearing force. on the stud shear bear capacity, models were devel-
oped by changing the pitch length (Dp) between the
Hegger et al. (2003) pointed out that the load- two studs (Figure 12) as a parameter. The pitch
bearing behavior of headed stud shear connectors in length ranged from 105 mm, close to the minimum
high strength concrete is different from that in nor- specified spacing for the concrete slab of 99 mm, to
mal strength concrete. They proposed a formula 30 mm, the minimum spacing allowed for stud in-
specifically for headed stud shear connector in high stallation. Figure 13 shows the per stud strength ob-
strength concrete. Considering the load bearing con- tained from analyses. It can be seen that change in
tribution of the weld collar, the formula is: the longitudinal spacing has little effect on the initial
𝑃𝑢 = 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑢 + 𝜂𝑓𝑐 ′𝑑wc 𝑙wc (4) stiffness of the stud connectors, and that the maxi-
mum strength decreases only when the spacing re-
where fu = ultimate tensile strength of stud; As = duced to less than 60mm; when the pitch length is
cross-sectional area of a stud shear connector; η = reduced to 30mm, the maximum strength drops by
empirical correction value to determine the load about 10%.
bearing action of the tri-axial compression zone in
front of the shear connector; fc' = concrete cylinder 120
Per stud strength (kN)

compressive strength; dwc = equivalent diameter of D13L47 100

stud 80
weld collar and lwc = equivalent height of the weld
60
collar.
40
Equation 4 is adopted to estimate the shear capac-
20
ity of a single headed stud connector embedded in
SFRCC slab. The empirical factor η have to be de- 0
Dp30 Dp60 Dp75 Dp90 Dp105
termined.
The test data includes those from test in this pa- Figure 12. Analysis model Figure 13. Per stud strength
per and push-out test on stud shear connector in high
strength concrete slab from other studies (Hitaka et In order to gain an insight into the load distribu-
al. 2009, An et al. 1996). The data from the finite el- tion of studs arranged along the loading direction,
ement analyses consist of two series of analyses that the shear bearing force of each stud was recorded by
focuses on different variables. The first series focus- using a section force output method in the ABAQUS
es on the dimension of welded collar (dwc and lwc), analyses. The shear force-slip curves of the front
while the second series focuses on the concrete stud and rear stud in Model Dp30 and Model Dp90
strength fc' of the slab. From regression analysis, the are shown in Figure 14. In the beginning, the shear
empirical factor η = 3 is found to best fit the data. force in the front stud and rear stud are similar, but
when the studs begin to yield, a notable difference
on the shear capacity occurs; the front one shows a
larger shear bearing load than other studs in Model
Dp30, while the two studs show similar shear bear-
ing load in Model Dp90. These differences of shear
bearing force among studs were one of the reasons
for the group effect.
100
Shear bearing load (kN)
dp=30 mm
80
60
40
20
0 0
0 1
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Shear bearing force-slip curves for front stud and
rear stud: (a) Model Dp30; (b) Model Dp90.
In order to allow for the design of close stud
spacing than the current design requirement, it is
necessary to provide an empirical equation for the
strength of the shear connector with headed studs
embedded in solid SFRCC slab. Based on the test
results and numerical analyses, an empirical equa-
tion for the strength reduction factor α with respect
to the stud pitch Cp (Dp/d) is proposed by linear re-
gression analysis as in the Figure 15. The strength
reduction factor α is defined as the ratio of the per
stud strength of the connection with two studs in dif-
ferent pith length to the strength of connection with
single stud, and the spacing factor Cp is the ratio of
stud pitch length to stud diameter. As indicated in
Equation 6, the Cp ranges from 3, which is little
larger than the minimum spacing required for stud
installation, to 13, which is determined by the inter-
section point of Equations 6 and 7 in Figure 15. The
equation considers the reduction on the shear
strength when the studs are densely arranged with a
smaller pitch length.
1.1
Reduction factor α
1 α = 0.01Cp + 0.87
0.9
Cp=3
0.8
2 7
Figure 15. Effect of stud spacing on the strength reduction
0.01𝐶𝑝 + 0.87 ≤ 1
𝛼=
1 𝑓𝑜𝑟
Although this equation needs improvement by
more tests and analyses, it shows a clear view on the
effect of stud pitch length. The equation only allow
for the interaction between two studs arranged along
the loading direction, but when more than two studs
are arranged along the loading direction, the strength
reduction factor is expected to be affected by the
number of studs. The effect of the number of studs
will be investigated in a future study.
6. CONCLUSIONS
100
Shear bearing load (kN)
dp=30 mm
80
1. Five push-out tests were conducted, with the
60 number of studs, gauge length, and pitch length as
Rear stud 40 Rear stud the test parameters. When embedded in SFRCC, the
Front stud Front stud
20 studs arranged densely with a 45mm pitch length
(3.4 times the stud diameter) can still possess the
2 3 0 1 2 3
Slip (mm) Slip (mm) shear strength not smaller than 90% of the shear
strength of a single stud.
2. In comparison with the gauge spacing, the
pitch spacing is more influential to the behavior of a
group of studs.
3. The shear strength of a single stud is signifi-
cantly larger than the strength stipulated by leading
codes, and it is because of the significant increase in
the shear resistance in the bottom collar portion.
4. A parametric study was conducted and design
equations were proposed for the shear strength of a
single stud and the reduction in the shear strength
when the studs are densely arranged with a smaller
pitch length.
REFERENCES:
Oehlers, DJ. and Johnson, R.P. (1987). The strength of stud
shear connections in composite beams, The Structural En-
gineer.
Kaneko, Y., Mihashi, H., Kirikoshi, K. and Abe, T. (2000).
Simplified uniaxial constitutive model of steel fiber rein-
forced cementitious composite. Journal of Architecture,
115(1464), 5-8.
Nielsen, C. (1995). Ultra High-Strength Steel Fibre Reinforced
Concrete, Part I, Basic Strength Properties of Compresit
Matrix. Technical University of Denmark.Series R, 323.
Kaneko, Y., Mihashi, H., Kirikoshi, K. (2005). Beam-Column
α=1 Joint with Steel Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composite
in Steel Structures. Journal of Advanced Concrete Tech-
nology, 3(2), 321-330.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2005).
Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago.
Hegger, J., Sedlacek, G., Döinghaus, P., and Trumpf, H.
Cp=13 (2001). Studies on the ductility of shear connectors when
using high-strength concrete. Proc., International Symposi-
um on Connections between Steel and Concrete, University
12 17 of Stuttgart, 1024-1045.
Longitudinal spacing factor Cp (=Dp/d) Hitaka T., Cui Y., Tai T., Song S., Nakashima M., (2009).
Push-Out Test on Shear Stud Connectors in Solid SFRCC
Slab: Part I Experiment and Results. Kinki Branch of the
𝑓𝑜𝑟 3 ≤ 𝐶𝑝 ≤ 13 (6) Arch. Inst. of Japan, steel Com., Osaka.
𝐶𝑝 > 13 (7) An, L., and Cederwall, K. (1996). Push-Out Tests on Studs in
High Strength and Normal Strength Concrete. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 36(1), 15-29.