Proceedings of Constructional Steel Vol.

19November 2011

19 201111

SFRCC
Experimental Study on Strength of Composite Structural Connection with Steel Studs Closely Arranged in SFRCC Slab
* ** *** **** *****

Yunbiao LUO*, Kazuaki HOKI**, Shuhai SONG***, Yao CUI****, Masayoshi NAKASHIMA*****

The paper presents the results obtained from a series of push-out tests of studs embedded in unreinforced SFRCC slab. A total of 5 push-out tests are conducted, with the number of studs, the gage length, and pitch length as the test parameters. When embedded in SFRCC, the studs arranged densely with a pitch length of 3.5 times the stud diameter can still possess the shear strength (per stud) not smaller than 90% of that of a single stud. The shear strength of a single stud is significantly larger than the strength stipulated by leading codes. Detailed finite element analyses are conducted to supplement the experimental data and it was found to be reasonable in estimating the maximum strength. Keywords: SFRCC, , SFRCC, Headed stud shear connectors, Push-out test 1. INTRODUCTION 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 [1]. In recent years, the use of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) has become more common, and the research on FRC is gaining attentions. Various fibers can be applied for FRC, such as steel fibers, glass fibers, etc. Because of the contribution of the fibers, the properties of concrete along with the durability can be improved 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 conventional concrete [2]~[3]. Due
* ** *** **** *****

to the excellent material properties and mechanical performance of SFRCC, it is promising for structural applications. Recent research revealed that applying SFRCC to steel-concrete interface connected with headed stud connector can significantly enhance the structural integrity and improve the construability. Enhancement in structural performance by the employment of SFRCC is expected to be applicable to a wide range of engineering structures where steel and concrete are connected through headed studs. However until now, the understanding of the behavior and strength of headed stud connectors in SFRCC slab is still insufficient. Furthermore, due to excellent material properties of SFRCC, it is expected that the headed stud shear connectors can be arranged much more densely than the currently permitted distances that are stipulated for concrete in leading design codes. The objectives of this study are to quantify the
( 611-0011 ( 611-0011 ( 226-8503 ( 611-0011 . ) ) ) )

Ph.D. ( ), 2011

1/6

215

Proceedings of Constructional Steel Vol.19November 2011

19 201111

behavior and shear capacity of headed studs in the SFRCC slab and examine the reduction of shear capacity caused by a small interval of studs when studs are arranged in a group. 2. PUSH-OUT TESTS 2.1 Overview of tests and specimens To investigate the resistance capacity of a stud or a group of studs, a series of push-out test were conducted. Five specimens were tested with the global dimensions as shown in Figure 1. Each specimen consists of two SFRCC slabs, each of which is connected to a 345 mm long structural tee in which headed shear studs are welded. Headed stud connectors of 13 mm diameter and 47 mm length were used for all specimens. Slabs are 176 mm by 304 mm, and with 77 mm in thickness. Each slab is cast horizontally, locating the shear studs in a vertical position. SFRCC test cylinders were cast along with the specimens and cured in the same condition. The push-out specimen halves were then bolted through the webs as shown in Figure 1.
Steel plate 100x260x6
40 88

Beam CT-75x150x7x10

Dg
Stud d13, L=47

They are 6 times (78 mm) and 4 times the stud diameter (52 mm), respectively. This area was specified as the stud zone, and the studs are arrayed in different arrangement within this zone. The longitudinal spacing Dp, transverse spacing Dg, and the number of studs n are chosen as the test parameters to investigate the interaction between studs, named group effect herein. Specimen 'SP2G2' was designed as the baseline specimen, in which the pitch and gage of studs is 90 mm and 60 mm, respectively. The length is expected sufficient to avoid the group effect, i.e., the reduction in strength, of the group of studs. For further confirmation, Specimen 'SP1G1' with only one stud in each slab was also designed for comparison with Specimen 'SP2G2'. Specimens 'SP3G2' and 'SP3G3' were designed to investigate the transverse spacing, by reducing the gage from 60 mm to 30 mm; while Specimens 'SP2G2', 'SP3G2', and 'SP4G2' were designed to investigate the longitudinal spacing effect, by reducing the pitch from 90 mm to 45 mm and 30 mm, respectively. All the specimens are summarized in Table 1 and the arrangement of studs in the respective specimens are illustrated in Figure 2. Table 1. Specimens details and test results
Spec. Details of specimens Dp Dg Dp/d Dg/d mm mm 90 60 6.9 4.6 45 60 3.5 4.6 45 30 3.5 2.3 30 60 2.3 4.6 n 1 4 6 9 8 Test results Failure Pstud kN mode 110.2 104.4 Stud 93.1 fracture 93.6 76.6 Slab split

305

Bolt F10T M16

Dp

40

87

90

77

150 304

77

58

60 58 176

(a) Front view (b) Elevation view Fig. 1. Details of specimens SFRCC test cylinders were cast along with the specimens and cured in the same condition. The smear steel fiber in SFRCC provides reinforcement to the slabs. To study the basic properties of the connection with steel stud embedded in SFRCC slab, the slabs were cast without any rebar. One objective of this research is to investigate that how to arrange stud group in a certain zone to obtain the transmittable shear force as large as possible, and a relatively small area with the length of 90 mm and width of 60 mm, which is slightly larger than the permitted minimum pitch length and gauge length.

SP1G1 SP2G2 SP3G2 SP3G3 SP4G2

60 90

60

30 30
45 90 45 60 30 90 30 30

60 90

45
45

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 2. Layout of studs (a) SP1G1 (b) SP2G2 (c) SP3G2 (d) SP3G3 (e) SP4G2 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 2/6

216

Proceedings of Constructional Steel Vol.19November 2011

19 201111

were 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height. According to the test results, the compressive strength of SFRCC was 119.1 MPa and the splitting tensile strength was 17.0 MPa, respectively. Material tests on studs were not conducted. The yield strength of 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 3a. 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 transducers (LVDTs) were used to measure the slip between the beam and slabs, as indicated in Figure 3b. The average taken from the eight values measured by LVDTs was defined as the slip between the slab and steel flange.
LVTD

Two failure modes were observed from the push-out test. As indicated in Figure 4, Specimen SP4G2 failed by slab split, while the other specimens failed by shear fracture of studs. For the specimens that failed in stud shear fracture, the fracture occurred in the shank close to the welding collar and the welded collar encountered a very large compressive force that the SFRCC is crushed obviously in front of the welded collar.
Loading Loading Splitting

Fractured stud SFRCC Slab

Fractured stud SFRCC Slab

(a) Stud fracture (b) Slab splitting Fig. 4. Failure model

900
800 700

120
100

(kN)

600
500 400 Pmax Pstud

80
60

Loading

Oil jack Restrain beam

(kN)

LVTD location On slab

SFRCC Steel tee Slab

300
200 100

40
20

0
SP2G2 SP3G2 SP3G3 SP4G2

Fig. 5. Comparison of Pmax and Pstud

Specimen Base LVTD location On steel flange

(a) Loading frame (b) Measurement Fig. 3. Setup of push-out tests: 3 TESTS RESULTS 3.1 General In the tests, the ultimate strength of the shear connector is 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.

As an objective of the test is to investigate how to arrange a stud group in a limited zone to obtain the largest transmittable shear force, both resistance of each stud (Pstud) and the ultimate shear load transferred to the beam flange (Pmax) are compared in Figure 5. For the per stud resistance, when compared to Specimen 'SP2G2', Specimens 'SP3G2' and SP3G3' show 10.3% reduction, while the strength of Specimen SP4G2 failed by slab split was reduced by 26.7%. This means that per stud is reduced by about 10% and 20% when the pitch is changed from 90 mm to 45 mm and 30 mm, respectively. It was proven that when embedded in SFRCC, the studs arranged densely with a 45mm pitch length (3.5d, d as the stud diameter) can still possess the shear strength not smaller than 90% of 3/6

217

Proceedings of Constructional Steel Vol.19November 2011

19 201111

Pstud (kN)

the shear strength of a single stud. When the gauge length changed from 60 mm to 30 mm, no significant difference on strength was found between Specimens 'SP3G2' and 'SP3G3'. For the shear load transferred to the beam flange Pmax, it is notable that the transferred shear load increased as the number of studs increased with the reduction in stud spacing, except for Specimen 'SP4G2', in which the splitting cracks formed in the slab. Compare Specimen 'SP2G2' and Specimen 'SP3G3', shows that, within a space of 90 mm by 60 mm, only 4 studs are permitted to be placed for concrete, but for SFRCC, it is possible to place 9 studs and the transferred shear force increases more than 2 times of what can be achieved in concrete. 3.2 Load-slip relationship Curves of per stud load-slip relationship are as shown in Figure 6. The slip is the average taken from the eight values measured by LVTDs. For the specimens failed in stud fracture, they reach their respective maximum 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' which failed in slab splitting, it reaches the maximum strength at a slip about 0.46 mm, and then the splitting crack along the loading direction occurred on the slab. The load-slip curve exhibits a ductile gradually decreases as the split crack grows under continued loading.
Per stud load (kN)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 SP1G1 SP3G2 SP3G3 2 3 SP2G2 SP4G2
SP4G2 SP1G1 SP3G3 SP3G2 SP2G2

and other design specifications, such as Eurocode 4 and AIJ. AISC-LRFD prescribes the nominal strength of one stud shear connector embedded in solid concrete or in a composite slab as:
= min 0.5 (1) (2)

where As is the cross-sectional area of the stud, fu is tensile strength of the stud shear connector, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, and fc' is the compressive strength of concrete cylinders.
120

Test
100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2000 4000

Equation. (2) Equation .(1) Stud failure Slab failure

Fig. 7. Comparison on tests and analysis

It can be seen in the Figure 7 that, when comparing to the AISC design strength, all of the tested maximum per stud strengths are significantly larger than 62.9 kN, the design strength obtained from Equation 2 of Pu=Ascfu. Data and analyses are still insufficient to explain the causes, but the differences clearly indicate that the current design equation for shear connectors were developed based on the tests with conventional concrete material. When SFRCC is adopted instead of concrete, the current strength estimation equation may be too conservative. To gain a deeper insight on the strength characteristics of headed stud shear connector embedded in SFRCC slab, detailed finite element analyses were carried out to supplement the experimental data. 4. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS The objective of the numerical analysis is to simulate the experimental behavior of headed stud connectors in the SFRCC slab. Three dimension finite element models are developed by ABAQUS 6.9.3 to 4/6

Slip (mm)

Fig. 6. The load-slip relation curves 3.3 Comparison between tests and analysis The design standards for shear studs in solid concrete slabs are available in AISC-LRFD (2005) [4]

218

Proceedings of Constructional Steel Vol.19November 2011

19 201111

reproduce the experimental behavior of shear stud connectors in solid SFRCC slab. The results from the proposed model are compared with the push-out test results to verify the reliability of the model. 4.1 Element type and mesh Components including SFRCC slab, beam flange, beam web and studs were modeled with solid C3D8R element, which is a three-dimensional eight-node element with reduced integration and hourglass control help to improve the rate of convergence. Due to the symmetry of the specimens, only a quarter of the push-out test arrangement was modeled. An overview of the finite element model is shown in Figure 8a.

4.3 Loading and boundary conditions The load was applied by imposing displacement in the Z direction up to 6 mm, which was close to the stud fracture slip (4 to 5 mm), observed in the test. The displacements of all nodes in the slab (Surface 1 in Figure 8b) were restrained. Considering the symmetry, the displacement in the Y direction of all nodes was restrained along the web end (Surface 2); likewise, the displacement in the X direction of all nodes was restrained for the slab, stud and steel web (Surface 3). 4.4 Material models and properties A classical metal plasticity was adopted to define the material properties of the elements that represent the headed stud connectors and steel beam based on the data decided in the inspection certificate. A bilinear and tri-linear stress-strain model with Youngs modulus Es =205GPa was adopted to simulate the beam and the stud. The difference in material properties between the stud and weld collar is neglected, and the material property for the stud was also assigned to the weld collar. The damage plasticity model was adopted to represent material characteristics of SFRCC. According to the research of Nielsen[5], the compressive stress-strain relationship of SFRCC is defined by the following Equation 3,
= 2.5 1.5 +
.

Stud SFRCC slab

Beam flange

Surface 3
Beam web

Surface 2 z x

y Surface 1

(a) Model mesh (b) Boundary conditions Fig. 8. Finite element model: As for the modeling of headed studs, past studies pointed out that the presence of a weld collar can significantly affect the strength of the stud shear connector. Especially when the headed studs with a welded collar are embedded in high strength concrete, the influence of the weld collar on the shear capacity of stud shear connector can be very large. As shown in Figure 9, headed stud includes weld collar part to allow for its influence on the shear strength.
22
Stud

(3)

Unit: mm 10 47 4

(MPa)

(b) (a) Fig. 9. Model of stud (a) Mesh (b) Dimension.

18

Weld collar

Where c and fc' are the compressive strain and stress at the peak point; and the strain-stress relation is graphically shown in Figure 10a. The tensile behavior of the applied material model is defined independently in two strain levels. Up to cracking, the stress-strain relation is linear; and post-cracking behavior is defined by a linear stress-crack opening displacement relationship as shown in Figure 10b.
150

ft
100

4.2 Interaction and constrain conditions Contact interaction with a friction coefficient of 0.4 was defined between the slab and beam flange surface. Therefore, contact and detachment between the different surfaces were considered automatically.

50 0

Gf
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
t0

(a) Compression (b) Tension. Fig. 10. Stress-strain relationship 5/6

219

Proceedings of Constructional Steel Vol.19November 2011

19 201111

The compressive stress at the peak point fc'=119.1 MPa, was determined by the material test; the tensile stress at the peak point ft =17.0 MPa were estimated by the equation developed by Kaneko[3] and using the tested split strength. Youngs modulus of E0=49GPa and fracture energy of Gf=6.6 N/mm were also determined by equations recommended by Kaneko [3]. = /(2 ) (4)

4.4 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.
120
(kN)

12, and the difference in maximum strength obtained from the tests and analyses ranged from 2% to 14 %. For the initial stiffness, as shown in Figure 11, the analyzed stud stiffness is larger than the test stiffness. It is because that the tested stiffness is affected by the layer of mortar between slabs and the base to achieve a uniform horizontal loading on the specimens. It is notable that FEM model with studs including welded collar can predict the maximum strength of the specimen well. The further parametric study using the verified model will be conducted in the further studies. 5. CONCLUSIONS (1) Five push-out tests were conducted, with the number of studs, gauge length, and pitch length as the test parameters. When embedded in SFRCC, the studs arranged densely with a 45mm pitch length can still possess the 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) A finite element model that represented the physical push-out test was reasonable in estimating the maximum strength. REFERENCES 1) Oehlers, D.J., Johnson, R.P.: The strength of stud shear connections in composite beams, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 65, pp.44-48, 1987. 2) Bache, H.: Densified Cement/Ultrafine ParticleBased Materials, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Superplasticizers in concrete, Ottawa, Canada, pp.19-33, 1981. 3) Kaneko, Y., Mihashi, H., Kirikoshi, K., and Abe, T.: Simplified uniaxial constitutive model of steel fiber reinforced cementitious composite. Journal of Architecture, 115(1464), pp.5-8, 2000. 4) American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC): Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago, 2005. 5) Nielsen, C.: Ultra High-Strength Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Part I, Basic Strength Properties of Composite Matrix. Technical University of Denmark. Series R, 323, 1995. 6/6

80 40 Test Analytical

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 Displacement (mm)

Fig. 11. Load-disp. curve of specimen 'SP2G2'

Pstud (kN)

120
80 40 Test FEM

Fig. 12. Comparison on test and numerical results Figure 11 shows comparison between the experimental and analytical load-displacement relation curves for Specimens 'SP2G2'. Figure 12 shows comparison between the resistances of stud obtained from the tests and analyses, along with the compressive plastic contour of slabs, in where the white regions encircled by a thin black border represent the crushed SFRCC portion. A fairly good agreement between the two results was observed in both Figure 11 and Figure

220