You are on page 1of 20

SHEAR STUD CAPACITY IN PROFILED STEEL

DECKS


RAED J. ZAKI is the
Assistant Structural Engineer
at HERA. He obtained his
BE at the University of
Baghdad, Iraq and his
Masters at the University of
Auckland, New Zealand. He
is currently working on the
application of steel semi-
rigid joints in a damage
avoidance seismic system
and on improved design
provisions for shear studs in composite floor
systems.

JOHN BUTTERWORTH
is Deputy Head,
Department of Civil and
Environmental
Engineering, University of
Auckland. His research
interests include behaviour
of steel structures,
earthquake engineering,
passive seismic protection,
structural dynamics, thin-
walled metal sections,
composites, structural
stability and large scale dynamic testing of bridges
and buildings.


G. CHARLES CLIFTON
heads the Structural
Division of HERA (the
New Zealand Heavy
Engineering Research
Association). His role there
is to promote the proper
and effective use of
structural steel in New
Zealand. His principal
activities are research,
development of design
guidance and technical
promotion. He runs HERAs fire and seismic
research programme, which is aimed at improving
the safety and cost-effectiveness of structural steel
building performance in the high risk but infrequent
events of severe fire and severs earthquake. He is a
Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers
New Zealand and of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering.

ABSTRACT

The New Zealand design procedure for composite
beams incorporates provisions for headed, welded
shear stud design shear capacity developed for
North American standards in the 1970s, modified
with a partial strength reduction factor incorporated
in 1992. Following New Zealand and international
tests which showed shortcomings with these
equations, the topic of composite beam design
using shear studs and trapezoidal decking was re-
evaluated in 2003 and a series of experimental tests
undertaken to determine the adequacy of proposed
new provisions.

This paper covers the following: the changes made,
the previous reports on over-estimating the stud
capacity, the testing of eleven shear stud push-
through specimens and the results of these tests.

Also included are constructional issues such as stud
positioning, the effect of decking edge in primary
beams and the influence of the self weight of the
slab on the transverse bending moment acting on
the beam and its effect on the shear studs. The
results of these tests have allowed us to make
recommendations for shear stud capacity, which
more accurately reflect the failure modes that
occurred, and to incorporate these into revisions to
the composite beam design procedure for beams
supporting concrete slabs on profiled steel decks.























Raed J. Zaki
John Butterworth
G. Charles Clifton

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of composite steel beams with profiled
steel decking and in-situ concrete floors has
increased in recent years in New Zealand and
around the world. This increased interest led to a
critical review of current design procedures in
(NZS 3404:1997) arising from concerns that these
provisions overestimate the strength of shear studs
in profiled steel decks. A number of studies, (Lin,
et. al., 2001), (Jayas and Hosain, 1988 & 1989),
have shown that many building codes over-estimate
the predicted ultimate shear stud capacity, in
comparison with the observed shear stud capacity.
This has led to updating of standards; for example
the latest (CSA S16-01: 2001) has been revised to
correct this error.

This paper presents an overview of research
recently undertaken (Zaki, et. al., 2003) into the
adequacy of current New Zealand design provisions
for composite beams supporting profiled steel
decks. Following a detailed comparison of the
overall New Zealand composite design procedure
(NZS 3404:1997) with that from the United
Kingdom (BS 5950(1990)), Europe (Eurocode 4:
ENV 1994-1-1:1994), and Canada (CSA
S16:2001), recommendations for changes to the
design provisions and to the equations for
determining the capacity of headed, welded shear
studs have been made. The latter were based
initially on a review of the international standards
mentioned above and an experimental testing
programme was undertaken.

















Figure 2.1. Concepts of composite construction
(Oehlers and Bradford 1995).

That programme has led to further recommended
changes to the shear stud capacity equations. The
end result has been minor changes to the composite
beam design provisions and a revision to the
equations for determining shear stud capacity. The
overall effect will be more accurate determination
of the number of shear studs needed in a composite
beam. Further areas of required research have also
been identified.

This paper firstly reviews, in section 2, the concepts
involved in composite action. This includes the
strength of shear connectors in solid slabs and in
profiled slabs, covering the various failure modes
identified in the literature.

While one of the main drivers behind this research
was concern over the design capacity of shear studs
as predicted by (NZS 3404:1997), it is important to
note that the calculated shear strength of a welded
stud is only one of the factors that determines the
shear stud numbers and positions required in a
composite beam. The first stage of the research
therefore involved a comparative calculation study
of the design requirements for a range of steel
beams designed to New Zealand, British, European
and Canadian practice. Section 3 presents details of
this work. The conclusions from this research are
presented in section 7, followed by the references.

2. CONCEPTS OF COMPOSITE
CONSTRUCTION

2.1 Composite Steel-Concrete Sections:

Composite construction is based upon connecting a
concrete slab to a steel beam so that the two
elements act as one. By placing the steel beam in
tension, the high tensile strength of the beam can be
fully used, and the possibility of buckling of thin

















steel members can be reduced. Likewise, by placing
concrete slabs in compression, the disadvantage of
weak concrete tensile strength can be avoided and
the advantage of good compression strength/cost
fully utilised. Also, concrete slabs have good sound
and fire insulation properties. A common form of
construction is to use a steel beam to support the
slab, as shown in figure. 2.1(a) and (b). It has been
found that by bonding the steel beam to the
steel/concrete interface
strain distribution
composite beam
A
(a)
reinforced-concrete slab
A
(c)composite slab
steel decking or profiled sheet
composite beam
steel beam
(b)
A-A
B
C
B
C
concrete
B
cold formed ribs
weff
x
x
(a) Full composite beam
b
eff
Profiled, cold - formed steel
decking.
(a) Full composite beam-strain distribution.

concrete slab by shear connectors, the flexural
strength and stiffness of the beam can be at least
doubled (Oehlers and Bradford, 1995). This in turn
leads to an increase in the span to depth ratio that
can be used.

Figure 2.1 (a) shows the strain distribution
associated with full interaction between the steel
beam and the concrete slab. In this instance, there is
no interface slip between them. In practise, a
limited degree of interface slip is usually allowed
and incorporated into the design; this is known as
partial composite action.

Another type of composite structure is formed
when profiled steel decking is used as a permanent
formwork for a concrete slab and is designed to act
integrally with the concrete so that the two
components act as one, as shown in figure 2.1 (c).













Figure 2.2 Composite beam with profiled steel
decking.

The most commonly used composite section is the
one that connects the concrete slab with the steel
beam by welding connectors between them to
achieve composite action, as shown in figure 2.2.
The connector is welded through the troughs of the
profiled decking to the flange of the steel beam
(Oehlers and Bradford, 1995). The ribs of the
profiled decking, through which the interaction













Figure 2.3 Shear stud and transfer of connector
force (Oehlers and Bradford 1995)

between the steel decking and the concrete is
achieved, can be placed either parallel, or
transverse to the steel element. New Zealand is one
of the very few countries to have all-weather stud
welding capability, which elevates the economic
viability of headed studs when compared with other
anchor types as it allows these to be welded through
the deck or directly onto the beam even in wet
weather. The study reported herein focuses on this
type of composite construction and specifically on
the connector between steel beam and concrete slab
known as the headed, welded shear stud (hereafter
referred to as a shear stud).

2.2 Shear Stud.

The shear stud, as shown in figure 2.3 (a), is the
most commonly used shear connector in composite
construction. The shank and the weld-collar
adjacent to the steel flange are designed to resist the
longitudinal shear force, whereas the head is
designed to resist the tensile force that is normal to
the steel/concrete interface and to engage the
concrete. The shank diameter of headed studs
ranges from 10mm to 22mm. The most commonly
used is the 19mm diameter. The length of headed
studs before welding varies from 55mm to 250mm.
After welding the stud length will have decreased
by 3mm to 11mm, depending on the stud diameter
and the stud application, i.e. welding through
decking burns off some 2-4mm more than clean
beam welding (Clifton, 1998).

Oehlers and Bradford (1995) noted that shear studs
are simply steel dowels embedded in a concrete
medium. As the concrete slab tries to slip relative to
the beam, the stud imposes a very high
concentrated force, which is transferred from the
dowel action of the stud into the concrete, as
illustrated in figure 2.3(b). The resistance of a stud
to this dowel action is known as the dowel strength,
and this strength is specified in the New Zealand.














Standard (NZS 3404:1997) as the nominal shear
capacity of connectors. The dispersing of this
force into the concrete element can induce tensile
cracking particularly when the connector is also
(c) plan view of slab
showing crack formation
T
height
(a) stud
diameter
(b) dowel action
C
embedment
cracking
weld collar
shank
head
steel dowel
steel element
concrete element
ripping
C
T
shear splitting
steel
concrete
Transverse
cracking
Splitting
Longitudinal
(a) Ribs Parallel
(b) Ribs Transverse
Composite Slab

resisting separation at the steel/concrete interface of
the composite beam, which in turn is caused by
transverse cracking, shear and longitudinal splitting
actions. Figure 2.3 (b) shows the tensile cracks that
are also known as embedment cracks, and figure
2.3 (c) shows the dispersal of the dowel action
inducing a longitudinal splitting crack.

These forms of tensile failure of the slab can affect
both the dowel strength and ductility of the shear
connection. With the absence of reinforcing bars
crossing the planes of cracking, the strength of the
dowel reduces immediately after cracking occurs
and the slip capacity is also reduced. On the other
hand, the presence of reinforcement across a crack
plane makes failure more ductile and even allows
increases in stud shear resistance after cracking.

2.3 Mechanism of dowel action.

Figure 2.4(a), from (Oehlers and Bradford, 1995),
demonstrates the transfer of longitudinal shear by
dowel action of shear studs. That figure shows the
resulting mechanism where the stud is forced to the
right when the steel beam moves to the right,
causing the stud to bear on the concrete to the right
of the stud. For the dowel action to work, the
concrete adjacent to the bearing zone has to
withstand compressive stresses up to seven times
the cylinder strength, f
c
, which is only achieved by
the triaxial restraint imposed on the region by the
steel element, the stud and the surrounding
concrete.

The resultant force in the bearing zone in figure
2.4(a) is F, the centroid of which occurs at an
eccentricity, e, from the steel/concrete interface.
There is horizontal equilibrium between the force F
and the shear force in the steel element and, to
maintain the rotational equilibrium, a moment is
induced at the base of the stud. Therefore, the steel
stud must resist both flexural and shear forces,
















Figure 2.4 Dowel mechanism (Oehlers and
Bradford 1995)
which are the cause of high tensile stresses in the
steel failure zone shown in figure 2.4 (c). Due to
these forces the concrete can crush in the bearing
zone and the steel can fracture in the steel failure
zone, therefore the mechanism of dowel failure is
governed by the interaction between the steel and
concrete failure zones. This can be best described
by considering the equivalent dowel mechanism in
figure 2.4 (b). As shown in figure 2.4 (b), the dowel
behaviour can be considered to be a steel beam
resting on a concrete medium (Oehlers and
Bradford, 1995), where section a-a at the midspan
of the steel beam in figure 2.4(b) is equivalent to
section a-a at the steel/concrete interface in figure
2.4(a).

Consider the distribution of pressure at the
steel/concrete interface in (b), for a constant applied
force 2F and for different configurations of the
material properties. When the steel modulus E
s
approaches infinity, the pressure at the interface can
be considered uniform and hence the resultant force
F in one shear span will act at an eccentricity e=h/2.
The section at midspan has therefore to resist a
shear force F and a moment Fh/2, and the dowel
strength of the stud is determined at this section.
Conversely, when E
s
approaches zero, the steel
beam can be visualized as a layer of paper such that
the resultant interface force in one shear span is
now almost in line with the applied force, so that e
tends to zero. Therefore, the midspan of the beam
now only resists a shear force F. It can therefore be
seen that as E
s
increases relative to the concrete
modulus E
c
, shear stud capacity reduces because
the flexural component Fe at midspan increases.

On the other hand decreasing E
c
is equal to
increasing E
s
, by increasing e which in turn
increases the flexural component Fe therefore
reduces the shear stud capacity. Therefore, the
shear stud capacity is proportional to the modular
ratio parameter E
s
/E
c
, no matter what the shape or
size of the steel dowel.

















(b) equivalent dowel mechanism
mid-span
steel beam Es,f u
(a) dowel mechanism
F
Fe
a a
e
crack
tip
concrete medium
Ec,fc
shear stud Es,fu
F
2F
F1
h F
(c) dowel mechanism with weld collar
F
e1
concrete medium
Ec,f c
d
h
a a
F
e
e
steel failure
zone
e2
F2
concrete
bearing zone
d
sh
weld collar
hco
hst

Since the studs are welded into the steel element
and specifically in the flange of the steel beam, a
weld collar with a diameter of about 1.3 times the
shank diameter d
sh
and a height of about 0.3 d
sh
,

as
shown in Figure. 2.4 (c), is formed. This collar
increases the shear stud capacity by increasing the
bearing surface at the stud/concrete interface, which
in turn reduces the stresses in the concrete for a
given force F. It also increases the shear stud
capacity by raising the steel failure zone so that it
occurs at the weld-collar/shank interface. Raising
that zone will subject the zone to a portion F
2
of the
total shear force F. The weld collar also reduces the
flexural stresses at the failure zone since the
eccentricity e
2
of F
2
in (c) is less than the
eccentricity e of F in (a).

2.4. Strength of Shear Stud Connectors.

2.4.1 Introduction.

Since the stud is embedded in concrete, the shear
stud capacity is dependent on the properties of the
concrete slab in addition to the properties of the
steel stud. If the concrete in the bearing zone splits
or crushes, it will cause the base of the stud to
move forward, while the head of the stud remains
in the previous position. This will lead to a larger
slip at the steel beam/concrete slab interface than
that caused only by the deformation of the stud.
This failure may also lead to rotation of the stud,
which will generate flexural rotation actions and an
additional axial tensile force in the stud. The
magnitude of this axial tensile force increases as the
rotation of the stud increases, tending to pull the
stud out of the concrete, according to (Hyland, et.
al., 2000). The strength of the concrete that resists
stud pullout is called the embedment strength of the
shear stud, while the strength of the concrete that
resists local splitting is known as V
split
.

If the shear stud doesnt fail in a push-through test
by pulling out of the concrete (i.e. by embedment
failure, in which the stud pulls out of the concrete
along with a cone of surrounding concrete), then it
will fail either through concrete crushing/stud
fracture or through longitudinal splitting. The first
case is governed by the dowel strength of the stud
in uncracked concrete and this is described in
section 2.4.2. The second case is covered in section
2.4.3.

2.4.2 Dowel Strength of Shear Studs in
Uncracked Concrete

Ollgaard, et. al. (1971) pioneered research on the
dowel strength of shear stud connectors, and
identified the important parameters that control the
dowel strength. Using statistical analysis, they
derived an equation to determine the mean dowel
strength of shear stud connectors in push off
specimens, in which the concrete slab had not failed
prematurely through splitting, shear or embedment.
This equation for the dowel strength as dictated by
concrete crushing, D
max
, is given by:

44 . 0
c
3 . 0
c sh max
E f A 83 . 1 D = (2.1)

where the units are in N and mm, A
sh
is the cross-
sectional area of the stud shank and E
c
is the
Young's modulus of elasticity of the concrete,
which is given by equation 2.2a

c
5 . 1
c
f 043 . 0 E = (2.2a)

However, New Zealand Standard (NZS 3101:1995)
gives another expression for E
c

( )
5 . 1
c c
2300
6900 f 3320 E |
.
|

\
|
+ = (2.2b)

where E
c
and
c
f are in N/mm, and is the density
of the concrete in kg/m
3
. There is not much
difference between these two expressions,

In adapting equation 2.1 to design use, the
exponents were changed to make the equation
dimensionally correct and simpler, although this led
to a loss of accuracy. The altered equation is

c c
2
sc
c c sc max
E f
8
d
E f A 50 . 0 D

= = (2.3)

Certain types of stud welding procedure produce
very small or no weld collars, and it would be
unsafe to use equation 2.3 directly to determine
their strengths. It was therefore suggested that the
shear strength given by equation 2.3 should be used
in conjunction with a reduction factor when the
mean height of the weld collar is less than d
sh
/5
(Oehlers and Bradford, 1995). The reduction factor
R
co
is given by

sc
co
co
d 3
h 5
3
2
R + = (2.4)

where h
co
is the mean height of the weld collar, and
d
sc
is the shank diameter of the stud.

Equation 2.3 was adopted by (NZS 3404:1997) for
calculating the nominal shear capacity of headed
studs, along with a steel profile reduction factor
dc
,
as determined by (Slutter and Discoll, 1965). That
factor related to the reduction in stud strength in a
ribbed slab. Including
dc
, as specified in section
13.3.2 of the standard, this gives:

dc sc u c c sc dc r
A f E f A 5 . 0 q = (2.5)

where q
r
is the nominal shear capacity, and A
sc
is
the cross-section area of the stud shank which is
equivalent to A
sh
in equation 2.3.
dc
is the decking
reduction factor, f
u
is the minimum tensile strength
of the stud, which is equal to 415 MPa for studs
manufactured to AS 1443 grades 1010 to 1020 or
ASTM A108 grades C1010 to C1020. A strength
reduction factor (
sc
)is used to obtain the design
capacity of headed studs, which is equal to 0.8 for
studs situated in positive moment regions and 0.6
for studs situated in negative moment regions.

The expression f
u
A
sc
in the second half of equation
2.5 represents shear stud failure, i.e. due to steel
failure in the zone shown in figure 2.4 (c). As
described below, such steel failure is principally an
ultimate shear failure and as such is over-estimated
by the expression f
u
A
sc
. This was fortuitously
rectified through the incorporation of the partial
strength reduction factor of 0.8, introduced into the
1992 edition of NZS 3404. However, in the case of
shear stud failure, that 0.8 should be part of the
equation itself.

Amendment No. 1 (2001) for Clauses 13.3.2.1 and
13.3.2.2 stated changes to be made on equation 2.5
by multiplying the reduction factor (
sc
) by (1/0.8)
and (q
r
) by (0.8), as shown in equation 2.6. This
brings the factor (0.8) directly into the equation for
determining shear stud nominal capacity, which
provides better agreement with experimental results
issued in (Hyland, et. al., 2000) and makes the
embedment equations;

dc sc u c c sc dc r
A f 8 . 0 E f A 4 . 0 q = (2.6)

In (Clifton, 2002), another recommendation to
replace equation 13.3.2.1 of (NZS 3404:1997),
shown here in equation 2.6, by:

sc u c c sc dc r
A f 8 . 0 E f A 5 . 0 q = (2.7)

This more correctly represents the dowel strength
of a stud in solid concrete, with the left-hand side of
the inequality representing concrete crushing and
the right hand side shear failure, of the steel stud at
the top of the weld collar.

For ribbed slabs, it has been noted (Slutter and
Driscoll, 1965) that the shear stud shear capacity is
reduced, with the reduction dependent on the
orientation of the ribs. This reduction factor has
been established experimentally, example equation
2.8 for ribs perpendicular to the steel beam, (Grant,
et. al., 1977), which has been adopted by (NZS
3404:1997).
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
rc
r
rc
sc
rc
dc
h
b
1
h
h
n
85 . 0
(2.8)

where n
rc
is the number of studs in a rib, h
sc
is the
total height of the stud, h
rc
is the height of the rib
and b
r
is the mean width of the rib. However, the
reduction factor given in draft Eurocode 4 (Johnson
and Anderson, 1993) is more conservative, using
0.7 as a reduction factor instead of 0.85

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
rc
r
rc
sc
rc
dc
h
b
1
h
h
n
7 . 0
(2.9)

Equations 2.8 and 2.9 are presented as representing
the reduced dowel capacity of the shear studs. They
are experimentally determined on the premise that
the concrete does not undergo longitudinal splitting
at the base. However, review of the pictures from
the Canadian push-off tests (Jayas and Hosain,
1988) indicate that splitting was the likely limiting
mode of failure for their tests. It is therefore
considered likely by the authors that the Canadian
reduction equations represent a splitting-induced
loss of shear stud capacity due to the profiled nature
of the concrete slab. The equation for primary beam
application-which is not presented herein- is also
based on a test configuration that is not
representative of that used in practice.

Given that splitting strength can often govern the
shear stud capacity, the background to this is now
given.

2.4.3 Splitting Strength of Concrete.

a. Primary Beam.

Splitting of the concrete happens when the high,
concentrated dowel stress formed by the shear stud
is dispersed laterally into the concrete element, as
shown in figure 2.3(c). This dispersion is
represented by the arrows marked as C and, to
maintain equilibrium transverse tensile stresses are
induced in the concrete, represented as T. When
these transverse tensile stresses exceed the splitting
tensile strength of the concrete, f
cb
, longitudinal
cracks will form in the concrete prism in the
bearing zone along the line of the shear connectors.
The splitting tensile strength of the concrete f
cb
is
obtained from cylinder split tests, as given by the
following equation:

c cb
' f 5 . 0 f = (2.10)

A detailed background to the shear splitting
provisions is given in section 11.3 of (Oehlers and
Bradford, 1995). The relevant equation for the

nominal concrete splitting resistance of a haunch of
concrete of width b
ce
is given by:

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ =
c
a
2
c
a
cb a sc
d
cb eq ce
split
h
h
h
h
1
f h d 6 . 0
k
f h b 6 . 0
V (2.12)

where:
b
ce
= concrete effective haunch width,
h
a
= 1.8d
sc
, effective stud bearing height. (2.13)
f
c
= characteristic concrete cylinder compression
strength (MPa).
d
sc
= diameter of welded, headed shear stud (mm).
V
split
= nominal splitting capacity (N).
k
d
=
2
ce
sc
b
d
1
1
|
|
.
|

\
|

, lateral force parameter. (2.14)


h
c
= effective haunch height for splitting = min
(4.5h
a
, t
o
).

The following dimensional constraints are required
for equation 2.12 to be valid:

b
c
3d
sc
(2.15)
h
c
3h
a
= 5.4d
sc
(2.16)
h
sc
h
c
(2.17)

where:
b
c
= actual width of insitu concrete into which the
shear stud is embedded (mm)
h
sc
= height of shear stud after installation (mm)

In addition, especially for individual concrete ribs
containing studs, h
sc
4.5h
a
= 8.1d
sc
is highly
desirable, as this places the head of the stud, which
acts as the anchor for preventing vertical slip of the
stud within the concrete, outside of the region of
high compression bearing stress where splitting
initiates. This has benefits in increasing the post-
splitting shear capacity, as given by (Oehlers and
Bradford, 1995).

b. Secondary Beam.

Splitting failure in the secondary beam
configurations, ribs transverse to the beam, has
been represented by some researchers as concrete
pullout failure. (Hawkins and Mitchell, 1984)
proposed the following equation:

c c c
A ' f 45 . 0 V = (2.18)

where:
V
c
= shear capacity due to concrete pull-out failure
(N).
f
c
= concrete compressive strength (MPa).
A
c
= area of concrete pull out failure surface (mm
2
).
Jayas and Hosain (1988) made further research
based on this equation for 38 and 76mm decks,
where they found out that instead of a fixed value
of 0.45, separate coefficients should be used for the
38 and 76mm decks.

However, in our push-off tests on the secondary
beams, the governing failure mode for the
secondary beam studs was a splitting failure mode,
as shown by the classic longitudinal splitting crack
developing in the concrete slab (see section 6.2).
This has been approached through the use of
equation 2.12, obtaining V
split
experimentally and
then back calculating to obtain the effective haunch
width, for the secondary beam, b
ce,sb
.

3. COMPARATIVE CALCULATION PRIOR
TO EXPERIMENTAL TESTING

3.1 Introduction and Scope.

When designing a composite beam, many factors
govern the selection of steel beam size and the
number of shear studs required. These factors may
mean that a significant change in shear stud design
shear capacity may not make much difference to the
number of shear studs required for a given beam
span, configuration and loading.

The purpose of the comparative calculations was to
determine the number of shear studs required for a
range of typical primary and secondary beams
designed in accordance with the strength
requirements of new Zealand, Canadian, British
and European standards. The range of parameters
used in this study are given in Table 3.1.

Each beam was designed to meet all the strength
and serviceability requirements of current New
Zealand practise (NZS 3404:1997) and (Clifton,
2002). The software HiBond Design Wizard, which
covers use of the 55mm high trapezoidal decking
profile used in the study, based on (NZS
3404:1997), was used to achieve this.

Having undertaken these designs and determined
the number of shear studs required, the number of
shear studs required for the same beam size and
applied loads to the requirements of the current
Canadian Standard, British Standard and European
Standard were then determined.

The results of these comparisons were then
tabulated in order to compare the current New
Zealand requirements with those of three major
international composite standards. This was done in
order to give an indication as to the combined effect
of the many parameters influencing the number of
studs required on the design solution and to see
what influence any change in shear stud design

shear capacity would have against current
international best practice.

Parameter
Live Loads 3.5 kPa & 5 kPa
Beam Span 8 m & 15 m
Propping No
Precambered No
Partial Shear
Connection
As stated in the respective
Standard
Slab Span 2.8 m
Thickness 120 mm
Deck Type 55 mm trapezoidal profile.
Stud Height 100 mm
Stud Diameter 19 mm
Stud f
u
415 MPa
Concrete f
c
25 MPa

Table 3.1 Parameters used in the Study.

Section 3.2 presents the New Zealand requirements
for determining the ultimate limit state capacity of a
steel beam and the number of shear studs required.

Section 3.3 presents an overview of the strength
design requirements of the other Standards used,
highlighting the differences between these and the
(NZS 3404:1997) requirements.

Section 3.4 gives some of the comparative results,
first in terms of shear stud design capacity and
secondly in terms of the number of studs required
in each beam size. Full details are in (Zaki, 2003).

Following this work initial recommendation were
proposed for the shear stud design shear capacity
and also for the partial shear connection limits, in
order to keep the net changes to as-built details to a
minimum. The initial recommendations arising at
the end of the comparative calculations are given in
section 3.5.

3.2 New Zealand Provision for Calculation of the
Composite Ultimate Limit State Design Moment
Capacity, M
rc


This involves the following general steps:
1. Calculation of the factored design loads and
design actions (moment and shear).
2. Calculating the maximum axial compression
and tension capacity of the various composite
section components, known as component
capacities.
3. Calculating the shear stud capacity based on the
orientation of decking and number of studs per
set.
4. Determining the percentage of composite
action (PSC) to use.

5. Calculation of the plastic neutral axis and
composite section properties.
6. Calculation of the nominal composite moment
capacity.
7. Multiplying by the global strength reduction
factor to give the design composite moment
capacity.

The full details of this procedure are given in
section 2.2 of (Clifton, 2002).

3.3 Design for Strength to Chosen International
Standards.

These international standards all follow the same
general design procedure, with certain differences
based on their specific development. These
differences to the New Zealand requirements are
given in section 3.3.1 to 3.3.3:

One significant difference between all three
international standards and New Zealand practice is
the use of global strength reduction factors in New
Zealand and the partial strength reduction factors in
the three international standards.

In New Zealand, the design shear capacity of the
shear stud (which does incorporate a partial
strength reduction factor, although this is 1.0 for
studs in positive moment regions) is matched to the
nominal component capacity when determining the
number of shear studs required. The nominal
moment capacity is determined and converted to
design moment capacity through the use of a global
strength reduction factor.

In the three international standards, the nominal
capacity of the shear studs and internal components
is converted to the design capacity through the use
of a partial strength reduction factor, which is
material specific. (Typical values, from Canadian
practice, are 0.8, 0.6, and 0.9 for the shear stud,
concrete and steel beam components respectively).
The design capacity of shear stud is matched to the
design component capacity when determining the
number of shear studs required. The design moment
capacity of the composite section is then
determined directly.

This has important implications when determining
the number of shear studs required by each
procedure, as discussed in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

3.3.1 Canadian Code (CSA S16-01: 2001).

The first difference is the load factors where (1.25)
is used for the dead load and (1.5) is for the live
load (Clause 7.2.4). This is the same as for
(AS/NZS 1170.1:2002) and is not a critical
difference. The minimum shear connection ratio,

(PSC
min
), allowed is 40% and for the component
capacity there is a factor of (0.6) added to the
nominal concrete capacity in compression (N
ccc
)
(Clause 17.9.3) and a factor of (0.9) for the nominal
tensile steel capacity (N
tsc
) (Clause 17.9.3). Finally,
the shear stud capacity for the secondary beam is
calculated according to the following equations:

u c c sc r
Q ' f A 35 . 0 q = 76mm decking. (3.1)
u c c sc r
Q ' f A 61 . 0 q = 38mm decking. (3.2)

where:
q
r
= shear stud capacity.

sc
= factor that depends on the concrete type.
(Clause 17.7.1). For normal weight concrete,
positive moment action it is 0.8.
A
c
= area of concrete pullout surface (cone).
Q
u
= Ultimate shear capacity, which is the
following equation.

c c sc sc u
E ' f A 5 . 0 Q = (3.3)

While the primary beam equation is:

u sc sc c ' c sc sc r
f A E f A 5 . 0 q = (3.4)

3.3.2 British Standard (BS 5950:Part3:Section
3.1:1990).

The BS 5950:Part 3 differences with New Zealand
practice are as follows. First the load factors are
(1.4) used for the dead load and (1.6) for the live
load. The minimum shear connection ratio (PSC
min
)
is taken from Clause 5.5.2 where up to 10m, PSC
min

is 40%, while for 16m and above it is 100%. For
the spans between 10 to 16m, the following
relationship between PSC and the span must be
satisfied:

( )
4 . 0 PSC but
10
6 L
PSC

(3.5)

where:
PSC = Partial Composite Action.
L = span in meters.

As for the component capacity, the concrete
compression stress is based on (0.45 f
cu
) for
determining the design concrete capacity in
compression (N
ccc
) (Clause B.2.1). To convert the
characteristic cube strength of concrete (f
cu
) to
cylinder strength (f
c
) a factor of (0.8) is used. As
for the design tensile steel capacity (N
tsc
) a factor of
(1/1.1) is used (Clause B.2.1). Finally, the design
shear stud capacity is calculated according to the
following equation for both primary and secondary
beams, from Clause 5.4.3:
k Q 8 . 0 Q
k p
= (3.6)

where:

Q
p
= Shear Stud Design Capacity.
Q
k
= Characteristic resistance of the shear
connector, determined directly from experimental
testing and read from a table.
0.8 = strength reduction factor.
k = reduction factor = 1.0 for both secondary and
primary beam configurations using 55mm
trapezoidal decking.

3.3.3 Eurocode 4 (DD ENV 1994-1-1: 1994).

The Eurocode also has similar differences to the
British Standard. The load factors used are the same
as the British (1.4) for dead load and (1.6) live load,
while the shear connection ratio (PSC) is given by
Clause 6.1.2(2). Up to 10m, PSC
min
is taken as
40%, while for 25m and above its taken as 100%.
For the spans between 10 to 25m the following
relationship between PSC and span must be
satisfied:

L 04 . 0 PSC (3.7)

Partial strength reduction factors of (1/1.5) are used
on the calculation of design concrete capacity in
compression (N
ccc
) (Clause 2.3.3.2(1)) and (1/1.1)
for the nominal tensile steel capacity (N
tsc
) (Clause
2.3.3.2(1)). The shear stud capacity is given by the
minimum of the following equations for both
primary and secondary beams, from Clause 6.3.2.1:
v
2
sc
u 1 r
4
d
f 8 . 0 k q

= (3.8)
v
c c 2
sc 2 r
E ' f
d 29 . 0 k q

= (3.9)

where:
d
sc
= diameter of shear connector.
k= constant

3.3.4 Comparative results.

According to (Lin, et. al., 2001) the New Zealand
Standard clearly overestimated the shear stud
capacity, as shown in Figure.3.1, where the
difference between the New Zealand Standard
(NZS 3404:1997), the Canadian Standard (CSA
S16-01:2001, added by the author) and test results
from (Lin et. al., 2001) are clearly demonstrated,
for 30 MPa concrete.

The Canadians recognised the unconservative
nature of their (CSA S16-01: 1984) shear stud
capacity equation for secondary beam
configurations, which prompted (Jayas and Hosain,

1988) to undertake research on the shear stud
capacity. In (Jayas and Hosain, 1988) they
proposed the changes to the shear stud capacity
equation for secondary beams from that given for
primary beams (equation 3.4) to the new equation
3.1 and 3.2. This was followed by a full size test,
details of which are published in (Jayas and Hosain,
1989). These changes were implemented in the
Canadian Code (CSA S16-01: 2001), in Clause
17.7.2.3. As can be seen from Figure 3.1, these
equations predicted much lower shear stud
capacities than the (NZS 3404:1997) provisions,
leading to the potential requirement for more studs
on a given beam.

The results of the comparative calculations are
presented in (Zaki, 2003) with details of 2 cases
given in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 below. These show the
difference between the various standards for deck
and strength reduction factors, shear stud capacity,
number of studs required for the given beam and
shear connection ratio used. The designation
numbers 8/10/3.5 mean that the secondary beam
length was 10 m, primary beam length 8 m and the
load acting on the tributary area 3.5 kPa.














Figure 3.1. Shear force-slip history for f
c
= 30 Mpa
(taken from Figure 5.13-unit 120/N30/19R/12F/02
(Lin, Y., et. al., (2001) with addition by author).

In Table 3.1.a, even though the New Zealand
determination for the primary beam shear stud
capacity is higher than the rest, the number of studs
used is less than the number of studs required by
the British and Eurocode, as the PSC% used is
lower in this instance. Table 3.1.b shows that,
although the New Zealand procedure gives the
greatest shear stud capacity for this secondary
beam; the estimated number of studs is nearly
similar to the other standards. This is largely
determined by practical considerations of stud
spacing in a secondary beam supporting a profiled
steel deck. Looking at table 3.2.a, the New Zealand
shear stud capacity is still higher than the rest, but
the number of studs is higher, as it took a 100%
PSC to make the primary beam work. Table 3.2.b
still has a high capacity, but the PSC is lower than
the British and Eurocode, as they are governed by
Clause 5.5.2 and clause 6.1.2(2) respectively in
their respective standards, (BS 5950:Part3: Section
3.1:1990) and (DD ENV 1994-1-1: 1994). These
state that the PSC is taken as a minimum of 40% till
10m increasing to 100% at 16m and 25m
respectively. Minimum PSC ratio is typically a
governing factor for secondary beam stud numbers.

These comparisons show that research to improve
the New Zealand composite design provisions
should not just be limited to shear stud capacity but
should address the following:

1. The minimum value of PSC required.
2. Whether factors should be added to the
calculation of N
ccc
and N
tsc
to be consistent
with the approach used by the other standards
that use partial material strength reduction
factors to match design shear stud capacity to
design internal action.

3.4. Initial Recommendation

At the conclusion to the comparative studies, the
recommendations on all these considerations
proposed were as follows:

1. For shear stud nominal shear capacity in
secondary beams, use the new Canadian
equations equations 3.1, 3.2 with
interpolation as required and equation 3.3. Use

sc
= 1.0 as for New Zealand practice.
2. For shear stud nominal shear capacity in
primary beams, use equation 2.7 and determine
the potential for rib splitting from experimental
testing.
3. For limits on PSC, change to the Eurocode
provision.
4. Do not make changes to the calculation of
component capacities and the matching of
shear stud design capacity to component
nominal capacity.

The next stage of this project involved an
experimental testing programme to determine shear
stud nominal and design shear capacity when used
in a 55 mm deep trapezoidal deck concrete slab in a
primary and in a secondary beam configuration.









0
30
60
90
120
150
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Meanslip(mm)
S
h
e
a
r

f
o
r
c
e
/
s
t
u
d

(
k
N
)
123 kN (NZS 3404)
83 kN (80% of max)
104 kN (max)
73.2 (CSA S16-01)
128 kN (Eq 2.6 )
58 kN (splitting)

Code Deck R.F. Strength R.F. Capacity No of Studs PSC%
NZ 1 1 94.1 42 70
Canada 1 0.8 89.5 28 75
UK 1 0.8 76 49 100
Eurocode 1 0.8 66.2 56 100

Table 3.1.a. Primary Beam 8/10/3.5.

Code Deck R.F. Strength R.F. Capacity No of Studs Practical No Studs* PSC%
NZ 1 1 94.1 24 34 50
Canada 0.54 0.8 68.5 24 34 40
UK 1 0.8 76 23 34 42
Eurocode 1 0.8 66.2 26 34 42
* Practical number of studs is dictated by 1 stud per deck rib.

Table 3.1.b. Secondary Beam 8/10/3.5

Code Deck R.F. Strength R.F. Capacity No of Studs PSC%
NZ 1 1 94.1 59 100
Canada 1 0.8 89.5 29 80
UK 1 0.8 76 39 80
Eurocode 1 0.8 66.2 51 90

Table 3.2.a. Primary Beam 8/15/5.

Code Deck R.F. Strength R.F. Capacity No of Studs Practical No Studs PSC%
NZ 1 1 94.1 42 49 50
Canada 0.54 0.8 68.5 28 49 40
UK 1 0.8 76 61 49 90
Eurocode 1 0.8 66.2 47 49 60

Table 3.2.b. Secondary Beam 8/15/5.

4. SHEAR STUD TEST SET-UP

4.1. Introduction

Because of the complexity of composite action, as
has already been discussed in sections 2.3 and 2.4,
the strength and ductility of shear studs are always
determined experimentally. The details associated
with the shear stud testing conducted at the
University of Auckland are reported in this section.

The test set-up adopted that previously used by
(Butterworth, 2000), with changes made to the
dimensions of the test units, the shape of the corbel,
and the position of the test units on the test rig. The
shear force was applied by blocking one side of the
test unit and adding a push force on the other side.
The push force and the reaction force were
positioned collinear with the steel-slab interface,
such that the position of the test unit on the test rig
had no influence on test results.

The associated details of the test set-up including
test rig, test units, instrumentation, loading
procedure, and corbel design are discussed in
sections 4.2 to 4.7.

4.2. Shear Stud Testing Rig

The test rig with mounted unit is shown in Figure.
4.1. The frame had three components; the base
frame, head frame and foot frame. The base
frame was bolted to the strong floor of the test hall.
A 1000 kN jack was horizontally bolted to the
head frame. Centre lines of the push force and the
reaction force were regulated by steel bearings,
which were positioned collinear with the steel-slab
interface and the horizontal stiffener in the head
and foot frames.

Test units were laid on packers with the slab
positioned on top and the steel section positioned
underneath, representing the real situation.
Thickness of the packers was carefully adjusted to
make the steel-slab interface collinear with the the
centre line of the bearings (line of thrust). The steel
corbel of the test units was positioned close to jack
and the foot frame restrained the concrete corbel.














Figure 4.1. Test rig with mounted test unit
(Butterworth 2000)

Slide rollers were placed between the packer and
the lower surface of the steel beam, in order for the
slab to freely slide during testing.

4.3 Shear Stud Test Units

4.3.1 General

The push specimens are referred to here as shear
stud test units. The test unit was composed of three
main components steel beam, composite slab and
studs. A typical shear stud test unit is shown in
figure. 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, for both secondary and
primary beams, with each test unit having small
changes from that shown

The design of shear stud test units adopted in this
research closely emulated the design used
previously (Butterworth, 2000), although there
were some changes, these being:

1. As a conventional profiled steel decking was
adopted in this study, the total thickness of the
slab was much less than that previously tested,
so studs with a length complying with (NZS
3404:1997) Clause 13.3.2.2.1 (d)-ie h
sc
h
r
+
40 mm were required. In this case h
sc
95mm
was required.
2. There was no concrete haunch over the steel
beam, which in previous testing had a width
the same as the steel beam top flange.
3. Especially for the secondary beam, stud
spacing was controlled by the decking profile.
4. Because of the reduced slab thickness, the
section of the corbel became more critical, so
the corbel required redesign.
5. Nominal mesh reinforcement complying with
(NZS 3404:1997) was used.

4.3.2 List of Shear Stud Test Units

All test units used in this study are listed in Table
4.1. Key results are presented in section 5, with full
details in (Zaki, 2003).













S is for the secondary beams and P is for the
primary beams. All the secondary beam slabs were
1105mm by 1000mm with 120mm depth while the
primary beams were 1240 mm by 1000 mm with
120mm depth no matter how many studs were
tested.

For the secondary beams, Units S1, S2 and S3 are
identical in the number of studs and concrete
strength, while S4 has the same number of studs but
different concrete strength. S5 has double the
number of studs at the staggered position, while
S6 has the same number of studs as the first 4 with
a concrete strength of 25 MPa but the studs
positioned in the unfavourable position.

For the primary beams P2, P3 and P5 are identical
while P1 is the same but with different concrete
strength and finally, P4 has double the number of
studs at double the spacing compared to P2, P3 and
P4. These differences were intended to generate a
good representation of shear stud capacity and test
the influence of key parameters, but not change too
many variables to give meaningful results. The
shear connection devices used in this study were
headed studs with a shank diameter of 19 mm and a
before-weld length of 106mm, clean beam and 110
mm through deck. These give an installed length of
99-102mm in each instance.

4.4 Loading procedure

The test protocol was based on the Eurocode 4
(1994) recommendation:

1. Load the test unit to 40% of the expected
nominal capacity (failure load) of the stud
group.
2. Cycle the load 25 times between 5% and 40%
of the expected nominal capacity.
3. Continue monotonic loading from 40%, such
that 100% of the expected normal capacity is
reached in under 15 minutes.
4. Measure longitudinal interface slip
continuously during loading, at least until the
load has dropped to 20% below maximum.
80 mm packers
310UC158-HD bolts to strong floor
610UB101
2
9
5
"foot" frame bearing
610UB101
loading plate
"head" frame
horizontal stiffer
bearing
load cell
1000 kN jack
2410

5. Measure transverse separation between the
steel beam and the composite slab close to the
group of shear studs.

Summary Details of Test Units
No. Code Slab
Dimension
f
c
No of
Studs
Comments
1 S1 1105x1000x
120
25 3 Favourable
2 S2 1105x1000x
120
25 3 Favourable
3 S3 1105x1000x
120
25 3 Favourable
4 S4 1105x1000x
120
30 3 Favourable
5 S5 1105x1000x
120
25 6 Double
Staggered
6 S6 1105x1000x
120
25 3 Unfavourable
7 P1 1240x1000x
120
30 4 Single Row
8 P2 1240x1000x
120
25 4 Single Row
9 P3 1240x1000x
120
25 4 Single Row
10 P4 1240x1000x
120
25 4 Double Row
at Double the
Spacing
11 P5 1240x1000x
120
25 4 Single Row

Table 4.1 Shear Stud Test Units.



Figure 4.2 Unit 2 ready for concrete casting.



Figure 4.3 Unit P2 ready for concrete casting.


Figure 4.4 Test Unit S1 ready for testing.

5. SHEAR STUD TEST RESULTS

Reporting of the final shear force-slip history
adopted the format shown in figure 5.1, while
figure 5.2 is from the test results of unit S4.











Figure 5.1 Typical shear force-slip history
diagram.













Figure 5.2 Unit S4 test results.
The following observations were recorded during
testing of the units. For the secondary beams, the
cracks formed transverse to the beam especially at
the first and third trough. The crack adjacent to the
third trough typically was the first crack to form but
did not affect the results. The longitudinal crack,
which is also shown in figure 5.3, typically formed
at or near the peak shear stud strength achieved, it
also shows an example of the crack formation
typical for a secondary beam. Delamination of the
slab also occurred, figure 5.4, as well as an
interesting phenomenon named the biting
Phenomenon of the decking into the steel beam,
see figure 5.5. Another interesting aspect of testing
was the wedging of the concrete between the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mean Slip (mm)
S
h
e
a
r

f
o
r
c
e
/
s
t
u
d

(
k
N
)
100.21 kN (NZS 3404)
86.6 kN (4.1)
106 kN (max) and L1
84.4 kN (80% of max) L2
L3
Mean slip (mm)
Shear
force/stud
(kN)
Starting from end of first 25 cycles
(q
r
)
n
(NZS 3404) (=1.0)
Revised q
r
Q
max
(kN)
80 % of max

shear stud and the decking, see figure 5.6. These
observations were common for all secondary beam
test units.

As for the primary beam, longitudinal cracks
parallel to the beam occurred with curving of the
slab due to the splitting of the concrete pushing
against the stud. Figure 5.7 demonstrates the
curving while figure 5.8 shows the typical
longitudinal cracks. Refer to (Zaki, 2003), Chapter
6 for detailed observations of the test units.



Figure 5.3 Secondary beam cracks.



Figure 5.4 Delamination of the slab.



Figure 5.5 Biting Phenomenon.



Figure 5.6 Wedging of the concrete.



Figure 5.7 Curving of the slab in the Primary
Beam.



Figure. 5.8 Primary Beam cracks.

6. SHEAR STUD TEST RESULTS-
DISCUSSION

6.1. Introduction.

This section discusses the shear stud failure modes
and gives final recommendations for shear stud
capacity and composite design provisions.

6.2 Failure Mode.

The main modes of failure described in the
literature are concrete pull out failure (stud
embedment failure), concrete crushing failure,
shear stud fracture, and concrete splitting failure.
Of these, the major cause of failure in this series of
tests was concrete splitting failure, with a case of
concrete crushing and splitting (Unit P4) and two
cases of a new mode of failure, which we are
calling Rolling Failure. This principally affected

unit S2, which had Rib Rolling Failure and unit
P3, which failed due to a construction defect. The
following section talks about the reason why
splitting and not cone pullout failure was the main
cause of failure, even though the concrete cone
shape was present in nearly all the units tested.

6.2.1. Why Cone Pull Out Failure Was Not the
Main Failure Mode.

Our initial recommendations and calculations used
to develop the test specimens were based on the
Canadian study by (Jayas and Hosain, 1988 &
1989) for the secondary beam, which in turn based
their equations on the reported embedment
failure. For the primary beams, initial
recommendations were based upon the longitudinal
splitting concept from (Oehlers and Bradford,
1995). However, embedment failure was not the
observed failure mode for any of the specimens
tested. Therefore a new set of recommendations has
to be made, to better represent the failure mode that
occurred in this series of tests. Embedment failure
is the form of failure that always has a concrete
cone shape surrounding the shear studs where the
concrete around the cone gets separated from the
slab causing a drop in strength. It is not
accompanied by a longitudinal splitting crack. In
the tests conducted, although the cone shape was
present in all the secondary beam units after
dissecting the unit, it was not the observed failure
mode that limited the stud shear strength. As
previously reported, that was longitudinal splitting
in all cases except for units S2 and P3 which failed
prematurely and unit P4 which failed by combined
crushing and splitting.

Further support for this can be seen from a study of
the parameters that govern embedment strength.
According to (Oehlers and Bradford, 1995), the
embedment strength is dependent on the ratio of the
stud height to the stud diameter (see figure 6.1)
while the strength can be derived from the
following equation.

( )
beam max h emb
D K D = (6.1)

Where, D
emb
is the shear strength that allows
variation in shear embedment strength, K
h
can be
derived from line A-B-C in figure 6.1 and
(D
max
)
beam
can be derived from equation 6.2.

Equation 6.2 represents the strength of a shear stud
in a solid concrete slab. It is also the original
equation that (NZS 3404:1997) Equation 13.3.2.1 is
derived from, as it incorporates both the concrete
crushing and shear stud fracture resistance into one
equation. It is determined from a curve fit of test
data on push-off tests in solid slabs, with allowance
made for the test rig setup on the capacity. Details


Figure 6.1 Shear Embedment Strength Relationship
to find K
h
(Oehlers and Bradford, 1995).

are given in section (2.4.6.3) of (Oehlers and
Bradford, 1995):

( )
4 . 0
s
c
35 . 0
c
65 . 0
u sc beam max
E
E
f f A
n
1 . 1
3 . 4 D
|
|
.
|

\
|
(

= (6.2)

where n is the total number of studs in the test
sample. Using the values from experimental tests
including the actual measured material properties,
the Shear Embedment Strength is calculated and is
shown in figures. 6.2 and 6.3 for the secondary and
the primary beams, respectively.

The values of the shear embedment strength (D
emb
)

means that, if no other form of failure occurs before
D
emb
is reached, then embedment failure will limit
the available strength. However, with these studs,
slab crushing and shear stud fracture would occur
before embedment failure. In fact (D
max
)
beam
,which
incorporates both the concrete crushing and shear
stud fracture, clearly was also greater than the test
results, demonstrating that the failure mode was not
the concrete crushing or fracture of the studs at the
maximum stud strength. Therefore, according to the













Figure 6.2 Comparison between the test results and
the embedment, solid concrete failure modes for the
secondary beams.

results in Chapter 6 in (Zaki, 2003) and the
comparison shown above in figures 6.2 and 6.3
neither did shear embedment, concrete crushing or
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Mean Displacement (mm)
S
h
e
a
r

f
o
r
c
e
/
s
t
u
d

(
k
N
)
(Dmax)beam = 123 kN
Demb = 135.3kN














Figure 6.3 Comparison between the test results and
the embedment, solid concrete failure modes for the
primary beams.

stud fracturing initiate the failure, but longitudinal
splitting did. It should be noted that stud fracture
was observed in units S6 and P4, however this did
not occur until well after the peak load was reached
and so was not the limiting factor in terms of stud
design capacity. These results show that revision to
(NZS 3404:1997) Equation 13.3.2.1 is needed.

6.3 Proposed Revision of NZS 3404 Cl 13.3.2.1


As mentioned in Section 2.4.3, equation 13.3.2.1 in
(NZS 3404:1997) has been amended in 2001 from
the old format of:

dc sc u c c sc dc r
A f ) E f ( A 5 . 0 q = (6.3)

Into:

dc sc u c c sc dc r
A f 8 . 0 ) E f ( A 4 . 0 q = (6.4)

where the first part is for concrete crushing while
the second is for shear stud fracture. According to
equation 6.3, from which this simplified equation is
derived, the present equation 6.4 underestimates the
true value of the concrete crushing. It is
recommended that the equation 6.5, initially
proposed by (Lin, et. al., 2001) as his equation 2.15,
and referenced in (Clifton, 2002), be used:

dc sc u c c sc dc r
A f 8 . 0 ) E f ( A 5 . 0 q = (6.5)

This equation gives a value that is consistent with
the test results and with the original equation put
forth by (Oehlers and Bradford, 1995), equation
6.2. Given that this is for a solid slab,
dc
=1.0 and
this term can be omitted giving equation 6.6 as the
proposed replacement to NZS 3404 Equation
13.3.2.1:
sc u c c sc r
A f 8 . 0 ) E f ( A 5 . 0 q = (6.6)

Comparing equations 6.4, and 6.6 with 6.2 we get
the following results, using the actual material
properties of the test:

E
c
= 24.8 GPa A
sc
= 283.4 mm
2

f
u
= 516 MPa f
c
= 24.3 MPa
Eq. 6.4 q
r
= 88 kN 117 kN
Eq. 6.6 q
r
= 110 kN 117 kN
Equation 6.2 (D
max
)
beam
= 112 kN

It is clear that equation 6.6 shows closer results to
equation 6.2 than equation 6.4. Therefore, it is
recommended that the present equation 13.3.2.1 in
(NZS 3404:1997) should be amended to equation
6.6, for welded studs in a solid concrete slab.

6.4 Making Allowance for Concrete Splitting in
Interior Beams.

The experimental tests showed that concrete
longitudinal splitting failure governed all tests
involving a single row of studs, either in a straight
line or staggered. The equation for calculating the
splitting strength, V
sh
, of a stud within a concrete
rib of effective width, b
ce
, is given by (Oehlers and
Bradford, 1995). Equation 2.12, which can be
transformed into equation 6.8:

(
(
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
c
2
c
sc
ce
sc
ce
c sc split
h
8 . 1
h
d 8 . 1
1
b
d
1
1
b
' f d 54 . 0 V
(6.8)

In this equation, b
ce
is the effective width, d
sc
is the
stud diameter, and h
c
the effective haunch height for
splitting, taken as the minimum of (5.4d
sc
,t
o
), where
t
o
is the slab height.

In this instance, the actual splitting shear strength
has been determined by experimental testing, using
the process described on page 28, equation 55.26 of
(Hyland, C., et. al. 2001).

That equation is used to back-calculate and find the
effective width, b
ce
, for the interior secondary and
primary beam configurations.

For the secondary beam, this results in the effective
width using the results from our test. Resulting in
the effective width being 440mm, for the present
test conditions of the slab height being greater or
equal to 120mm, stud height greater or equal to 4x
the stud diameter and stud diameter of 16 to 22mm.

This effective width happens to be close to four
times the stud height used in the tests. (Lin, et. al.
2001) recorded that the concrete cone shape slope
angle was around 24 to 29, while the slope angle
for this test with the effective width of 440 mm was
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mean Slip (mm)
S
h
e
a
r

f
o
r
c
e
/
s
t
u
d

(
k
N
)
P2
P4
P5
Demb = 125.4kN
(Dmax)beam = 114 kN

24.4. This indicated that there may be a
relationship between effective rib width and stud
height. Therefore, a recommendation future testing
is to find if such a relationship between the stud
height and effective rib width exists and its
influence on the shear stud capacity.

Taking the effective width to be 440mm to
calculate the longitudinal splitting capacity, for the
studs in the favourable position, another factor is
recommended to be added to this equation to make
it consistent with the test results. This factor is the
stud-positioning factor (
sp
)

taken as:

Favourable = 1.0
Unfavourable = 0.94
Double staggered = 0.84

This factor is the position of the stud in the
secondary beam, whether it is in the favourable,
unfavourable or double staggered.

Therefore, the recommended splitting equation to
be used for shear stud capacity estimation in the
secondary beam configuration is:

(
(
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
c
2
c
sc
ce
sc
ce
c sc sp split
h
8 . 1
h
d 8 . 1
1
b
d
1
1
b
' f d 54 . 0 V
(6.9)

The following values and limits are required with
this equation:

b
ce
= 440 mm
t
o
120 mm
h
sc
95 mm
d
sc
from 16 mm to 22 mm.
h
sc
/d
sc
4.32

Profile is 55mm trapezoidal deck. Where, b
ce
=
effective width to use for interior secondary beam
(ie runs over decking).

For the primary beam, splitting was clearly the
main cause of failure for all single rows of studs.
Therefore the recommended equation 6.8 is also
used for the primary beam, back-calculating again
to find the effective rib width. This is also 440mm
for the present test conditions of the slab height
being greater or equal to 120mm, stud height of
greater or equal to 4 stud diameters, stud diameter
of 16 to 22mm, and the deck fastened onto the
beam flange within 10mm at the flange edge.
Figure 6.4 demonstrates that edge distance. That
equation is applicable to a single row of studs.

It was noted in unit P1, which had 30 MPa concrete
instead of 25 MPa, that the strength was 98 kN
which was 1kN more than the equivalent specimen
using 25 MPa concrete. The unit S4, which was the
secondary beam with 30 MPa strength, was 106 kN
which was approximately the same as the predicted
value from equation 6.9. This difference in
strength could be due to the different 30 MPa









Figure 6.4 Edge distance of decking on Primary
Beam.

concrete batches used that were hand mixed, and
might have had different compressive strengths
from the cylinder test values. It is an aspect for
which future testing is recommended.

Unit P4, with the double row of studs at double
spacing, clearly had a combination of crushing and
splitting failure, as seen in figure. 6.5. The splitting
crack is clearly seen, but is deflected by the stud,
also the crushing of the concrete was also present.
This is also consistent with the parameters
controlling splitting, which show that a double stud
row is not as susceptible to splitting is a single stud
row.

Therefore, for unit P4 which had double the studs at
double the spacing, equation 6.6 is to be used to
better represent the failure mode and it also gives
the best estimate for the shear stud capacity. Where
equation 6.6 for crushing was 110 kN while our test
result was 104 kN, therefore equation 6.6 is slightly



Figure 6.5 Crushing and splitting failure in unit P4.

overestimating the value, which can be from the
minimal splitting cracks that did occur but were
deflected by the stud. A Double Stud safety
factor of (0.9) is recommended until future tests are
conducted to find the actual strength and whether a
factor is needed or not.
10 mm


6.5 Extending Concrete Splitting Provision to
Spandrel Beams

6.5.1 Secondary Beam

For the spandrel secondary beam, it is
recommended to use equation 6.8 but taking the
effective width as:

o f ce
b b b + = (6.10)

This is likely to be conservative but to an unknown
extent. Because the decking is not continuous over
the beam, its role in confining the concrete within
the splitting zone of the stud (see figure. 2.4 (a))
will be limited and is ignored in this
recommendation. Also, using the post-splitting
reinforcement shown below is recommended:










Figure 6.6 Secondary Spandrel Beam.

The DH12 @ 300 mm was calculated using the
post splitting provisions of (Oehlers and Bradford,
1995). Finally, (NZS 3404:1997), Cl. 13.4.1.3(3)
states that if the decking runs across the spandrel by
greater or equal to 550mm then the spandrel beam
is to be treated as an internal secondary beam. That
is consistent with the experimental tests.

6.5.2. Primary Beam

Similarly with the primary spandrel beam, except
taking the effective width as follows:

o
f
erior int , ce
ce
b
2
b
2
b
b + + = (6.11)

Also, use of the post-splitting reinforcement as
shown below is recommended:










Figure 6.7 Primary Spandrel Beam.

The DH12 @ 300 mm was calculated using the
post splitting equation 2.19.

6.6 Suppression of Rib Rolling Fracture

Unit S2 had what is called Rib Rolling Fracture
which is when the mesh depth is greater than the
intended designed depth, setting the mesh
reinforcement below the tension zone in the slab,
causing the slab to tilt resulting in premature failure
of the unit. It is called the Rib Rolling Fracture
because the action of the forces in the slab cause the
slab to roll caused by the rolling moment
forces acting in the slab. This is demonstrated in
figure 6.8.









Figure 6.8 Rolling Fracture

To explain this failure mathematically, the concrete
elastic moment and the crack moment were
calculated for both unit S1 and S2 to give a
comparison between the two failure modes.

First, for unit S2 it had the following
characteristics: the transverse crack that caused the
failure L5 occurred at a shear force/stud of 58 kN.
The mesh depth at the crack was 50mm, making the
centre of the reinforcement to the top of the slab
height 56mm. Basing the calculations on that we
get the following:

Total area of mesh and reinforcement = 618mm
2

Elastic neutral axis = 34.75mm from the top of the
slab.
Resulting Elastic Concrete Moment before cracking
is thus 2.23kNm

While the post-splitting moment, calculated in
accordance with figure 6.9, using the conventional
reinforced concrete theory, is 3.953 kNm

This indicate that the concrete will develop a crack,
which actually happened, but when the result of this
unit is compared to unit S1 which had the following
characteristics, the transverse crack that caused the
failure L4 occurred at a shear force/stud of 92 kN.
The mesh depth at the crack was 40 mm making the
centre of the reinforcement to the top of the slab
height 46 mm. Basing the calculations on that we
get the following:

DH 12 @ 300 mm
bo bf
50
DH12
bce,interior/2 bo bf/2
DH 12 @ 300 mm
DH12
< 220 mm
a. Mesh Depth at 35 mm; Unit S1
.
Actuator
Direction
35 mm
Mesh
> 35 mm
b. Mesh Depth at 50 mm; Unit S2
Actuator
Direction
Neutral Axis

Total area of mesh and reinforcement = 618 mm
2

Elastic neutral axis = 33.8 mm from the top of the
slab.
Resulting Elastic Concrete Moment before cracking
then becomes 2.11 kNm
While the Moment of the concrete after cracking is
6.36 kNm

Now this clearly shows that for unit S1 the crack
will also appear, but will require a larger moment to
cause it. The calculation of the Ultimate Moment
Capacity was also conducted for further proof.
Yield stress f
y
was found to be 448.5 MPa.

T = A
s
f
y
= 618x0.4485 = 277.2 kN
04 . 13
b ' f 85 . 0
T
a
c
= = mm

Unit S2: M=277.2(65-56-(13.04/2))= 0.687 kNm
Unit S1: M=277.2(65-46-(13.04/2))= 3.459 kNm










Figure 6.9 Forces actions after cracking.

This shows that for unit S2 there is not sufficient
moment generated to withstand the forces acting on
the slab, while for unit S1 there was sufficient
moment to withstand the force and generate good
strength. Figure 6.9 shows the ultimate moment
actions.

This mode of failure can be prevented by ensuring
that the mesh depth is not greater than 35mm from
the top of the slab.

6.7 Recommended Changes to the Composite
Beam Design Procedure.

6.7.1 Minimum Shear Connection Ratio (ie.
Partial Composite Action)

From a comparison of all the provisions it is
realistic to amend the Partial Composite Action
limit to that given by the Eurocode 4 (Clause
6.1.2(2)), to give a more realistic shear connection
ratio (PSC). The New Zealand provisions state that
the PSC is taken as a minimum of 50 %, while the
Eurocode stipulates a minimum value of PSC b
r

taken as 40 % up to 10 meters, increasing to 100%
at 25 meters.



6.7.2 Correlation factor for Component
Capacity Equations.
This is being presented for completeness although it
is not intended to make changes to the design
procedure.

Table 6.2 shows the influence on shear stud number
determination if this is determined by matching
design capacity of shear stud to design capacity of
the critical component action, as is done with the
three international procedures studies. Where the
compression generated within the concrete slab
governs, adopting this approach would result in a
reduction of 0.83x the exact number of shear studs
required by current New Zealand practice. Where
the tension generated within the steel beam
governs, adopting this approach would increase the
number of shear studs required by current New
Zealand practice.

The net result across all application would be a
benefit in terms of reducing the number of shear
studs required, however the complexity of changing
design process outweighs this benefit. It is therefore
preferable to leave the currant practice of matching
design shear stud capacity, incorporating a partial
strength reduction factor = 1.0 in positive moment
regions, to the nominal component capacity in
order to determine the number of shear studs
required.
Canada UK Eurocod
e
New
Zealand
Shear
Stud
0.8 1/1.25 1/1.25 1.0
Concrete 0.6 1/1.5 1/1.5 1.25/1.5
= 0.83
Steel 0.9 1/1.1 1/1.1 1.25/1.1
= 1.13

Table 6.2. Strength Reduction Factor Comparison.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH.

These are as follows:

(i) To determine the influence of rib end
support conditions on suppressing the rib
rolling failure shown in the secondary
beam tests, by adding stiffening ribs to the
test specimens to represent continuity of
slab beyond an internal secondary beam.
(ii) To determine the influence of shear stud
height/diameter ratio on the load-
deflection characteristics and design
capacity reached (i.e. provide experimental
data to replace the dotted line AB in
Figure. 6.1).
Actuator Direction
Crack
a
T
C
jd
Compression
Block
Mesh

(iii) To determine the influence of mesh height
on spandrel secondary beam capacity.
(iv) To determine the splitting capacity of
spandrel beams and so allow the design
recommendations of section 6.5 to be
updated.

REFERENCES

Bird, G.D. and Klemick, M.P.; HiBond Design
Wizard for Composite Design of the HiBond
Flooring System, Version 1.0; Dimond, Auckland,
New Zealand, 2002.
British Standard (BS 5950 (1990)). Structural use
of steelwork in building, Part 3: Design in
composite construction, Section 3.1: Code of
practice for design of simple and continuous
composite beams, British Standards Institution,
London.
Butterworth, J. (2000). Push-off tests on shear
studs used with a deep ribbed deck, Auckland
UniServices Limited, University of Auckland,
Report No. 8258.00, (pp. 25).
Canadian Standard (CSA S16-01: 1984). Limit
States Design of Steel Structures, Canadian
Standard Association, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Standard (CSA S16-01: 2001). Limit
States Design of Steel Structures, Canadian
Standard Association, Ontario, Canada.
Clifton, C. (1998). Reminders on good detailing
and construction practice", Steel Design and
Construction Bulletin, HERA, No. 42, (pp. 8).
Clifton, C. (2002). Notes prepared for Composite
Steel Design and Construction Seminar, HERA
Report R4-113, 2002.
Eurocode 4: ENV 1994-1-1:1994, (1994). Design
of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures Parts
1-1 General Rules and Rules for Buildings, BSI
Standards, London, pp. 143-148.
Grant, J., Fisher, J.W. and Slutter, R.G., (1977).
Composite beams with formed metal deck,
Engineering Journal of the American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 14, 1
st
quarter, (pp. 24-42).
Hawkins, N.M. and Mitchell, D., (1984). Seismic
Response of Composite Shear Connections,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
110, No. 9 (pp. 2120-2136).
Hyland, C., Clifton, C., Butterworth, J,. and
Stickland, S., (2000). Shear studs in composite
construction: concepts in determining the shear stud
design shear capacity, Steel Design and
Construction Bulletin, HERA, No.55, (pp. 18-28).
Hyland, C., Clifton, C., Butterworth, J,. and
Stickland, S., (2001). Composite Down-Stand
Steel Beam Behaviour with a Profiled Deep-Deck
Slab, Proceeding of Australasian Structural
Engineering Conference, 2001.
Jayas, B. S. and Hosain, M. U. (1988). Behaviour
of headed stud in composite beams: push-out tests,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15,
No. 2, (pp. 240-253).
Jayas, B. S. and Hosain, M. U. (1989). Behaviour
of headed stud in composite beams: full-size tests,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16,
No. 2, (pp. 712-724).
Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (1993).
Designers Handbook to Eurocode 4 part
1.1:Design of Composite Steel and Concrete
Structures. Thomas Telford, London.
Lin, Y., Butterworth, J., and Ingham, J. (2001).
Capacity of Shear Studs Embedded in Lightweight
polystyrene Concrete Diaphragms, School of
Engineering, Civil and Resource Engineering,
University of Auckland, Report No. 607, December
2001.
New Zealand Standard (NZS 3101: Part 2:1995).
Concrete Structures Standard Part1 The Design
of Concrete Structures, Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, pp. 209-212.
New Zealand Standard (NZS 3404: Part 1:1997).
Chapter 13, Design of Composite Members and
Structures, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
Oehlers, D. J. and Bradford, M. A. (1995).
Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Members,
Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, U.K.
Ollgaard, J. G., Slutter, R. G., and Fisher, J.W.
(1971). Shear strength of stud connections in
lightweight and normal-density concrete,
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Vol. 8, (pp. 55-640.
Slutter, R. G. and Driscoll, G. C. (1965). Flexural
strengths of steel concrete composite beams,
Proc. ASCE, J. structural Div., Vol. 91, No. ST2,
April 1965, pp. 55-64.
Zaki, R.J. (2003) Shear Stud Capacity in Profiled
Steel Decks, MEngSt, Project Report, University
of Auckland, September 2003.