Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Finite element analysis of headed studs embedded in thin UHPC

Junhui Cao, Xudong Shao ⁎
College of Civil Engineering & key Laboratory for Wind and Bridge Engineering of Hunan Province, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With an increasing use of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) in civil engineering, steel-concrete composite
Received 11 May 2018 structures continue to progress. However, studies focusing on headed studs embedded in UHPC are limited,
Received in revised form 20 September 2018 which hinders the design of steel-UHPC composite structures. This paper investigates the shear-resisting behav-
Accepted 12 March 2019
ior of headed studs embedded in thin UHPC by using the finite-element (FE) analysis technique. A FE model was
Available online xxxx
established for a push-out test, aiming to reflect the plastic behavior of the specimens and to evaluate the damage
Keywords:
process in the headed studs and UHPC. The analysis results were compared to test results. It was revealed that the
Headed stud load-slip curve, shear strength, and failure mode all agreed well with the experimental observations. A paramet-
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) ric analysis was performed based on the validated FE model. The influence of stud diameter, stud height, and
Push-out test compressive strength of UHPC on the shear behavior of the headed studs was revealed. Further, the shear
Nonlinear FE model strengths obtained in the FE analysis were compared to the results predicted through theoretical equations.
Parametric analysis The comparison indicates that for headed studs embedded in UHPC, the contribution of the weld collar should
be considered to evaluate the shear strength.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Headed stud is a connector commonly used in steel-concrete com-
posite structures. Extensive studies have been accomplished to reveal
the behavior of headed studs embedded in both normal concrete and
high performance concrete, including shear strength [1], shear stiffness
[2], fatigue life [3,4], etc.
In recent years, composite structures continue to progress with the
application of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). UHPC is an in-
novative cement-based material with excellent mechanical properties
and durability [5]. Applications of steel-UHPC composite structures
have been found in some real construction projects in Canada, Germany,
United States, China, etc. For example, Shao et al. [6] proposed a
new bridge deck — the steel-UHPC lightweight composite deck
(LWCD), aiming to reduce fatigue cracking risks in orthotropic steel
decks. In a typical LWCD, the UHPC layer is only 45–60 mm thick,
which is connected with a steel bridge deck through Φ13 × 35 mm
headed studs. Currently, this LWCD system has been used in 30 real
bridges in China.
However, up to now, very few studies have been conducted and are
available for shear connectors embedded in UHPC. Kim et al. [7] uncov-
ered the behavior of headed studs in UHPC through push-out tests.
According to the test results, the shear strength in studs was not influ-
enced when the aspect ratio (i.e., the stud height-to-diameter ratio)
was reduced from 4 to 3.1 and the cover was decreased from 50 mm
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: caojunhui@hnu.edu.cn (J. Cao), shaoxd@hnu.edu.cn (X. Shao).
to 25 mm. Cao et al. [8] tested headed studs embedded in UHPC with
an even lower aspect ratio: 2.7. The test results implied that the shear
strength of the headed studs was not affected under the extremely
low aspect ratio.
Experimental tests for composite structures are costly. Fortunately,
this drawback can be compensated by using finite-element (FE) analy-
sis technique. A delicate FE model can simulate the damage process and
failure mode occurring in a test, and can be used to explore the behavior
of headed studs via parametric analyses. Nguyen et al. [9] developed an
accurate FE model for the push-out test and the FE results agreed well
with the experimental results. Based on the validated FE model, a para-
metric study was performed on stud diameter and concrete strength to
understand their influence on shear strength of headed studs. Luo et al.
[10] constructed a FE model for headed studs embedded in UHPC. In the
analysis, the influence of stud spacing on shear strength was revealed
and formulas considering the group stud effect were proposed. In addi-
tion, FE models were developed in other studies to discuss the behavior
of headed studs embedded in normal concrete [11,12].
However, the above analyses are mainly related to normal steel-con-
crete composite structures, and few focuses on short headed studs in
UHPC. The research work in this paper highlights the behavior of
headed studs in LWCD, an innovative steel-UHPC composite deck. A del-
icate 3D FE model was constructed to investigate the failure mode and
shear strength of short headed studs embedded in UHPC. The FE
model was validated using experimental results on push-out speci-
mens. Based on the FE model, a parametric analysis was performed
and the influences of stud diameter, stud height, and concrete strength
on shear strength of headed studs were discussed. Further, the shear

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.03.016
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
356 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368
strengths derived from the FE analysis were compared to the results
predicted by theoretical equations.
2. Push-out test for headed studs in UHPC
Behaviors of headed studs can be obtained using either push-out
specimens or steel-concrete composite beam specimens. Slutter and
Fisher [13] conducted a comprehensive comparison study between
the above two methods. It was found that the shear strength derived
from push-out specimens is generally lower than that from composite
beam specimens. This implies that push-out tests can result in more
conservative results. Thus, the test presented in this paper is a push-
out test.
Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the push-out specimens. Each spec-
imen consisted of an I-shaped steel part and two UHPC layers. The UHPC
layer was 50 mm thick and was embedded with Φ10 mm steel rebars,
transversely and longitudinally. Four headed studs were welded to the
steel flanges at the steel-UHPC interface. The studs had a diameter (d)
of 13 mm and an overall height (h) of 35 mm, resulting in a low aspect
ratio of h/d = 2.7.
The specimen was tested by a compression testing machine with a
load capacity of 2000 kN. The setup is shown in Fig. 2. The load was
exerted from the top of the specimen, and dial indicators were mounted
to the sides to record relative slips at the steel-UHPC interfaces. A de-
tailed description of the test setup is presented in reference [8].
Three push-out specimens were fabricated and tested. The test
results indicated that the failure modes of the three specimens were
identical, i.e., the headed studs fractured from the roots, resulting in a
separation between the UHPC layer and the steel part. While the
UHPC layer only developed marginal damage around the root of the
headed studs. These observations imply that although the headed
studs had an extremely low aspect ratio, their shear strengths could
be fully developed. The shear strength and load-slip response were cap-
tured for the short headed studs, and details can be referred to in [8].
3. Establishment of 3D FE model
3.1. Basic information
The FE analysis was performed in Abaqus, a commercial FE software
[14]. Abaqus provides two optional modes, i.e., Abaqus Standard and
Abaqus Explicit, and the latter is more suitable for nonlinear quasi-static
Fig. 1. Configuration of push-out specimen (unit: mm).
Fig. 2. Photographs of the test setup.
and dynamic problems. FE models constructed in Abaqus Explicit are
solved using the central difference method and hence iterations are
not necessary for solving nonlinear problems. Consequently, Abaqus
Explicit is a powerful tool to deal with complex nonlinear problems
such as contact, damage, failure, etc., and the computing cost can be sig-
nificantly reduced. Thus, the current FE analysis was accomplished in
Abaqus Explicit.
All of the components in the push-out specimen were modelled, in-
cluding the steel plates, the UHPC layer, the headed studs, and the steel
meshes. Details of the FE analysis are presented in the following
subsections.
3.2. Element type
Only a quarter of the specimen was modelled in the FE analysis con-
sidering structural symmetry, as shown in Fig. 3. The steel plates, the
UHPC layer, and the headed studs were all simulated through C3D8R el-
ements. An element C3D8R is a brick element with eight nodes and each
node has three translational degrees of freedom, which is commonly
used for solid structures. While the steel meshes were constructed via
T3D2 elements. An element T3D2 is a truss element possessing two
nodes and each node has three translational degrees of freedom. The
FE model was meshed using elements with dimensions not N8 mm.
It should be addressed that the weld collar at the root of the headed
studs was also modelled. The reason is that for headed studs embedded
UHPC, the weld collar contributes to a significant portion of the shear
strength and should be taken into account in the analysis [10].
Fig. 3. Finite element model of push-out specimen.
 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368 357

Fig. 4. Simulation of the weld slope in the comparative FE model.

In the analysis, a comparative study was performed to reveal the in-
fluence of the weld shape on the analysis results. Headed studs are gen-
erally welded using the electric arc stud welding. A ceramic ferrule is
positioned around the root of the headed stud, which serves as a
mould for the molten metal to harden. Thus, the shape of the weld is
identical to the inner shape of a ceramic ferrule.
Specifically, two cases were considered. In one case, the cross sec-
tion of the weld had a shape of rectangular, as shown in Fig. 3. While
in the other case, a 1 mm × 1 mm slope was simulated at the top
corner of the weld, as shown in Fig. 4. It should be addressed that
extra efforts are required in the latter FE model to develop the circu-
lar slope.

Fig. 5. Interaction between steel and UHPC.

Fig. 6. Stress-strain curves of steel plate and steel rebar.

358 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368
Fig. 7. Stress-strain curve of headed studs.
3.3. Interaction and boundary conditions
To properly consider the interaction effect, a surface-to-surface con-
tact was established at the steel-UHPC interface. The contact acts on two
surfaces, i.e., the inner surface of the UHPC layer, and the outer surface of
the steel part, including the steel plate and the headed studs welded
(Fig. 5).
Contact properties were defined along both the normal and tangen-
tial directions. Regarding the normal direction, a default method of
“hard contact” was defined. While for the tangential direction, the pen-
alty function method was employed. According to PCI committee, the
friction coefficient between steel and concrete is generally 0.4 [10].
Thus, this value was considered in the tangential direction.
The boundary condition of the FE model is as follows. The nodes at
the bottom of the UHPC layer were restrained from all of the transla-
tional degrees of freedom.
Fig. 8. Stress-strain curve for weld.
3.4. Constitutional laws of materials
3.4.1. Steel plate and steel rebars
The push-out tests [8] showed that the steel plates were not
damaged. On the other hand, the UHPC layers only exhibited marginal
damage around the stud roots. This implies that the steel rebars embed-
ded in UHPC should also develop no damage. Consequently, the steel
plates and steel rebars were assumed as ideal elastic-to-plastic mate-
rials in the FE analysis.
The steel plates were fabricated from Q345, a steel grade with nom-
inal yield strength of 345 MPa, which is commonly used for steel bridges
in China. The steel rebars had a grade of HRB400, a type of steel bar with
nominal yield strength of 400 MPa. The constitutional laws of the two
materials are demonstrated in Fig. 6.
3.4.2. Headed stud
According to the test results [8], the headed studs broke from the
roots and consequently the UHPC layer was separated from the steel
plate. Thus, the headed studs experienced serious damage and failure
in the test, and these observations should be reflected in the FE analysis.
Stress-strain relationship models available for headed studs are rich.
While the most commonly used one is the tri-line stress-strain model
[9,10,15,16]. This kind of constitutional law can reflect not only the
yield stage but also the strengthening stage of a headed stud. Thus, a
tri-line stress-strain relationship was defined for the headed studs in
this study, as shown in Fig. 7. The yield strength (fy) and ultimate
strength (fp) of were defined as 375 MPa and 450 MPa, respectively.
The values are not appreciably different to those reported by other
scholars [9,10,15,16].
In Abaqus, the damage of a material is defined using the index D.
Material damage is a gradual process, which is accompanied with the
development of tiny cracks and cavities. Eq. (1) provides a definition
of the damage index D. According to the definition, D = 0 corresponds
to no damage and D = 1 represents a full damage.
Ed
D ¼ 1− ð1Þ
E0
where, E0 = the initial elastic modulus of a material; Ed = the elastic
modulus of a material with damage.
In the FE model, the fracture strain of the headed studs was defined
as the plastic strain at the ultimate state, i.e., εp − εy = 0.00418. It
should be addressed that Abaqus could automatically delete elements
with a serious damage. The default threshold value is Dmax = 0.99. If
the damage index value D at any integration point of an element ex-
ceeds Dmax, the element will be removed from the FE model.
3.4.3. Weld
As mentioned earlier, headed studs are generally welded by using
electric arc stud welding. Theoretically, the strength of a weld should
be higher than that of the headed studs and steel plate. However, if
the welding parameters such as the lift height, electric current, welding
time are disturbed, the weld quality must be influenced. Thus, the weld
strength is not always higher than that of the headed studs and steel
plate. This statement is supported by the push-out test accomplished
by the authors [8]. According to the test results, there were two failure
patterns for the headed studs embedded in UHPC, i.e., the headed
studs failed from either the weld root or the stud shank. It was observed
that the two failure patterns could exist simultaneously in a push-out
specimen. Thus, the weld strength should be carefully defined to avoid
either an overestimation or an underestimation to the shear strength.
A comparative study was performed to evaluate the influence of the
weld strength on the analysis results. However, studies on the stress-
strain models for the weld of headed studs are currently unavailable.
According to studies by Kunihiko [17], if the strength of the weld is no
b80% of the strength to a matrix plate, the welded structure is expected
 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368 359

Fig. 9. Stress-strain curves of UHPC.

to fail from the matrix plate rather than the weld. Thus, 80% was consid-
ered as a reference value to define the stress-strain curve for the weld.
Three cases were considered. In the basic case, the weld strength
was assumed to be equal to that of the headed studs (i.e., fweld =
fstud). While in the other two cases, the weld strength was defined to
be either higher or lower than that of the headed studs, i.e., fweld =
fstud/0.8 and fweld = fstud × 0.8. Thus, based on the stress-strain curve
for the headed studs, the constitutional law could be defined for the
weld, as shown in Fig. 8.

3.4.4. UHPC
According to the test results, the UHPC layer also developed damage,
although the damaged area was very locally. Thus, the concrete damage
plasticity (CDP) model was used for UHPC. CDP is commonly used to
simulate the damage and failure process in concrete structures.
For concrete, the stress-strain curve (or the damage index D) under
tension and compression must be defined independently. Yang and
Fang [18] conducted experimental tests for UHPC specimens under uni-
axial compression and proposed an equation to calculate the stress-

Fig. 10. Definition of damage indexes in UHPC.

Fig. 11. Positions to extract relative slip. Fig. 12. Influence of the weld strength on the load-slip curve.
360 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368

Fig. 13. Influence of the weld strength on the yield strength and ultimate strength of a single headed stud.

strain law in compression (Eq. (2)). Based on the aforementioned references, the full-range stress-strain
curves were defined for UHPC, as shown in Fig. 9.
8 2
>
> nξ−ξ To simulate the damage evolution process, the damage indexes
>
< fc ε ≤ ε0
1 þ ðn−2Þξ should also be defined. According to relevant studies, concrete damage
σc ¼ ð2Þ index can be calculated using Eq. (3).
>
> ξ
>
: fc 2
εN ε0
2ðξ−1Þ þ ξ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
σ
D ¼ 1− ð3Þ
where, fc = the compressive strength of UHPC cubic (100 mm × 100 E0 ε
mm × 100 mm), whose value is 135.9 MPa; ξ = the strain ratio, which
is defined as ξ ¼ εε0 ; ε0 = the strain corresponding to the peak stress, By substituting the stress-strain curves into Eq. (3), the damage in-
whose value is 0.0035; n = the ratio of elastic modulus, which is defined dexes were obtained (Fig. 10). In the figure, the abscissa represents
as n ¼ EEsec0 ; E0 = the initial elastic modulus, whose value is 42.6 GPa; Esec the inelastic strain, in which the elastic strain (Eσ0 ) was deducted.
= the secant modulus calculated at the peak stress point on the stress-
strain curve. 3.4.5. Solving method
On the other hand, Zhang et al. [19] obtained the constitutional law In the push-out test, the load was exerted slowly enough to form a
for UHPC under direct tensile loads. It was revealed that the UHPC ex- quasi-static loading process. Thus, Abaqus Explicit should be more suit-
hibited a strain-hardening behavior, accompanied with multiple find able for simulating the testing process.
and tiny cracks. This is beneficial for UHPC to resist tensile or flexural According to the test results, the three specimens had an averaged
stresses. failure load of 480.8 kN. Considering that the top of the specimen had
a contacting area of 284 × 150 = 42,600 mm2, the pressure load
under failure was calculated as 11.3 MPa. A slightly higher pressure
load of 14 MPa was exerted to the FE model. Further, the time period
was defined as 6000 s, a value corresponding to the averaged time dura-
tion of the test. The loading rate was hence calculated as 0.0023 MPa/s.

4. Verification of FE results

4.1. Influence of weld strength

To reveal the influence of the weld strength on the FE results, a de-

tailed comparison was made between the predicted results and the
test results. As mentioned earlier, three cases were considered for the
weld strength, i.e., fweld = fstud, fweld = fstud/0.8, and fweld = fstud × 0.8.

4.1.1. Load-slip curve

Fig. 14. Influence of the weld shape on the load-slip curve.
In the test, the slips were recorded by eight dial indicators installed
to the stud positions of the specimen. Thus, the slips should be captured
from the same positions in the FE model. In Fig. 11, P1 and P2 represent
two points at which the relative slips were captured. On the other hand,
the reaction force was calculated from the nodes at the bottom of the
UHPC layer.
 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368
Fig. 15. Influence of the weld shape on the yield strength and ultimate strength of a single headed stud.
Fig. 12 shows the load-slip curves obtained from both the FE analysis
and the experimental test. Generally, the load-slip curves exhibit two
stages, i.e., the elastic stage and the yield stage. In the elastic stage, the
slip arises linearly with the increasing load and the values of slip are
generally small within this stage. While in the yield stage, the slip in-
creases much faster than the load, indicating that the headed stud al-
ready yielded. A distinct turning point could be seen from a load slip
curve and this point could be deemed as the beginning of the yield
stage.
The figure also indicates that the predicted load-slip curve generally
agrees well with the test results when the weld strength is no less than
that of the headed studs (i.e., fweld = fstud or fweld = fstud/0.8). However,
when the weld has a lower strength than the headed studs (i.e., fweld =
fstud × 0.8), the test results are underestimated significantly. Generally
Fig. 16. Position of the slicing plane.
361
speaking, the FE model which assumes that the weld and headed
studs had an identical strength could yield a satisfactory agreement
with the test results.
It should be addressed that the three load-slip curves derived from
the experimental test seem to terminate suddenly. The fact is that
when failure was near, an increasing snapping sound could be heard.
Meanwhile, the indexes on the dial indicators rotated much faster and
the slip values became unstable. To avoid being hurt by a sudden failure
of the specimen, the testers were kept away from the specimen. Thus, it
was impossible to read the slip data at the final stage of the test. How-
ever, the load was still monitored using a vibrating-wire force indicator.
Consequently, the termination of the load-slip curves does not mean
that the test was stopped suddenly. It only means that the full-range
load-slip curves could not be depicted because of a lack of the slip values
at the final phase of testing.
4.1.2. Yield strength and ultimate strength
The yield load is defined as the distinct turning point on the load-slip
curve, and the ultimate load is understood as the peak point on the load-
slip curve.
As shown in Fig. 13, when the weld strength is higher than that of
the headed studs (i.e., fweld = fstud/0.8), the FE model overestimates
the yield strength and ultimate strength to a headed stud by 11% and
9%, respectively. While in the case of a weaker weld strength (i.e., fweld
= fstud × 0.8), the yield strength and ultimate strength were
underestimated by 15–20%. Thus, the FE model assuming a moderate
weld strength (i.e., fweld = fstud) could gain a satisfactory agreement rel-
ative to the test results. In this case, the difference between the pre-
dicted strength and the test values is 2–7%.
4.2. Influence of weld shape
As mentioned earlier, two cases were considered to reveal the influ-
ence of the weld shape on the analysis results. In one case, the cross sec-
tion of the weld was assumed to a rectangular. While in the other case, a
1 mm × 1 mm slope was simulated at the upper corner of the weld. Fur-
ther, the above discussions indicate that when the weld and headed
studs have equal strength, the FE results are close enough to the test re-
sults. Thus, to save the computing cost, the FE analysis in the following
362 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368
Fig. 17. Equivalent plastic strain contour at the cutting plane.
sections assumes that the weld strength is equal to that of the headed
studs (i.e., fweld = fstud).
4.2.1. Load-slip curve
Fig. 14 compares the theoretical load-slip curves to those obtained in
the test. It can be seen that the two load-slip curves derived from the FE
analysis are close to the experimental curves. This implies that weld
shape only has a minor influence on the load-slip curve. In addition,
the FE model with a rectangular weld seems to be a better choice, as
the load-slip curve based on this model yields a better agreement
with the test results.
4.2.2. Yield strength and ultimate strength
According to Fig. 15a, the yield strength of a single headed does not
show a significant difference, implying that the effect of the weld shape
on the yield strength should be ignorable. Regarding the ultimate
strength (Fig. 15b), the FE model without the slope provides a closer re-
sult (58.9 kN) relative to the test result (60.1 kN), with the relative dif-
ference being only 2%. Thus, there is no necessity to consider a weld
slope in the FE analysis.
4.3. Damage evolution and failure mode
Based on the above discussions, the weld strength is recommended
to be identical as that of the headed studs. Further, it is unnecessary to
consider a slope at the corner of the weld. The FE models built under
these considerations could yield a good result.
To investigate the damage process of the push-out specimens, the
equivalent plastic strain was observed in the FE model. In Abaqus, the
equivalent plastic strain is denoted as PEEQ, which is an important pa-
rameter to reflect the plastic status of a structure. When the value of
PEEQ to an element is greater than zero, it is indicated that the element
begins to yield.
The equivalent plastic strain was captured basing on the stress slic-
ing technique in Abaqus. The slicing path is shown in Fig. 16, which rep-
resents a plane connecting through the center of the two headed studs.
The equivalent plastic strain countour is projected on the slicing
plane (Fig. 17). According to Fig. 17(a), plastic strain initiated in UHPC,
from the corner of the roots of the stud weld. Then the plastic strain de-
veloped more rapidly in the headed studs than in the UHPC layer. With
the load increasing, the plastic strain continuously develops in the
headed studs, and a slight separation could be seen at the front surface
of the headed studs. Finally, the two headed studs failed, indicating a
failure of the push-out specimen. The 1# headed stud failed from the
weld, and the 2# headed stud broke from the stud shank.
Fig. 17(b) exhibits the damage process of the two headed stud. As
shown in the figure, the plastic strain initiated from the corner of the
stud and propagated through the stud weld. An obvious deformation
could be seen in both the weld collar and the stud shank. The elements
with severe damage were removed from the FE model automatically
when failure occurred.
The damage evolution is illustrated for UHPC in Fig. 18, by using the
damage index (D). Generally, the most portion of UHPC was intact, and
damage was only observed at localized zones around the headed studs.
Tensile damage mainly develops at the rear of the headed studs, while
compression damage is obvious at the front of the headed studs.
The FE analysis implies that the failure of the specimen was caused
by the fracture of the headed studs (Fig. 19a). While the UHPC did not
 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368 363

T=1800s

T=3900s

T=4500s

T=5400s

(a) Tensile damage (b) Compressive damage

Fig. 18. Damage evolution in UHPC.

develop appreciable damage, except for local zones near the stud roots i.e., break of stud shank and failure of concrete, whichever occurs first.
(Fig. 19b). These observations agree well with the test results. Thus, the Eq. (4) shows a theoretical equation to calculate the shear strength of
FE model could reflect the damage process and failure mode of a push- a headed stud embedded in concrete.
out testing. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0
Q u ¼ ϕ0:5Asc f c Ec ≤ϕAsc f ð4Þ
5. Parametric analysis and discussion
where, Asc = sectional area of headed studs (mm2); f'c = compressive
5.1. General information
strength of concrete cylinders (MPa); Ec = modulus of elasticity of con-
crete (MPa); f = tensile strength of headed studs (MPa); and ϕ = resis-
Push-out tests on steel-UHPC composite structures are costly. Thus,
tance reduction factor, whose value is 0.85.
to further reveal the behavior of the headed studs embedded in UHPC,
Eq. (5) presents an equation specified in Eurocode 4 (ECS 2005). On
a parametric analysis was performed basing on the validated FE model.
the left part of the equation, the aspect ratio of the headed studs is con-
Three parameters are included, i.e., the stud diameter, stud height,
sidered.
and compressive strength of UHPC. Fig. 20 shows the notations of
main parameters. A series of FE models were established following the qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 0
methods described previously. Q u ¼ 0:29αd f c Ec =γ v ≤0:8Asc f =γ v ð5Þ

5.2. Theoretical equations for calculation of shear strength where α = the aspect ratio coefficient, whose value is α = 0.2(h/d + 1)
≤ 1.0 when h/d ≥ 3, in which h and d are the height and diameter of
As stated in AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO 2012), the shear strength for headed studs, respectively; f'c = compressive strength of concrete cylin-
headed studs in normal concrete is governed by two failure criteria ders (MPa); Ec = elastic modulus of concrete (MPa); Asc = cross-
364 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368

Fig. 19. Comparison of FE observations to test results.

sectional area of headed studs (mm2); f = tensile strength of headed Table 1

studs (MPa); and γv = material partial factor, whose value is 1.25. Parameters of headed studs embedded in UHPC.
The above equations are suitable for headed studs embedded in nor-
Serial No. Sizes of headed stud (mm) Thickness of
mal concrete. While for headed studs in UHPC, only limited studies are UHPC (mm)
available. Luo et al. (2015b) proposed an equation to predict shear
d dwc dk h lwc k H c
strength of headed studs in UHPC, as shown in Eq. (6). Note that in
this equation, only one failure mode (i.e., stud failure) is considered. 1 13 17 22 80 3 8 95 15
2 16 21 29 80 4.5 8 95 15
This should be attributed to the fact that UHPC has extremely high
3 19 23 32 80 6 10 95 15
strengths and is consequently difficult to fail in a push-out test. In addi- 4 22 29 35 80 6 10 95 15
tion, the equation considers the contribution of the weld collar on the

UHPC
8+3&ቲlayer
c

dk
k

d
Weld
h

Headed stud
ṃ䪹
collar
✺㕍
lwc
lw

ddwcw
Steel
䫒ᶯplate

Fig. 20. Schematic drawing of the parametric analysis. Fig. 21. Influence of stud diameter on load-slip curve.
 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368 365

Fig. 22. Influence of stud diameter on shear strength of headed studs in UHPC.
Fig. 24. Influence of stud height on load-slip curve.

shear strength.
 0

Q u ¼ 0:85Asc f þ η f c dwc lwc =γ v ð6Þ

where, Asc = cross-sectional area of headed stud (mm2); f = tensile

strength of headed stud (MPa); η = improvement coefficient of shear
strength produced by weld collar, whose value is 2.5; f'c = compressive
strength of concrete cylinders (MPa); dwc =diameter of weld collar
(mm); lwc = height of weld collar (mm); γv = material partial factor,
whose value is 1.25.
The UHPC investigated in this paper had a compressive strength of
fcu = 135.9 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of Ec = 42.6 GPa. Further,
experimental tests accomplished by Graybeal [20] indicated that the
compressive strength of UHPC derived from cylinders and cubes did
not exhibit significant differences. Thus, the compressive strength of
UHPC cylinders could be calculated as f'c = 0.95fcu = 129.1 MPa. Headed
studs have a nominal tensile strength of f = 400 MPa [21].

5.3. Definition of shear stiffness

Shear stiffness is an important parameter for headed studs in con- Fig. 25. Influence of stud height on shear capacity of headed studs in UHPC.
crete. The calculation of shear stiffness for headed studs is generally

Fig. 23. Influence of stud diameter on the yield strength and shear stiffness for a single headed stud.
366 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368

Fig. 26. Influence of stud height on the yield strength and shear stiffness for a single headed stud.

Fig. 27. Constitutional laws of different grades of UHPC in compression.

based on the load-slip curve. The shear stiffness is defined as the slope of
a secant line on the load-slip curve. The lower point of the secant line is
the original point, and the upper point is different according to different
methods, which normally corresponds to 0.3–0.7Qu [8].
In this study, the method recommended by Eurocode 4 is used.
The definition of the shear stiffness of a single headed stud is shown
in Eq. (7).

k ¼ 0:7Q u =s ð7Þ

where, k = the shear stiffness of a headed stud; Qu = the ultimate

strength of the headed stud; s= the relative slip corresponding to a
load of 0.7Qu on the load-slip curve.

5.4. Parameter 1: stud diameter

According to the Chinese design specification [22], headed stud with

standard sizes has a diameter of 10 to 25 mm, with an increment of 3
mm. Considering that the diameters of 10 mm and 25 mm are not fre-
quently used in composite structures, only four diameter categories Fig. 28. Influence of UHPC strength on load-slip curve.
 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368
Fig. 29. Influence of UHPC strength on shear strength.
were considered in the parametric analysis. The sizes of each diameter
category can be referred to in the Chinese specification [22].
Table 1 presents the dimensions of the headed studs involved in the
parametric analysis, as well as the thickness of UHPC. To eliminate the
influence of stud height, a fixed value should be assigned for the height.
Considering that the minimum height-to-diameter ratio of a headed
stud is about 4, the stud height was set as 80 mm in all of the four cases.
Four push-out FE models were built basing on the configurations
shown in Table 1. The method used to establish the FE models was iden-
tical to that described previously.
The load-slip curves are presented in Fig. 21. It can be observed that
all of the load-slip curves are characterized by two stages, i.e., the elastic
stage and the yield stage, regardless of the stud diameter. In the elastic
stage, the interfacial slip increases linearly with the increasing load. At
the end of this stage, the curve gradually deviates from its original
path, indicating that the specimen steps into the yield stage. The figure
shows that the larger the stud diameter, the higher the yielding load. In
addition, the ultimate load is also enhanced with a larger stud diameter.
Thus, the load-slip curve is significantly affected by the stud diameter.
Fig. 22 compares the shear strength predicted in the FE analysis to
that calculated through Eqs. (4)–(6). The theoretical results calculated
Fig. 30. Influence of UHPC strength on the yield strength and shear stiffness for a single headed stud.
367
by Eq. (6) exhibit a good agreement with the FE results. While the re-
sults based on the other two equations seem to be too conservative.
This can be explained as that Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) are suitable for headed
studs embedded in normal concrete. In the two equations, the contribu-
tion of weld collar to the shear strength is not included. According to Fig.
19, the failure of the headed studs was accompanied with cracking and
crushing in UHPC closely around the stud root positions. This implies
that for the headed studs in UHPC, the contribution of the weld collar
should not be ignored. Otherwise, the calculation results may be too
conservative.
The influence of stud diameter on the yield strength and shear stiff-
ness is also analyzed. As shown in Fig. 23, for the headed studs with di-
ameters of 13–22 mm, the yield strength is about 47–116 kN,
accounting for 75–82% of the ultimate strength. On the other hand,
the shear stiffness per headed stud is 258–420 kN/mm. The figure also
indicates that a larger headed stud produces higher yield strength and
shear stiffness.
5.5. Parameter 2: stud height
In this subsection, the influence of stud height is analyzed. The
headed studs had a fixed diameter of d = 13 mm. Five heights were
considered, i.e., h = 20 mm, 35 mm, 50 mm, 65 mm, 80 mm. The
cover was also set to a fixed value of c = 15 mm.
Fig. 24 shows the load-slip curves derived from the FE analysis. From
the figure, the linear and yield stages are distinct in all curves. Further, it
is clear that the load-slip curves are close to each other regardless of the
stud height, and this phenomenon is especially true within the linear
stage. It can be concluded from the figure that for headed studs embed-
ded in UHPC, the load-slip curves are nearly unaffected by the parame-
ter of stud height.
The shear strengths of the headed studs with different heights are
depicted in Fig. 25. The figure confirms that for headed studs in UHPC,
the stud height has negligible influence on the shear strength. This
should be attributed to the fact that stress concentration constantly de-
veloped from the stud root, regardless of the stud height. Hence, the
headed studs failed from the root zones in all of the five cases. In addi-
tion, the figure shows that the shear strength calculated by Eq. (6) is
closer to the FE result. This implies that for headed studs in UHPC, the
contribution of the weld collar should be considered to evaluate the
shear strength.
According to Fig. 26(a), the yield strength nearly remains unchanged
with the increasing stud height. This indicates that the yield strength of
368 J. Cao, X. Shao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 161 (2019) 355–368
the headed studs in UHPC is insensitive to the stud height. It is also
found that the yield strength accounts for 78–82% of the ultimate
strength. Further, Fig. 26(b) implies that the influence of the stud height
on the shear stiffness is not distinct. Generally, when the stud heights
are 20–80 mm, the shear stiffness is within a range of 194–257 kN/mm.
5.6. Parameter 3: compressive strength of UHPC
Headed studs may be embedded in UHPC slabs with different grades.
Thus, it is necessary to reveal the influence of the compressive strength
on the behavior of the headed studs.
The diameter of headed studs (d) is 13 mm and the stud height (h) is
80 mm. The compressive strength of UHPC (fc) was considered as 110
MPa, 140 MPa, and 170 MPa.
Constitutional laws were established for the UHPC with different
grades. Regarding the stress state of compression, the stress–strain
curve was calculated using Eq. (2). The stress-strain curves for different
grades of concrete and UHPC are presented in Fig. 27(a), and the dam-
age index-inelastic strain curves are illustrated in Fig. 27(b). While re-
garding the stress state of tension, the corresponding subfigures in
Figs. 9 and 10 are used.
Fig. 28 shows the load-slip curves in the FE analysis. The figure dem-
onstrates that in the elastic stage, the three curves nearly coincide with
each other. In the yield stage, the curves exhibit a slight difference, while
the trend of the three curves is the same. Hence, the compressive
strength of UHPC has a marginal effect on the load-slip curve.
Fig. 29 compares the shear strength in FE analysis to that obtained in
Eq. (4)-Eq.(6). The FE analysis indicates that when the compressive
strength of UHPC is increased, the ultimate strength of the headed
studs improve slightly. This confirms that the compressive strength
should have a slight influence on the shear strength for the headed
studs. Again, the shear strength predicted by Eq. (6) is closer to the FE
result, implying that the contribution of the weld collar to the shear
strength should not be ignored.
Fig. 30 implies that the influence of the compressive strength of
UHPC on the yield strength and shear stiffness of the headed studs is
negligible. Generally, with the compressive strength of UHPC being in-
creased from 110 MPa to 170 MPa, the yield strength of the headed
studs is about 46 kN, 78–86% to the ultimate load. On the other hand,
the shear stiffness per headed stud is 237–256 kN/mm.
6. Conclusions
This paper investigates the behavior of the headed studs embedded
in thin UHPC. A 3D FE model was built to evaluate the damage process
and failure mode for the push-out specimens. The FE model was vali-
dated basing on the test results and hence a parametric study was per-
formed. Based on the current study, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
(1) Material nonlinearity was carefully defined for different parts of
the push-out specimen in the FE analysis. The analysis indicated
that the load-slip curve and shear strength were highly in accor-
dance with the test results. In addition, the failure mode ob-
served in the test could be adequately reflected by the FE model.
(2) Based on the validated FE model, a parametric analysis was con-
ducted. The analysis results imply that the parameter of stud di-
ameter exhibits a significant effect on the response of the headed
studs, including the load-slip curve, yield strength, ultimate
strength, and shear stiffness. While the influence of the other
two parameters, i.e., the stud height and compressive strength
of UHPC, is marginal.
(3) The shear strengths of the headed studs obtained in FE analysis
were compared to those predicted by theoretical equations. It
was found that Eq. (6) exhibited a better agreement with the
FE results than the other two equations. The agreement implies
that the contribution of the weld collar to the shear strength
should be included for the headed studs in UHPC.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the following funders for their sup-
port to the studies in this paper: (1) the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (grant Nos. 51708200 and 51778223); (2) China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant No. 2017 M610497); (3) the
Science and Technology Agency in Hunan Province (grant No.
2018JJ3052); (4) the Major Program of Science and Technology of Hu-
nan Province (grant No. 2017SK1010).
References
[1] L. Pallarés, J.F. Hajjar, Headed steel stud anchors in composite structures, part I:
shear, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (2) (2010) 198–212.
[2] D.J. Oehlers, C.G. Coughlan, The shear stiffness of stud shear connections in compos-
ite beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 6 (1986) 273–284.
[3] E. Xie, Fatigue strength of shear connectors, University of Minho, Guimarães, 2011
1–58.
[4] J. Hildebrand, H. Soltanzadeh, A review on assessment of fatigue strength in welded
studs, Int. J. Steel Struct. 14 (2) (2014) 421–438.
[5] E. Fehling, M. Schmidt, J. Walraven, T. Leutbecher, S. Fröhlich, Ultra-High Perfor-
mance Concrete UHPC, Fundamentals – Design – Examples, Wiley Ernst & Sohn,
Germany, 2013.
[6] X.D. Shao, D.T. Yi, Z.Y. Huang, H. Zhao, B. Chen, M.L. Liu, Basic performance of the
composite deck system composed of orthotropic steel deck and ultrathin RPC
layer, J. Bridg. Eng. 18 (5) (2013) 417–428.
[7] J.S. Kim, J. Kwark, C. Joh, S.W. Yoo, K.C. Lee, Headed stud shear connector for thin ul-
trahigh-performance concrete bridge deck, J. Constr. Steel Res. 108 (2015) 23–30.
[8] J.H. Cao, X.D. Shao, L. Deng, Y.D. Gan, Static and fatigue behavior of short headed
studs embedded in thin UHPC layer, J. Bridg. Eng. 22 (5) (2017).
[9] H.T. Nguyen, S.E. Kim, Finite element modeling of push-out tests for large stud shear
connectors, J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (2009) 1909–1920.
[10] Y. Luo, K. Hoki, K. Hayashi, M. Nakashima, Behavior and strength of headed stud –
SFRCC shear connection, II: strength evaluation, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (2) (2015)
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001372.
[11] S. Guezouli, A. Lachal, Numerical analysis of frictional contact effects in push-out
tests, Eng. Struct. 40 (2012) 39–50.
[12] D. Lam, E. El-Lobody, Behavior of headed stud shear connectors in composite beam,
J. Struct. Eng. 131 (1) (2005) 96–107.
[13] R.G. Slutter, J.W. Fisher, Fatigue strength of shear connectors, Highw. Res. Rec. 147
(1966) 65–88.
[14] Dassault Systèmes Simulia, ABAQUS Analysis User's Manual, Version 6.12, Hibbitt,
Karlsson, and Sorenson Inc., Providence, 2012.
[15] S.E. Kim, H.T. Nguyen, Finite element modeling and analysis of a hybrid steel-PSC
beam connection, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 2557–2569.
[16] X.F. Ding, M. Ni, Y.Z. Gong, Z.W. Yu, Z. Zhou, L.C. Zhou, Experimental study on slip
behavior and calculation of shear bearing capacity for shear stud connectors, J.
Build. Struct. 35 (9) (2014) 98–106 (In Chinese).
[17] M.S. Kunihiko, Welding engineering, Tokyo 1979.
[18] J. Yang, Z. Fang, Research on stress-strain relation of ultra high performance con-
crete, Concrete 7 (2008) 11–15.
[19] Z. Zhang, X.D. Shao, W.G. Li, P. Zhu, H. Chen, Axial tensile behavior test of ultra high
performance concrete, China J. Highway Transport 28 (8) (2015) 50–58.
[20] B.A. Graybeal, Characterization of the Behavior of Ultra-High Performance Concrete,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland College
Park, Maryland, 2005 36–64.
[21] MOHURDC, Code for design of steel and concrete composite bridges (GB 50917-
2013), Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China, Beijing, China,
China Planning Press, 2013 1–118 (In Chinese).
[22] GAQSIQOC, Cheese head studs for arc stud welding (GB/T 10433-2002), General Ad-
ministration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of China, Beijing,
China, 2002 1–2 (In Chinese).