›

Part 2
www.thestructuralengineer.org

Technical TheStructuralEngineer 25
Composite/Steel compendium February 2014

Composite and Steel

Construction compendium
Part 2: Shear connection in composite beams
This article is part of a series
that will gradually build to form a
S Figure 1
Shear stud in solid and composite slabs

Composite (steel-concrete) and

Steel Construction compendium.
Written by leading experts
from the SCI, the articles aim
to provide a real insight into
composite and steel construction,
to help practicing engineers get
the most from these materials.

a. Shear stud in solid slab

a. Shear stud in solid slab
Introduction
The first article in this series set the scene by talking about
developments of products and design codes. It highlighted how
these developments are not as coordinated as one might expect.
In this second article we look specifically at the issue of shear
connection. More general information on composite construction
can be found at: www.steelconstruction.info.

Shear connection in steel-concrete composite beams has been a

subject of some interest over recent years, with several international
research groups reconsidering both the resistance and the ductility

SCI
of shear studs. b. Shear stud fixed through profiled sheeting

Testing and analysis carried out in the UK has shown that the
resistance values given in Eurocode 4 are reasonable, although the
assumptions made about ductility in that code may be conservative
in some cases. The work also resulted in some reduced shear stud
resistances being included in an amended version of BS 5950-3.11,
and highlighted some areas where previous UK practice needs
to be revised.
It is important for designers to clearly understand three things about the
shear connection in composite beams. Firstly, what is an appropriate
shear stud resistance to use in a given situation? Secondly, how
should the shear connection, comprising stud plus surrounding
concrete and reinforcement, be detailed? Thirdly, what should you
do if the total shear connection that a beam can accommodate is
less than the minimum degree of shear connection required?
The purpose of this article is to help designers gain that clear
understanding, based on the most up-to-date technical background.
Shear connection resistance
Codified guidance
Eurocode 4 underwent a lengthy development period, finally
appearing as a full standard, EN 19942, in 2004. Useable drafts
had been available, as ENV documents, as early as the mid-1980s.
In BS 5950-3.1, which also appeared in the mid-1980s, values
for shear connection resistance are defined in a simple table as
a function of stud (shank) diameter and concrete strength. In
Eurocode 4 the connection resistance in a solid concrete slab is
defined by two equations; one considering the strength of the steel
stud itself and the other considering the surrounding concrete as
governing failure. The lower of the two values is adopted. When,
as is normally the case for buildings, profiled decking is present,
a reduction factor is applied to the solid slab value. The reduction
factor is a function of the stud and decking geometry.
Figure 1 shows that as well as the stud resistance potentially
reducing, the physical behaviour also changes when decking is used.
The volume of concrete most in compression moves from the base
of the stud to nearer its head. The idea of reducing a solid slab value,
rather than giving values directly for composite slabs, betrays the
background to Eurocode 4. The shear connection resistance values
are defined by empirical equations, based on many hundreds of tests
from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s. Many of these tests were on
solid slabs, which was the typical form of construction, not just for
bridges but also for buildings, during the early part of that period.
The relatively small number of tests on composite slabs, inevitably
used the decking that was available at the time.

TSE26_25-27 CSCC-2 v3.indd 25 23/01/2014 08:16


26 TheStructuralEngineer
February 2014
W Figure 2
Concrete failure surface
in push test with two studs and
transverse trapezoidal decking
SCI
N Figure 3
Geometry of typical 80mm
trapezoidal decking
Latest findings
Over the past decade or so, the decking profiles used in the UK
have changed. Whereas the early re-entrant shapes formed slabs
that were very similar to a solid slab, modern trapezoidal profiles
have been developed to reduce the volume of concrete and
therefore enable greater spanning ability, particularly during the
construction stage when the decking acts as permanent formwork.
Testing of full scale beams and local ‘push out test’ specimens,
adopting modern decking profiles in a transverse orientation, has
revealed two headline results:
• Resistances are lower than previously recommended in BS 5950-
3.1, hence the amendment issued in early 2010. The resistances
for single studs are close to those presented in EN 1994. The
resistances for double studs are lower than those given in EN 1994,
but that is because of less onerous detailing requirements (fabric
does not have to be below the heads of the studs to validate the
BS 5950-3.1 resistances). The results did not suggest the need for
any immediate changes to EN 1994
• The ductility, defined in terms of slip capacity, is considerably
greater than the 6mm considered when developing the rules for
minimum degree of shear connection in both codes
Positioning of fabric reinforcement
Code requirements
BS 5950-3.1 requires the studs to project at least 35mm above
the decking. It explicitly defines the height of decking as the
dimension to the shoulder, therefore not including the c.10mm
deep stiffener present on the top of the rib for many decks. EN
1994-1-1 6.6.5.8(1) requires the studs to project at least 2φ (where
φ is the diameter of the shank of the stud) above the top of
decking. It is not clear from the code which height of stud to use,
but SCI recommends the nominal (pre-welded) height for clarity
and simplicity (to be compared with the height to the shoulder
of the decking). Eurocode 4 also requires that the ‘bottom layer’
of fabric (or mesh as it is called in the Eurocode) should be at
least 30mm below the head of the stud (EN 1994-1-1 6.6.5.1(1)).
However, this requirement should be read in the context of a
document that has many diagrams showing solid slabs with top
and bottom fabric.
UK practice
A typical UK combination of a nominal 60mm trapezoidal deck,
which has a total depth in excess of 60mm, with a 95mm as-
welded shear stud, satisfies the requirement from BS 5950-3.1
noted previously, leaving a distance of approximately 15mm
between the head of the stud and the very top of the decking. With
such products, the apparent Eurocode requirement to place the
fabric 30mm below the head cannot be satisfied.
TSE26_25-27 CSCC-2 v3.indd 26
›
Part 2
Technical
Composite/Steel compendium
Tests have shown that there is no need to place the reinforcement
so low, and SCI recommends that the Eurocode rule does not
apply to typical UK composite slabs with only one layer of fabric.
For slabs that have only a single layer, complementary guidance
can be used.
Placing reinforcement below the head of the studs so that it
crosses the potential concrete failure surface (Figure 2) will
improve performance, although tests have shown that even when
the fabric is above the studs, the connection resistance and
ductility may still be adequate. This is reassuring, as common site
practice is to place the fabric at nominal cover from the upper
surface of the slab (for reasons of crack control, and for it to act
more efficiently as fire reinforcement). The 2010 amendment to BS
5950-3.1 conservatively assumes this scenario.
Number of studs in a transverse trough
Code requirements
BS 5950-3.1 as amended in 2010, only gives reduction factors for
use with either one or two studs per trough, and it is therefore
implicit that more than two should not be considered. The wording
of Eurocode 4 is less clear. The reduction factor is defined as
a function of the number of studs per trough, but this number
(according to EN 1994-1-1 6.6.4.2(1)) is ‘not to exceed two in
calculation of the reduction factor kt’. Numerous designers have
interpreted this as meaning if they have more than two studs, then
the resistance of each is the same as if only two were present
(because a higher value than two should not be used ‘in calculation’).
Consideration of Fig. 2 shows why such an interpretation is
erroneous – were three (similarly spaced) studs to have been
present in that test, the concrete failure surface would not have
been 50% larger.
UK practice
It has not been uncommon to find three or more studs used
per trough, normally in an endeavour to satisfy the requirements
for a minimum degree of shear connection, rather than to
increase the moment resistance of the composite beam.
Given the considerations noted, it is clear that not much will have
been achieved by using so many studs, even though the designer
may have thought differently.
What heights to consider?
A final point on detailing that requires some clarification refers to
the dimensions that should be used for:
• The height of the decking
• The height of the shear stud
Most modern trapezoidal decking has two heights, one to the
shoulder, and one to the top of a stiffener in the upper flange
(Figure 3). When Eurocode 4 was written there was only one
height, so there is only one definition and one variable. It is
recognised that a designer should use the height to the
shoulder when checking requirements for shear stud
detailing and resistance (Fig. 1). When working out the depth
of solid concrete, the total depth of decking should be
taken into account.
Defining the height of a shear stud is more complex. Stud height
is defined in different ways by different stud manufacturers, and is
not clearly defined in all codes. Moreover, when a stud is welded
directly to a beam flange, the loss of height (length) due to welding
is about 5mm less than if it were welded through profiled decking
23/01/2014 08:16

(as is common practice). So a given stud has more options than
simply its height before and after welding.
BS 5950-3.1 as amended in 2010 is clear, stating that the nominal
‘before welding’ stud height should be used when determining the
reduction, to apply to the resistance of a stud in a decking trough.
Whilst Eurocode 4 is not clear, the SCI design guide to complement
it (P359)3 goes further by stating that the as-welded height should
be used. Although apparently conflicting, it should be remembered
that the codes apply this reduction factor to a solid slab value
(which is not the same in the two codes), and that the factors are
a result of back analysis of tests (by different organisations). The
correct definition of stud height is therefore part of the context in
which it is being used. If anything, the Eurocode definition (as given
in P359) is conservative. Further work is underway to simplify stud
resistances and detailing rules in Eurocode 4.
In addition to using stud height in the definition of a resistance
reduction factor, the codes use it to define certain geometrical
criteria that should be met (for example EN 1994-1-1 6.6.5.1(1)). SCI
recommends that nominal (before welding) dimensions are used to
avoid a slightly under height stud failing a pass/fail detailing check,
when the real impact of the lesser height on resistance will be
negligible.
Minimum degree of shear connection
One of the most misunderstood aspects of composite construction
is the need for a minimum degree of shear connection.
Composite beams ‘work’ by tying together the steel beam and a
concrete flange. Without that connection the flange would simply
slip over the steel as it deflected, and the beam resistance (and
stiffness) would be the sum of those of the two parts. To keep this
slip to a manageable level (one below which the connection will
not be broken, in an ‘unzipping’) the shear connection must have
a certain stiffness (Figure 4). This manageable level of slip has
traditionally been taken as 6mm, although recent work suggests
that for some configurations, 10mm is achievable.
In simple terms then, there must be enough studs on a beam to
ensure the total connection has sufficient stiffness (the sum of the
stiffnesses of all the studs) to limit slip. However, the stiffness of a
stud is not quantified in Eurocode 4 or BS 5950-3.1, so an explicit
check is not possible. Instead, the codes indirectly achieve this
check by looking at resistance rather than stiffness. The minimum
degree of shear connection rules ensure there will be enough studs
to satisfy a certain resistance requirement, in order to indirectly
ensure there are enough to satisfy the stiffness requirement.
TSE26_25-27 CSCC-2 v3.indd 27
www.thestructuralengineer.org
27
W Figure 4
Non-
composite and
fully composite
beams (with
infinitely
stiff shear
connection)
A question often posed, is whether one can specify an effective
concrete flange width which is less than that specified in the code.
By doing so, the number of studs needed to achieve full shear
connection would reduce (there is less concrete to compress), so
a given number of studs would appear to provide a greater degree
of shear connection. This could be attractive when unable to
meet the code requirement for minimum degree. The answer is an
emphatic ‘no’. Using less studs would result in more slip, perhaps
more than the 6mm (or 10mm) available.
References and further reading
1) British Standards Institution (1990) BS 5950-3.1:1990+A1:2010
Structural use of steelwork in building. Design in composite
construction. Code of practice for design of simple and continuous
composite beams London: BSI
2) British Standards Institution (2005) Eurocode 4. Design of
composite steel and composite structures London: BSI
3) Steel Construction Institute (2011) Composite design of steel
framed buildings (P359), Ascot Berkshire: SCI
Further reading
Rackham J. W., Couchman G. H. and Hicks S. J. (2009) Composite
Slabs and Beams using Steel Decking: Best Practice for Design and
Construction [Online] Available at: www.steelconstruction.info/
(Accessed: January 2014)
Johnson R. P. (2011) Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 4: Design of
Composite Steel and Concrete Structures (2nd ed.) London: ICE
Publishing
NCCI Document PN001a-GB Resistance of headed stud shear
connectors in transverse sheeting [Online] Available at: www.steel-
ncci.co.uk
NCCI Document PN002a-GB Modified limitation on partial shear
connection in beams for buildings [Online] Available at: www.steel-
ncci.co.uk
Web resources
The Steel Construction Institute: www.steelconstruction.info
23/01/2014 08:17