Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Static behavior of large stud shear connectors

Chang-Su Shim a,
, Pil-Goo Lee b, Tae-Yang Yoon b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Ansung 456-756, South Korea
b
Civil Engineering Research Team, RIST, Hwasung 445-813, South Korea

Received 8 October 2003; received in revised form 19 July 2004; accepted 22 July 2004

Abstract

For the simplification of details in steel bridges, more convenient placing of concrete slab, and the proper distribution of shear
pockets for precast decks, large diameter studs can be an excellent alternative. Specifically, in the case of precast deck bridges, it is
favorable to design shear pockets for studs to have a uniform distribution and have small space in the decks. In order to satisfy
the design requirements in terms of strength and fatigue in the region of high horizontal shear in precast deck bridges, shear con-
nectors having higher capacity can provide uniform distribution of shear pockets. Through the push-out tests on large stud shear
connectors, beyond the limitation of current design codes, static behavior was investigated and comparisons with design equa-
tions were performed. Shear stiffness of the connectors in an elastic range and tri-linear load–slip curves were proposed from
shear tests on 25, 27, and 30 mm studs. Ultimate slip capacity and strength for large studs were evaluated and the test results
show clearly the conservative values of design shear strength in Eurocode 4.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Large stud; Push-out test; Shear stiffness; Ultimate strength; Ultimate slip

1. Introduction the region of high horizontal shear in precast deck

Headed stud shear connectors are the most common
type of shear connectors and are used in composite
bridges, typically 19 or 22 mm in diameter. In areas of
high shear, many studs should be welded to the top
flanges to provide full-shear connection in terms of
strength and fatigue. However, for large numbers of
stud, this can lead to longer welding times and also
makes it difficult to remove concrete slab, which may
damage the studs as well as the steel girders. In
addition, dense distribution of shear connectors also
raises safety concerns for construction workers. Subse-
quently, for the uniform distribution of shear pockets
in precast decks, large studs can be an excellent alter-
native.
It has been shown that shear pockets for studs are
better designed with a uniform distribution and have
small spaces in the precast decks. In order to satisfy the
design requirements in terms of strength and fatigue in


Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-31-670-4707.
E-mail address: csshim@cau.ac.kr (C.-S. Shim).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.07.011
bridges as shown in Fig. 1, shear connectors having
higher capacity can provide a uniform distribution of
shear pockets as in Fig. 1(b) and proper details in a
shear pocket as in Fig. 1(c).
The important static behavior of stud shear con-
nectors can be categorized into three parts; strength,
stiffness, and ductility. Shear connectors are influenced
by several parameters according to previous research-
ers, with major factors categorized into shank diam-
eter, height and tensile strength of studs, compressive
strength and elastic modulus of concrete, and direction
of concrete casting [1,4,5,8,11]. In addition for shear
connection in precast deck bridges, material properties
of filling material and bedding height must also be con-
sidered for the evaluation of structural performance of
stud shear connection [9,10]. Badie et al. [2], on large
studs of 31.8 mm the ultimate strength can be safely
determined using the equation given in AASHTO
LRFD bridge design specification (1998). Information
on the development, welding, quality control, and the
application of large studs were also provided in the
study.
1854 C.-S. Shim et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860
Fig. 1. (a) Precast deck bridge; (b) shear pocket distribution; and (c) studs in a shear pocket.
Eurocode 4 [3] specifies design strength of stud shear
connectors which are welded automatically, can be
determined by the following set of Eqs. (1) and (2).
PRd ¼ 0:8fu ðpd 2 =4Þ=cv
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PRd ¼ 0:29ad 2 ðfck Ecm Þ=cv
where units are N, mm. d is the diameter of studs, fu is
the ultimate strength of steel, fck is the compressive
strength of concrete, Ecm is the elastic modulus of con-
crete, and cv is partial safety factor (=1.25).
Failure modes of stud shear connection are pre-
sented in Fig. 2. There are stud shank failure, embed-
ment failure, splitting failure, and shear failure of
concrete slab. Likewise for large studs, concrete slab
Fig. 2. Failure modes of stud shear connection. (a) Shank failure;
(b) embedment failure; (c) slab cracking; and (d) shear failure of slab.
failure should be carefully prevented by provision of
sufficient transverse reinforcements.
Based on the previous research, static push-out tests
on large studs of 25, 27, and 30 mm size were per-
ð1Þ formed. From the results of the experiments, static
strength, ductility, and shear stiffness were evaluated
ð2Þ
and simplified tri-linear load–slip curves were proposed
for the nonlinear analysis of composite beams with
consideration of partial interaction. In addition, ulti-
mate strengths of large studs were compared with the
design equations in Eurocode 4.
2. Stud welding
The same steel used in typical stud connectors was
chosen for large studs so that proper ductility and ten-
sile strength could be provided. Before fabrication of
large studs, tensile tests for the stud material were con-
ducted with the results presented in Fig. 3. The yield
stress from the tensile tests was determined by 0.2%
strain because the steel for studs generally does not
show clear yielding point. Elongation of the stud was
about 34% and tensile strength was an appropriate
value for studs. Table 1 summarizes the material
properties of stud material. Using this steel, large studs
of varying dimensions were fabricated in diameters of
25, 27, 30 mm.
Quality control of welding process is a very impor-
tant factor for the application of large studs since cur-
rent welding equipment allows welding of studs up to
25 mm. Therefore, welding trials were carried out to
 C.-S. Shim et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860 1855

Fig. 5. Dimensions of large studs.

Fig. 3. Stress–strain curves of stud material.

shown in Fig. 4. Judging from the quality tests, proper
dimensions of large studs were suggested as in Fig. 5.
Table 1
Material properties of stud material

Yield Tensile Elongation Elastic

3. Experimental works
stress strength (%) modulus
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
3.1. Test specimens
Coupon 1 322 415 34 2:13  105
Coupon 2 325 441 35 2:13  105 Test specimens were fabricated according to the
Coupon 3 336 423 33 2:13  105 standard push-out test specimen in Eurocode 4. It
Average 328 426 34 2:13  105 should be noted that push tests should be carried out
such that the slabs and the reinforcement are of suit-
able dimensions in comparison with the beams for
obtain proper and reliable welding quality as in Fig. 4. which the test is designed. Slabs of 200 and 220 mm
In early trials using common practice, several defects thickness were used and bond at the interface between
such as bad welding collar and voids in welding surface the flanges of steel beam and the concrete slab was pre-
were found. The slope of the stud chamfer, power sup- vented by greasing the flange. Each of both concrete
ply, and welding time were modified. For 25 and 27 slabs were cast in the horizontal position, as is done for
mm studs, a 2200 amperage was required and a 2400 composite beams in practice, and the push specimens
were air-cured. Fig. 6 shows the details of the speci-
amperage for 30 mm studs, readily available from com-
mens. As denoted, A and B indicate the design com-
mercial vendors. Welding duration was about 1.3 s and
v
pressive strength of concrete, 30 and 40 MPa,
a 3 mm chamfer was appropriate. After welding, 45 respectively. C series specimens have 220 mm thickness
bent tests were performed to verify welding quality as of the concrete slab to prevent the slab failure.

3.2. Material properties and measurements

For each mix, four concrete cylinders were prepared

Fig. 4. Welding tests. (a) Welding; (b) bent test; and (c) defects in
early trials.
at the time of casting, to determine the concrete
strength of the push-out specimens. One set of the
cylinders was cured according to the standard curing
and others were cured alongside the push specimens.
Table 2 summarizes the material properties of concrete
and the concrete strength’s mean values.
Push-out specimens were tested in a hydraulic testing
machine with a 10,000 kN capacity. Subsequent load
increments were imposed such that failure does not
occur in less than 15 min according to Eurocode 4.
Longitudinal slips between each concrete slab and steel
section were measured continuously during loading or
at each load increment using 1/1000 mm LVDTs. The
slip was measured at least until the load had dropped
to 20% below the maximum load.
1856 C.-S. Shim et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860
4. Static behavior of large stud shear connectors
The static behavior of stud shear connectors can be
explained through shear stiffness in an elastic region,
load–slip curve, ultimate strength, and slip. Static
strength is one of the essential criterion in the design of
stud shear connectors. Ductility, a basic assumption in
the design, is verified through ultimate slip. Load–slip
curve is needed to reflect shear stiffness in the elastic as
well as nonlinear region in structural analysis.
4.1. Shear stiffness and load–slip curves
Oehlers and Coughlan [6] analyzed 116 push-out
tests, which had not prerupture in the concrete slabs,
and suggested the empirical equations of slip at half of
the ultimate load and of elastic shear stiffness as in
Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively. They assumed that the
load–slip behavior of stud shear connection is nearly
linear up to 0.5Pmax [6,7].
d0:5Pmax ¼ ð80  103  86  105 fc Þdsh
where Pmax represents the maximum strength of the
shear connection (N), dsh the diameter of studs (mm)
and fc is the mean compressive strength of concrete
(MPa).
Table 2
Compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
Test A series B series
28 days (standard curing) 33.2 45.3
At the time of static test (air curing) 35.3 49.4
Fig. 6. Test specimen.
Initial shear stiffness of the stud shear connection,
Ksi is defined as the mean stiffness at the applied load
of 0.5Pmax.
Pmax
Ksi ¼ ð4Þ
dsh ð0:16  0:0017fc Þ
where dsh represents the diameter of studs and fc is the
mean compressive strength of concrete. In Eq. (4), 0.16
should be substituted by 0.08 and 0.24 for the upper
and lower characteristic stiffness, respectively. This
means that there is large variation in the shear stiffness
because the measure slips are typically very small
values.
Ultimate slip capacity, which represents the ductility
of the shear connection, was proposed as Eq. (5). For
large studs, dult is very important parameter for their
practical applications in composite bridges. Enough
ductility should be assured for large studs.
dult ¼ ð0:48  0:0042fc Þdsh ð5Þ
ð3Þ Even though the above empirical equations are not for
large studs, the main parameters affecting the elastic
behavior of the stud shear connection are similar.
Therefore, elastic slip, shear stiffness, and ductility,
which were measured from push tests, were compared
with the above empirical equations, as summarized in
Table 3. In terms of the shear stiffness of the stud shear
connection, measured values were higher than those
from the equation. However, the difference of the stiff-
C series
ness can have slight influence on the behavior of com-
53.0 posite beams. For the ultimate slip capacity, the
64.5
equation illustrated a good agreement with the mea-
 C.-S. Shim et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860 1857

Table 3
Stiffness/ductility of stud connectors

Specimen Elastic slip (mm) Stiffness (kN/mm) Ductility (mm)

Experimental (0.5Dmax) Eq. (3) Experimental Eq. (4) Experimental Eq. (5)
ST25-A1 0.27 1.14 231 78 6.07 7.8
ST25-A2 0.27 272 6.68
ST25-A3 0.21 322 7.45
ST25-B1 0.23 0.93 356 96 6.33 6.75
ST25-B2 0.18 400 6.72
ST25-B3 0.23 343 7.31
ST27-A1 0.21 1.23 396 75 8.30 8.42
ST27-A2 0.31 298 8.55
ST27-A3 0.24 331 8.12
ST27-C1 0.33 0.66 315 155 9.19 5.65
ST27-C2 0.38 314 8.36
ST27-C3 0.33 283 8.92
ST30-A1
1.37
70 7.29 9.36
ST30-A2 0.3 306 9.63
ST30-A3 0.28 279 7.76
ST30-C1 0.41 0.74 187 154 9.39 6.27
ST30-C2 0.35 340 9.24
ST30-C3 0.34 343 9.46

sured values and the ductility of the large stud shear
connection is sufficient for the composite bridges.
In typical steel–concrete composite bridges, the beha-
vior of stud shear connectors in the elastic range has a
negligible effect on the flexural behavior of the bridges
because the bridges are designed with full-shear con-
nection and adhesion/friction effects on the shear stiff-
ness are considerably high [7]. However, in the inelastic
region the behavior of the shear connection becomes
very important because the load distribution in three
parts of composite beams, concrete slab, steel beam
and shear connection, is changed according to the par-
tial-interaction behavior of the shear connection. For
the accurate analysis of the composite beams in the
ultimate limit state, it is necessary to derive the simpli-
fied load–slip curves of the large stud shear connection.
For the simplification of the analysis, tri-linear curves
for large studs using the results of the static tests, as
represented in Fig. 7, were derived as in Fig. 8. In
Table 4, values for the three points in Fig. 5 are sum-
marized. For the C-series, the failure mode was stud
shank failure and abrupt load decrease soon after a
peak load was observed. Therefore, ultimate slip was
obtained at the time of abrupt load change for C-series
specimens. Even though large studs showed enough
ultimate slip capacity, ductility after peak load was
lower than that of normal studs. Using these values
and nonlinear curves of concrete and steel, a nonlinear
analysis for composite beams could be performed con-
sidering the partial-interaction behavior.
4.2. Ultimate shear strength
For the design of large stud shear connections, ulti-
mate strength should be compared with that of design
codes and ductility should be checked by ultimate slip.
Table 5 summarizes ultimate strength, failure modes
and ultimate slip measured from static tests. For the 27
mm-A series and 30 mm-A series specimens, embed-
ment failure was observed and it can be said that trans-
verse reinforcements and slab thickness was not
enough to prevent slab failure. Fig. 9 presents failure
modes of specimens. Some voids at the failure surface
of 30 mm studs were observed and tearing off the
upper flange was also observed as in Fig. 9(a). Fig. 9(b)
shows typical embedment failure of the concrete slab.
Judging from the results of static tests, welding quality
for 30 mm should be carefully controlled and concrete
slab should be designed to prevent slab failure for 27
and 30 mm studs.
4.3. Ultimate limit state of large studs
Eurocode 4 specifies the design strength of stud
shear connectors, PRd, as in Eq. (6). Characteristic
strength PRk can be obtained by decreasing 10% of
minimum failure load among the three test results.
fu PRk PRk
PRd ¼  ð6Þ
fut cv cv
where fu is the specified minimum tensile strength of
stud material (410 MPa), fut is the actual tensile
strength of studs in these tests (426 MPa), and partial
safety factor cv is 1.25.
1858 C.-S. Shim et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860
Fig. 7. Load–slip curve. (a) 25 mm-A series; (b) 25 mm-B series; (c) 27 mm-A series; (d) 27 mm-C series; (e) 30 mm A-series; and (f) 30 mm-C
series.
Ultimate slip capacity, du, is a measured slip at the
load of the characteristic strength and the characteristic
ultimate slip, duk, can be defined by decreasing 10% of
ultimate slip du. Table 6 presents design strength and
ductility of large studs. Each value represents average
value for each test group. The ductility of large stud
Fig. 8. Idealized load–slip curve.
shear connection satisfies the current design require-
ments for stud shear connectors.
The ultimate strength of large stud shear connection
obtained from static tests, which established stud shank
failure only, was compared with that calculated by
design codes of Eurocode 4. Fig. 10 shows the com-
parison and it can be said that Eurocode 4 estimates
the strength properly in the region of these tests. Even
though the design codes are not for large studs, Eq. (1)
can be used for the evaluation of ultimate strength of
large studs in composite bridges.
5. Conclusions
Through the push-out tests on large stud shear con-
nectors, which are beyond the limitation of current
design codes, static behavior was investigated. After
modifying current welding machines, proper welding
conditions were found and bend tests were performed
to confirm the welding quality. Standard push-out spe-
cimens were fabricated and several conclusions were
obtained from the static tests.
For large studs, proper welding quality could be
obtained using current automatic welding machines
 C.-S. Shim et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860 1859

Table 4
Load–slip results

A point B point C point

Pe se Pm sm Pu su
25 mm-A 78.0 0.25 156.1 3.33 140.4 6.73
25 mm-B 90.1 0.21 180.1 3.52 162.1 6.79
27 mm-A 93.1 0.25 186.2 4.22 167.6 8.32
27 mm-C 105.6 0.35 211.2 7.55 190.1 8.82
30 mm-A 96.0 0.29 191.9 5.33 172.7 8.70
30 mm-C 116.2 0.37 232.3 7.00 209.1 9.36

Table 5
Static test results

Specimen Ultimate Ultimate Failure mode

strength per slip (mm)
stud (kN)
ST25-A1 139.4 6.07 Shank failure
ST25-A2 171.6 6.68 Shank failure
ST25-A3 157.1 7.45 Shank failure
ST25-B1 176.4 6.33 Shank failure
ST25-B2 176.7 6.72 Shank failure
ST25-B3 187.3 7.31 Shank failure
ST27-A1 173.5 8.30 Shank/embedment failure
ST27-A2 190.2 8.55 Shank/embedment failure
ST27-A3 195.1 8.12 Shank/embedment failure
ST27-C1 208.2 9.19 Shank failure
ST27-C2 238.5 8.36 Shank failure
ST27-C3 186.9 8.92 Shank failure
ST30-A1 142.2 7.29 Embedment failure
ST30-A2 186.8 9.63 Shank/embedment failure
ST30-A3 197.1 7.76 Shank/embedment failure
ST30-C1 222.8 9.39 Shank failure
ST30-C2 240.0 9.24 Shank failure
ST30-C3 234.0 9.46 Shank failure

and ultimate strength and ductility of stud shear con-

nection from static tests showed appropriate values. Fig. 9. Failure modes. (a) Stud shank failure; and (b) embedment
However, it is necessary to provide careful quality con- failure.
trol in using a common welding vendor for large studs.
Shear stiffness of large stud shear connection obtained beam tests to provide possibility of a uniform distri-
from testing showed a higher value than that from the bution of shear pockets using large studs.
empirical equation for normal studs. Ultimate slip
capacity of large studs was also in agreement with that
of the empirical equation for normal studs. In the ulti-
mate limit state, large stud shear connectors displayed Table 6
ductile behavior and for up to 30 mm studs, design Characteristic values of stud connectors
requirements for ductility could be achieved. From the Stud Concrete Stud strength (kN) Ductility (mm)
results, the design strength in Eurocode 4 reveals con- diameter strength
PRk PRd du duk
servative values for large stud shear connection in com- (mm) (MPa)
posite bridges. 25 35.4 125.5 96.9 6.07 5.5
In order to verify the push-out test results on large 25 49.3 158.8 122.6 6.33 5.7
stud shear connectors, it is necessary to perform 27 35.4 156.1 120.5 8.12 7.3
additional push-out tests for fatigue endurance of the 27 64.5 168.2 129.8 8.92 8.0
30 35.4 168.1 129.7 7.76 7.0
shear connection. For the shear connection in precast 30 64.5 200.5 154.8 9.39 8.5
deck bridges, it is necessary to perform composite
1860 C.-S. Shim et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1853–1860
Fig. 10. Comparison of design code and test.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was partially fun-
ded by National Research Laboratory Program of
Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning.
[10] Shim C-S, Chang S-P, Lee P-G. Design of shear connection in
References
[11] Slutter RG, Driscoll GC. Test results and design recommenda-
[1] Akao S, Kurita A, Hiragi H. Effect of directions of concrete pla-
cing on behaviour of headed stud shear connectors in push-out
tests. JSCE 1987;380(4):311–20.
[2] Badie SS, Tadros MK, Kakish HF, Splittgerber DL, Baishya
MC. Large shear studs for composite action in steel bridge gir-
ders. Journal of Bridge Engineering 2002;7(3):195–203.
[3] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures,
part 2: composite bridges (ENV 1994-2). CEN; 1997.
[4] Mainstone RJ, Menzies JB. Shear connectors in steel–concrete
composite beams for bridges; part 1, static and fatigue tests on
push-out specimens. Concrete 1967;1(9):291–302.
[5] Menzies JB. CP117 and shear connectors in steel–concrete com-
posite beams made with normal-density or lightweight concrete.
Structural Engineering 1971;49(3):137–54.
[6] Oehlers DJ, Coughlan CG. The shear stiffness of stud shear con-
nections in composite beams. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1986;6:273–84.
[7] Oehlers DJ, Bradford MA. Elementary behaviour of composite
steel & concrete structural members. Butterworth-Heinemann;
1999.
[8] Ollgaard JG, Slutter RG, Fisher JW. Shear strength of stud con-
nectors in lightweight and normal-weight concrete. AISC Engin-
eering Journal 1971;8(2):55–64.
[9] Shim C-S, Kim J-H, Chung C-H, Chang S-P. The behavior of
shear connection in composite beam with full-depth precast slab.
Structures and Buildings, The Institution of Civil Engineers
2000;140:101–10.
composite steel and concrete bridges with precast decks. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57:203–19.
tions for composite beams. Lehigh University, Fritz Engineering
Laboratory, Report 297.10; 1962.