Full-Scale Testing for Composite Slab/Beam

Systems Made with Extended Stud Spacing

Sameh S. Badie, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1; Amgad F. Morgan Girgis, Ph.D., P.E.2;
Maher K. Tadros, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE3; and Krissachai Sriboonma, D.Sc.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Investigation of the background of the 610 mm (24 in.) spacing of stud shear connectors showed that this limit was set on the basis
of a small amount of testing of beams with spacing greater than this limit. The literature search showed that some attempts have been recently
made to extend this limit. One of the objectives of the NCHRP 12-65 research project was to investigate the possibility of extending this limit
to 1,220 mm (48 in.) for cluster of studs used for precast concrete panels made composite with steel I-beams. The experimental investigation
included testing of push-off specimens and full-scale composite beams. Results of the push-off specimens have shown that the fatigue loading
has no detrimental effect on the load-slip relationship when the number of studs is doubled per cluster. This paper covers the second part of the
experimental investigation, which is fatigue and ultimate testing of full-scale composite beams. The full-scale testing has proven that full-
composite action between precast concrete panels and steel girders can be achieved when the spacing between the stud clusters is extended up
to 1,220 mm (48 in.). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000215. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Shear; Studs; Slabs; Steel beams; Girder bridges; Panels; Spacing; Full-scale tests.
Author keywords: Shear; Connector; Studs; Composite; Precast; Panel; Bridges; Girders.

Introduction AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition

Headed steel studs are used to create composite action between
concrete deck slabs and steel girders. The studs are welded to
the top flange of the girders and embedded in the deck slab for
an adequate height to provide for full anchorage. In bridges built
with full-depth precast concrete deck systems, the studs are set in
clusters and embedded in shear pockets created in the panels during
fabrication. After the precast panels are installed on the bridge and
their elevation is adjusted, the shear pockets and the haunch be-
tween the steel girders and the panels are filled with flowable non-
shrink grout.
For bridge owners, it is advantageous to extend the spacing be-
tween the stud clusters, even beyond what the specifications cur-
rently permit, for the following reasons (Badie et al. 2010): (1) to
simplify and speed up the fabrication process of the panels; (2) to
reduce the cost of the deck system by reducing the volume of the
grout filling the shear pockets; (3) to reduce the possibility of water
leakage at the interface between the shear pockets and the grout
filling them; and (4) to give the design engineer more flexibility
in laying out the transverse reinforcement of the panel. The
1
Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept., The
George Washington Univ., 801 22nd St., Washington, D.C. 20052 (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: badies@gwu.edu
2
Design Engineer, e-Construct, 2111 South 67th St., Suite 200, Omaha,
NE 68106. E-mail: AGirgis@econstruct.us
3
Leslie D. Martin Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE. E-mail: mtadros@mail.unomaha.edu
4
Consultant, Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc., San
Antonio, TX. E-mail: KSriboonma@BakerRisk.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 25, 2010; approved on
December 29, 2010; published online on August 15, 2011. Discussion per-
iod open until February 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 16, No. 5, September 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2011/5-653–
661/$25.00.
(AASHTO 2007) state that spacing between the shear connectors
should not exceed 610 mm (24 in.). Background check of this limit
showed that it was set on the basis of a small amount of testing of
composite beams with spacing greater than this limit (Badie
et al. 2010).
One of the objectives of the NCHRP 12-65 research project
(Badie and Tadros 2008) was to investigate the possibility of ex-
tending this limit to 1,220 mm (48 in.). The experimental investi-
gation included testing of push-off specimens and full-scale
composite beams. The experimental results of the push-off speci-
mens has shown that fatigue load has no detrimental effect on the
load-slip relationship when the number of studs is doubled per clus-
ter (Badie et al. 2010). Another goal of the push-off specimens test
was to investigate the validity of the current AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO 2007) provisions for design of stud clus-
ters with the proposed extended spacing. The design provisions are
given in Article 6.10.10 of Section 6 and Article 5.8.4 of Section 5
of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007), as
follows:
• Fatigue resistance, Z r :
5:5 2
Z r ðkipsÞ ¼ αd 2s ≥ d ðLRFD; Eq: 6:10:10:2-1Þ ð1Þ
2 s
where
αðksiÞ ¼ 34:5
4:28 logðNÞ ðLRFD; Eq:6:10:10:2-2Þ
ð2Þ
and N = number of cycles
• Nominal shear resistance, Qn (kips):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Qn ðkipsÞ ¼ 0:5Asc f 0c E c ≤ Asc F u
ð3Þ
ðLRFD; Eq:6:10:10:4:3-1Þ
where Asc = cross-sectional area of a stud shear connector (in2 );
E c = modulus of elasticity of the concrete (ksi); f 0c = specified

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 653

J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661

 compressive strength of the concrete (ksi); and F u = specified chance of any possible separation between the slab and the
minimum tensile strength of a stud shear connector (ksi). steel beam.
• Nominal shear resistance, V ni (kips), using the shear friction
theory:
Full-Scale Beam Specimens
V ni ðkipsÞ ¼ cAcv þ μAvf f y ðLRFD; Eq:5:8:4:1-3Þ ð4Þ
Two full-scale composite beams, 9,754-mm (32-ft) long, were fab-
ricated. Each beam consisted of a 203-mm (8-in.) thick, 1,220-mm
V ni ≤ 0:2f 0c Acv or ðLRFD; Eq:5:8:4:1-4Þ ð5a Þ
(48-in.) wide, precast concrete slab supported on a W18 × 119 steel
beam, Grade 50 steel. The slab and the steel beam were made
V ni ≤ 0:8Acv ðLRFD; Eq:5:8:4:1-5Þ ð5b Þ composite by using 64 31.8-mm (1.25-in.) studs over the full span
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

length of beam. The studs on Beam 1 were set in 16 clusters spaced

where c = cohesion factor, 0.025 ksi for concrete anchored to as-
rolled structural steel by headed studs; μ = friction factor, 0.7 for
concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel by headed studs;
Acv = area of concrete considered to be engaged in interface
shear transfer (in2 ); Avf = area of shear reinforcement crossing
the shear plane (in2 ); and f y = yield stress of horizontal shear
reinforcement (ksi).
The first phase of the experimental program of the NCHRP 12-
65 project, conducted on push-off specimens (Badie et al. 2010),
concluded that (1) Eq. 6.10.10.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Spec-
ifications (AASHTO 2007) can be used to estimate the fatigue
capacity regardless of the number of studs provided in the cluster;
(2) confinement of the grout surrounding the stud cluster was able
to protect the grout from early crushing and to allow the studs to
develop their maximum fatigue strength even if the limits given by
Eqs. (5a) and (5b) are violated; and (3) Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007) overestimates
the ultimate capacity, whereas Eq. 5.8.4.1-3 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO 2007) correlates very well with the test
results. Because some of the push-off specimens failed in bearing
or the slab around the shear pockets cracked before the studs de-
veloped their design shear strength, Badie et al. (2010) concluded
that the push-off specimens are not accurate in modeling interface
shear behavior in beams, especially for investigating the ultimate
capacity. This is because the loading arrangement and the limited
specimen size do not provide the true shear/flexure interaction or
the redundancy that exists in the more expensive beam testing. As a
result, Badie et al. (2010) recommended testing of full-scale
composite beams to investigate the ultimate capacity of studs
grouped in clusters spaced at 1,220 mm (48 in.).
This paper covers the second phase of the experimental inves-
tigation, which is fatigue and ultimate testing of two full-scale
composite beams. A precast concrete slab made composite with
a steel beam configuration was used. The 31.8 mm (1.25 in.) large
size studs, recently developed (Badie et al. 2002), were used in this
research to maximize the spacing between clusters and increase the
at 610 mm (24 in.), with four studs per cluster. The studs on Beam 2
were set in eight clusters spaced at 1,220 mm (48 in.), with eight
studs per cluster. In each cluster, two studs, spaced at 5 in. in the
transverse direction, were provided per row, and the spacing be-
tween the studs in the longitudinal direction was 76 mm (3 in.).
The stud clusters on the north side of each composite beam were
confined with individual closed ties, whereas the stud clusters on
the south side were confined with hollow structural steel tubes
(HSS). Figs. 1 and 2 show the details of the full-scale beams.
The concrete slab was made of one precast panel reinforced
with two welded wire reinforcement (WWR) meshes. The top mesh
was 152 × 152 mm-MW65 × MW65 (6 × 6 in:-W10 × W10),
and the bottom mesh was 152 × 152 mm-MW90 × MW90
(6 × 6 in:-W14 × W14). This amount of reinforcement was pro-
vided in accordance with the minimum reinforcement requirements
of the Empirical Design Method given in Article 9.7.2 of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007). The amount
of transverse reinforcement, As , and bearing stresses in front of
the stud clusters were checked to protect the slab from longitudinal
splitting cracking and/or crushing, by using Eqs. (6) and (7), re-
spectively (Badie et al. 2010)
 
T split bc
As ¼ ; T split ¼ 0:25P 1
ð6Þ
S fy b
where b = effective slab width of the composite slab-beam system;
bc = width of the stud cluster; f y = minimum specified yield
strength of the transverse reinforcement used in the slab; P = hori-
zontal force generated by a cluster of studs; and S = spacing be-
tween the clusters. P is taken as the capacity of the studs in the
cluster as determined by Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1 or Eq. 5.8.4.1-3 of
the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007).
sffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffi
A2 A2
0
f allowable bearing ¼ 0:85ϕf c ; ≤ 2:0 ð7Þ
A1 A1

1'-0" 15 spacings @ 2 ft = 30 ft 1'-0"

A B

N Beam #1 S
A B
2 ft 7 spacings @ 4 ft 2 ft
A B

N Beam #2 S
A B
31'-0"
6" 6"
No. 6 Closed Ties Confinment HSS 13x9x5/16 Tube Confinment

Fig. 1. Arrangement of the stud clusters of beams 1 and 2 (X = location of the clusters; N = north side; S = south side)

654 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661

 4'-0" 4'-0"
11 1/2" 6"x6"-W10xW10 2 in. grouting hole 6"x6"-W10xW10

2"
3"
1/2" 1/2"
5"
1"
1"
3 closed ties 5" HSS 9x7x0.188 5" 6"x6"-W14xW14
6"x6"-W14xW14
with 1 in. 9" 9"
clear spacing
11 1/4"
11 1/4"
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

W18x119 W18x119

Section A-A Section B-B

1 in. vent 3/4"
1 in. vent
1'-1 3/4"

2" 3" 2"

2" 3" 2"

9 1/2"
7"

7"
3/4"
#4 closed ties
2 in. grouting hole HSS 9x7x0.188 2 in. grouting hole
Plan view of 4-stud Cluster with Closed Ties Plan view of 4-stud Cluster with HSS Tube

1 in. vent
1 in. vent

2" 3" 3" 3" 2"

2" 3" 3" 3" 2"

1'-3 1/2"

1'-1"
1'-1"

#6 closed ties HSS 13x9x5/16

1 in. vent 2 in. grouting hole
1 in. vent 2 in. grouting hole
Plan view of 8-stud Cluster with Closed Ties Plan view of 8-stud Cluster with HSS Tube

Fig. 2. Sections A-A and B-B of beams 1 and 2

where A1 = net loaded area = (bc xt s ); A2 = maximum area of Table 1 gives the values of the splitting force, T split , the required
the supporting surface that is geometrically similar to and con- area of transverse reinforcement, As , and the bearing stresses of
centric with the loaded area = (effective flange width of the both beams by using Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1 or Eq. 5.8.4.1-3 of the
slab xt s ); ts = slab thickness, and ϕ = bearing strength reduction AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007). Table 1 shows
factor = 0.65. that the provided transverse reinforcement in the precast slab was

Table 1. Check for As and Bearing Stresses of the Full-Scale Beams

As and bearing stresses using As and bearing stresses using Provided As and
LRFD Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1a LRFD Eq. 5.8.4.1-3a allowable bearing stresses
Beam 1: 610-mm (24-in.) cluster spacing (bc ¼ 9 in: and b ¼ 48 in:, S ¼ 4 ft, and f y ¼ 65 ksib)
P ¼ 314:8 kips=cluster (LRFD Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1a) P ¼ 187:1 kips=cluster (LRFD Eq. 5.8.4.1-3a) Provided As ¼ 0:48 in:2 =ft,
T split ¼ 31:97 kips=ft, As ¼ 0:48 in:2 =ft T split ¼ 19:00 kips=ft, As ¼ 0:29 in:2 =ft allowable bearing
[derived from Eq. (6)] [derived from Eq. (6)] stress = 9.06 ksi
Bearing stress = 314:8 kips=9 x 8 in: ¼ 4:37 ksi Bearing stress = 187:1 kips=9 x 8 in: ¼ 2:60 ksi
[derived from Eq. (7)] [derived from Eq. (7)]
Beam 2: 1,220-mm (48-in.) cluster spacing (bc ¼ 9 in: and b ¼ 48 in:, S ¼ 8 ft, and f y ¼ 65 ksia)
P ¼ 629:6 kips=cluster (LRFD Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1a) P ¼ 372:6 kips=cluster (LRFD Eq. 5.8.4.1-3a) Provided As ¼ 0:48 in:2 =ft,
T split ¼ 31:97 kips=ft, As ¼ 0:49 in:2 =ft T split ¼ 19:00 kips=ft, As ¼ 0:29 in:2 =ft allowable bearing
[derived from Eq. (6)] [derived from Eq. (6)] stress = 9.06 ksi
Bearing stress = 629:6 kips=9 x 8 in: ¼ 8:74 ksi Bearing stress = 372:6 kips=9 x 8 in: ¼ 5:18 ksi
[derived from Eq. (7)] [derived from Eq. (7)]
Note: 1 ksi ¼ 6:895 MPa; 1 kip ¼ 4:448 KN; 1 in: ¼ 25:4 mm.
a
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007).
b
According to the Wire Reinforcement Institute manual (2010).

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 655

J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661

 sufficient to resist the splitting force. As per Article 5.11.2.5.2 of
the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007), the trans-
verse reinforcement of the slab was considered fully developed
as more than two cross wires were embedded, with the closer wire
at a distance greater than 50 mm (2 in.) from the critical section. A
41.4 MP (6 ksi) standard concrete mix was used for the precast slab.
The concrete strength measured at time of testing the beams was
56.5 MP (8.2 ksi). The shear pockets were filled with a commercial
nonshrink grout, SS Mortar, extended with 13 mm (.5 in.) of pea
gravel. Compressive strength of the grout measured at time of test-
ing was 66.2 MPa (9.6 ksi). Coupons of the steel beams were taken
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and tested in tension, which showed that the yield strength was ap-
proximately 352 MPa (51 ksi).
The composite beams were built by supporting the steel beam
on two end supports. Then the precast concrete slabs were installed
and their elevation was adjusted to provide for a 25-mm (1-in.)
haunch. Polystyrene packer rods were used as grout dams, as
shown in Fig. 2, then the nonshrink grout was cast to fill the shear
pockets and the haunch through the 51-mm (2-in.) diameter holes
that were provide in the shear pocket. As a result of this construc-
tion scenario, the weight of the steel beam and the concrete slab did
not provide any horizontal shear tresses on the studs.
Fatigue Test
The composite beams were exposed to 2 million cycles of fatigue
load, by applying a concentrated load at the midspan section of
each beam. This setup put all stud clusters under a uniform hori-
zontal shear force produced only by the applied load. The upper
limit of the fatigue concentrated load at midspan was set to
384.3 kN (86.4 kips). This value was determined by using the stud
fatigue resistance given by Eq. 6.10.10.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO 2007) and the section properties. A mini-
mum load of 7.1 kN (1.6 kips) was used as the lower limit of the
fatigue load to maintain stability of the test setup. Normal stresses
in the concrete slab and the steel beam were checked and found to
be within the elastic limit of both materials.
A series of strain gauges and linear voltage displacement
transducers (LVDT) were installed at the quarter points and
midspan sections of each beam to measure strains and vertical
displacements, respectively, at these locations. These locations
were selected because they were at the middistance between two
adjacent clusters of studs, where partial composite action and/or
separation between the slab and the beam might occur. The test
was conducted by applying the upper limit of the fatigue load
as a static load and the measurements were collected (prefatigue
measurements), then the composite beams were exposed to
2 million cycles of the fatigue load at 2 Hz. Finally, the composite
beams were loaded statically with the upper limit of the fatigue
load, and the strain and displacement measurements were collected
(postfatigue measurements).
Testing went smoothly with no problems for Beam 1. For
Beam 2, the prefatigue measurements were successfully collected
before applying the fatigue load and at 1 million cycles. Then the
test was put on hold to run the annual maintenance of the hydraulic
system of the actuator. The test was resumed after 2 weeks. During
this period, no load was applied to the beam. The postfatigue mea-
surements that were planned to be taken at 2 million cycles could
not be collected because the steel beam fractured close to the mid-
span section at approximately 1.95 million cycles, as shown in
Fig. 3. The fatigue fracture started at the bottom flange of the steel
beam, propagated through the web and stopped at the web-top
flange junction. The writers believed that this failure occurred
656 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011
J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661
Fig. 3. Fatigue fracture failure of composite beam 2 (images by S. S.
Badie and M. K. Tadros)
because the steel beam was exposed to a very high number of
fatigue cycles (over 20 million cycles) in other research projects
before it was used in building Beam 2 for this research project.
As a result of the unexpected fracture failure, a 13-mm (.5-in.)
separation between the slab and the steel beam was developed over
a distance of approximately 610 mm (24 in.) around the failure lo-
cation. The composite beam was thoroughly inspected and no other
cracks or signs of distress were detected.
Fig. 4 shows the pre- and postfatigue stress distribution at mid-
span of both beams and compares them with the stresses calculated
by using the elastic stress theory assuming full-composite action.
Table 2 gives the deflection of the composite beams at the quarter
points and midspan before and after applying the fatigue load and
compares them with the elastic theory values. Also, Fig. 5 gives the
load-displacement relationship at midspan before and after apply-
ing the fatigue load. Examining Figs. 4 and 5 and Table 2 showed
the following:
• Regardless of the stud cluster spacing and the type of confine-
ment (1) pre- and postfatigue stress distributions showed almost
a linear distribution, (2) pre- and postfatigue stresses at extreme
tension and compression fibers of the composite beams were
within the elastic range of the material, and (3) pre- and post-
fatigue stresses and deflection were almost the same;
• Pre- and postfatigue deflection was in agreement with the
deflection calculated by using the elastic stress theory;
• Regardless of the type of confinement provided around the stud
clusters, the stress distribution and deflection measurements of
Beam 1 and 2 were almost identical;
• Regardless of the spacing between the clusters, the stress
distribution and deflection measurements of the north side of
the each beam, where closed ties were used for confinement,
were almost identical to the stress distribution and deflection
measurements of the south side of the same beam, where steel
tubes were used; and
• Visual inspection of the composite beams before, during, and
after applying the 2 million cycles of fatigue load, showed that
(1) no cracks on the top surface of the concrete slab were ob-
served; (2) no separation between the concrete haunch and the
steel beams occurred, except the separation that occurred in
Beam 2 locally around the location of the fatigue fracture fail-
ure; (3) no cracks or signs of distress were observed in the
 Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi)
-5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 0

4 Concrete 4
Slab
Beam 2:
Post-fatigue
8 8

Elastic
Depth (in.)

Strain

Depth (in.)
12 Theory gauge 12
locations Elastic
Steel Theory
16 16
Beam
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20 Beam 1: 20
Beam 1: Pre-fatigue Beam 2:
Post-fatigue Pre-fatigue
24 24

28 28

Fig. 4. Composite section stresses at midspan owing to fatigue load (postfatigue distribution is measured at 2 × 106 cycles for beam 1 and at 1 × 106
cycles for beam 2)

Table 2. Composite Section Deflection Owing to Fatigue Load haunch; and (4) no residual deflection was observed after
Quarter point Quarter point removing the load.
of north side of south side On the basis of these observations, the following conclusions
(confinement: (confinement: were drawn:
closed ties) Midspan steel tubes) 1. It is safe to use Eq. 6.10.10.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Measurement type [mm (in.)] [mm (in.)] [mm (in.)]
Specifications (AASHTO 2007) to determine the fatigue
Beam 1: 610-mm (24-in.) cluster spacing capacity for studs set on clusters and spaced as long as
Elastic theorya 7.52 (0.296) 10.95 (0.431) 7.52 (0.296) 1,220 mm (48 in.);
Prefatigue measurements 6.63 (0.261) 11.43 (0.450) 6.81 (0.268) 2. Full-composite action between precast concrete panels and
Postfatigue measurementsb 7.24 (0.285) 11.10 (0.437) 7.44 (0.293) steel beams can be maintained up to 1,220 mm (48 in.) of
Beam 2: 1,220-mm (48-in.) cluster spacing
spacing between clusters of studs; and
3. Stud clusters confined with closed ties or steel tubes, provide
Elastic theorya 7.52 (0.296) 10.95 (0.431) 7.52 (0.296)
similar behavior when the system is exposed to fatigue load.
Prefatigue measurements 7.77 (0.306) 11.94 (0.470) 7.65 (0.301)
Postfatigue measurementsb 7.65 (0.301) 12.19 (0.480) 7.70 (0.303)

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm. Ultimate Testing

a
Neutral axis depth = 221.49 mm (8.72 in.) from top slab fiber; moment of
inertia of composite section = 3:143 × 109 ð7; 551 in4 Þ. To investigate the horizontal shear capacity of the stud clusters, the
b
Postfatigue measurements are measured at 2 × 106 cycles for Beam 1 and 9.75-m (32-ft) span of each beam was divided into two spans, as
at 1 × 106 cycles for Beam 2. shown in Fig. 6. For Beam 1, an intermediate support was installed

0.5 0.5
Elastic Theory 0.45 Elastic Theory
0.45
Beam 1: pre fatigue Beam 2: pre fatigue
0.4 Beam 1: post fatigue 0.4 Beam 2: post fatigue

0.35 0.35
Deflection (in.)
Deflection (in.)

0.3 0.3

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Load (kips) Load (kips)

Fig. 5. Load-displacement relationship at midspan (postfatigue distribution is measured at 2 × 106 cycles for beam 1 and at 1 × 106 cycles for
beam 2)

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 657

J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661

 4 3/4" 5'-4" F 7'-0 3/4" 12'-9 5/8"

N Beam #1 SS

12'-9 5/8" 7'-0 3/4" F 5'-4" 4 3/4"

N Beam #1 S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 3/4" 5'-5 5/8" F 3'-4" 4'-1 5/8" 11'-10 3/8" 4 3/4"

N Beam #2 Fatigue fracture location S

4 3/4" 12'-11 1/4" 3'-0 3/4" 3'-4" F 5'-5 5/8" 4 3/4"

N Beam #2 Fatigue fracture location S

Fig. 6. Ultimate test arrangements of beams 1 and 2

exactly at midspan. Each half of the beam was tested as a simply
supported beam under a concentrated load “F”. This was achieved
by removing the external support of the far end of the beam, as
shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, the applied concentrated load provided
horizontal shear force at the slab/beam interface only on the stud
clusters located on the simply supported span being tested.
For Beam 2, one intermediate support was added off the fatigue
fraction location to create a two-span continuous beam system, as
shown in Fig. 6. This arrangement resulted in two unequal spans,
3.35-m (11-ft) and 6.10-m (20-ft) long. The concentrated load was
applied on the short span. To guarantee that the horizontal shear
force developed by the concentrated load acted only on the stud
clusters located on the short span, the concrete slab was jack ham-
mered above the location where the steel beam was fractured to
create a real hinge. Also, the external support of the far end was
provided with a frictionless surface to allow sliding of the support.
Two hydraulic rams, 1,334 kN (300 kip) each, were used to pro-
vide for the load “F”. The hydraulic rams were supported on a short
spreader beam to apply the load as a single concentrated load.
Before conducting the ultimate test, two modes of failure were
investigated to determine the possible mode of failure of each
beam and the corresponding load “F” required to cause failure
of the composite beam. These modes were (1) flexural failure of
the composite beam, in which the flexural capacity at the full plastic
stage was determined in accordance with Article 6.10.7 of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007); and (2) horizon-
tal shear failure, in which Eqs. 6.10.10.4.3-1 and 5.8.4.1-3 of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007) were used to de-
termine the horizontal shear force generated by the shear connec-
tors and the corresponding flexural capacity was calculated. The
flexural capacity and corresponding concentrated force, “F”, are
given in Table 3. According to this investigation, it was expected

Table 3. Mode of Failures and the Corresponding Flexural Capacity, M n , and Applied Load, F
Possible failure modes
Flexural failure at full plastic stage Horizontal shear failure
Mode of failure and corresponding
a
M n and F LRFD article 6.10.7 LRFD Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1a LRFD Eq. 5.8.4.1-3a applied load reported from testing
Beam 1: 610-mm (24-in.) cluster spacing
Mn N: 2,311.3 k-ft N: 2,120.0 k-ft N: 1,836.6 k-ft N & S: Flexural failure;
S: 2,311.3 k-ft S: 2,120.0 k-ft S: 1,836.6 k-ft slab concrete crushing
F N: 2,722 KN (611.9 kips) N: 2,498 KN (561.6 kips) N: 2,166 KN (487.0 kips) N: 2,615 KN (588 kips)
S: 2,722 KN (611.9 kips) S: 2,498 KN (561.6 kips) S: 2,166 KN (487.0 kips) S: 2,669 KN (600 kips)
Beam 2: 1,220-mm (48-in.) cluster spacing
Mn N: 2,311.3 k-ft N: 1,758.2 k-ft N: 1,554.6 k-ft N: No failure was reached
S: 2,311.3 k-ft S: 1,758.2 k-ft S: 1,554.6 k-ft S: No failure was reached
F N: 3,988 KN (896.7 kips) N: 3,038 KN (683.0 kips) N: 2,688 KN (604.4 kips) N: 2,669 KN (600 kips)
S: 3,981 KN (895.0 kips) S: 3,030 KN (681.3 kips) S: 2,681 KN (602.6 kips) S: 2,669 KN (600 kips)
Note: 1 k-ft ¼ 1;356 N · m; 1 kip ¼ 4:448 KN; 1 in: ¼ 25:4 mm; N = north side of the beam; S = south side of the beam.
a
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007)

658 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661

 that the four beams would fail in horizontal shear before failing in
flexure.
Each simply supported beam was provided with one set of six
strain gauges and a deflection measurement device installed at the
location of the applied concentrated load. Three gauges were
provided over the slab thickness and three gauges were provided
over the steel beam height, as shown in Fig. 4. Also, the relative
horizontal displacement between the concrete slab and the steel
beam was recorded at the free ends of each composite beam.
The load was applied at a steady rate of 44.5 kN (10 kips)
per second until failure occurred or the 2,669 kN (600 kip) maxi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the load-deflection and load-horizontal slip
relationships of the north and south sides of both beams, respec-
tively. To maintain consistency when comparing the structural
behavior of the four sides, the load axis in both figures was
normalized as the ratio between the testing applied moment and
the plastic moment capacity of the composite section. Fig. 9 shows
the strain distribution at various levels of applied load of the north
and south sides of Beams 1 and 2, respectively. Analyzing Figs. 7
through 9, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Regardless the spacing of the stud clusters and the type of

confinement, all beams were able to develop the stud ultimate

mum capacity of the hydraulic jacks was reached, whichever
occurred first.
Discussion of Test Results
The north and south sides of Beam 1 failed in flexure where the top
fiber of the concrete slab was crushed in compression (see Table 3).
The applied load at failure was approximately 2,669 kN (600 kips)
that was equal to maximum capacity of the hydraulic jacks com-
bined. Vertical and sloped cracks were observed in the concrete
haunch between the slab and the steel beam, on both sides of
the beam, close to the end support.
The north and south sides of Beam 2 were loaded up to the
maximum capacity of the hydraulic jacks, 2,669 kN (600 kips),
but they did not show any signs of failure either in horizontal shear
at the slab/beam interface or in flexure (see Table 3).
Inspection of the top surface of the concrete slab, of the north
and south sides of both beams, showed that a longitudinal splitting
hairline cracks were formed exactly over the web location of the
steel beam. The hairline cracks covered almost the full length of
Beam 1, whereas in Beam 2 the crack covered only the midspan
area of the north and south sides. The width of the crack of Beams 1
and 2 was 1 mm (0.04 in.) and 0.76 mm (0.03 in.), respectively.
capacity given by Eq. 5.8.4.1-3 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO 2007).
2. The north and south sides of Beam 1, made with 310-mm
(24-in.) cluster spacing, were able to develop the stud ultimate
capacity given by Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO 2007). However, it was not possible
to check if the north and south sides of Beam 2, made with
1,220-mm (48-in.) cluster spacing, could satisfy the capacity
given by this equation. The writers believe that Beam 2 would
be able to satisfy the design capacity of this equation if it did
not fail in fatigue. The fatigue failure forced the writers to test a
shorter span of the two sides of this beam, which required a
very high applied load that was beyond the capacity of the test
setup.
3. The slope of the load-deflection relationship, which is a
measure of the composite beam stiffness, of the four beams
is almost the same. This means that extending the stud cluster
spacing to 1,220 mm (48 in.) does not reduce the composite
beam stiffness.
4. Regardless of the cluster spacing, confinement provided by
steel tubes or closed ties did not negatively affect either the
ultimate capacity of the studs or the deflection of the composite
beams.

100%
Beam 1: LRFD EQ 6.10.10.4.3-1
90%

Beam 1: LRFD EQ 5.8.4.1-3

80%

Beam 2: LRFD EQ 6.10.10.4.3-1

70%

Beam 1: Beam 2: LRFD EQ 5.8.4.1-3

60% Closed Ties
M applied / Mp (%)

50% Beam 1:
Steel Tubes
40%

30%

20% Beam 2:
Closed Ties
10%
Beam 2:
Steel Tubes
0%
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50
Displacement (in.)

Fig. 7. Load-deflection relationship of beams 1 and 2

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 659

J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661

 100%

90% Beam 1:
Steel Tubes
80% Beam 1:
Closed Ties
70%

M applied / Mp (%) 60%

50% Beam 2:
Closed Ties
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40% Beam 2:
Steel Tubes
30%

20%

10%

0%
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Relative Displacement (in.)

Fig. 8. Load-horizontal slip relationship of beams 1 and 2

Concrete Slab
4 M applied / Mp =
94% for Beam 1
68% for Beam 2
8

12

Steel Beam
m
Deptth (in.)

16 Beam 1:
Closed Ties

20 Beam 1:
Beam 2: Steel Tubes
Stee Tubes
Steel ubes
24
Beam 2:
Closed Ties
28
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Stress (ksi)
Fig. 9. Stress distribution of the full-scale beams 1 and 2 at midspan

5. The beams made with 1,220-mm (48-in.) cluster spacing
showed an approximately 25% increase in deflection and hor-
izontal slip compared to the beams made with 610-mm (24-in.)
cluster spacing. The researchers believe that this increase was
because of the fracture fatigue failure that occurred at midspan
of Beam 2 during the fatigue test. This can be confirmed
from Fig. 7, in which the north and south sides of Beam 2
showed a 2.54-mm (0.1-in.) instantaneous deflection once a
small amount of load was applied. Also, it can be seen in Fig. 8
in which the two sides of Beam 2 did not show any horizontal
slip during the first period of applying the load (from zero to
approximately 10%).
6. At the same ratio of applied moment-to-plastic flexural capa-
city, Beams 1 and 2 showed almost the same amount of stresses
in the concrete slab and steel beam.
7. The sides, where steel tube confinement was used, showed
almost that same amount of normal stresses as the sides where
closed ties confinement was used.

660 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661

 Removal of the Precast Panel
The precast slabs were removed by jack hammering the concrete
around the studs. Then the grout around the studs was manually
removed by using a chisel. The following observations were re-
corded on the condition of the shear studs and the grout surround-
ing them: (1) no grout crushing was detected at the base of the studs
and the grout was fully bonded to the studs; (2) no cracks were
detected in the welding at the base of the studs; (3) no bearing fail-
ure was observed in the slab in front of the shear pockets; and (4) no
air pockets were detected in the shear pockets or in the haunch,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which shows that hidden shear pockets can be successfully grouted.
Conclusion
Experimental and theoretical investigation conducted in the
NCHRP 12-65 project have proven that satisfactory composite ac-
tion between precast concrete panels and steel girders can be
achieved when the spacing between the stud clusters is extended
up to 1,220 mm (48 in.). The new spacing limit is 200% of the
current limit given by the LRFD Specifications, which reduces
the number of shear pockets by 50% simplifying fabrication of
the precast deck panels. To make this extension possible, the design
engineer should consider for the following issues: (1) check for the
adequacy and anchorage of the transverse reinforcement of the slab
to resist the transverse splitting forces, (2) provide confinement
around the shear studs to effectively distribute the shear force
among the studs in each cluster of studs, and to protect the grout
at the base of each stud against crushing (In this research, two types
of confinement were envisioned and tested, steel tubes and closed
ties. Both types of confinement have been proven effective in
achieving these goals. When closed ties are used, it is recom-
mended to install the lower tie as close as possible to the bottom
surface of the panel.), and (3) check bearing stresses in the slab in
front of the shear pockets to prevent crushing of the slab concrete.
The experimental investigation has proven that Eq. 6.10.10.2-1
of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007) currently
used to estimate the fatigue capacity does not require modification
for design of stud clusters at 1,220 mm (48 in.) spacing.
Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1, that is currently used to estimate the ultimate
capacity, should not be used for stud clusters at spacing greater than
610 mm (24 in.). Instead, Eq. 5.8.4.1-3 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO 2007) should be used to estimate the ul-
timate capacity of stud clusters at spacing up to 1,220 mm (48 in.).
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 661
J. Bridge Eng., 2011, 16(5): 653-661
This recommendation is expected to result in approximately a 25%
increase in the required number of studs. Although this conclusion
may be conservative, the writers believe that it does not signifi-
cantly impact the overall economy of bridges. It should be used
until more testing of full-scale composite beams is conducted.
The writers encourage the design engineers to use the 31.8-mm
(1.25-in.) large studs with precast concrete deck panel systems in-
stead of the common 22.2-mm (0.875-in.) studs. Using the large
size studs will (1) reduce the number of studs that need to be
welded by 50%, which will increase the construction speed and
reduce the labor cost; (2) reduce the size of the shear pockets
and the volume of grout needed to fill them, which will reduce
the cost of the deck system; and (3) facilitate deck removal in
the future. The 31.8-mm (1.25-in.) large size stud is currently avail-
able in the U.S. market. Also, it has been used successfully used in
the Midwest area on composite slab/I-beam bridges.
Acknowledgments
The research activities reported in this paper have been performed
under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
projects, under Contract No. NCHRP 12-65 “Full-depth, precast
concrete bridge deck panel systems.” Special thanks are extended
to David Beal of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and
all individuals who have participated in various activities of this
research project.
References
AASHTO. (2007). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 4th Ed.,
with the 2008 interim, Washington, DC.
Badie, S. S., Girgis, F. A., Tadros, M. K., and Nguyen, N. T. (2010).
“Relaxing the stud spacing limit for full-depth precast concrete deck
panels supported on steel girders (phase I).” J. Bridge Eng., 15(5),
482–492.
Badie, S. S., and Tadros, M. K. (2008). “Full-depth, precast-concrete bridge
deck panel systems.” National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Rep. No. 584, Project No. 12-65, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Badie, S. S., Tadros, M. K., Kakish, H. K., Splittgerber, D. L., and Baishya,
M. C. (2002). “Large studs for composite action in steel bridge girders.”
J. Bridge Eng., 7(3), 195–203.
Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) (2010). Manual of standard practice—
Structural welded wire reinforcement, 8th Ed., Hartford, CT.