Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Push-out tests on studs with UHPC cover embedded in UHPC-NSC

composite slab
Hailin Yang a, b, *, Yan Zheng a, b, Shixu Mo a, b, Penghui Lin a
a
Guangxi Key Laboratory of New Energy and Building Energy Saving, Guilin 541004, China
b
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture Guangxi University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To cope with the volumetric cost of the ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) and enhance performance of
Pushout test studs in steel–concrete composite bridges, a novel bridge slab system has been developed. In this system, the slab
UHPC-NSC composite slab was made of UHPC and normal strength concrete (NSC), and the studs were covered with UHPC. Since the static
Stud connector
behavior of studs with UHPC cover embedded in UHPC-NSC composite slab is different from in the NSC or UHPC
UHPC-cover
Shear capacity
slab, an experimental study is needed to investigate the ultimate strength of studs, as well as the relative slip and
Shear stiffness failure patterns. The mainly parameters considered include stud diameter, stud height, and stud root with or
without UHPC cover. The experimental results reveal that the mechanical behavior of studs in the proposed
composite slab system was successfully improved. The ultimate strengths of the studs with a diameter of 19 mm
and 22 mm covered with UHPC embedded in UHPC-NSC composite slab are only 3.8 % and 2 % less than that in
UHPC slab, respectively. The relative slips of stud with UHPC cover in the UHPC-NSC composite slab are larger
than 6 mm, which satisfy the ductility demand in EC4. The results also show that the current design codes
underestimate the actual shear strength of the stud with UHPC cover in the UHPC-NSC composite slab. Finally,
an equation is proposed to predict the shear stiffness of a stud with UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC
composite slab based on the energy equivalent model, and verified by the experimental results. The calcula­
tion value agrees well with the experimental result for a stud diameter≥16 mm.

1. Introduction
Traditional steel–concrete composite girders have been constructed
for several decades. The deterioration of bridges with these structures
has occurred due to various reasons including poor environmental
conditions, heavy traffic flow, and massive overloaded vehicles [1–3].
Especially, in continuous composite beams at the negative moment re­
gion, the bridge desk is prone to cracking when subjected to small tensile
stress, which accelerates material degradation and increase concerns
about the structural adequacy.
To reduce traffic disruption and maintenance costs, the bridge slab
system should be built for extended service life. The development of
UHPC provides an alternative to resolve these problems. This material
that features a very high compressive and tensile strength and very low
permeability has been extensively used in the construction of new
bridges and the repair of existing bridges [4–9]. It has also received
much attention for its application in orthotropic steel bridge decks as a
bridge plate [10–12]. However, the initial construction cost of UHPC,
which is significantly higher than that of normal concrete, has become
one of the major barriers of its massive implementation in composite
structures. Although some studies [13–14] have shown that a UHPC
bridge slab can have a thinner cross-section than a normal concrete slab,
the ductility of the stud shear connectors did not always reach 6 mm
required in EC4 [15]. In addition, the code requires that the aspect ratio
is no less than 4.0, this goes against the design objective of reducing
construction costs and lowering the thickness of the UHPC slab.
Furthermore, the thinner UHPC bridge slab in medium and small span
composite bridges with narrow flange width may result in several
problems: (1) the pull-out failure of studs due to the low ratio of height
to diameter of studs (2) hardly controlling the welded quality of studs
due to short headed stud (3) insufficient ductility at the interface be­
tween UHPC slab and steel beam. Thus, the bridge slab of composite
structures must be built using innovative approaches.
In recent years, the behavior of shear connector with different con­
figurations in UHPC have been investigated by some researchers. Kang
et al. [16] conducted experimental research on static behavior of

* Corresponding author at: Guilin Univ Technol, College Civil & Architecture Engineering, Guilin 541004, China.
E-mail address: 6615015@glut.edu.cn (H. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127210
Received 25 November 2021; Received in revised form 15 March 2022; Accepted 15 March 2022
Available online 28 March 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

perfobond rib (PBL) connectors in UHPC. Their test results showed that failure of the surrounding concrete in front of the stud root, and makes
the shear capacity of PBLs was enhanced using higher strength concrete use of UHPC where it is required. Furthermore, covering the shank of
and larger number of holes. He S et al. [17] conducted push-out tests on studs with UHPC can lead to a higher initial stiffness and load carrying
PBLs in UHPC, and pointed out that the steel fibers and concrete dowels capacity. A schematic of the proposed bridge deck is shown in Fig. 1.
played an important role in developing the desired loading resistant- Owing to the improved shear carrying behavior of studs with UHPC
Ấ cover and higher tensile strength along with enhanced ductility of UHPC
capacity of the PBL. Harsanyi et al. [18] performed an experimental
in the UHPC-NSC composite slab, this new bridge deck is very prom­
study of composite ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
ising. In negative moment regions of continuous composite girder
(UHPFRC) steel construction using high-strength continuous steel shear
bridges, when using studs with UHPC cover a partial shear connection
dowels as shear connectors. The results indicated that the high-strength
can be performed, which enhance plastic rotation ability and improve
continuous steel shear dowels could be used as an efficient connector
arrangement of tight longitudinal reinforcement. The UHPC-NSC com­
due to its satisfying load-bearing capacity and ductility. However, these
posite slab can improve the tensile strength in negative moment regions,
types of shear connectors required additional internal reinforcement in
and the compressive strength and durability in positive moment regions.
order to avoid premature local concrete failure or concrete pry-out
Overall, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this detailed study is
failure. Zhao et al. [19] carried out six specimens on short channel
the first of its kind to consider a bridge slab consisting of UHPC-NSC
connectors in a steel-UHPC composite deck to transfer the interlayer
composite slab and stud shear connectors with UHPC cover. The pro­
shear force in a limited short space. Their results indicated that the shear
posed bridge slab system is expected to be highly beneficial for the static
stiffness was increased, but had little influence on the shear capacity.
behavior of studs and economic constructions of UHPC. The above facts
Wolters et al. [20] carried out experiments to investigate the static shear
indicate an urgent need to evaluate the behavior of the proposed bridge
capacity of small-scaled pin shear connectors in the thin UHPC slab. The
slab system.
test results showed that the deformability was not sufficient and the tests
This paper experimentally investigates the static behavior of stud
failed brittle.
roots with UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC composite member
Some pioneering studies were also conducted to investigate the
through push-out tests. The studied parameters include stud diameter,
behavior of stud shear connectors embedded in UHPC. Tong et al. [21]
stud aspect ratio, and the stud root with or without UHPC cover. The test
experimentally studied the static behavior of stud shear connectors in
results on the ultimate shear strength of studs and relative slips are
high-strength steel-UHPC composite beams. They pointed out that
measured and compared with experimental results in the literature and
UHPC significantly improves the shear capacity and shear stiffness, but
current design codes.
the ductility become relatively poor because of the higher elastic
modulus of UHPC. Wang et al. [22 23] conducted an experimental study
2. Experimental program
to investigate the static behavior of group stud and large stud shear
connectors embedded in UHPC with stud diameters of 22 mm and 30
2.1. Test specimens
mm, it was found out that the stud aspect ratio and concrete slab
thickness exerted no obvious influence on the static behavior of the test
A total of eleven push-out specimens were constructed and tested to
specimens. Cao et al. [11] evaluated the static and fatigue behavior of
investigate the shear carrying capacity, failure pattern and relative slip
short-studs (d = 13 mm, H = 35 mm) embedded in a thin UHPC layer,
of stud shear connectors with UHPC cover embedded in a UHPC-NSC
and pointed out that the failure of the specimens was caused by the
composite slab. In order to obtain more experimental dates for com­
fracture of the studs from the root and the relative slip of short-studs was
parison, the test parameters including stud diameter, stud aspect ratio,
much less than 6 mm. Kim et al. [13 14] investigated the shear strength
and stud with or without UHPC cover were selected based on the liter­
of stud shear connectors embedded in a thin UHPC deck with stud
atures [14] and [21], as shown in Table 1.
diameter of 16 mm and 22 mm. The test results showed that the required
The test specimens were categorized into two series according to stud
ductility demand of 6 mm was not realized in all cases. Hegger et al. [24]
root covered with and without UHPC. Six push-out specimens were
conducted an experimental study on the static performance of stud root
divided into three groups with studs of 16 mm,19 mm and 22 mm di­
covered with UHPC embedded in normal concrete slab and high-
ameters, in which the stud root was covered with UHPC. The remaining
strength concrete slab. Their findings suggested that UHPC treatment
push-out specimens with the stud root without UHPC cover were also
on the stud root can increase the load carrying capacity and the ductility.
divided into three groups based on stud diameters of 16 mm,19 mm and
Wu et al. [25] carried out experimental study and finite element simu­
22 mm. Fig. 2 shows the experimental push-out specimen geometry
lations on stud shear connectors with 13 mm and 16 mm diameter in
based on guidelines for shear stud testing prescribed in EC4 [15], con­
steel-UHPC composite structures. The results indicated that the shear
sisting of a rolled H-shaped steel section with dimensions of 260 mm ×
fracture near stud roots is the leading dominant failure mode. The shear
260 mm × 10 mm × 12.5 mm, having eight headed shear stud con­
capacity and shear stiffness of studs embedded in UHPC are higher than
nectors and a 150 mm thickness cast-on-site UHPC-NSC composite slab
NSC, while the ductility is lower.
on each flange, except that the DH specimen with 16 mm diameter was
A new system combined fresh NSC with UHPC referred to cast-on-site
100 mm.
UHPC-NSC composite beam was created by Hussein et al. [26–27]. They
The manufacturing process is shown in Fig. 3. The dimensions of the
reported that the flexural capacity and bond strength between two
UHPC cover were chosen using a PVC pipe with 60 mm diameter and
concrete material layers were significantly enhanced, and degradation
110 mm height. The I-shaped section was wire-electrode cut into two T-
of the performance of the UHPC-NSC composite beam in chloride en­
sections in the middle of the web so that the UHPC and NSC layer could
vironments was negligible. Thus, using these proposed UHPC-NSC
be cast horizontally. First, The UHPC was filled before casting the NSC
composite members as bridge slabs in steel–concrete composite struc­
layer, and then the NSC layer was cast with half the thickness of the
tures seems a useful choice, which could not only contribute signifi­
composite slab, finally the UHPC layer was placed on the top of the NSC
cantly to improve the performance of slab, but reduce the maintenance
layer before the initial setting. After 28 days from the placement of the
costs and the amount of UHPC.
UHPC and NSC, the two T-sections were welded back together. The
To sustain the higher concentrated load exerted by the stud shear
specimen nomenclature was designed according to the thickness of
connector, this paper introduces an improved approach of using UHPC
UHPC-NSC composite slab, the diameter and height of stud, and the stud
to cover the stud roots. Finally, a novel bridge slab system composed of
root either covered with UHPC or without UHPC. For example, the name
cast-on-site UHPC-NSC composite slab and stud shear connector encased
D150-22(100)-F denotes the specimen consisting of a UHPC-NSC com­
with UHPC is presented. This system prevents the potential premature
posite slab with 150 mm thickness, 22 mm diameter, and a stud root

2
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Fig. 1. A schematic of steel-UHPC-NSC composite beams.

the UHPC and NSC. The compressive strength of UHPC and NSC was
Table 1
determined using cubic compression specimens with dimensions of 100
Test parameters and specimen dimensions.
mm and 150 mm at 28 days, respectively. The average flexural strength
Specimens No. of D dstud Hstud (mm) Aspect Type of UHPC was measured by three 100 mm × 100 mm × 400 mm speci­
Exp (mm) (mm) ratio
mens, and three 150 mm × 150 mm × 550 mm for NSC. The elastic
D150-22 2 150 22 100 100 F modulus of UHPC and NSC was obtained through three 100 mm × 100
(100)
mm × 300 mm and 150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm prism specimens,
D150-19 2 150 19 100 100 F
(100) respectively. The setups of the specimens before loading and after failure
D150-16 2 150 16 100 100 F are shown in Fig 0.4(a) and 4(b) for UHPC and NSC. The material me­
(100) chanical properties of UHPC and NSC are listed in Table 3. The push-out
D150-22 2 150 22 100 100 H test specimens and cubic and prism specimens were cast at the same
(100)
D150-19 2 150 19 100 100 H
time, cured with water, and covered with thin plastic sheeting for all
(100) specimens to prevent water evaporation.
D150-16(65) 1 100 16 65 65 H The H-shaped steel sections were fabricated from Q235 steel, the
Note: D = thickness of slab;dstud = diameter of stud; Hstud = height of stud; F =
studs were made of grade 4.6 steel. The reinforcing steel bars with a
stud root with UHPC cover; H = stud root without UHPC cover. diameter of 10 mm were prepared with grade HRB335. As shown in
Fig. 4(c) and 4(d), the mechanical properties of the reinforcing steel bar
and steel plate, the tensile tests were conducted in the universal testing
machine. The material properties of studs were obtained from the
with UHPC cover. For convenience, “DF specimens” was used for spec­
vendor. Table 4 summarizes the mechanical properties of composite
imens with the stud roots covered with UHPC, and “DH specimens” was
segment made of steel.
used for specimens with the stud root covered with normal concrete.

2.3. Mechanical test setup and instrumentation

2.2. Material properties
This study adopted the commercially available UHPC mixture pro­
vided by SINO, China. The UHPC consisted of premix powder and
straight high-strength copper-plated steel fibers. The steel fibers have a
nominal diameter ofdf = 0.2 mm, a nominal length oflf = 13 mm, a
tensile strength of 2500 MPa and elasticity modulus of 210 GPa. The
steel fiber content of 2 % by volume was added into the UHPC mixture,
which is considered to be the economically optimal fiber volume frac­
tion according to the previous research [9].
The normal strength concrete was designed for a standard cube
compressive strength of 40 MPa. Table 2 shows the mix proportions of
The overall view of the push-out test setup and a schematic diagram
of the test assembly configuration are included in Fig. 5. Concentrated
load was applied to the specimens using a 5000-kN universal hydraulic
compression testing machine. This load was monitored by the load cell
placed on the bearing steel plate. Four linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) with ± 30 mm of range were used to measure the
relative slips between the steel flange and the UHPC-NSC composite
member at each shear stud location. Based on this relative slip, the
ductility and stiffness of the system could be obtained. The data from the
load cell and all LVDTs were captured simultaneously using a data
acquisition system. A thin layer of small sand was placed at the bottom

3
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Fig. 2. Details of specimen (Unit: mm).

Fig. 3. Manufacturing procedure: (a) Welding stud; (b) Installation reinforcement and PVC pipe; (c) Filling UHPC; (d) Cast-on-place NSC and UHPC.

of two parts of the UHPC-NSC composite slab to ensure the uniform min until the specimens failed or the load capacity of the specimens
application of force, and a thin layer of plaster was used at the interface dropped significantly. The rate of displacement was determined based
between the bearing steel plate and the H-shaped steel section to ensure on the fact that specimen did not fail in less than 15 min. The test would
uniform contact. also be terminated when one side of the UHPC-NSC composite slab was
Before each testing session, pre-loading from 0 to 40 kN at a loading separated from the specimen.
rate of 0.3 kN/s was applied to check the test setup and instrumentation.
The pre-load was taken from 5 % of the smallest estimated failure load.
The failure load was calculated to be 754 kN from Eq. (2) for specimen
with eight studs with 16 mm diameter, when assuming stud shank
failure. Only then, the formal testing was performed at a rate of 0.4 mm/

4
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Table 2 addition, no splitting cracks on the UHPC-NSC composite slab were

Composition of UHPC and NSC. observed in each specimen.
Material Weight Three distinct patterns of failure modes were observed during the
tests, including steel failure, concrete failure and mixed modes. As seen
UHPC (kg/m3) NSC (kg/m3)
Cement 712 453.4 in Fig. 6, the observed pattern of specimen failure was steel failure for
Fine sand 1020 713 the DF specimens except for the D150-22(100)-F-2 and D150-19(100)-F-
Coarse aggregate - 1115 2 specimens that featured a fracture of the weld around the bottom of
Silica fume 231 - the stud due to poor welding quality. However, two failure patterns
High active admixture 211
appeared in the DH specimens, which were a mixed failure of the shank
–
Superplasticizer 30.7 1.167
Water 109 168 and normal strength concrete for the specimens with 22 mm diameter
Steel fiber 156 – studs, and steel failure for the remaining specimens. It was also observed
that a greater diameter resulted in an increase of a crushed zone. The
failure detail of 22 mm diameter stud with UHPC cover embedded in the
3. Experimental results and discussion
UHPC-NSC composite slab is provided in Fig. 7. As seen in the figure, the
crushed zone consisted of compressed NSC and UHPC and was about 30
3.1. Failure pattern and test process
mm long, which was larger than the radius of the UHPC cover.

The experimental phenomena were fairly similar among push-out

specimens. With the increase of applied load, one side of the UHPC-
NSC composite slab separated from the H-shaped steel beam, due to
the fact that the load bearing capacities of studs on the two sides of the
specimen were completely the same during the test. A loud sound was
heard when the push-out specimen failed resulting from a fracture of
either a stud shank or the weld around the bottom of the studs. In
3.2. Ultimate strength and shear stiffness
The findings of this section are summarized in Table 5, including the
slip at the peak load (su ), the ultimate slip value (sus ), the average ulti­
mate slip value (sus ), the peak load per stud (Pstud ), the average peak load
per stud (Pstud ) and the failure mode. It should be noted that the ultimate

Table 3
Material properties of UHPC and NSC.
Mix Cubic compressive strength Average Standard Flexural Strength Average Standard Elastic modulus Average Standard
(MPa) deviation (MPa) deviation (GPa) deviation

UHPC 151.4 147.5 3.5 11.0 9.4 1.3 50 48 1.4

148.0 8.9 47
143.1 8.2 47
NSC 34.2 35.6 1.0 4.0 3.6 0.4 33 30 2.5
36.7 3.7 30
35.9 3.1 27

Fig. 4. Mechanical property test of each composite segment.

Table 4
Material properties.
Materials Yield strength Standard deviation Tensile strength Standard deviation Young’s modulus Standard deviation
fy (MPa) fu (MPa) Es (GPa)

Steel beam 283 5.0 396 8.3 200 2.5

Reinforcement 316 7.2 463 4.7 195 3.0
Stud d = 22 mm 402 / 470 / 210 /
Stud d = 19 mm 376 / 455 / 210 /
Stud d = 16 mm 370 / 468 / 210 /

5
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

UHPC-NSC composite slab tend to be slightly lower compared to the

UHPC slab. However, the volumetric cost of the UHPC-NSC composite
slab is half as much as the UHPC slab.
The shear stiffness of stud shear connectors is an important charac­
teristic as it is used to estimate the performance of stud in bridge beams
with long service life and to determine the deformation properties of the
interface between concrete and steel beam. There are several means to
calculate the shear stiffness: herein, the relative slip between 10 % and
40 % of the ultimate load and the slope of the secant line at the slip of
0.2 mm were chosen for comparison with the previous results, respec­
tively. The plastic stiffness was obtained from the slope of the slip at 2

Fig. 5. Test setup.

strength of the DH and DF specimens indicate the mean values of two

identical specimens. As expected, the measured average ultimate load of
a stud in the DF specimens with 22 mm diameter stud was 10.6 % higher
than that of a stud in the DH specimens. When compared to the result
achieved in UHPC-slab specimens in the literature [14], the average
ultimate load of a stud in the DF specimens with 22 mm diameter stud
was reduced only by 3.8 %. The DF specimens with 19 mm diameter stud
increased the ultimate load by 11.7 % compared to the DH specimens,
and only reduced it by 2 % compared to the test results of studs in the
UHPC slab in the literature [23]. Based on the above comparison, the
average ultimate strength of studs encased with UHPC embedded in the Fig.7. Stud root after failure.

Fig.6. Failure mode of specimens.

6
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Table 5
Summary of pushout test results.
Specimens Pstud (kN) Pstud (kN) Standard su (mm) sus (mm) sus (mm) Standard Failure mode
deviation deviation

D150-22(100)-F-1 200.0 193.7 6.4 6.64 9.13 8.26 0.87 Steel failure
D150-22(100)-F-2 187.3 6.04 7.39 welded failure
D150-19(100)-F-1 138.2 147.7 9.5 6.43 9.57 7.79 1.78 Steel failure
D150-19(100)-F-2 157.2 6.01 6.01 welded failure
D150-16(100)-F-1 90.1 94.3 4.2 6.87 8.57 8.43 0.15 Steel failure
D150-16(100)-F-2 98.5 5.72 8.28 Steel failure
D150-22(100)-H-1 174.8 175.2 0.4 3.97 5.86 7.05 1.19 Steel failure and
D150-22(100)-H-2 175.7 4.88 8.23 concrete failure
D150-19(100)-H-1 136.8 133.1 3.7 4.56 7.03 7.70 0.67 Steel failure
D150-19(100)-H-2 129.3 4.46 8.37 Steel failure
D150-16(65)-H 91.8 91.8 — 6.69 7.46 7.46 — Steel failure

mm. It is seen in Table 6, that the DF specimen with 22 mm diameter
showed the highest average initial elastic stiffness of 494.4 kN/mm.
When compared with obtained results [14], this average initial elastic
stiffness was much less than that of UHPC slab specimens (762 kN/mm),
but it was larger than that of NSC slab specimens (336 kN/mm). As for
the DF specimens with 19 mm diameter, the average elastic shear
stiffness was larger by 9.1 % when compared with the literature data
(401.9 kN/mm) developed by Tong et al. [21]. The smallest initial
elastic stiffness for the DF specimens with 16 mm diameter stud was
250.4 kN/mm, which was less than half of UHPC slab specimens (598
kN/mm).
It is also shown in Table 6, that the increases of elastic shear stiffness
for both DF and DH specimens became not obvious because of the
effective thickness of UHPC cover decreased with the stud diameter
increase. The DF specimens showed slightly larger stiffness than the DH
specimens, which indicated that the UHPC cover provides a greater
stiffness than the NSC cover due to its high compressive strength. Similar
to previous cases, the differences of shear stiffness were also reduced
with the diameter increasing. Further investigations should be con­
ducted on the effect of the thickness of UHPC cover on the shear stiffness
when using large stud connectors in steel–concrete composite beams.
3.3. Influence of parameters on static performance
3.3.1. Stud diameter
The influence of stud diameters on the shear capacity of the speci­
mens with the stud roots covered with and without UHPC is discussed.
As shown in Fig. 8a and 8b, the increase of stud diameter from 16 mm to
19 mm and 22 mm resulted in an improvement in the ultimate strength
of a stud, which consisted of increases of 57.4 % and 105.2 % for DF
specimens and 45 % and 90.8 % for DH specimens, respectively. This
suggests that increasing the stud diameter could improve the static
performance of a stud, including the shear stiffness, ductility and shear
strength. Therefore, using large diameter studs with UHPC cover
embedded in the UHPC-NSC composite slab gives full play to the ad­
vantages of the material performance, prompting further research.
3.3.2. Covered material around the stud root
Certain earlier studies reported that inclusions with in the bearing
area of the shear connection significantly increase the shear strength.
Thus, the covered material around the stud root was selected as a vital
parameter in the specimen designs. Fig. 8c and 8d respectively compare
experimental values of applied loads and relative slips. It can be seen
that, for 19 mm and 22 mm diameter studs, the use of UHPC covering
stud root leads to approximately 13.8 % and 21.6 % improvement in the
ultimate shear strength of stud with a diameter of 19 mm and 22 mm,
respectively. Although covering the stud root with UHPC results in
increased ultimate strength, the improvement of ultimate shear strength
becomes less noticeable with increased stud diameter.
3.3.3. Type of slab
The influences on the shear strength and shear stiffness the types of
slabs are shown in Fig. 8c and 8f. Compared to the UHPC specimens with
22 mm diameter studs in the literature [18], the average shear strength
of a stud in the DF specimens was decreased only by 3.8 %, while the
initial elastic and plastic stiffness of DF specimens were 54.1 % and 45.8
% smaller than those of UHPC specimens, respectively. However, the DF
specimens and UHPC specimens with 19 mm diameter have nearly the
same shear strength and shear stiffness. For the DF and DH specimens
with 16 mm diameter studs, the average shear strength and the initial
elastic shear stiffness are lower than the UHPC specimens, but the
ductility of both specimens are increases. It is highly probably that the
more ductility causes a tension-shear failure of small stud.
3.4. Ductility of studs
Ductility is an important characteristic for the static design of stud
shear connectors in the composite structures. Based on the values of

Table 6
Shear stiffness of a stud shear connector.
Specimen Ks1 (s = 0.2 mm) Ave stiffness Initial elastic stiffness Ks2 (10% to 40% of Pmax ) Plastic stiffness Ks3 (s = 2 mm)
(kN/mm) (kN/mm)
Load per Slip Stiffness Ave stiffness Load perstud Slip Stiffness Ave Stiffness
stud ( kN) (mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN) (mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm)

D150-22(100)-F-1 455.1 483.2 60.0 0.121 495.8 494.4 181.0 2.0 90.5 89.6
D150-22(100)-F-2 511.2 55.7 0.113 492.9 177.2 2.0 88.6
D150-22(100)-H-1 471.8 461.3 53.5 0.112 477.7 477.0 163.0 2.0 81.5 82.3
D150-22(100)-H-2 450.7 52.4 0.110 476.4 166.1 2.0 83.1
D150-19(100)-F-1 457.3 438.5 41.5 0.092 451.1 444.1 135.1 2.0 67.6 71.6
D150-19(100)-F-2 419.7 47.2 0.108 437.0 151.0 2.0 75.5
D150-19(100)-H-1 324.0 338.2 41 0.102 402.0 395.0 131.2 2.0 65.6 64.1
D150-19(100)-H-2 352.4 38.8 0.100 388.0 125.1 2.0 62.6
D150-16(100)-F-1 256.9 250.4 27.2 0.101 269.3 282.7 82.5 2.0 41.3 42.7
D150-16(100)-F-2 243.8 29.6 0.100 296.0 88.2 2.0 44.1
D150-16(100)-H 218.9 218.9 28.0 0.130 215.5 215.5 81.0 2.0 40.5 40.5

7
H. Yang et al.
Fig. 8. Effects of test parameters on load-slip curves.
relative slip, the design method is classified into two strategies: elastic
and strength designs. In order to make full use of the behavior of the
entire composite structure, the strength design concept is allowed in
most current design codes. Thus, the ductility requirement should al­
ways be fulfilled to ensure the strength design concept. For example, the
requirement of relative slip in EC4 [15] is not less than 6 mm based on
the push-out test. However, some preceding researches on the perfor­
mance of stud shear connectors embedded in UHPC have indicated that
ductility demand is not always assured because of the high strength of
UHPC. Kim et al. [14] reported that all specimens in their experiments,
except two specimens with 22 mm diameter stud, had not met the
ductility demand of 6 mm. Wang et al. [23] reported that some speci­
mens with 22 mm and 30 mm diameter studs and 150 mm thickness of
the UHPC slab unsatisfied the 6 mm ductility criterion. Tong et al. [21]
also arrived at same conclusions, i.e., the average maximum slippage
obtained from the standardized push-out test was 3.40 mm and 5.36 mm
for 13 mm and 19 mm diameter studs in UHPC slab, respectively. A
summary of the normalized load-slip curves is given in Fig. 9, where the
solid line represents the load-slip of DF specimens, and the dashed line
8
Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210
denotes the DH specimens. It can be seen that the minimum relative slip
was 6.01 mm for D150-19(100)-F-1specimen due to the data acquisition
system disconnected at that time. In conjunction with Table 5, the test
results except for D150-22(100)-H specimens show that the character­
istic relative slips of stud are larger than 6 mm, which meet the ductility
requirement according to EC4[15], and allow the application of the
strength design concept. It can also be seen that the curve of the D150-16
(100)-F-2 specimen drifts dramatically with the applied load. This is
because of the poor welded quality of stud in the D150-16(100)-F-2.
From the outcome of analysis, the method of a stud root covered with
UHPC embedded in UHPC-NSC composite slab can improve the
maximum relative slippage without significant reduction in the peak
load due to high compressive strength of the UHPC and lower stiffness of
the UHPC-NSC composite slab. Furthermore, the tests result indicated
that the behavior of stud roots with UHPC cover was improved
compared to those without UHPC cover.
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Where fu represents the tensile strength of studs; fc denotes the design

value of concrete axial compressive strength; Ec denotes the elastic
modulus of concrete.
Based on the equations proposed by Oehlers et al. [31] and Krus­
zewski et al. [32] for a stud embedded in high strength concrete (HSC),
Hu et al. [33] proposed the shear strength formula considering the ef­
fects of the weld collar, group effect, stud diameter, material strength,
and elastic modulus with respect to the stud failure as follow. The stud
shear capacity for concrete failure is the same Equation (2) as the
AASHTO LRFD 2012 formula.
( )0.4 ( )0.35
Ec fc
Pu = 3.8βs As fu + 0.25fc d2 (4)
E fu

where βs is a reduction coefficient on the group effect, which is taken as

1.0, when ld /d≫13, ld indicates the longitudinal spacing of both studs,
and d indicates the diameter of a single stud.
Taking into consideration the concrete yielding, Randl. N [34] pro­
posed a design formula used for determining the shear capacity of
dowels cast into concrete as follows.
Fig. 9. Normalized load-slip curves. [ ( )3 ( )2 ]
L fy ds ds fy
Pu = Fmax ds 2 0.46 + 0.187 − 0.005 (5)
ds Fmax L L Fmax
4. Analysis of experimental results
Where Fmax is taken as three times the compressive of concrete cube;
4.1. Shear capacity of studs ds is the diameter of studs; fy is the yield strength of studs; L is taken as
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
4 4Es I
, which Es is elastic modulus of studs, I is section moment of inertia,
The shear strength of studs embedded in UHPC slab has been ds c

investigated by some researchers, which indicated that the existing
design codes underestimated the actual value of this parameter, and the
failure mode of studs was mainly stud shank failure. Since no agreed
equations for studs embedded in UHPC slab have been created to eval­
uate the shear strength, the formulae for the shear strength of a stud
embedded in NSC slab in current different codes such as EC4[15],
AASHTO-LFRD2012 [28], GB50017-2017 [29], and equations proposed
for high strength concrete are adopted to evaluate the shear strength of
the studs, and compared with the experimentally established peak load
obtained in this study.
Eurocode-4 standard proposes a formula to compute the shear
strength of a stud embedded in NSC slab as follow:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
0.29αd2 Ec f ’c
Pu = (concrete failure) (1a)
γv
0.8fu As
Pu = (steel failure) (1b)
γv
where d represents the diameter of the stud; γV represents the safety
factor, which is taken as 1.25; α = 0.2(H/d +1) ≤ 1; and H is the height
of the stud; fu is the ultimate tensile strength of the stud; fc’ is the
compressive strength of the concrete cylinder; Eu denotes the elastic
modulus of the concrete. It is noted that the compressive strength of
UHPC cylinders could be calculated as fc’ = 0.95fc , according to the
literature [30].
The design static strength of a stud is defined from AASHTO LRFD
2012 provision [27], the equation is followed:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Pu = ϕ0.5Asc f ’c Ec ≤ ϕAsc fu (2)
where ϕ denotes the resistance factor, which is taken as 1.0 for consis­
tency with the value in the research [21]; Asc denotes the across-
sectional area of the stud, fc’ is the compressive strength of the con­
crete cylinder.
In Chinese code GB50017-2017 [28], the shear strength of a stud is
expressed as follows:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
NVc = 0.43Asc Ec fc ≤ 0.7Asc fu (3)
c is chosen as 500 N/mm3 based on the literature [34].
The smaller value of the two different failure mechanisms determine
the shear strength of a stud connector. Table 7 compares the shear
strength per stud between the calculated through the above formulae
and the test results. At first sight, the actual shear strength of a stud root
with and without UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC slab are
greater than that obtained by national standards. Kim et al. [14], Tong
et al. [21] and Wang et al. [23] had the same conclusions in their work.
It also can be seen from Table 7 that the stud root without UHPC cover
embedded in UHPC-NSC composite slab has higher shear strength than
that embedded in NSC slab. This phenomenon may indicate that the
upper half of UHPC improve the shear strength of a stud. When
compared the calculation with the test results, the AASHTO LRFD 2012
design calculations provide a margin of 3 %-13 %, which agree rela­
tively better with the experimental results than others. Nevertheless, the
stud used in this study was not larger than 25 mm in diameter, and the
test results were very limited. Further experimental and theoretical re­
searches are required to confirm the tests results and establish the
theoretical calculation models.
4.2. Load-slip curve
The relationship between the shear load and slip in each pushout
specimen is shown in Fig. 7. As presented in this figure, the configura­
tion of load-slip curve is similar to the previous research on studs
embedded in UHPC slab, which could be divided into three stages. The
first part of the curve represents general elastic behavior. The next stage
is a plastic stage, where the studs gradually yield and the load acted on
the studs starts to redistribute. Once the applied load has exceeded the
peak load, the studs in the pushout specimen are cut off, and the load-
slip curve sharply descends.
The load-slip characteristics of the studs are important for redis­
tributing the shear load from weaker to stronger connectors and for
ultimate strength analysis. Despite that many previous researches have
devised diverse methods to evaluate the load-slip curves response of
pushout specimens consisting of normal strength concrete, there is no
existing strategy to predict the load-slip curve of studs with UHPC cover
in the UHPC-NSC composite slab. Whether these proposed methods
could be applied for the specimens of this study remains unknown. In

9
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Table 7
Comparison of ultimate shear strength of a stud between test results and calculated results.
Author Specimen Pstud (kN)- Eq.(1b) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq.(5) National standard Research [33]
(a) (kN)-(b) (kN)-(c) (kN)-(d) (kN)-(e) (kN)-(f)
(b)/(a) (c)/(a) (d)/(a) (f)/(a) (e)/(a)

This study D150-22 193.7 114.3 178.7 125.1 267.1 162.9 0.59 0.92 0.65 0.84 1.38
(100)-F
D150-19 147.7 82.4 128.8 90.1 195.2 123.5 0.56 0.87 0.61 0.84 1.32
(100)-F
D150-16 94.3 60.2 94.1 65.9 140.9 90.2 0.64 1.00 0.70 0.96 1.49
(100)-F
D150-22 175.2 114.3 178.7 125.1 132.4 57.8 0.65 1.02 0.71 0.33 0.76
(100)-H
D150-19 133.1 82.4 128.8 90.1 96.7 42.4 0.62 0.97 0.68 0.32 0.73
(100)-H
D150-16(65)- 91.8 60.2 94.1 65.9 69.9 30.3 0.66 1.03 0.72 0.33 0.76
H
Average 0.62 0.97 0.68 0.60 1.07
Standard 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.28 0.36
deviation
Kim [14] UHPC-I 201 113.3 177.1 124 287.3 215.8 0.56 0.89 0.62 1.07 1.43
UHPC-II 119 62.3 97.2 68.1 155.5 121.7 0.52 0.79 0.55 1.02 1.31
Tong [21] PS19 151.5 83.1 129.7 90.8 198.2 121.8 0.55 0.85 0.59 0.80 1.31

order to calibrate the validity of these methods, we performed a com­ empirical formulae (6)-(10) were compared with the curves recorded
parison of the test results with these methods regarding on the stud root during pushout tests performed in this research as shown in Fig. 10. The
with and without the UHPC cover in the UHPC-NSC composite slab. solid line denotes the results obtained by the experimental data whereas
Ollgaard [35] proposed a classical load-slip curve formula for normal the dashed lines represent the prediction values by analytical methods.
strength concrete based on 48 pushout test results as follows: As seen in Fig. 10a and 10c, for the DF specimens with 22 mm and 16
( ) mm diameter stud, the predictive load-slip curve obtained from Eq. (7a)
P
= 1 − e− 0.55s 0.3
(6) matches better with the experimental data than others. It is noticed that
Pu
the load-slip curve obtained from Eq.(8b) follows similar patterns to the
where P denotes shear load of single-stud, and Pu denotes ultimate shear DF specimens with 19 mm diameter stud. With regards to the DH
load. The symbols in the following equation have the same definitions. specimens, no one given predictive equations could match well with the
Xue et al.[36] carried out push-out tests with studs arranged in a test results. Due to the given predictive curves being not perfectly
group embedded in normal concrete and compared the results with consistent among all cases, a reliable equation for predicting the inter­
those obtained for a single stud specimen. The empirical formulae were face slip of the stud encased with UHPC embedded in the UHPC-NSC
purposed for the load-slip curves of single-stud and grouped studs as composite slab is needed with more experimental data.
follows:
5. Theoretical calculation of shear stiffness
P ( )13
= 1 − e− 0.7s
(single − stud) (7a)
Pu Currently, the shear stiffness can be calculated on the basis of the
elastic foundation beam and energy equivalent theory. Tong et al [21]
P ( )1
= 1 − e− 0.5s 3
(grouped − stud) (7b) and Zhou et al [38] analyzed the elastic shear stiffness of studs arranged
Pu
uniformly with the energy equivalent theory, assuming that virtual
A load-slip curve formula of the single stud in high strength concrete shear springs are arranged uniformly along the direction of slip and
was proposed by An and Cederwall [37]. The expressions are: neglecting the bond strength at the interface between steel and concrete.
Hu [33] calculated the shear stiffness based on the elastic foundation
P 2.24(s − 0.058)
= (for NC specimens) (8a) beam theory. Therein, the energy equivalent model was used to estimate
Pu 1 + 1.98(s-0.058)
the shear stiffness. Based on the original model, the deformation energy
of the stud Us is obtained when the slip δ occurs at the interface between
P 4.44(s − 0.031)
= (for HSC specimens) (8b) steel and concrete. The concrete subjected to the concentrated load in
Pu 1 + 4.24(s − 0.031)
front of the stud is deformed, which generates the deformation energy of
Wang et al [23] conducted pushout tests on the static behavior of the concrete slab Uc . Since the deformation energy of stud and concrete
large diameter stud connectors embedded in UHPC. Based on the tests U is equivalent to the spring deformation energy when slip δ occurs, the
results, they proposed an empirical formula for predicting the load-slip equations can be proposed as follow:
curve of a stud as follows:
U = Us + Uc (11)
P s/dstud
= (9) 1
Pu 0.006 + 1.02s/dstud U = kδ2 (12)
2
Tong et al [21] studied the shear performance of stud connectors in
high strength steel-UHPC push-out specimens, and obtained the where k denotes the average shear stiffness per stud, calculated based on
empirical formula for the load-slip curve of the high-strength-steel- Equations (11) and (12).
UHPC single-stud and grouped-stud specimens, respectively, as. In the elastic stage, the deformation of stud is decreased gradually
along the direction of the length. The length of stud deformation is
P s/dstud
= (single − stud) (10) referred to as effective length hs , which is less than the length of stud and
Pu 0.0092 + 0.93s/dstud
the thickness of the NSC layer. In the literature [23], this value is taken
The load-slip curves of stud shear connector obtained from the above as 2.1 d based on the results for studs embedded in the NSC slab.

10
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Fig. 10. Comparison of load-slip curves between tests results and theoretical predictions.

However, the effective length of studs embedded in UHPC slab is Lc2 . Therefore, the deformation energy of the concrete is equal to the
different from studs embedded in the NSC slab. Therefore, the effective sum of the deformation energy of UHPC and NSC.
stud length needs to be recalculated. Table 8 sums the values of hs on The strain energy density of concrete is expressed as follows:
studs embedded in UHPC slab. It can be seen that the average effective
1
stud length is 2.0 d, which is less than the value of 2.1 d. The reaction vc = Ec ε2c (13)
2
force of the stud along with the effective length is triangular distribu­
tion, with the maximum value at the stud root and zero at the top. For ( )
ω(x) qs h5s x5 x4 x3 15x2
the boundary conditions of the stud, the stud root is still fixed on the εc = = − 5 + 5 4 − 10 3 + 2 (14)
L 120Es Is L hs hs hs hs
steel beam and the shaft of stud at the position of effective length, which
is assumed to be a sliding hinge, since deformation between the stud and ∫ hs ∫ hs
concrete are small enough. Uc = vε dLc1 dx + vε dLc2 dx (15)
The schematic diagram of the energy equivalent model for the stud 0 0

embedded in the UHPC-NSC composite slab is shown in Fig. 11, where L

is the effective length of concrete on the side of compression which is 85hs dδ2
Uc = (Ec1 Lc1 + Ec2 Lc2 ) (16)
taken as 6 d according to the previous research [38]. It is assumed that 396L2
concrete deformation is consistent with the stud along with the length where Ec1 denotes the elastic modulus of UHPC;Ec2 denotes the elastic
direction, and the concrete deformation along the width direction is modulus of NSC; and d is the diameter of the stud.
equal to the diameter of the stud. To ease the computation, the concrete The deflection curve equation ω(x) of the stud can be deduced based
in the range of effective length L is broken into many concrete springs. on the known approximate differential line of deflection equation, and
As illustrated by Fig. 10b, in this study, the effective length L consists of then the deformation energy of the stud Us can be obtained as follows:
UHPC and NSC, where the effective length of UHPC is Lc1 , and NSC is

Table 8
The values of hs on studs embedded in UHPC slab obtained by Equation (20).
Ref. Specimens H(mm) h(mm) d(mm) -① Es (GPa) Ec (GPa) L(mm) Exp. Solution ②/①
(kN/mm) hs -②

Kim [14] UHPC-I 150 100 22 200 45 132 762.0 37.1 1.7
Wang [23] UHPC22 150 100 22 200 48 180 721.9 38.2 1.7
UHPC30 150 120 30 200 48 180 950.0 52.9 1.8
UHPC30-I 150 70 30 200 48 180 765.6 58.6 2.0
Zhou [38] ST16-B 200 150 16 200 48 96 333.3 35.1 2.2
ST19-B 200 150 19 200 48 114 452.0 38.5 2.0
ST22-B 200 150 22 200 48 132 524.0 44.6 2.0
ST25-B 200 150 25 200 48 150 543.5 53.4 2.1
Tong [21] PS19 150 80 19 200 50.9 114 401.9 41.8 2.2
Average 2.0
Standard deviation 0.19

11
H. Yang et al. Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210

Fig. 11. Normalized load-slip curves on stud with UHPC cover.

Es Is ω′′ = − M(x) (17) stiffness of the stud with UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC
composite slab when the diameter of stud is greater than 16 mm.
( )
q h5 x5 x4 x3 15x2 Nonetheless, further work is needed because this equation is verified by
ω(x) = s s − 5 + 5 4 − 10 3 + 2 (18) relatively limited experimental results. It is noted, however, that this
120Es Is hs hs hs 2hs
equation used to evaluate the shear stiffness of stud with UHPC cover
∫ hs ( )2 embedded in the UHPC-NSC composite slab is not suitable for stud
1 d2 ω 25πd4 2 1
Us = Es I s dx = Es δ 3 (19) lengths that are less than 2.0 d.
2 0 dx2 224 hs

where Es represents the elastic modulus of the stud; Is represents the
moment of inertia of the stud; ω represents the deflection of the stud; qs
represents the peak load in the triangular zone; hs represents the effec­
tive length of stud.
On the basis of the energy equivalence principle, the average shear
stiffness per stud with UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC com­
posite slab can be obtained as follows:
85hs d 25
k= (Ec1 L1 + Ec2 L2 ) + Es π d 4
198L2 112h3s
Comparing Eq. (20) with Eq. (22) obtained from the literature [22],
it is evident that the shear stiffness of stud with UHPC cover embedded
in the UHPC-NSC composite slab is influenced by the UHPC cover
thickness and the elastic modulus of NSC and UHPC, which is between
the NSC slab and UHPC slab.
The calculated and experimental values of shear stiffness are sum­
marized in Table 9. The shear stiffness calculated from Equation (20)
agrees well with the experimental values ones except the value for D150-
16(100)-F. The proposed equation can be used to evaluate the shear
6. Conclusions
In order to investigate the structural performance of studs with
UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC composite slab, this paper
conducted eleven push-out specimens. The experimental parameters
included slab thickness, stud geometry and studs with UHPC cover or
without UHPC cover. The following conclusions could be derived from
the test program results:
(20)
(1) The failure mode of DF series specimens is controlled by stud
shank failure, while the DH specimens include steel failure and
NSC failure. Splitting cracks did not appear on top and soffit
surface of any push-out specimens. The crushed zone in both
types of studs increases with the stud diameter increase.
(2) The increase of stud diameter from 16 mm to 19 mm and 22 mm
resulted in 57.4 % and 105.2 % improvements in the ultimate
shear strength of a stud. Similar results were found for the DH
specimens, where respectively 45 % and 90.8 % improvement
were found. The use of UHPC covering stud root leads to
approximately 13.8 % and 21.6 % increase ultimate shear

Table 9
Comparison of shear stiffness between the experiment and calculation results.
Specimen L1 L2 hs Eq(20)-① Ks1 -② Ks2 -③ ①/② ①/③

(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm)

D150-22(100)-F 19 113 46.2 488.1 483.2 494.4 1.01 0.99

D150-19(100)-F 20.5 93.5 39.9 423.3 438.5 444.1 0.97 0.95
D150-16(100)-F 22 74 33.6 358.5 250.4 282.7 1.43 1.27

12
H. Yang et al.
strengths of studs, as the stud diameter was increased from 19
mm to 22 mm. Comparisons between experimental results ob­
tained from this research and literatures show that the average
ultimate shear strength of the DF specimens with 22 mm and 19
mm stud diameters was only 3.8 % and 2 % less than studs
embedded in the UHPC slab, respectively.
(3) The recorded data indicate that all stud specimens with the UHPC
cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC composite slab have a char­
acteristic relative slip of 6.01–9.57 mm, which are larger than 6
mm and satisfy the ductility requirement recommended in EC4
[15]. This may be attributed to the decrease of the shear stiffness
of studs in the UHPC-NSC composite slab. Thus, a rigid plastic
design could be possibly applied to such experimental program of
studs.
(4) The current formulae for calculating the shear strength of studs
embedded in the NSC, HSC and UHPC slab were used to evaluate
the shear strength of studs with UHPC cover embedded in the
UHPC-NSC composite slab. The calculated values of Eq (2) agreed
well with the experimental results.
(5) Compared the experimental load-slip curves with the predictive
curves, the given Equation (6)-(10) did not agree well with the
practical observation results. Further work is therefore needed to
propose a reliable equation predicting the relative slip of stud
encased with UHCP in the UHPC-NSC composite slab. Current
design codes for calculating the ultimate shear strength of a stud
underestimate the actual shear strength of the stud encased with
the UHPC in the UHPC-NSC composite slab.
(6) The effect of the UHPC cover on the shear stiffness became not
obvious with the diameter of stud increase. The average elastic
shear stiffness of the DF specimens with 19 mm diameter stud was
very close to the stud in the UHPC slab, while the 22 mm stud
diameter in the DF specimens was only about three fifth of that in
UHPC slab. A formula to calculate the shear stiffness of studs with
UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC composite slab was
proposed according to the energy equivalent principle. The
calculated values are in good agreement with the experimental
results, except for the D150-16(100)-F specimens. Future work is
needed on the basis of the experimental study and numerical
simulation. The findings suggested that the effect of effective stud
length on shear stiffness was obvious. Therefore, the effective
stud length is regarded as the most important parameter for
determining the shear stiffness of studs.
(7) The studs with UHPC cover embedded in the UHPC-NSC com­
posite slab has high shear carrying capacity and stiffness
compared to the NSC slab, and better ductility in comparison to
the UHPC slab. This means that the proposed bridge deck system
can be applied to continuous composite birder bridge and com­
posite structures required advanced ductility. However, an
appropriate method for studs with UHPC cover has to be develop
to simplify the construction process.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hailin Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft, Writing - review & editing. Yan Zheng: Funding
acquisition, Data curation, Resources. Shixu Mo: Visualization, Data
curation. Penghui Lin: Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
13
Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Basic Ability Improvement Project
for Middle-aged and Young Teachers in Colleges and Universities in
Guangxi [2020KY06027] and National Natural Science Foundation of
China [52068012] and Science and Technology Agency in Guangxi
Province [2021JJA160035]. The authors wish to express their gratitude
for the financial support.
References
[1] B. Graybeal, E. Brühwiler, B.-S. Kim, F. Toutlemonde, Y.L. Voo, A. Zaghi,
International Perspective on UHPC in Bridge Engineering, J. Bridge Eng. 25 (2020)
04020094.
[2] M. Zhou, W. Lu, J. Song, G.C. Lee, Application of Ultra-High Performance Concrete
in bridge engineering, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 1256–1267.
[3] J. Xue, et al., Review of ultra-high performance concrete and its application in
bridge engineering, Constr. Build. Mater. 260 (2020), 119844.
[4] B.A. Tayeh, B.H.A. Baka, M. Johari, et al., Mechanical and permeability properties
of the interface between normal concrete substrate and ultra high performance
fiber concrete overlay[J], Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 538–548.
[5] Y. Zhang, Y. Zhu, M. Yeseta, D. Meng, X. Shao, Q. Dang, et al., Flexural behaviors
and capacity prediction on damaged reinforcement concrete (RC) bridge deck
strengthened by ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) layer, Constr. Build.
Mater. 215 (2019) 347–359.
[6] Y. Zhang, S. Cai, Y. Zhu, L. Fan, X. Shao, Flexural responses of steel-UHPC
composite beams under hogging moment, Eng. Struct. 206 (2020) 1–15.
[7] Z.B. Haber, J.F. Munoz, D. Igor, et al., Bond Characterization of UHPC Overlays for
Concrete Bridge Decks: Laboratory and Field Testing, Constr. Build. Mater. 190
(2018) 1056–1068.
[8] E. Brühwiler, UHPFRC technology to enhance the performance of existing concrete
bridges, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 16 (2019) 1–12.
[9] S.V. Shann, Application of ultra high performance concrete (UHPC) as a thin-
bonded overlay for concrete bridge decks, 2012. Dissertations & Theses – Grad
works.
[10] Z. Xiang, Z. Zhu, Simulation study on fatigue behavior of wrap-around weld at rib-
to-floor beam joint in a steel-UHPC composite orthotropic bridge deck, Constr.
Build. Mater. 289 (2021), 123161.
[11] J. Cao, X. Shao, L. Deng, Y. Gan, Static and Fatigue Behavior of Short-Studs
Embedded in a Thin Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete Layer, J. Bridge Eng. 22
(2017), 04017005.1-.16.
[12] L. Dieng, P. Marchand, F. Gomes, C. Tessier, F. Toutlemonde, Use of UHPFRC
overlay to reduce stresses in orthotropic steel decks, J. Constr. Steel Res. 89 (2013)
30–41.
[13] J.S. Kim, S.H. Park, C.B. Joh, J. Kwark, E.S. Choi, Push-Out Test on Shear
Connectors Embedded in UHPC, Appl. Mech. Mater. 351–352 (2013) 50–54.
[14] J.S. Kim, J. Kwark, C. Joh, S.W. Yoo, K.C. Lee, Stud shear connector for thin
ultrahigh-performance concrete bridge deck, J. Constr. Steel Res. 108 (2015)
23–30.
[15] EN 1994-1-1. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structure, part11:
General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization;
2004.
[16] J.Y. Kang, J.S. Park, W.T. Jung, M.S. Keum, Evaluation of the Shear Strength of
Perfobond Rib Connectors in Ultra High Performance Concrete, Engineering 6 (13)
(2014) 989–999.
[17] S.H. He, Z. Fang, A.S. Mosallam, Push-out tests for perfobond strip connectors with
UHPC grout in the joints of steel-concrete hybrid bridge girders, Engineering 135
(15) (2017) 177–190.
[18] P. Harsányi, N. Randl, N.V. Tue, DIC-based failure analysis of high strength
continuous steel shear dowels for composite UHPFRC steel construction, Eng. 247
(2021).
[19] Q. Zhao, Y. Du, Y. Peng, et al., Shear Performance of Short Channel Connectors in a
Steel-UHPC Composite Deck, Int. J. Steel Struct. 20 (2020) 300–310.
[20] K. Wolters, M. Kopp, M. Feldmann, M. Claßen, J. Schäfer, 08.16: Static shear
capacity of small-scaled pin shear connectors, ce/papers 1 (2–3) (2017)
1966–1975.
[21] L. Tong, L. Chen, M. Wen, C. Xu, Static behavior of stud shear connectors in high-
strength-steel–UHPC composite beams, Eng. Struct. 218 (2020).
[22] J. Wang, Q. Xu, Y. Yao, J. Qi, H. Xiu, Static behavior of grouped large stud-UHPC
shear connectors in composite structures, Compos. Struct. 206 (2018) 202–214.
[23] J. Wang, J. Qi, T. Tong, Q. Xu, H. Xiu, Static behavior of large stud shear
connectors in steel-UHPC composite structures, Eng. Struct. 178 (2019) 534–542.
[24] J. Hegger, C. Goralski, S. Rauscher, Push-out Tests on Studs covered with UHPC, in:
International Symposium on the Utilization of High Strength/high-performance
Concrete, 2004, pp. 425–434.
[25] F. Wu, Y. Feng, J. Dai, G. Wang, J. Zhang, Study on mechanical properties of stud
shear connectors in steel-UHPC composite structures, Eng. Mech. 39 (02) (2022),
222-234+243.
[26] L. Hussein, L. Amleh, Structural behavior of ultra-high performance fiber
reinforced concrete-normal strength concrete or high strength concrete composite
members, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 1105–1116.
H. Yang et al.
[27] L. Hussein, L. Amleh, Assessment of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced
concrete- normal strength concrete or high strength concrete composite members
in chloride environment. International Materials Specialty Conference, 2016.
[28] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD, bridge design specifications, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2012.
[29] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China. Code for design of steel structures (GB 50017-2017). Beijing: China
Planning Press; 2017 [In Chinese].
[30] J.H. Cao, X.D. Shao, Finite element analysis of headed studs embedded in thin
UHPC, J. Constr. Steel Res. 161 (2019) 355–368.
[31] D.J. Oehlers, R.P. Johnson, The strength of stud shear connections in composite
beams, Eng. Struct. 65 (2) (1987) 44–48.
[32] D. Kruszewski, K. Wille, A.E. Zaghi, Push-out behavior of headed shear studs
welded on thin plates and embedded in UHPC, Eng. Struct. 173 (2018) 429–441.
14
Construction and Building Materials 331 (2022) 127210
[33] Y. Hu, M. Qiu, L. Chen, R. Zhong, J. Wang, Experimental and analytical study of
the shear strength and stiffness of studs embedded in high strength concrete, Eng.
Struct. 236 (2021).
[34] N. Randl, Load bearing behaviour of cast-in shear dowels, Beton- Stahlbetonbau
102 (2007) 31–37.
[35] J.G. Ollgaard, R.G. Slutter, J.W. Fisher, Shear strength of stud connectors in
lightweight and normal-weight concrete, AISC Eng J 8 (2) (1971) 55–64.
[36] D. Xue, Y. Liu, Z. Yu, Static behavior of multi-stud shear connectors for steel-
concrete composite bridge, J. Constr. Steel Res. 74 (8) (2012) 1–7.
[37] L. An, K. Cederwall, Push-out tests on studs in high strength and normal strength
concrete, J. Constr. Steel Res. 36 (1) (1996) 15–29.
[38] X.D. Zhou, Experimental study on mechanical properties of large diameter shear
stud connecters in Steel-UHPC Composite Structure, Nanjing Forestry University,
2018. Master’s Thesis (in Chinese).