Proceedings of the 1st Iberic Conference on Theoretical and Experimental Mechanics and Materials /

11th National Congress on Experimental Mechanics. Porto/Portugal 4-7 November 2018.

Ed. J.F. Silva Gomes. INEGI/FEUP (2018); ISBN: 978-989-20-8771-9; pp. 759-766.

PAPER REF: 7383

NUMERICAL MODELING OF A NEW PUSH-OUT TEST USING

NON-LINEAR BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE
Sergio J. Yanez(*), Juan Carlos Pina, Erick Saavedra-Flores, Carlos F. Guzmán
Departamento de Ingeniería en Obras Civiles, U. Santiago de Chile, Av. Ecuador 3659, Santiago, Chile
(*)
Email: sergio.yanez.c@usach.cl

ABSTRACT
Composite steel-concrete systems are highly dependent on the behavior of the connection at
the interface. Generally, this connection is characterized by the load-slip curve from push-out
tests. In this article, a numerical model is developed to represent the mechanical behavior of a
shear stud anchor embedded in concrete. The updated approach considers a non-linear
constitutive law of the stud anchor and the steel beam, and a non-linear model for concrete.
The model is proposed as a constitutive relation of concrete to permit prediction of the
influence over the stud behavior. Experimental results from a new push-out test configuration
with 13 mm and 16 mm stud diameter are compared with the proposed numerical model. The
model provides a more accessible technique to replicate the expensive and time-consuming
experimental approach.

Keywords: Push-out test, composite beam, concrete, finite element model.

INTRODUCTION
Full-scaled composite concrete-steel systems remain a costly and time-consuming option to
investigate the shear stud anchor behavior [1, 2]. Consequently, many recognize the benefits
of predicting the stud anchor behavior by conducting small-scale tests or numerical
simulations [3-5]. Although various codes and guidelines exist regarding the strength of a
single shear stud anchor, it has been reported the inadequacy of the push-out test setup
presented [6-10]. The limited shape, size, and strength of the concrete, the steel section
profile, and the use of steel deck can be inconvenient when the higher concrete strength, steel
joist profiles, and different steel deck dimensions are used.
In the present work a numerical simulation using the well-known finite element analysis of a
push-out test is presented and compared to a new push-out test configuration. Twenty-four
push-out tests are used to predict the non-linear behavior of the shear connector embedded in
a concrete slab when a steel sheet profile is used. Variations in stud diameter (13 mm and 16
mm) and stud position relative to the deck stiffener (strong and weak) are studied. The
novelty of the proposed numerical model is the utilization of advanced non-linear material
and non-linear contact behavior. Moreover, the numerical approach is compared to
experimental data to study the effect of two parameters: stud anchor diameter and stud anchor
position.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Based on the new push-out test set up (Figure 1), a full 3D finite element (FE) model was
developed in the commercial FE software ANSYS [11]. For the FE mesh (Figure 2), 10 nodes
second order tetrahedral elements were used. The different components of the model, i.e.

-759-
 Track-E: Civil and Structural Engineering Applications

concrete slab, steel deck, stud anchor and the double steel angle, were considered as
individual meshes connected via contact. Frictionless type contact was used between the
concrete slab and the stud connector, and for the contact between the double steel angle and
the steel deck. For the connection between the stud anchor and the steel angle the contact
condition always bonded was considered. Finally, between the concrete slab and the steel
deck a frictional type contact was used to simulate the initial adherence between these two
components. The nonlinear response of the different materials was considered via the
selection of the constitutive laws for the different materials. For the steel elements, i.e. stud
anchor, steel deck and steel angle, von Misses plasticity was used with bilinear elastic
perfectly plastic isotropic hardening constitutive law. For the concrete slab, the multilinear
hardening law described in detail below was considered.
Regarding the boundary conditions, prescribed displacements in all directions were applied on
the bottom side of the concrete slab, and the load in terms of pressure was applied at the upper
side of the double steel angle. To deal with the highly non-linear response of the system, an
iterative Newton-Raphson solution strategy was used, where the time steps were defined such
that optimal convergence speed could be achieve.
Maximum displacements and the stress profile using this model are calculated and compared
to experimental results. The displaced shape is obtained and superposed to the experimental
displaced configuration. Variation on the stud diameter and shear stud position results on four
cases to model: 13mm-strong, 13mm-weak, 16mm-strong, and 16mm-weak.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The most relevant properties of a single stud anchor are the stud capacity and the load versus
slip representation at the concrete/steel interface. Due to the symmetric nature of the model,
only half of the specimen is modeled in the finite element program as shown in Figure 2. The
slabs are fixed constrained with load being applied to the upper end of the steel member. Slip
between the steel member and the slab is measured at specified load increments, and the
average slip is typically plotted against the load per connector. The predicted shear capacity
can be obtained for two different stud diameters and two stud positions, by adjusting the finite
element model without changing the concrete dimensions.

Fig. 1 - Experimental model for a push-out test. Fig. 2 - Finite element push-out test model.

Figure 3 shows a typical stress-strain curve for normal weight concrete [12-16]. In
compression, the stress-strain curve for concrete is linearly elastic up to about 30% of the
maximum compressive strength. Above this point, the stress increases gradually up to the
maximum compressive strength. After it reaches the maximum compressive strength, the

-760-
 Proceedings TEMM2018 / CNME2018

curve enters a constant softening region, and eventually crushing failure occurs at an ultimate
strain. In tension, the stress-strain curve for concrete is assumed to be zero. The following
equations are used to describe the nonlinear stress-strain model for concrete [10]:
Ecε
f = 2 1.1
ε 
1+  
 ε0 
f
Ec = 1.2
ε
2 f c'
ε0 = 1.3
ε
The simplified stress-strain curve for the concrete model is constructed from six points
connected by straight lines. The curve starts at zero stress and strain. Point 1, at 0.3f’c, is
calculated for the stress-strain relationship of the concrete in the linear range. Points 2, 3, and
4 are obtained from equation (1.1), in which ε0 is calculated from equation (1.3). Point 5 is at
ε0 and f’c. In this study, plastic behavior after Point 5 was assumed.

Fig. 3 - Experimental stress - strain curve for concrete.

Bilinear isotropic hardening behavior of the steel element with modulus of elasticity of
2.0x106 MPa, Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, and density of 7860 kg/m3 was specified in the analysis.
Elastic-plastic bilinear model is used for the steel used in stud connectors. AISI 1018
Mid/Low Carbon Steel is used to describe the material properties of the stud anchor. ASTM
1008 or ASTM A653 is used to describe the steel deck profile material properties from
isotropic elasticity characteristics with modulus of elasticity of 2.03x106 MPa, Poisson’s ratio
of 0.30, bulk modulus of 1.7x106 MPa, shear modulus of 7.82x105 MPa, and tensile yield
strength of 276 MPa.

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION USING A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE

PUSH-OUT CONFIGURATION
Details of the modified push-out specimen are shown in Figure 4. Two concrete slabs of
dimensions 610 mm wide, 660 mm long, and 114 mm thickness are connected to a pair of
steel angles to form a push-out specimen. Here, two 660 mm long, L-130x130x13 mm steel

-761-
 Track-E: Civil and Structural Engineering Applications

angles were used to simulate the top chord of a steel joist member. A 2.0CD/20 steel deck
profile was used as a formwork and reinforcement for the concrete. Since the nominal
dimensions of the steel deck profile were longer than the required dimensions, the deck was
hand-cut to meet the concrete slab dimensions. The edges of the corrected profile were
carefully ground to provide an even finish. To prevent the deck from being placed
unsymmetrically, the central trough was located at the center of the steel section. The ribs of
the decking run in the short dimension, perpendicular to the steel members. Two studs of the
same diameter (13 mm or 16 mm) were placed in the same trough to predict the behavior of
the system when they are in the weak or strong side of the stiffener. The horizontal distance
between the studs was 152 mm from center to center.

According to the recommendations given by the Eurocode 4 (EC4) [17], two concrete batches
were horizontally poured to replicate actual slab casting in the field. Average values for two
different batches after 276 days were calculated in four groups resulting in an average
concrete strength of 44 MPa, and the corresponding elastic modulus of 3.09x105 MPa.

Fig. 4 - Details of the standard and modified push-out test setup.

Two types of shear stud anchors welded onto the specimens at two different locations, strong
and weak positions, were tested in this research. Type A low carbon steel stud anchors of 13
mm (HCA 1/2x3-5/8MS mild steel) were placed in twelve specimens, half in the strong and
half in the weak position. Type A low carbon steel stud anchors of 16 mm (HCA 5/8x4-
3/16MS) were placed in twelve specimens, half in the strong and half in the weak position.
Both diameters had a required minimum tensile strength of 420 MPa, a minimum yield
strength of 340 MPa, and a minimum elongation of 17% at 51 mm.

A 650 kN capacity, single ended actuator connected to both a force transducer and a hydraulic
manifold, was used to load the specimen in compression. A 25-mm steel plate was placed on
top of the angles to distribute the load across the entire cross-sectional area. Thin steel
sheeting was used to shim the spaces between the steel angles and the plate to prevent uneven
surfaces. Lateral bracing system was placed at 152 mm from the bottom of the specimen to

-762-
 Proceedings TEMM2018 / CNME2018

prevent the overturning moment at the base. The hydraulic actuator was connected to a MTS
Flextest-100 scanner equipment that controlled the applied force and displacement
procedures. Additionally, a data acquisition software was used to acquire, reduce, and store
data from a scanner connected to four string potentiometers.

According to EC4, load was first applied in increments up to 40% of the expected failure
capacity and then cycled 25 times between 5% and 40% of the expected failure load. For this
initial stage in the loading procedure, the actuator was running in a force controlled mode.
After this stage was completed, the actuator was run in a displacement controlled mode at a
rate of 0.5 mm/minute up to a relative end level displacement of 13 mm. This procedure was
done to ensure that the failure did not occur in less than 15 minutes, as stipulated in the code.
The longitudinal slip between each concrete slab and the steel section was measured
continuously during loading. The slip was measured until the load dropped to 20% below the
maximum load.

An accepted alternate loading procedure consisted on loading the specimens by the actuator in
force controlled up to 40% of the expected failure load and then displacement controlled at a
rate of 0.5 mm/minute until failure. It was determined that was no difference between the
cyclic loading procedure and the alternate monotonic loading procedure.

Four string potentiometers were attached to all test specimens to measure slips between the
concrete and steel in the areas surrounding the four studs embedded in each specimen, two per
slab. However, due to the highly sensitive instrumentation used, data noise was produced. To
avoid any distortion in the test data, the string potentiometers were tightly screwed to a steel
angle bracket glued to the steel section. The strings were hooked to another angle bracket
glued to the steel deck profile. Only the studs placed on the failed side were considered.

TESTS AND RESULTS

Strong nonlinear behavior of the shear stud anchor was first identified by [18]. They derived
an exponential function as shown in equation 1.4.

( )
α
V = Vu 1 − e − β us 1.4

where Vu is the connector average strength, us is the slip, and α and β are constants. In this
research, two experimental curves were obtained to represent the stud behavior. Constant
values for 13-mm connector are Vu = 47 kN, α = 0.93, and β = 13226 m-1. Values for 16-mm
connector are Vu = 62 kN, α = 0.98, and β = 13350 m-1 [19]. In both cases, failure is assumed
to occur when the maximum slip along the beam is reached.
Numerical and experimental solutions of the 13-mm and 16-mm shear stud anchor behavior
are presented in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. A maximum slip of 3 mm is shown to represent
the initial trend of the method up to 50% of the slip ductility defined in [17]. The curves show
an initial tangent stiffness that was not found in the experimental test. The authors believe that
the experimental initial condition of the specimen was not taken into consideration (e.g.
friction between the steel deck and concrete), and a more advance numerical model is needed
to consider this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the reliability of the proposed setup here has good
agreement with the experimental overall behavior.

-763-
 Track-E: Civil and Structural Engineering Applications

Fig. 5 - Numerical solution for 13mm - strong and Fig. 6 - Numerical solution for 16mm - strong and
13mm - weak solution. 16mm - weak solution.

Maximum stress at the base of the shear stud anchor were obtained from four different models
to compare the accuracy of the FE program on predicting the failure mode and behavior of the
experimental push-out test. Figures 7 and 8 show the stress resultant at the shear stud level
when 16 mm connectors are placed in the strong and weak position. It is evident that the
physics of the problem (e.g. stud behavior, deck separations) are in good agreement with the
numerical solution.

Fig. 7 - Graphical visualization of the push-out Fig. 8 - Graphical visualization of the push-out
test for 16 mm stud diameter placed in the weak test for 16 mm stud diameter placed in the strong
position. position.

CONCLUSIONS
A finite element model of a new push-out test configuration has been developed to investigate
a cost-effective alternative to full-scale experiments. The accurate and reliable three-
dimensional finite element model has been developed to investigate the behavior of the shear
stud anchor used in a new push-out test configuration. The commercial finite element
software ANSYS was used for the modelling, and which required strategies to be
implemented in the study. The material components of the system and the boundary
conditions were fully simulated. The material non-linearity of the concrete slab, steel sections,
and stud anchors were implemented and compared to an experimental approximation. The
parametric study consisted on the study of two different stud diameters and two stud
positions.
Regarding the correlation between the finite element prediction and the experimental results,
the numerical model has proved its efficiency and accuracy in predicting characteristics of the
plastic trend of the load-slip relationship. However, the initial stiffness appears to be higher in
the experimental results. This condition seems to be related with physical interactions (e.g.
friction) that were not included in the numerical approach. The authors believe these
differences can be neglected if the approach is to be implemented for office designs.

-764-
 Proceedings TEMM2018 / CNME2018

Finally, similar deformed shapes were obtained in the FE model when compared to the
experimental deformation found in the 16-mm stud diameter push-out tests.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge support from Universidad de Santiago de Chile through project
DICYT N°051618YC.

REFERENCES
[1]-Lam, D., & El-Lobody, E. (2005). Behavior of headed stud shear connectors in composite
beam. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(1), 96-107.

[2]-Yanez, S. J., Dinehart, D. W., & Santhanam, S. (2017). Composite steel joist analysis
using experimental stiffness factor from push-out tests. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 137, 1-7.

[3]-Nguyen, H. T., & Kim, S. E. (2009). Finite element modeling of push-out tests for large
stud shear connectors. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(10-11), 1909-1920.

[4]-Al-Hadithy, L. K., Aziz, K. I., & AL-Alusi, M. R. M. (2009). Experimental and Finite
Element Investigation on the Load-slip behavior of Composite Push Out Segments using
various Shear Connectors. Journal of Engineering, 15(3), 25.

[5]-Al-Hadithy, L. K., & Hassan, M. A. J. (2016). Finite Element Modeling and Theoretical
Analysis of SFRSCC Composite Beams Strengthened by Bottom Tensioned Steel Plates. Al-
Nahrain Journal for Engineering Sciences, 19(2), 228-245.

[6]-Easterling, W., et al. (1993). "Strength of Shear Studs in Steel Deck on Composite Beams
and Joists." AISC Engineering Journal 30: 44-55.

[7]-Widjaja, B. R. (1997). Analysis and design of steel deck-concrete composite slabs

(Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).

[8]-Xue, W., Ding, M., Wang, H., & Luo, Z. (2008). Static behavior and theoretical model of
stud shear connectors. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 13(6), 623-634.

[9]-Wang, Q., Liu, Y., Luo, J., & Lebet, J. P. (2011, April). Experimental study on stud shear
connectors with large diameter and high strength. In Electric Technology and Civil
Engineering (ICETCE), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 340-343). IEEE.

[10]-Prakash, A., Anandavalli, N., Madheswaran, C. K., & Lakshmanan, N. (2012). Modified
push-out tests for determining shear strength and stiffness of HSS stud connector-
experimental study. International Journal of Composite Materials, 2(3), 22-31.

[11]-Swanson, J. A., & DeSalvo, G. J. (1989). ANSYS-Engineering analysis system user's

manual. Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., Elizabeth, Pa.

-765-
 Track-E: Civil and Structural Engineering Applications

[12]-Bangash, M. Y. H. (1989). Concrete and concrete structures: Numerical modelling and

applications.

[13]-Sebastian, W. M., & McConnel, R. E. (2000). Nonlinear FE analysis of steel-concrete

composite structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(6), 662-674.

[14]-Oguejiofor, E. C., & Hosain, M. U. (1997). Numerical analysis of push-out specimens

with perfobond rib connectors. Computers & Structures, 62(4), 617-624.

[15]-RAVEENDRA, B. R., Benipal, G. S., & Singh, A. K. (2005). Constitutive modelling of

concrete: an overview.

[16]-De Nardin, S., Almeida Filho, F. M., Oliveira Filho, J., Haach, V. G., & El Debs, A. L.
H. C. (2005). Non-linear analysis of the bond strength behavior on the steel-concrete interface
by numerical models and pull-out tests. In Structures Congress 2005: Metropolis and Beyond
(pp. 1-12).

[17]-Eurocode, C. E. N. (1992). 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures. part 1—

1: general rules and rules for buildings r S. German version ENV1994 一 O1—01.

[18]-Johnson, R. P., Molenstra, N., & EPPIB. (1991). Partial shear connection in composite
beams for buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 91(4), 679-704.

[19]-Yanez, S. J. (2015). Linear and nonlinear analytical stud anchor models for application
to composite steel joists (Doctoral dissertation, Villanova University).

[20]-González Méndez, Constanza and Maldonado Jara, Josefina (2017). Modelación no

lineal de la interacción acero-hormigón en sistemas colaborantes (Universidad de Santiago de
Chile).

-766-