Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 4 November 2014
Accepted 4 February 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Headed stud
Shear connector
Ultrahigh-performance concrete
Composite beam
Bridge slab deck
a b s t r a c t
Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) provides much higher compressive and tensile strength than
conventional concrete. UHPC is advantageous for use as a bridge slab deck owing to its higher strength, stiffness,
and durability. One drawback, however, is the fact that the joint region connecting the deck and girder generally
has a thicker cross-section to ensure proper shear connection, which hinders making the overall UHPC deck
thinner and lighter. In addition, the shear strength of stud shear connectors embedded in UHPC slab has not
been veried to be the same as that in a conventional concrete deck. This study investigates a stud shear
connector embedded in a UHPC deck through 15 push-out tests. The ultimate strength of the stud and relative
slips are measured. The test parameters were chosen to prove the feasibility of a thinner slab. The stud aspect
ratio, overall height-to-diameter, and cover thickness on top of the stud head requirement are also examined
to verify the existing geometrical constraints specied in the AASHTO LRFD and Eurocode-4 design codes for
UHPC decks. It was shown that the aspect ratio can be reduced from 4 to 3.1 without loss of shear strength of
the stud, and the cover could be reduced from 50 mm to 25 mm without causing a splitting crack at the UHPC
slab. However, the required ductility demand, 6 mm, was not realized in all cases. Therefore, the stud shear
connectors in a UHPC deck should be designed according to the elastic criterion.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) is an advanced composite
material consisting of a high-strength matrix and bers. It offers significantly superior compressive (N150 MPa) and tensile strength (N5 MPa)
compared to conventional concrete, as well as higher modulus of
elasticity (N40 GPa) [1]. It is typically made from a mixture of Portland
cement, silica fume, ller, ne aggregate, high-range water reducer,
water, and steel bers.
UHPC is being increasingly used worldwide in various components
of civil infrastructure. In particular, many studies have investigated its
application to bridge components such as girders, decks, and connection
joints owing to its higher strength, stiffness, and durability. Many
studies have investigated the use of UHPC as a deck slab component.
Saleem et al. [2,3] developed a low-prole UHPC deck system as an
alternative to an open-grid steel deck. Coreslab Structures Inc. developed a wafe-shaped UHPC panel that was installed in a bridge in Little
Cedar Creek, Wapello County, Iowa, US [4], and Aaleti and Sritharan
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 31 460 5391; fax: +82 31 460 5364.
E-mail addresses: zskim@skuniv.ac.kr (J.-S. Kim), origilon@kict.re.kr (J. Kwark),
cjoh@kict.re.kr (C. Joh), imysw@woosuk.ac.kr (S.-W. Yoo), eclip77@gmail.com (K.-C. Lee).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.02.001
0143-974X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
24
J.-S. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 108 (2015) 2330
thinnest sections of the UHPC deck are 32 mm (1.25 in.) [2,3] and
63.5 mm (2.5 in.) [47], a shear connection requires a signicantly
thick UHPC deck; this goes against the design objective of reducing
the self-weight and lowering the prole of the deck. This study investigates the structural behavior of stud shear connectors embedded in
UHPC decks of various thicknesses and conrms the validity of existing
design codes for this application.
Since 1960, composite structures have been widely used owing to
their structural efciency. They typically consist of a steel girder and
concrete deck that transfers shear force through suitable shear connectors such as angles, channel sections, headed studs, and perforated ribs.
Headed studs are used most commonly owing to their simple and quick
installation using a stud-welding gun and superior ductility than other
types of shear connectors.
The static strength of stud shear connectors was originally evaluated
based on Ollgaard et al.s [13] early experimental work. They showed
that the static strength of a stud shear connector is controlled by two
different failure mechanisms: surrounding concrete crushing failure, re0
q
0
f c Ec
sc F u Asc
where the resistance factor, sc, is taken as 0.85. Eurocode-4 [15] denes
the design static shear strength, PRd, as
2
P Rd
0:29d
q
0
f c Ec
0:8 F u Asc
v
where the partial factor, v, is taken as 1.25, and an aspect ratio factor, ,
which depends upon the stud height-to-diameter ratio, hsc/d, is taken as
0.2(hsc/d + 1) for 3 hsc/d 4 and 1 for hsc/d 4.
Different design codes have different resistance or partial factors. However, they are similar in that the left-hand side terms of Eqs. (1) and (2)
refer to concrete crushing failure in terms of the surrounding concrete
strength (f'c) and modulus of elasticity (Ec) but not the mechanical property of the embedded stud. Furthermore, the right-hand side terms of
Eqs. (1) and (2) refer to stud shank failure in terms of the ultimate tensile strength (Fu) of the stud but not the mechanical property of the surrounding concrete. The concrete crushing failure controls when the
Table 1
Push-out test specimens.
Specimen
group
Deck
thickness
(mm)
Diameter
(mm)
Aspect ratio
(height/diameter)
Normal
UHPC-I
UHPC-II
UHPC-III
UHPC-IV
150
150
100
100
75
100
100
65
50
50
22
22
16
16
16
4.5
4.5
4.1
3.1
3.1
Cover
thickness
(mm)
EA
50
50
35
50
25
3
3
3
3
3
J.-S. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 108 (2015) 2330
25
2. Experimental program
Table 2
UHPC mixture.
w/b ratio
Cement
Silica
fume
Filler
Fine
aggregate
Water
reducer
Steel
ber
0.07
1.0
0.25
0.3
1.1
0.016
16.5 mm 1%
19.5 mm 1%
when following the AASHTO LRFD design code [13], the deck thickness
should be at least four times the diameter plus 50 mm cover, for a thickness of at least 118 mm. This is one reason why the composite joint is
chunky.
The Eurocode-4 provision 6.6.5.1 [15] regulates that the surface of a
connector should not extend less than 30 mm clear above the bottom
reinforcement, and provision 6.6.5.2 regulates that the cover should
not be less than that required for reinforcement adjacent to the same
surface of concrete. As the UHPC deck does not always enclose reinforcement, applying the cover thickness given in the Eurocode-4 design
code [15] is not possible.
The UHPC material provides much higher strength and durability
[1], and therefore, the deck thickness can be much less than when
using conventional concrete. However, this may not be the case at the
deck girder joint owing to the geometrical constraints for the embedded
shear connectors to ensure the transfer of the longitudinal shear force.
This study investigates the static strength and behavioral validity of
stud shear connectors for a thin UHPC solid slab deck.
Several factors limit the use of stud shear connectors in a thin UHPC
deck slab. The rst is concern over whether the stud shear connector
embedded in UHPC provides equivalent static strength compared to
that in conventional concrete. The second is concern related to the geometrical properties; the installation of stud shear connectors is subject
to geometrical constraints such as the height-to-diameter ratio and
cover thickness over the stud head, and existing design codes may
not, in fact, allow the use of stud shear connectors for thin deck slabs.
The last is concern over the ductility provided by stud shear connectors because the strength of the surrounding concrete is much higher
than that of conventional concrete such that the structural behavior
may differ from stud shear connectors embedded in conventional
concrete.
Back
BL
BR
120mm
FL
FR
100mm
Front
Transverse
Displacement
26
J.-S. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 108 (2015) 2330
500
Stress [MPa]
400
300
200
16 mm
100
22mm
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Strain
Fig. 5. Direct tension test result on bare stud specimens.
test was conducted on the middle third of the stud shank to determine
the steel shear strength; this test was conducted using an apparatus
similar to that used by Anderson and Meinheit [18].
Table 2 provides details of the mixture of the UHPC. Steel bers of
two different lengths, 16.5 and 19.5 mm, are mixed together with 1%
volume each. The UHPC is designed for a characteristic compressive
strength of 180 MPa, the measured minimum strength was 200 MPa;
measured minimum tensile strength was 18 MPa, and the measured
modulus of elasticity was 4.5 105 MPa. The measured compressive
strength of the Normal specimen group was 35 MPa.
Steel sections used for simulating a steel girder have width, depth,
web thickness, and ange thickness of 300, 300, 10, and 15 mm, respectively. UHPC cannot easily be cast in the vertical direction, and the casting direction may affect the test result. Therefore, the steel section is cut
at the middle of the web in the longitudinal direction and the cast on top
of a ange to simulate the eld application casting direction, as shown
in Fig. 2. The specimens were steam-cured and the initial curing temperature was 40 C, and it was increased by 10 C every hour up to 90 C.
Steam-curing was done for three days and the temperature was gradually decreased at the end of the curing process. After curing, the pushout specimens were prepared with two separate faces bolted together
at the cut section of the web using an M24 high-tension bolt.
The prepared specimens were loaded using a 2000 kN universal test
machine. Assuming stud shank failure from Eq. (1), the failure load was
expected to be 1368 kN considering eight studs for each specimen. According to the Eurocode-4-1-1 design code [16], cyclic loads were applied to stabilize the specimen and break the bond between the steel
section and the deck. The cyclic load was 5%40% of the expected failure
load with loading speed of 0.82 kN/s. After cyclic loading, the specimens
Table 3
Stud tension and Guillotine test result.
3.2. Ultimate strength and initial stiffness of stud embedded in UHPC deck
Stud
diameter
[mm]
Tension test
Guillotine test
(per interface)
Yield
force
[kN]
Yield
stress
[MPa]
Ultimate
force [kN]
Ultimate
stress [MPa]
Ultimate
force [kN]
Ultimate
stress
[MPa]
16
22
77
141
384
372
97
177
484
466
78
145
390
380
The most important data obtained from the push-out test are the applied ultimate load at failure. The resulting ultimate failure load (Pmax)
and relative slips are analyzed by the procedure given in the
Eurocode-4-1-1 design code [16], which denes the characteristic resistance (PRk) as the minimum failure load is reduced by 10%. The slip capacity of a specimen (u) is taken as the maximum slip measured at the
characteristic load level. The characteristic slip capacity (uk) is taken as
J.-S. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 108 (2015) 2330
27
500
16mm
22mm
Stress [MPa]
400
300
200
100
0
10
12
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 6. Guillotine double shear test result for bare stud specimens.
The measured static strengths of the stud shear connector embedded in the UHPC are 2%13% higher than the nominal tensile strength
of the stud itself, and they correspond to the AASHTO LRFD design equation [14]. They are evaluated 27%42% more conservatively if the
Eurocode-4 design equation [15] is applied. Therefore, the shear
strength of stud shear connector in UHPC is adequate to be evaluated
in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD [14] rather than the Eurocode-4
[15] design code.
The initial stiffness of stud shear connectors is assumed innite according to the strength design concept. In reality, they show some initial
slip in the early loading stage owing to surrounding concrete cracking
and stud deforming. The initial stiffness is calculated from the relative
slip between 10% and 40% of the ultimate load, as shown in Table 6.
The average stiffness of Normal specimens is 336 kN/mm for single
studs, and UHPC-I specimens show the highest stiffness of 762 kN/mm.
UHPC-III specimens have a stiffness of 736 kN/mm, which is comparable
to that of UHPC-I specimens. UHPC-II and UHPC-IV specimens have
slightly smaller stiffnesses (598 and 538 kN/mm, respectively) than
UHPC-I and UHPC-III.
Oehlers and Coughlan [19] proposed an equation for estimating initial shear stiffness from 116 push-out tests:
0
K si P max =d 0:160:0017 f c
where the initial stud stiffness (Ksi) is obtained from the shear stud
strength (Pmax), diameter of stud (d), and concrete compressive
strength (fc).
Table 4
Push-out test results for single stud.
Specimens
Normal
UHPC-I
UHPC-II
UHPC-III
UHPC-IV
Fig. 7. Typical failure of stud after guillotine double shear test.
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Pmax [kN]
PRk [kN]
u [mm]
uk [mm]
158
148
145
198
193
212
123
120
114
105
103
111
109
109
117
130
15.68
13.56
10.89
7.66
5.73
7.18
4.98
4.02
4.21
4.84
5.93
5.64
5.42
5.04
5.18
9.80
174
103
92
98
5.16
3.62
4.36
4.54
J.-S. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 108 (2015) 2330
28
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
UHPC-I-B
0.6
UHPC-II-C
0.4
UHPC-III-B
UHPC-IV-B
0.2
0
Table 6
Stiffness of a stud shear connector.
Specimens
Normal
UHPC-I
Table 5
Test results compared to shear strength from the direct tension test and design codes.
Specimens
PRk/Pu_test
PRk/AASHTO [AscFu]
PRk/Eurocode [0.8AscFu]
Normal
UHPC-I
UHPC-II
UHPC-III
UHPC-IV
0.76
1.02
1.10
0.98
1.03
0.85
1.06
1.18
1.06
1.11
0.99
1.32
1.48
1.32
1.39
UHPC-II
UHPC-III
UHPC-IV
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Stiffness [kN/mm]
309
379
322
754
714
816
532
571
689
1088
535
585
340
487
788
336
762
598
736
538
J.-S. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 108 (2015) 2330
29
constant longitudinal pitch; instead, the elastic theory and the resulting
variable longitudinal pitches should be applied.
4. Conclusions
This study investigates the structural performance and validity of
stud shear connectors for a thin UHPC slab deck. The following conclusions can be derived from the test program:
thickness of the cover over the stud head can be relaxed to at least
25 mm for a UHPC slab deck.
30
J.-S. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 108 (2015) 2330
[7] Aaleti S, Sritharan S. Design of ultrahigh-performance concrete wafe deck for accelerated bridge construction. Transport Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2014;2406:1222.
[8] Chen D, El-Hacha R. Behaviour of hybrid FRPUHPC beams in exure under fatigue
loading. Compos Struct 2011;94:25366.
[9] El-Hacha R, Chen D. Behaviour of hybrid FRP-UHPC beams subjected to static exural loading. Compos Part B 2012;43:58293.
[10] Chen D, El-Hacha R. Damage tolerance and residual strength of hybrid FRP-UHPC
beam. Eng Struct 2013;49:27583.
[11] Nguyen H, Mutsuyoshi H, Zatar W. Flexural behavior of hybrid composite beams.
Transport Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2013;2332:5363.
[12] Nguyen H, Zatar W, Mutsuyoshi H. Hybrid ber-reinforced polymer girders topped
with segmental precast concrete slabs for accelerated bridge construction. Transport
Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2014;2407:8393.
[13] Ollgaard JW, Slutter RG, Fisher JW. Shear strength of stud connectors in lightweight
and normal-weight concrete. AISC Eng J 1971;8(2):5564.
[14] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specications. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials; 2012.
[15] CEN. 1994-2 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 2:
General Rules and Rules for Bridges; 2005.
[16] CEN. 1994-4-4 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings; 2004.
[17] AWS. Structural welding code-steel, AWS D1.1:2000. 17th ed. Miami, FL: American
Welding Society; 2000.
[18] Anderson NS, Meinheit DF. Design criteria for headed stud group in shear: Part
1Steel capacity and back edge effects. PCI J 2000;25:4675.
[19] Oehlers DJ, Coughlan CG. The shear stiffness of stud shear connections in composite
beams. J Constr Steel Res 1986;6(4):27384.
[20] Shim C-S, Lee P-G, Yoon T-Y. Static behavior of large stud shear connectors. Eng
Struct 2004;26(12):185360.
[21] Xu C, Sugiura K. FEM analysis of failure development of group studs shear connector
under effects of concrete strength and stud dimension. Eng Fail Anal 2013;35:
34354.
[22] Hegger J, Feldmann M, Rauscher S, Hechler O. Load-deformation behavior of shear
connectors in high strength concrete subjected to static and fatigue loading. IABSE
Symposium Report Budapest 2006: Responding to Tomorrows Challenge in Structural Engineering. IABSE; 2006. p. 1724.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.