J. Construct. Steel Res. Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.

15-29, 1996
Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0143-974X(94)00036-0 0143-974X/96 $15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Push-out Tests on Studs in High Strength

and Normal Strength Concrete

Li An & Krister Cederwall

Division of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University of Technology,
412 96 G o t h e n b u r g , Sweden

(Received 4 M a r c h 1994; revised version received 29 June 1994; accepted 12 August 1994)

ABSTRACT

Some test results from push-out tests of studs in normal and high strength concrete
are presented. It is found that the concrete compressive strength significantly affects
the strength of the stud connections. Increase of the transverse reinforcement in the
concrete slabs has a negligible effect when high strength concrete is used and some
effect when normal concrete is used. The present design code is not adequate to
estimate the shear strength of studs embedded in high strength concrete and it is
suggested that a design formula that takes account of the interaction between the
studs and the surrounding concrete should be used.

NOTATION

As Cross-sectional area of connectors

d Diameter of stud shank
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete
Es Modulus of elasticity of stud steel
fc,cub Mean value of cube compression strength of concrete
fore Mean value of cylinder compression strength of concrete
fck Characteristic cylinder strength of concrete
fot Mean value of splitting tensile strength of concrete cube
fu Tensile strength of stud material
h Overall height of stud
P Shear load of stud
PRd Shear resistance of headed stud
Pu Measured maximum load per stud

15
16 Li An, K. Cederwall

Coefficient ~ = 0.2 [(h/d) + 1"] for 3 ~<h/d <~4; ~ = 1.0 for h/d > 4
Relative deviation of measured and estimated values
Elongation of stud at fracture
Unit weight of concrete

INTRODUCTION

Headed stud shear connectors are the most widely used shear connectors
in concrete-composite construction. The strength of a stud depends on the
stud details (height, diameter and strength), as well as on the concrete
environment, such as concrete property and reinforcement detailing.
Present design methods in the codes for the calculation of the shear
strength of studs are based on the test results of studs embedded in normal
strength concrete. As the use of high strength concrete becomes more
common, it is of interest to study the behaviour and shear strength of the
studs in high strength concrete.

DESCRIPTION OF TESTS

Preparation of specimens

The specimens were prepared according to the requirements of the

Editorial Panel for EC 4.1 Eight push-out specimens were divided into
four pairs, according to the concrete strength and the amount of reinforce-
ment in concrete slabs. One or two layers of reinforcement mesh were used
in the concrete slabs. Each pair included two nominally identical speci-
mens. In the notation of the specimens, the first number indicates the
number of the reinforcement layers in the concrete slabs and the second
number is to distinguish two identical specimens. For simplicity, the high
strength concrete is abbreviated as HSC and the normal strength concrete
as NSC.
As an example, Fig. 1 shows the details of the specimen with two layers
of the reinforcement mesh. Reinforcement bars with a measured yield
strength of 509 M P a were used in both transverse and longitudinal
directions. The strain gauges were placed on the reinforcement bars at
positions 1, 2 and 3. The details of the specimen with one layer of
reinforcement mesh are the same as that in Fig. 1, but without the top
layer of the reinforcement mesh.
Four studs, 19 m m in diameter and 75 m m in height, were welded to
the flange of the steel beam in each concrete slab. The dimensions of the
 I ,kol
Push-out tests on studs in concrete 17

stra gauge
f
,J x

IIIII I"° 1
Io ol
1

II °ot:'° I-
' 3
- ',
3 1
I

150 1.~5o + +lso ~ 2so 4"1z° ~1

q¢ l
, 600

bottc m l a y e r
-~50 lO~m top layer

41q "' 30 q i

70 ',, 70 ,_

Fig. 1. Details of specimens with two layers of the reinforcement mesh.

weld collar of all 64 studs were measured. The mean values of the height
and the diameter of the weld collars were 4.54mm ( > 0 . 2 d = 3 . 8 m m ,
i.e. minimum height in Ref. 2) and 23.86 m m ( > 1.25 d = 23.75 mm, i.e. mini-
m u m diameter in Ref. 2), respectively.

Property of materials

The ten:~ile tests were carried out on studs of the same diameter, but with
length of 200 mm. Both 75 and 200 m m studs were produced at the same
time and with the same material. The outside of the head of the stud was
threaded, so a steel bar could be screwed to the head, as shown in
Fig. 2(a). Two strain gauges were placed on the shank of the stud. The
measured result is shown as curve A in Fig. 2(b), which gave the yield
strength and modulus of elasticity of the stud. A transducer was fixed
between the upper and the lower plates of a testing machine to measure
the elongation of the stud. The measured result is shown as curve B in
Fig. 2(b). The yield strength of the stud was defined as the stress at the
0.2% permanent strain. The mean values of the yield strength, tensile
strength, modulus of elasticity and the elongation at fracture of the stud
were determined to be 418 MPa, 519 MPa, 207 G P a and 10-9%, respect-
ively. It should be noted that the original gauge length for measurement of
elongation is longer than that required by the Swedish Standard, 3 where
the gauge length is 5d ( = 9 5 mm). Therefore, the elongation obtained in
this test was somewhat smaller than the value measured according to the
Standard.
18 Li An, K. Cederwall

or
upperplateof testing machine i

O'mex
~:--~--f--;"
,' ,' " I
aro.2

strain gaUgestu( t °
/
/
L_-__'~ ' )e
lower plata of testing machine 0.2% sI
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Measurement of the property of the stud. (a) Test set-up and measurement.
(b) Stress-strain diagrams of the stud in tension.

The concrete used in the NSC specimens was provided by a ready-mix

factory. For HSC specimens, three batches of concrete of the same recipe
were made. Standard cylinders (diameter = 150 m m and length = 300 mm)
and cubes (length = 150 mm) were cast at the same time as the push-out
specimens. The tensile strength of concrete was obtained from the cube
splitting test. The compression strength was obtained from both the
cylinder and the cube compression tests. One cylinder from each batch of
the HSC specimens was used to determine the modulus of elasticity of the
concrete. The test procedure was mainly according to the requirements of
the Swedish Standard. 4 The mean value of the modulus of elasticity of the
HSC was measured to be 34.08 GPa.

Loading procedure and measurement

The push-out specimens were tested in a hydraulic testing machine with a

capacity of 1000 tons. The load was first applied to 40% of the expected
failure load with an increment of 50 kN, and then cycled 25 times between
5 and 40% of the expected failure load. A subsequent load was then
applied and the failure of the specimen occurred in about 30 min.
The longitudinal relative slip between the steel beam and the concrete
slab, the separation of the concrete slabs from the steel beam at the
position of the studs and the strains in the reinforcement were measured.
Properties of the concrete at the testing day and the cyclic load are listed
in Table 1. More details about the tests can be found in Ref. 5.
 Push-out tests on studs in concrete 19

TABLE 1

Test fc,cub fct f~m Ec Density Cyclic load

no. (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (kg/m 3) (kN)

NSC11 38"07 3"22 30-77 27.1 b 2354 50-400

NSC12 38"73 -- 30-77 a 27.0 b 2347 45-360
NSC21 38"73 -- 30-77 a 27.0 b 2347 45-360
NSC22 40-34 3-31 31-79 27-4 b 2344 45-360
HSCll 100.11 5.20 86.11 34"08 2388 60-480
HSC12 95.85 5-66 81-26 34.08 2386 50-400
HSC21 95"85 5.66 81.26 34-08 2386 60-480
HSC22 109.33 6'0 91'24 34-08 2401 60-480

aThe same cylinder strength is assumed for specimens NSC12 and NSC21 as that in
specimen N S C l l , because they were tested one day after N S C l l .
b Ec was estimated from the ACI formula.

TEST RESULTS

Cracks

For NSC specimens, the maximum load was obtained when cracks were
observed[ at the top surface of the slab. There was a slight difference in the
crack distribution between the specimens with one layer and with two
layers of reinforcement mesh. The crack at the top surface of the specimens
with two layers of reinforcement mesh had a tendency to run parallel to
the long edge of the top surface of the slab. The cracks also propagated at
the side surface. For specimens with one layer of reinforcement mesh, the
cracks at the top surface had a tendency to develop around the studs.
Damage of the concrete was concentrated mainly to the area around the
studs.
In the test of HSC specimens, the loading ended when one of the two
slabs separated from the steel beam. Fracture of the studs occurred after
the maximum load was reached. No cracks on the outside surface of the
concrete slab formed during loading. After the test, several very small
cracks (width ~<0-1 mm) were found at the concrete surface that was in
contact with the steel beam. These cracks formed around the studs and in
a radial direction. The push-out specimens seemed to reach their maxi-
m u m capacities when the small cracks developed. The interaction between
the concrete and the studs was partly lost. The studs strained more and
then fractured.
20 Li An, K. Cederwall

Strain measurement in reinforcement

Strains in the reinforcement were measured during the test. Figure 3 gives
the measured strains for the specimen HSC21, where two layers of
reinforcement mesh were used. The results showed that the strain of the
bottom reinforcement was greater than that of the top reinforcement at the
corresponding positions; this indicated that the bottom reinforcement
took more load than the top reinforcement. The results also showed that
the strain at position 1 was very small. Generally, the strains in the
reinforcement were at a rather low level before the m a x i m u m load, which
indicated that the effect of the reinforcement was mainly to confine the
concrete. The same observations were obtained from the NSC specimens.

Load-slip diagrams and separation

A slip between the steel beam and the concrete slabs occurred when the
load was applied. The m a x i m u m increase of slip due to 25 load cycles was
0-13 m m for NSC and 0.05 m m for HSC specimens. The measured l o a d -
slip curves are shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the slip at the m a x i m u m

Load [kN]

~8°l~p f

80~
~ / J~
/ / 2/ ~ - ~ ~ > - ~ ~Po°a:totn~ "'°°
I~j~ ~) * Position2,bo,
40 ~ / ~ Position2,top

-0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4

Strain
[%o]
Fig. 3. Load-strain curves of the specimen HSC21; top= measurement from the top layer
of the reinforcement mesh and bot---measurement from the bottom layer of the reinforce-
ment mesh.
 Push-out tests on studs in concrete 21

Load [kN]
'160 •

'120 •

80.

40 . ~ o I-ISC11
~ HSC12

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Average Slip [mml

(a)

Load [kNl
'180

"135

45
HSC22
0 I I I I I I I I I

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Average Slip [mm]

(b)
Fig. 4. Load-slip diagrams of the specimens. (a) Specimens with one layer of reinforcement
mesh. (b) Specimens with two layers of reinforcement mesh.

load was of the same order of magnitude for both NSC and HSC
specimens, ranging from 3.5 to 6"0 mm. The NSC specimens were subjec-
ted to additional loading and deformation after the maximum load was
reached. Very ductile behaviour of the studs was observed. In the HSC
specimens, however, the studs were sheared-off from the steel beam after
the maximum load and the descending branch of load-slip curve was steep
and short.
The separation of the slabs from the steel beam was measured. The
amount of separation at the maximum load was also on the same level for
both NSC and HSC specimens, ranging from 0"4 to 1.3 mm.
22 Li An, K. Cederwall

Failure modes of studs

Some of the stud broke during the test in both NSC and HSC specimens.
In NSC specimens, 11 fractured studs were examined. Eight of them
fractured in the shank of the stud and three of them fractured in the
welding zone. In HSC specimens, six of the eight concrete slabs were
separated from the steel beam in the test. Nineteen out of 24 studs
fractured in the shank, mostly at the face between the shank of the stud
and the weld collar. Five studs fractured at the welding zone. Figure 5
shows the deformation of the studs in the concrete slab. Much smaller
deformation of the stud was observed in the HSC specimen than in the
NSC specimen.

Maximum load

The concrete strength had great effect on the load-bearing capacity of the
specimens. The maximum load of HSC specimens was about 34% higher
than that of NSC specimens, as indicated in Table 2. The specimens with
two layers of reinforcement mesh had slightly higher capacity than those
with one layer in NSC specimens. The increase was about 6%. However,

HSC22

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Deformation and fracture of studs in the concrete. (a) Stud in the NSC specimen. (b)
Stud in the HSC specimen.
 Push-out tests on studs in concrete 23

TABLE 2

Test Pu PRdl PRd2 P~ P 61 a ¢~2a g3 a

no. (kN) eqn (1) eqn (2) (kN) eqn (3)
(kN) (kN) (kN)

NSCll 115"0 103"0 94"6 131'1 130'7 0'104 0"177 0"003

NSC12 111'5 103"0 94'4 127'1 131"3 0"076 0"153 -0-033
NSC21 120'8 103'0 94'4 137'7 131'3 0-147 0'219 0-047
NSC22 119'1 103"0 96"7 135'8 134'0 0-135 0"188 0'013
HSC 11 156"8 103'0 117'7 178'8 201-0 0"343 0"249 - 0"124
HSC12 158"6 103'0 117-7 180-8 198"0 0"351 0'258 -0"095
HSC21 151"9 103"0 117-7 173"2 198"0 0'322 0-225 -0"143
HSC22 161"0 103"0 117-7 183'5 207"3 0"36 0-269 -0"130

a 61 = (Pu- PRdl)/Pu, 62 = (Pu -- PRd2)/Pu, ¢~3 (P" -- P)/P'.

=

no obvious difference in the capacity due to the a m o u n t of reinforcement

in the slabs was found in the HSC specimens.

EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS

Shear resistance of studs

In the 1985 draft of Eurocode 4, 6 the shear resistance of a headed stud is

determined by

(la)

PRO=0"36 ctd 2 f~x/f~kE~1 (lb)

])vc

whichever is smaller. The partial safety factor 7va should be taken as 1.25
and 7v¢ as 1.5 for the ultimate limit state.
In the latest proposal of Eurocode 4, 2 the shear resistance of a headed
stud in a solid slab is determined by

Czd 2 ) 1
PRd=0"8fu T 7v (2a)

P,a=0"29 ~ d z f~ckE¢ i (2b)

7v
24 Li An, K. Cederwall

whichever is smaller. The partial safety factor 7v should be taken as

1.25.
Oehlers and Johnson proposed one formula to include contributions
from both studs and concrete. 7 The mean strength of stud connectors in
the push-out specimens could be determined by

P = 5"O A s f " \ K , / \ f u ,] (3)

where fcu is the cube strength.

To the writers' knowledge, there is, as yet, no formula that is specially
used for studs in high strength concrete. We used the above equations to
estimate the shear resistance of studs, although they were based on tests of
specimens with normal strength concrete. The partial safety factors were
taken as 1.0 in the calculation. The measured strength and the modulus of
elasticity of the materials were used; 6i denotes the relative deviation
between measured and calculated strengths. The results are summarised in
Table 2. Because the modulus of elasticity of the NSC was not measured, it
can be estimated from the ACI formula: Ec = 33 o915x / ~ , where co is the unit
weight of the concrete in pcf and f~ is the cylinder strength in psi. a The
measurement of the modulus of elasticity was carried out in our laboratory
for concrete of grade K40. The measured Ec was 29.2 G P a when the cylinder
compression strength and the density of concrete were equal to 36.9 M P a
and 2340 kg/m 3, respectively. 9 If the ACI formula was used in this case, it
gave the estimation, E¢ = 29.4 GPa. Rather good agreement between the
estimated and the measured value was obtained. Therefore, the ACI formula
was used for the NSC specimens. The estimated E¢ is listed in Table 1.
As shown in Fig. 6, the expressions in eqns (1) and (2) define the upper
limit for the shear resistance of stud connectors. The estimation from
eqn (1) underestimated the shear resistance of studs by about 11% for
NSC specimens and by about 34% for HSC specimens. Equation (2), from
the latest proposal of EC 4, underestimated the shear resistance by about
18% for NSC specimens and by about 25% for HSC specimens. The
difference between HSC and NSC specimens on the safety margin has
been improved in the latter case. The main shortcoming of eqns (1) and (2)
is that the shear resistance of the stud is determined separately by the
concrete or by the stud. The interaction between the two materials has not
been taken into account in these equations.
Equation (3) was derived from tests of 100 mm studs. The strength of
100 m m studs was about 14% higher than that of 75 m m studs, as shown
in the British Standard for Composite Structures} ° Therefore, to make it
 Push-out tests on studs in concrete 25

@@@
150

100

• NSC specimens
• HSC specimens
50
. . . . Eq. {11

Eq. 12)
i i i
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Fig. 6. Test results and EC 4 formulae.

comparable with calculated results from eqn (3), the measured load per
stud, Pu, was increased by 14%, denoted as P'u in Table 2. The comparison
showed that an estimation based on eqn (3) agreed well with the test
results for NSC specimens, but overestimated the strength of the studs by
about 12% for HSC specimens. This formula combines contributions from
both studs and concrete, could take into account the increase of concrete
strength and obtain reasonable results for both NSC and HSC specimens.
It is also obvious that the estimation can be improved by changing the
parameters in the formula, which can be achieved by regression of the test
results from high strength concrete.

Load-slip relationships

The measured load-slip curves had similar shapes for the same type of the
concrete. The curves after the cyclic load were non-dimensionally drawn in
Fig. 7. An empirical formula for the load-slip relationship of continuously
loaded :specimens was proposed in Ref. 11.

P
-- = (1 - e - 18s)0.4 (4)
Pu

The load-slip relationship for the reloading condition was proposed in

Ref. 12 and also cited in Ref. 11. The expression is

P 80s
Pu - 1 + 80s (5)
 26 Li An, K. Cederwall

P/Pu

1 .~...~.-..-¢7~..

°'° x .sc22
o,,/,;,? ....

0 v i ~ I

0 2 4 6
Slip [mini

(a)

P/Pu

1 ~~~..----..-

I"" HSC22
0,4
. . . . Eq. (4)

0,2 ....... Eq. (5)

- - Eq. (6b)
0 p ~ t
0 2 4 6
Slip [mm]

(I,)
Fig. 7. Test results and regression curves. (a) NSC specimens. (b) HSC specimens.

In eqns (4) and (5), s is the average slip in inches. Two functions are
compared with the measured results in Fig. 7(a) for N S C specimens and in
Fig. 7(b) for HSC specimens.
In our tests, the cyclic loading produced slip between the concrete slabs
and the steel beam. The amount of slip was greater in N S C specimens
than in HSC specimens. This resulted in differences in the beginning
branch between the measured and estimated curves from eqns (4) and
(5). The estimation based on eqn (5) underestimated the shear capacity
for both HSC and N S C specimens. Based on our test results, a non-linear
 Push-out tests on studs in concrete 27

regression was carried out. The measured values before and at the
maximum load were used in the analysis. The expressions of the load-slip
relationship after the cyclic load are given by

P 2"24(s- 0"058)
P---~= 1 + 1"98(s-0"058) for NSC specimens (6a)

P 4.44(s - 0.031)
for HSC specimens (6b)
Pu 1 + 4.24(s-0.031)

where s is the slip in mm. The expressions are shown in Fig. 7 with solid
lines. It can be seen that eqn (6a) slightly underestimated the slip due to the
cyclic loading and overestimated slightly the capacity of the studs after the
slip of 4 mm. It gives better estimation of load-slip relationships than eqns
(4) and (5). For the high strength concrete, eqn (6b) gives good agreement
with test results.

SUMMARY

The concrete strength significantly affected the shear resistance of stud

connectors. The increase of the maximum shear load was about 34% when
the cylinder compressive strength of the concrete increased from 30 to
81 MPa. The test showed that the amount of slip at the maximum load
was on tlhe same level for both NSC and HSC specimens. However, ductile
behaviour of the studs was observed for the NSC specimens after the
maximum load. The descending branch of the load-slip curves for the high
strength concrete was short and steep.
The reinforcement in concrete slabs did not take very much load, but
confined the concrete surrounding the studs. The amount of reinforcement
in the concrete slab had a slight influence on the load capacity of the NSC
specimens. The increase was about 6%. No obvious influence of reinforce-
ment on the capacity was observed in the HSC specimens.
Evaluation of shear resistance of the studs according to different
formulas showed that the formula which combined contributions from
both concrete and studs could take variation of the concrete strength into
account and give a better estimation of the shear resistance of studs.
The load-slip relationship after the cyclic loading can be expressed as

P 2.24(s- 0.058)
for NSC specimens and
P, 1 + 1.98(s-0.058)
28 Li An, K. Cederwall

P 4-44(s-- 0.031)
for HSC specimens,
Pu 1 +4.24(s--0-031)

where P is the load and s is the slip in mm.

More tests are needed to establish a proper design equation for studs
embedded in high strength concrete and to understand their behaviour
better.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research reported here was sponsored by the Foundation for Swedish
Concrete Research and the Swedish Council for Building Research. We
would also like to express our thanks to Mr J. Hedin at SSAB, to Mr B.
J~igenstedt at Bultsvetsteknik AB and to Mr H. Lindblad at Tibnor AB for
their assistance during the preparation of the specimens. Valuable com-
ments from Professor R. P. Johnson at the University of Warwick in
England, Dr D. J. Oehlers at the University of Adelaide in Australia,
Professor B. Johansson at Lule~t University of Technology in Sweden and
Professor B. Edlund at Chalmers University of Technology are appre-
ciated.

REFERENCES

1. Editorial Panel for EC 4, 1990.

2. EECS, Composite Beams and Columns to Eurocode 4. ECCS-Technical Com-
mittee 11, Composite Construction, 1993.
3. Svensk Standard SS-EN 10002-1, March 1990.
4. SvenskStandard SS 13 72 32, Betongprovning med Svensk Standard, BST Hb
12, April 1987.
5. An, L. & Cederwall, K. Push Tests on Stud Connector in Normal and High
Strength Concrete. Division of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden, Report 91:6, November 1991.
6. Eurocode 4. Common Unified Rules for Composite Steel and Concrete
Structures, 1985.
7. Oehlers, D. J. & Johnson, R. P. The strength of stud shear connections in
composite beams. Struct. Engr, 6511(2) (June 1987) 44-48.
8. ACI, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 1993. Part 1: Material and General
Properties of Concrete, 1993.
9. Claeson, C., Reinforced High Strength and Normal Strength Concrete Columns:
An Experimental Study. Division of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University
of Technology, Sweden, March 1994.
 Push-out tests on studs in concrete 29

10. BSI, Structural Use of Steelwork in Buildinff. Part 3: Design in Composite

Construction. British Standard Institution, BS 5900, Section 3.1, 1990.
11. Ollgaard, J. G., Slutter, R. G. & Fisher, J. W., Shear strength of studs
connectors in lightweight and normal-weight concrete. A I S C Enong J., 8
(April 1971) 55-64.
12. Buttry, K. E., Behaviour of stud connectors in lightweight and normal-
weight concrete. M.S. Thesis (unpublished), University of Missouri, USA,
August 1965.