Journal of Constructional Steel Research 74 (2012) 1–7

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Static behavior of multi-stud shear connectors for steel-concrete composite bridge

Dongyan Xue, Yuqing Liu ⁎, Zhen Yu, Jun He
Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Push-out tests were conducted to investigate the different behavior between single-stud and multi-stud connec-
Received 16 September 2010 tors. The results show that the single-stud and multi-stud connectors have the similar stiffness, and the spacing
Accepted 22 September 2011 of studs has little influence in the stiffness of multi-stud connectors. The ultimate strength of single-stud connector
Available online 9 March 2012
is about 10% larger than multi-stud connectors. When the load reaches its peak, the relative slip of single-stud
connector is about 19% larger than that of multi-stud connectors. The multi-stud effect on static behavior of
Keywords:
Headed stud shear connector
shear connector is negligible. Based on the push-out test results, a new expression of stud load-slip relationship
Push-out test was proposed. Compared to existing relationships, the new expression has a better match with the experimental
Multi-stud connector values. The static behavior was studied and compared to design equations. The results show that the estimation
Load-slip curve based on Eurocode-4 agrees well with the multi-stud test results and the estimations based on AASHTO LRFD
Ultimate shear strength and Chinese code agree well with the single-stud test results.
Crown Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction concrete. The connection behavior was analysed in term of its load-slip
relation and the failure modes were identified. Also, the load capacity,
Headed stud shear connectors are the most common type of shear maximum slip, elastic slip and plastic slip were quantified.
connectors used in the steel-concrete composite construction to Li An [4] presented push-out tests of studs in normal and high
transfer the longitudinal shear forces at the interface between steel strength concrete. It was found that the concrete compressive
and concrete. The behavior of headed stud shear connectors is ex- strength significantly affects the strength of the stud connections.
plored by push-out tests. According to previous researchers, the be- The increase of the transverse reinforcement had a negligible effect
havior of headed studs in composite construction depends on many when high strength concrete was used and some effects when normal
factors, including shank diameter, height and tensile strength of concrete was used. A design formula taking into account the interac-
studs, compressive strength and elastic modulus of concrete, direc- tion between the studs and the surrounding concrete was proposed.
tion of concrete casting, reinforcement detailing and stud welding Pil-Goo Lee and Chang-Su Shim [5,6] investigated the static and fa-
quality. Present design methods in codes for the calculation of the tigue behavior of large stud shear connectors up to 30 mm diameter,
shear strength of studs are based on push-out tests results. which were beyond the limitation of current design codes. The ulti-
The push test was first devised in Switzerland in 1930s to deter- mate strength of the shear connection showed that the design shear
mine the load transfer capacity of shear connectors [7]. Since the strength in Eurocode-4 and AASHTO LRFD gives conservative values
1950s a large number of experimental tests have been done on head- for large studs. The fatigue endurance obtained from the tests was
ed stud shear connectors. slightly lower than the current design values of Eurocode-4.
Viest IM [1] performed 12 push-out tests with varying ratio of ef- Dennis Lam [7] studied the capacities of the headed stud connectors in
fective depth-to-stud diameter. Three types of failure modes were ob- precast hollowcore slabs. 72 full-scale push tests were performed and the
served from the test. The first mode of failure was that the stud results of the experimental study were analysed and findings on the effect
connector fully yielded and no concrete failure was observed. The of all the parameters on connectors’ strength and ductility were pre-
second mode of failure was concrete cone failure where no shearing sented. Newly proposed design equations for calculating the shear con-
off of headed stud was observed. And the third mode of failure was nectors’ capacity for this form of composite construction were developed.
the combined failure of stud and concrete. Furthermore, one of the Youn-Ju Jeong [8] studied partial-interaction behavior by using
first formulas to assess the shear strength of the headed studs of com- push-out tests and a commercial structural analysis program. The re-
posite structures was proposed. sults showed that the partial-interaction behavior of steel-concrete
Chinn J [2] and Isabel B. Valente [3] carried out push-out tests to eval- composite members can be efficiently and accurately predicted by
uate the behavior of shear connection between steel and lightweight the analysis method presented in the paper.
Huu Thanh Nguyen [9] and Ehab Ellobody [10] developed an accu-
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 86 21 65983116; fax: + 86 21 65983450. rate nonlinear finite element model of push-out specimens to investi-
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Liu). gate the behavior of headed stud shear connectors. The results

0143-974X/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.09.017
2 D. Xue et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 74 (2012) 1–7

obtained from the finite element analysis were verified against exper- anchors and proposed formulas for the limit states of steel failure
imental results of other researches. and concrete failure of headed stud anchors subjected to shear force
Hyun-Ho Kim [11] conducted push-out tests on lying studs and without the use of a metal deck. New formulas were proposed to pre-
mixed stud shear connection with lying and vertical studs to investigate dict concrete failure and existing formulas for steel failure were eval-
the behavior of the shear connection in the double composite section. uated based upon the comprehensive experimental data set.
Gerhard Hanswille [12] presented push-out tests to determine the So far, most of the push-out tests conducted on studs have fo-
fatigue life and a possible reduction of the static strength of the head- cused on the behavior of single-stud connectors, few research papers
ed stud shear connectors subjected to unidirectional cyclic loading. are available concerning push-out tests taking into account the influ-
Weichen Xue [13] conducted push-out tests on stud shear connec- ences of multi-stud connectors. In practice there are a large number
tors to investigate the effect factors of stud behavior. The stud shear of studs to transfer forces between the steel and concrete materials
mechanism was analyzed, a new expression of stud load-slip relation- in composite construction and it is important to investigate the dif-
ship was proposed, and a calculation model of stud shear bearing ca- ferent behavior between single-stud and multi-stud connectors. In
pacity was proposed. this paper, ten push-out tests were developed to examine the behav-
Luis Pallares and Jerome F. Hajjar [14] reviewed 391 monotonic ior of multi-stud. The possible mechanical mechanism of studs was
and cyclic tests from the literature on experiments of headed stud analyzed.

a) Spacing of studs: 100 mm

b) Spacing of studs: 150 mm c) Spacing of studs: 200 mm

d) Spacing of studs: 250 mm e) Single-stud

Fig. 1. Details of specimens.

 D. Xue et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 74 (2012) 1–7 3

Table 1
Material properties of the test specimen: C50 concrete.

Nominal strength Compression strength fcu fu Young's modulus

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)

50 55.7 37.2 34.5

2. Experimental program

2.1. Test specimens

To examine the behavior of multi-stud connectors, ten push-out

tests were performed. Fig. 1 shows the dimensions of push-out speci-
mens. Ten push-out specimens were divided into 5 pairs. One pair was
single-stud specimens, and the other pairs were multi-stud specimens.
In order to consider the effect of the spacing of studs, different spacing
of studs were selected as 100, 150, 200, 250 mm and corresponding
specimens were denoted as MD-1-1(2), MD-2-1(2), MD-3-1(2), MD-
4-1(2), respectively. Single-stud specimens were denoted as SD-1-
1(2). Two push-out test specimens for each type of specimen were
built and tested.
Each of both concrete slabs was cast in the horizontal position, as
was done for composite beams in practice. Bond at the interface be- Fig. 2. Test set-up.
tween flanges of the steel beam and the concrete was prevented by
greasing the flange. The push specimens were air-cured.
The slip was measured at least until the load had dropped to 20%
2.2. Material properties below the maximum load. Fig. 2 presents the test set-up.

For each mix, eight concrete specimens for the determination of 3. Test results and discussion
the cylinder strength were prepared at the time of casting the push
specimens. These concrete specimens were cured alongside the 3.1. Modes of failure
push specimens. C50 concrete and ϕ22 × 200 studs were selected for
the tests because they are the most common used in the steel- The mode of failure observed from the push-out tests was stud
concrete composite bridge. Table 1 summarizes the material proper- shank failure and no concrete failure was observed. In the typical
ties of concrete. The yield strength, the tensile strength and the max- shank failure, the yield stress of the headed stud was reached while
imum elongation of the headed stud shear connector material are
shown in Table 2. The specification and properties of reinforcement
are shown in Table 3.

2.3. Loading procedure and measurement

The push-out specimens were tested in hydraulic testing machine

with a capacity of 4000 kN. The load was first applied in increments
up to 40% of the expected failure load and then cycled 25 times between
5% and 40% of the expected failure load. Subsequent load increments
were imposed such that failure did not occur in less than 15 minutes.
The longitudinal slip between each concrete slab and the steel section
were measured continuously during loading using 1/1000 mm LVDTs.

Table 2
Material properties of the test specimen: Headed studs.

No. Specification Yield strength fy Tensile strength fu Elongation

(mm × mm) (MPa) (MPa) rate (%)

1 22 × 200 375 460 18.0

2 22 × 200 385 490 19.0
3 22 × 200 390 480 18.0
4 22 × 200 370 470 17.0
Mean 22 × 200 380 475 18.0

Table 3
Material properties of the test specimen: Reinforcement.

Diameter(mm) Yield Tensile Young's Elongation

strength(MPa) strength(MPa) modulus(GPa) rate(%)

16 362 542 198 29.0

Fig. 3. The mode of failure.
4 D. Xue et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 74 (2012) 1–7

a) Single-stud b) Spacing of studs: 100 mm

240 200

Load per stud (kN)

Load per stud (kN)
200 160
160
120
120
80 MD-1-1
80 SD-1-1
SD-1-2 MD-1-2
40 40

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Average slip (mm) Average slip (mm)

c) Spacing of studs: 150 mm d) Spacing of studs: 200 mm

200 200
Load per stud (kN)

Load per stud (kN)

160 160

120 120

80 MD-2-1 80
MD-3-1
MD-2-2 MD-3-2
40 40

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Average slip (mm) Average slip (mm)

e) Spacing of studs: 250 mm

200
Load per stud (kN)

160

120

80 MD-4-1
MD-4-2
40

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Average slip (mm)
Fig. 4. Load-slip curves.

the maximum concrete stress of the concrete element was not In this paper, the stiffness of stud connector is defined as the load
attained. Fig. 3 presents the failure mode of the specimens. In at the 0.2 mm relative slip. The results show that the single-stud and
Fig. 3(c), the left three headed studs are one of columns of studs. multi-stud specimens have similar stiffness, and the spacing of studs
From left to right, the three headed studs are the third row of stud, has little influence in the stiffness of multi-stud connectors.
the second row of stud and the first row of stud, respectively. The
upper headed studs have greater plastic deformation than the lower 3.3. Ultimate shear strength and ultimate slip
headed studs. The right three headed studs have the same behavior.
The load-slip curves of single-stud and multi-stud connectors are
compared in Fig. 5. Table 4 summarizes the shear bearing capacity
3.2. Load-slip curves and stiffness and characteristic slip of the stud. Su is defined as the slip when the
load P reaches its peak and Smax can be defined as the ultimate slip.
As the load is applied on the push-out specimens, slips between the
steel and concrete occur. The static behavior of stud shear connectors
240
can be explained through load-slip curves. In the tests the load-slip
Load per stud (kN)

curves consistes of three different parts. The first part is the elastic part. 200
The second part is the plastic part and the third part is the descending 160
part. In the elastic part, the load-slip curves show an initial almost linear MD-1
120 MD-2
relationship, until about 50% of the maximum load value is attained. The
slip is very small and the studs show large shear stiffness. In the plastic 80 MD-3
MD-4
part, the curves show a new branch with a softer slope with the increas- 40 SD-1
ing of the load. The slip increases rapidly while the load increases slowly
and the stud shear stiffness reduces continuously. After the maximum 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
load, the specimens fail suddenly and the descending part of load-slip Average slip (mm)
curves is steep and short. The load-slip curves do not show an evident
descending part. The load-slip curves are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Load-slip curves.
 D. Xue et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 74 (2012) 1–7 5

Table 4 specimens MD-3 and MD-4 are not exceed 6 mm and they are not duc-
Push-out test results. tile. It can also be observed that it may not be significant if an elastic dis-
Specimen Ultimate strength Su (mm) Smax (mm) Failure mode tribution is adopted.
per stud Pu (kN)

SD-1 208.8 6.13 7.81 Shank failure 4. Evaluation of test results

MD-1 189.5 5.03 6.53 Shank failure
MD-2 181.2 5.00 7.52 Shank failure 4.1. Expression of load-slip relationship
MD-3 194.7 4.93 5.27 Shank failure
MD-4 185.4 4.90 5.79 Shank failure
Based on the test results, a non-linear regression was carried out.
The expressions of the load-slip relationship after the cyclic load
As shown in Table 4, the ultimate strength of multi-stud specimens is were given by [4]
lower than that of single-stud specimens, obviously. The average ulti-
mate strength value of multi-stud specimens is 187.7 kN, and (208.8- P 2:24ðS−0:058Þ
¼ for normal strength concrete specimens ð1Þ
187.7)/208.8 = 10%. So, the ultimate strength of single-stud speci- P u 1 þ 1:98ðS−0:058Þ
mens is about 10% larger than the multi-stud specimens. The average
Su value of multi-stud specimens is 4.965 mm, and (6.13-4.965)/ P 4:44ðS−0:031Þ
6.13 = 19%. So, the Su of single-stud specimens is about 19% larger ¼ for high strength concrete specimens ð2Þ
P u 1 þ 4:24ðS−0:031Þ
than that of multi-stud specimens. The Smax of single-stud specimens
is also larger than multi-stud specimens, too. The multi-stud effect on
static behavior of shear connector is negligible. These results may be Based on the measured values and shape of the experimental
useful in the design of steel-concrete composite bridges. curves, the classic Ollgaard constitutive law was adopted for the the-
According to Eurocode-4, a connector may be taken as ductile if the oretical analysis [15]
characteristic slip capacity is at least 6 mm. Ductile connectors are those
P

with sufficient deformation capacity to justify the assumption of ideal −0:55S 0:3
¼ 1−e ð3Þ
plastic behavior of the shear connection. The characteristic slips of Pu

a) Spacing of studs: 100 mm b) Spacing of studs: 150 mm

1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 MD-1 0.8 MD-2
Eq. (1)
P/Pu
P/Pu

Eq. (1)
0.6 0.6 Eq. (2)
Eq. (2)
0.4 Eq. (3)
Eq. (3) 0.4
Eq. (4) Eq. (4)
0.2 0.2 Eq. (5)
Eq. (5)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

c) Spacing of studs: 200 mm d) Spacing of studs: 250 mm

1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 MD-3 0.8 MD-4
P/Pu

P/Pu

Eq. (1) Eq. (1)

0.6 0.6
Eq. (2) Eq. (2)
0.4 Eq. (3) 0.4 Eq. (3)
Eq. (4) Eq. (4)
0.2 0.2 Eq. (5)
Eq. (5)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

e) Single-stud
1.2
1
0.8 SD-1
P/Pu

Eq. (1)
0.6 Eq. (2)
0.4 Eq. (3)
Eq. (4)
0.2 Eq. (6)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Slip (mm)
Fig. 6. Tests results and regression curves.
6 D. Xue et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 74 (2012) 1–7

On the basis of the 30 push-out tests results and the analysis of Table 6
other expressions, the expression of the load-slip relationship was Comparison of test results and calculated values (kN).

given by [13] Specimen Test Eq. (7) Eq. (8) Eq. (9) Test / Test / Test /
Eq. (7) Eq. (8) Eq. (9)
P S
¼ ð4Þ SD-1 208.8 144.4 157.7 157.9 1.45 1.32 1.32
P u 0:5 þ 0:97S MD-1 189.5 144.4 157.7 157.9 1.31 1.20 1.20
MD-2 181.2 144.4 157.7 157.9 1.25 1.15 1.15
MD-3 194.7 144.4 157.7 157.9 1.35 1.23 1.23
Based on the push-out tests results and the analysis of
MD-4 185.4 144.4 157.7 157.9 1.28 1.18 1.17
Eqs. (1)–(4), the expressions of load-slip relationship are given by

P
1
−0:7S 3
¼ 1−e for multi−stud connectors ð5Þ
Pu In AASHTO LRFD, the nominal shear resistance of one stud shear
connector embedded in a concrete deck shall be taken as Eq. (8)
P
1
−0:5S 3
¼ 1−e for single−stud connectors ð6Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pu 0
Q n ¼ 0:5Asc f c Ec ≤Asc F u ð8Þ
where s is the average slip in mm.
The expressions are shown in Fig. 6 and Table 5. It can be seen that where Asc is the cross-sectional area of a stud shear connector (mm 2)
Eqs. (5) and (6) give better estimation of load-slip relationships than and Fu is specified minimum tensile strength of a stud shear
other equations. The new equations can be used to provide some connector.
guidance in the design of composite structures. As provided in the Chinese code for design of steel structures (GB
2003), the stud shear bearing capacity is determined by
4.2. Stud shear bearing capacity qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c
Nv ¼ 0:43As Ec f c ≤0:7As γf ð9Þ
The ultimate strength of headed stud shear connection obtained
from static tests is compared with those calculated by the design
where As is the cross-sectional area of a stud shear connector (mm 2),
codes of Eurocode-4 [16], AASHTO LRFD [17], and Chinese code [18].
fc is compressive strength of concrete (Mpa), f is ultimate tensile
Eurocode-4 specifies the design strength of stud shear connectors
strength of the stud and γ is the ratio of the minimum tensile strength
which are welded automatically, as Eqs. (7a) and (7b).
to yield strength of the stud.

 These equations are used to estimate the shear bearing capacity of
2
PRd ¼ 0:8f u πd =4 ð7aÞ
the stud. Table 6 presents the ultimate loads obtained in tests and the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi characteristic load calculated by using Eqs. (7), (8) and (9). On aver-
PRd ¼ 0:29d
2
fck Ecm ð7bÞ age, the characteristic loads determined correspond to 80% of the ex-
perimental load. This is consistent with the dispositions of EN 1994-
1-1 that calculates the characteristic load from the push-out tests,
Whichever is smaller, where the units are N, mm. d is the diameter
by considering 90% of the experimental ultimate load. [3] The com-
of the shank of the stud, fu is the ultimate tensile strength of the stud
parisons show that the estimation based on the Eq. (7) agrees well
but not greater than 500 N/mm 2, fck is the characteristic value of con-
with the test results of multi-stud shear connectors and the estima-
crete compressive strength, Ecm is the elastic modulus of concrete.
tions based on the Eqs. (8) and (9) agree well with the test results
of single-stud shear connectors.
Table 5
Comparison of expressions of load-slip relationship.
5. Conclusions
Specimens Measured (Calculated P/Pu) / (measured P/Pu)
P/Pu Eight multi-stud and two single-stud push-out tests were carried
Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5) ( Eq. (6) )
out and the following conclusions can be made based on the tests
MD-1 0.4 0.265 0.658 1.068 0.452 1.050 ( Eq. (5) )
0.5 0.472 0.846 1.002 0.558 1.000 ( Eq. (5) ) and analysis.
0.6 0.675 0.990 0.980 0.683 0.993 ( Eq. (5) )
0.8 0.953 1.073 0.988 0.879 1.016 ( Eq. (5) )
(1) The load-slip curves show an initial almost linear relationship, and
1 1.027 1.000 0.981 0.935 0.990 ( Eq. (5) ) then the curves develop a new branch with a softer slope. After the
MD-2 0.4 0.143 0.488 0.990 0.365 0.968 ( Eq. (5) ) maximum load is reached, the specimens fail suddenly and the
0.5 0.400 0.764 0.962 0.502 0.958 ( Eq. (5) ) load-slip curves do not show an evident descending part. In the
0.6 0.572 0.892 0.927 0.602 0.935 ( Eq. (5) )
tests, not all of the maximum slip exceed 6 mm which is
0.8 0.848 1.006 0.921 0.789 0.946 ( Eq. (5) )
1 1.026 1.000 0.980 0.935 0.990 ( Eq. (5) ) Eurocode-4 requirement for ideal plastic behavior of the shear
MD-3 0.4 0.348 0.768 1.118 0.515 1.105 ( Eq. (5) ) connection. It can also be observed that it may not be significant
0.5 0.588 0.972 1.062 0.646 1.066 ( Eq. (5) ) if an elastic distribution is adopted.
0.6 0.750 1.055 1.018 0.742 1.035 ( Eq. (5) ) (2) The single-stud and multi-stud specimens have similar stiffness,
0.8 0.968 1.081 0.996 0.889 1.026 ( Eq. (5) )
1 1.025 0.999 0.980 0.933 0.989 ( Eq. (5) )
and the spacing of studs has little influence in the stiffness of
MD-4 0.4 0.333 0.745 1.108 0.502 1.095 ( Eq. (5) ) multi-stud specimens.
0.5 0.530 0.910 1.032 0.602 1.034 ( Eq. (5) ) (3) The ultimate strength of multi-stud specimens is lower than
0.6 0.702 1.013 0.993 0.703 1.008 ( Eq. (5) ) that of single-stud, obviously. The ultimate strength of single-
0.8 0.913 1.048 0.960 0.844 0.989 ( Eq. (5) )
stud specimens is about 10% larger than the multi-stud speci-
1 1.024 0.999 0.979 0.933 0.989 ( Eq. (5) )
SD-1 0.4 0.395 0.828 1.145 0.550 1.018 ( Eq. (6) ) mens. The Su of single-stud specimens is about 19% larger
0.5 0.630 1.014 1.084 0.678 0.982 ( Eq. (6) ) than that of multi-stud specimens. The multi-stud effect on
0.6 0.810 1.105 1.050 0.790 0.970 ( Eq. (6) ) static behavior of shear connector is negligible. These results
0.8 1.061 1.135 1.061 0.971 1.021 ( Eq. (6) ) may be useful in the design of steel-concrete composite
1 1.043 1.007 0.989 0.950 0.984 ( Eq. (6) )
bridges.
 D. Xue et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 74 (2012) 1–7 7

(4) A new load-slip relationships can be expressed as [4] An Li, Cederwall Krister. Push-out tests on studs in high strength and normal
strength concrete. J Constr Steel Res 1996;36(1):15–29.
P
1 [5] Shim Chang-Su, Lee Pil-Goo, Yoon Tae-Yang. Static behavior of large stud shear
−0:7S 3
¼ 1−e for multi−stud connectors connectors. Eng Struct 2004;26:1853–60.
Pu [6] Lee Pil-Goo, Shim Chang-Su, Chang Sung-Pil. Static and fatigue behavior of large
stud shear connectors for steel-concrete composite bridge. J Constr Steel Res
P
1 2005;61:1270–85.
−0:5S 3
¼ 1−e for single−stud connectors [7] Lam Dennis. Capacities of headed stud shear connectors in composite steel beams
Pu with precast hollowcore slabs. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63:1160–74.
[8] Jeong Youn-Ju, Kim Hyeong-Yeol, Kim Sang-Hyo. Partial-interaction analysis with
where s is the average slip in mm. push-out tests. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:1318–31.
[9] Nguyen Huu Thanh, Kim Seung Eock. Finite element modeling of push-out tests
The equations show a better estimation of load-slip relation- for large stud shear connectors. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1909–20.
ship for multi-stud and single-stud connectors and can be [10] Ellobody Ehab, Young Ben. Performance of shear connection in composite beams
used to provide some guidance in the design of composite with profiled steel sheeting. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:682–94.
[11] Kim Hyun-Ho, Shim Chang-Su. Experimental investigation of double composite
structures. twin-girder railway bridges. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1355–65.
(5) The shear bearing capacity of headed stud shear connectors [12] Hanswille Gerhard, Porsch Markus, Ustundag Cenk. Resistance of headed studs
obtained from static tests is compared with those calculated subjected to fatigue loading Part I: Experimental study. J Constr Steel Res
2007;63:475–84.
by the design codes. The comparisons show that the estimation
[13] Xue Weichen, Ding Min, Wang Hua, Luo Ziwen. Static behavior and theoretical
based on Eurocode-4 agrees well with the multi-stud test re- model of stud shear connectors. J Bridge Eng ASCE 2008:623–34.
sults and the estimations based on AASHTO LRFD and Chinese [14] Pallares Luis, Hajjar Jerome, F. Headed steel stud anchors in composite structures,
code agree well with the single-stud test results. Part I: Shear. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66:198–212.
[15] Lorenc Wojciech, Kubica Ernest. Behavior of composite beams prestressed with
external tendons: Experimental study. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:1353–66.
References [16] Eurocode-4. EN 1994. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1–1
General rules for buildings. Brussels: CEN-European Committee for Standardisation;
[1] Viest IM. Investigation of stud shear connectors for composite concrete-steel T-beams. 2004.
J Am Concr Inst 1956;27(8):875–91. [17] AASHTO LRFD. Bridge design specifications. 3 rd ed. Washington, D.C: American
[2] Chinn J. Pushout test on lightweight composite slabs. Eng J AISC 1965;2(4): association of state highway and transportation officials; 2004.
129–34. [18] Ministry of construction of china. GB50017-2003. Code for design of steel struc-
[3] Valente Isabel B, Cruz Paulo JS. Experimental analysis of shear connection be- tures. Beijing: China planning press; 2003.
tween steel and lightweight concrete. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1954–63.