Cyclic tests of

welded headed
stud connections
Richard A. Spencer
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada

Donald S. Neille
Graduate Research Fellow
Department of Civil Engineering
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada

Richard A. Spencer Donald S. Neille

n many precast box-type buildings, should perform adequately when sub-

I wall panels and floor and roof units
are connected together to act as shear
walls and diaphragms to resist lateral
loads due to earthquakes. In this type
of building all loads must be trans-
ferred by the connections, and these
jected to the dynamically induced
earthquake forces, acting in combina-
tion with the live and dead loads.
A simple equivalent static lateral
load analysis' shows that the connec-
tions must be able to transfer in-plane

70
shear forces between precast units, and
in some cases also resist pullout forces
due to out-of-plane inertia forces on
the units themselves.
The accelerations in a severe earth-
quake may be much greater than those
assumed in the equivalent static lat-
eral load analysis. It is generally ac-
cepted that while a building should be
able to resist moderate earthquakes
with only non-structural damage, yield-
ing and associated structural damage is
acceptable in a severe earthquake. The
structure should be able to undergo
large deformations without collapse.
The connections between units in
precast box-type buildings are seldom
capable of transferring loads which
would cause the precast units to yield.
Therefore, the connections themselves
should be able to yield and sustain large
deflections when loaded to their design
ultimate load and beyond in an earth-
quake.
The tests described here were made
on a commonly used welded headed
stud connection. There have been sev-
eral static or monotonic tests on con-
nections of this type2' 3' 4 and design
data are available for calculating their
static shear and pullout capacity.5'7
However, there is little or no informa-
tion on their behavior under cyclic or
alternating loads such as those occur-
ring during an earthquake.
Welded Headed
Stud Connection
The type of connection considered here
is shown in Fig. 1. Short lengths of
angle, each with two headed studs
welded to it by the fusion process, are
embedded in the edges of each pre-
cast unit.
A piece of bar or rod is site welded
between two adjacent angles to make
a connection. The number of connec-
tions required along each edge is gov-
PCI JOURNAL/May-June 1976
Synopsis
Simulated earthquake
loading was applied to a
type of welded headed stud
connection used in precast
box-type buildings.
Load-deflection hysteresis
loops were obtained, and the
actual strength of each
connection under cyclic
loading was compared with
the static ultimate design
st ength.
Although the design strength
was exceeded by up to
30 percent in the initial
cycles, the strength began
to fall as the number of load
cycles increased, and was
generally well below the
design strength at failure.
Deflections at failure were
from seven to twenty-four
times the theoretical elastic
deflection at the design
ultimate strength, but
because the connections
lose both strength and
stiffness before failure, their
ductility does not justify any
reduction in the lateral
forces used for earthquake-
resistant design.
If the connections are
properly designed and
detailed they should perform
satisfactorily in buildings
designed as box systems.
71

Fig. 1. Welded headed stud connections showing typical ap-
plications in precast buildings.
erred by the design shear and pullout
forces.
Method of Testing
The connections were loaded in the
test rig shown in Fig. 2. A 2 x 4-ft
panel with an embedded connection
angle was clamped in a vertical posi-
tion. The cyclic shear force F was ap-
plied to this connection angle as shown
in Fig. 3.
A 5 x 12 x 5/s-in, steel plate was
welded to the angle with a Y4-in. spat-
er. A displacement controlled hydraulic
jack with its axis vertical applied the
cyclic force to the steel plate. The
loading system did not prevent either
pullout of the studs or rotation of the
connection about a horizontal axis.
The system of forces acting on a
connection is shown in Fig. 3. The
cyclic force F acts 7/8 in. from the face
72
TYPICAL PANEL
ASSEMBLY
of the connection angle, producing a
moment which is resisted by a com-
pressive force C and a pullout force P,
assumed to act through the studs as
shown. These forces are equal to 10
and 15 percent of F for 12 and 10-in.
long connection angles, respectively.
This system of forces is not identical
to the forces resulting from the story
shears and panel inertia forces acting
in a box-type building during a severe
earthquake. Further, when units are
connected together in a building, each
connection angle is restrained from ro-
tation as long as adjacent panel edges
remain parallel. However, it is felt that
this test method is sufficiently realistic
to provide useful data.
Connections Tested
Details of the six connection angles
tested are shown in Fig. 4. Each angle
has a $/s-in. diameter, 6-in, headed p 4/3 jJ 4/8
stud welded 2-in, from each end. The
studs had a specified ultimate tensile
P uy] ± L'-
v
<1

strength, f, of 60,000 psi, and a spe- For stud capacity:

cified yield strength of 50,000 psi.
Each connection angle was cast in
a 2 x 4 ft x 8-in, concrete panel with an
[ P u^ 2 + ^Vus]2
average 28-day strength f' of 4600 psi. The design strengths shown in Table
A No. 4 grade 60 reinforcing bar was 1 were calculated from the above equa-
placed close to the studs in some of tions. It should be noted that the PCI
the panels, as shown in Fig. 4. recommends an additional load factor
As a result of a fabrication error, of 4/3 for the design of this type of
Connection B3 had studs which were connection.L $ This would be equiva-
bent and tack welded to a panel rein-
forcing bar (see Fig. 4). It is included
in the test series to draw attention to
the consequences of this kind of error.

Design strength
The static ultimate design strength of
each connection was analyzed using
the procedure recommended by the
PCI Connections Manual and PCI De-
sign Handbook.5,7
The ultimate concrete shear strength
for each stud, V'u,, based on the shear-
friction concept, was found to be 14.1
kips. The ultimate pullout strength,
calculated using the area of the
45-deg shear cone, reduced because the
full cone intersects with the surfaces
of the panel, was 29.9 kips for the
Series A connections and 17.5 kips for
the Series B. The ultimate shear ca-
pacity of a stud exclusive of the con-
crete, V', was 13.8 kips, and the ulti-
mate tension capacity exclusive of con-
crete, P'u8, was 16.6 kips.
The design strength of each connec-
tion was then calculated assuming that
the applied shear force F is divided
equally between the two studs, and
that the pullout capacity of the stud-
carrying tension is not affected by the
adjacent stud, which carries compres-
sion. Combined shear, V,,, , and tension,
on a single stud was assumed to
govern, and applied using the PCI in- Fig. 2. Test rig for cyclic loading.
teraction equations. The loading yoke applies cyclic
For concrete capacity: loads directly to the connection.

PCI JOURNAL/May-June 1976 73

lent to reducing the calculated design
strengths of the connection by 25 per-
cent and using normal load factors.
Test Loading
Connection Al was loaded monoton-
ically to failure. The load was in-
creased in a series of small increments
and the test took approximately 30
min to complete. The other five con-
nections were subjected to cyclic load-
ing at frequencies in the range of 0.01
to 0.02 Hz.
Load versus deflection hysteresis
loops were obtained for each connec-
tion (see Figs. 5 to 10). The load was
measured by a load cell on the hy-
draulic jack, and the deflection was
measured between the 5 -in, plate
welded to the connection angle and the
top of the panel.
The cyclic tests all began with a
number of cycles in the elastic range,
followed by cycles at increasing ampli-
tude up to failure. The loading se-
quence for each cyclic test is shown in
Figs. 6 to 10.
Although the frequencies and the
loading sequences in these tests are
different from those of actual earth-
quake loading, the results obtained
from this type of test can be used for
predicting the behavior of these con-
nections during an earthquake.
Test Results
The test results obtained for each con-
nection are summarized in Tables 1
and 2. Connection B3, which is ano-
malous because of a fabrication error,
is discussed separately.
Monotonic test
Connection Al exhibited considerable
ductility under monotonic loading (see
Fig. 5). The strength of the connection

I XIS OF HYDRAULIC JACK

ro F
.0 0:^..^ b.®CS
vP
C SPACER I i

TRANSVERS E AXIS
OF LOADING YOKE
P
FACEPLATE I^

1k 5^8
^^8 5 N

Fig. 3. Forces acting on a connection during a test.

74
 DETAILS OF STUDS &
CONNECTION
PANEL REINFORCEMENT

Al

4"x3'x $ Lx12' LONG

A2.A3
aao

x3z3l8 L x1 "LONG

B1 °Q ^^^

3 x3 x /Lx12 LONG
oo'o & Q
B2

3 x2^x3%8Lx10`LONG ^
-0aaao

B3 9. n.:

3x2x3/8 Lx10 LONG

Fig. 4. Details of connections tested, showing the

arrangement of the studs and the fabrication
error in Connection B3.

0
0
J

DEFLECTION (in.)
Fig. 5. Load-deflection curve (Connection Al) for
monotonic loading to failure.

PCI JOURNAL/May-June 1976 75

Fig. 6. Load-deflection loops (Connection A2) showing stable behavior after
35 cycles of loading. Groups of curves have been separated for greater
clarity.
at yield exceeded the ultimate design
strength then began to fall as the de-
flection increased. It remained above
design strength and began to increase
again prior to failure, which occurred
at a deflection of about seventeen times
the deflection at yield.
Cyclic loading in the elastic range
Cyclic testing of each connection be-
gan with several cycles of loading in
the elastic range. In each case (except
Connection B3), these initial cycles
produced stable, narrow load-deflec-
tion hysteresis loops (see Figs. 6 to 9),
with no degradation of stiffness for
cycles of loading up to about 80 to 85
percent of the expected yield strength.
The stability of the loops for loads in
this range (which approached the ulti-
mate design strength of the connec-
tion) is a significant result.
76
Cyclic loading above the
stability limit
After three cycles of loading to about
70 percent of the expected yield
strength, Connection A2 was loaded to
about 90 percent of the expected yield
strength in Cycle 4 (see Fig. 6). The
stiffness of the connection then began
to fall, the width of the hysteresis loops
began to increase, and there was in-
creasingly marked "hardening spring"
behavior.
The displacement amplitude of the
jack was held constant from Cycle 4
to Cycle 38, but the falling stiffness of
the connection together with the flex-
ibility of the loading apparatus led to
steadily increasing deflections and de-
creasing loads, until the loops stabilized
in Cycle 34 or 35.
The continuing gradual changes in
the hysteresis loops during Cycles 4
Fig. 7. Load-deflection loops (Connection A3). Note the relatively large
deflections reached before failure.

to 34 show that the loading was just
above the limit for stable behavior, un-
til Cycle 35. Approximate stability limit
curves are shown in Fig. 6 for this
connection.
Degradation of stiffness and increas-
ing loop width would be expected if
the load-deflection curve crossed these
curves. Loop behavior would be stable
if load reversal occurred before the
stability limit was crossed.
Cyclic loading up to yield
•Connections A3 and B2 were loaded
up to yield after the initial cycles in
the elastic range, and then subjected
to steadily increasing deflections (see
Figs. 7 and 9). After each increase,
the displacement amplitude of the jack
was held constant for no more than
-three or four cycles (e.g., Cycles 10,
11, 12, and 13, Fig. 7). The loops ob-
tained for cycles with constant jack
displacement allow approximate sta-
bility Iimit curves to '' be established,
similar to those for Connection A2.
Using the hysteresis loops for the
cycles when the jack displacement was
increased (e.g., Cycle 14, Fig. 7), ap-
proximate yield strength envelopes can
also be constructed. These show a con-
tinuing loss of strength with an in-
creasing number of cycles of load, and
are quite different from the monotonic
load-deflection curve. The maximum
load in each direction in the cycle
preceding failure is shown in Table 1.
Connection B1 was also loaded up
to yield, but there was a much bigger
increase in deflection in each succes-
sive cycle than for Connections A3 or
B2 (see Fig. 8). The strength of this
connection fell for loading in one di-
rection, but not the other, and it failed

PCI JOURNAL/May-June 1976 77

 Table 1. Summary load data for various types of connections
(also refer to Fig. 4).
Load in cycle
Connection Design ultimate strength Maximum load before failure
Concrete Steel Up Down Up Down
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)

Al 27.2 27.2 35.4 -- -- --

A2 27.2 27.2 31.5 30.2 7.0 8.0
A3 27.2 27.2 29.3 27.0 11.1 12.6
B1 26.4 27.2 31.8 28.0 29.2* 25.5*
82 25.5 26.9 30.0 32.0 15.8 14.0
B3 25.5 26.9 23.4 24.0 6.0 6.5

* These values are for Cycle 4. Failure occurred in Cycle 7 after two cycles
at reduced load.

at 32 kips, a load substantially in ex-
cess of the ultimate design strength
(although the strength in the other di-
rection had fallen below the design
strength).
From Figs. 7, 8, and 9 it seems clear
that increasing the number of cycles
above the stability limit will cause
an increasing reduction in the yield
strength, and that the yield strength
envelope for each connection will tend
to approach the stability limit as a
lower limit. However, the data from
these tests are limited, and further
tests are now being carried out so that
more precise predictions can be made.
Ductility
The maximum deflection in each di-
rection in the cycle prior to failure,
X,,,^, is given in Table 2. It is clear
that these connections have a consider-
able capacity to deflect beyond their
deflection at yield, and in that sense
they might be called "ductile." Their
use would allow a box-type building
to sustain large, permanent deforma-
tions without collapsing.

Table 2. Summary of deflection data and mode of failure for various types
of connections (also refer to Fig. 4).
Theoretical Maximum deflection (X µQ Mode of Cycles
max ) failure at failure
Connection deflection in cycle before failure (Ratio of
Xmax to XX)
Xt Up Down
(in.) (in.) (in.)

Al 0.014 0.5* -- 36 Concrete --

A2 0.015 0.21 0.18 12 Stud 57
A3 0.014 0.42 0.26 19 Stud 22
B1 0.013 0.1 0.1 8 Concrete 7
B2 0.014 0.21 0.23 15 Stud 19

B3 0.019 0.16 0.15 8 Stud 14

* Monotonic test. Note that Xmax is deflection at failure.

78
 7
30

EFLECTION (in.)
-10

5 Fig. 8. Load-deflection loops

Z
-20
(Connection B1). Rapid increase
in the applied deflection led to
failure after relatively few cycles.

-3 0

i ii
1
1AFAPiLU
t
0.3 0.2

^/^
iUifiiiiii

■ !Ilf.hIIII
LII11(I1
.. - .
—YIELD ENVELOPE ''' '

PCI JOURNAL /May-June 1976 79

 Fig. 10. Load-deflection loops (Connection B3). The
relatively poor performance resulted from a
fabrication error.

A ductility factor, S for each con-

p ,,
nection is given in Table 2, which is
computed from:
µl = X,ma./X I (3)
where
X,,,,Q, peak deflection in cycle pre-
= each connection was crushing of the
ceding failure
Xl = theoretical linear deflection
at design ultimate strength
assuming a constant stiffness
is equal to initial elastic stiff-
ness
The ductility is found using the
smaller of the two values of . X,,
in Table 2. It should be emphasized,
however, that few of the assumptions
made about the behavior of buildings
which are classed as "ductile" for earth-
quake resistance design would be valid
for box-type buildings with connections
like those tested here, which tend to
lose both strength and stiffness under
cyclic loading.
Cracking and mode of failure
The first observable sign of distress on
concrete at the ends of the connection
angle, accompanied by vertical tension
cracks in the concrete panel parallel
to the angle and several inches away
from each leg. This could be seen first
at a load of about 70 percent of the
design strength.
As cyclic loading progressed, there
was continued crushing and spalling of
the concrete above and below the
angle, and growth of the tension cracks.
Uncrushed concrete was exposed at
each end of the angle as it slipped
up and down during each cycle.

80
 There must also have been crushing
and failure of the concrete around the
studs as the test progressed. Further-
more, it is likely that some of this con-
crete simply fell out during each cycle,
allowing the studs to deform, and ex-
plaining in part both the steadily
falling stiffness and the hardening
spring behavior observed in every
cyclic test.
As the applied deflection was in-
creased, the tension cracks in the panel
increased in length and width, and the
connection began to rotate slightly as
first one stud and then the other began
to pull out. The connections in a build-
ing would probably be restrained
against this rotation, but they might
be subject to pullout forces as a result
of inertia loads on the panels.
Connections Al and B1 failed by
concrete failure when a large block of
concrete surrounding the studs broke
away (see Fig. 11). The other connec-
tions (except Connection B3) failed Fig. 11. Connection B1 failed when
when one of the studs broke close to a large block of concrete surround-
the fusion weld (see Fig. 12). ing the studs broke away.

Fig. 12. Connection A3 failed after the upper stud

broke close to the angle.

PCI JOURNAL/May-June 1976 81

 This stud failure apparently occurred
because each stud was eventually re-
strained for only a short length, close
to the head so that plastic hinges
formed close to the connection angle
during each half cycle of loading. The
mode of failure for each connection is
shown in Table 2.
Connections A2 and A3 both had
a panel reinforcing bar outside the
studs, but 4these connections did not
carry higher loads than the other con-
nections. Connections with the studs
parallel to the front of the panel did
seem to be able to sustain somewha
deflections than those with the
studs at 45 deg to the front face. The
effect pf panel reinforcement and stud
arrangement is the subject of a further
study.
Behavior of Connection 83
Connection ` B3, as can be seen from
Fig. 4, had the studs bent into an in-
correct position. In addition, the studs
were tack-welded to the panel rein-
forcing bar. In spite of the adverse
effects of the stud placement on both
the strength and stiffness of this con-
nection, which were noticeable even in
the elastic range, the studs failed at
the tack weld.
Summary and Conclusions
Simulated earthquake loading of one
type of welded headed stud connection
used in precast buildings led to the
following conclusions:
1. The PCI procedures for calculat-
ing the ultimate design strength of
these connections under static loading
give conservative results.
2. The strength of the connections in
the first cycles of loading up to yield
will be approximately the same as the
strength in monotonic loading.
3. If cyclic loading is continued
above the stability limit, the strength
82
of the connections will fall with an in-
creasing number of cycles, and the
yield strength envelope will tend to
approach the stability limit.
4. The deflections reached before
failure were from seven to twenty-four
times the theoretical elastic deflection
corresponding to the design ultimate
strength.
5. These connections, if properly de-
signed and detailed, appear to be suit-
able for use in earthquake-resistant
buildings designed as box-type systems.
Acknowledgment
This research was financed by the Na-
tional Research Council of Canada, and
carried out at the University of British
Columbia.
References
1. PCI Design Handbook, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Chicago, Illinois,
1971, pp. 10-3 to 10-10.
2. PCI Committee on Connection De-
tails, "Summary of Basic Informa-
tion on Precast Connections," PCI
JOURNAL, V. 14, No. 6, December
1969, pp. 14-58.
3. Concrete Anchor Design Data, Man-
ual No. 21, Nelson Stud Welding,
Division of Gregory Industries, Inc.,
1961.
4. Venuti, W. J., "Diaphragm Shear
Connectors Between Flanges of Pre-
stressed Concrete T-Beams," PCI
JOURNAL, V. 15, No. 1, February
1970, pp. 67-68.
5. PCI Manual on Design of Connec-
tions for Precast Prestressed Con-
crete, Prestressed Concrete Institute,
Chicago, Illinois, 1973, pp. 37-38.
6. ibid, pp. 21-22.
7. PCI Design Handbook, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Chicago, Illinois,
1971, pp. 6-18 to 6-19.
8. ibid, p. 6-4.

Notation
C = compressive force in a stud
subject to test load
F = test load applied to connec-
tions
P = pullout force on a stud sub-
ject to test load
Pu = ultimate pullout strength of a
stud subject to combined ten-
sion and shear
P' = ultimate pullout strength of a
stud controlled by the concrete
P' ultimate tension capacity of a
stud exclusive of concrete
strength
V' ultimate concrete shear capac-
ity of a stud
V' ultimate shear capacity of a
stud exclusive of concrete
strength
V = ultimate shear strength of a
stud subject to combined ten-
sion and shear
XZ = theoretical deflection of con-
nection at design ultimate
strength assuming constant
stiffness equal to initial stiff-
ness
Xm = maximum deflection of con-
nection in cycle preceding
failure
[LI, = ratio of Xma, to Xa

Discussion of this paper is invited.

Please forward your comments to
PCI Headquarters by October 1, 1976.

PCI JOURNAL/May-June 1976 83