Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Capacities of headed stud shear connectors in composite steel beams with

precast hollowcore slabs
Dennis Lam ∗
School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, LS2 9JT Leeds, UK

Received 3 October 2006; accepted 11 November 2006

Abstract

In steel–concrete composite beams, the longitudinal shear force is transferred across the steel flange/concrete slab interface by the mechanical
action of the shear connectors. The ability of the shear connectors to transfer these longitudinal shear forces depends on their strength, and also
on the resistance of the concrete slab against longitudinal cracking induced by the high concentration of shear force. Most of the research in
composite construction has concentrated on the more traditional reinforced concrete and metal deck construction, and little information is given
on shear capacity of the headed studs in precast hollowcore slabs. In this paper, a standard push test procedure for use with composite beams
with precast hollowcore slabs is proposed. Seven exploratory push tests were carried out on headed studs in solid RC slabs to validate the testing
procedures, and the results showed that the new test is compatible with the results specified in the codes of practice for solid RC slabs. Once a
standard procedure is established, 72 full-scale push tests on headed studs in hollowcore slabs were performed to determine the capacities of the
headed stud connectors in precast hollowcore slabs and the results of the experimental study are analysed and findings on the effect of all the
parameters on connectors’ strength and ductility are presented. Newly proposed design equations for calculating the shear connectors’ capacity
for this form of composite construction are also be given.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Precast; Steel; Hollowcore; Composite; Shear connection; Push test; Headed stud

1. Introduction

The use of composite action between steel beams

and concrete slabs is well established as a cost-effective
arrangement for floor systems in multi-storey steel frame
building structures. The composite action between steel beams
and concrete slabs through the use of shear connectors is
responsible for a considerable increase in the load-bearing
capacity and stiffness of the steel beams, which when utilised
in design, can result in significant savings in steel weight and
construction depth. Initially, floor slabs were normally solid
reinforced concrete, cast on the formwork. The last two decades
have seen the increasing use of profiled sheeting as both a Fig. 1. Composite beams with precast hollowcore slabs.
permanent formwork and as a way of generating composite
action in the slab spanning between the steel beams. A recent the ability to span greater distances than profiled sheeting along
development is the use of precast hollowcore slabs acting with reducing the amount of site based construction. Fig. 1
compositely with steel beams by Lam et al. [1,2]. The use of shows such a composite floor system with steel beams and
precast hollowcore slabs offers certain advantages in terms of precast hollowcore slabs.
In steel–concrete composite design, the longitudinal shear
∗ Tel.: +44 1133432295; fax: +44 1133432265. flow in a composite steel and concrete beam is transferred
E-mail address: d.lam@leeds.ac.uk. across the steel flange–concrete slab interface by the

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0143-974X/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.11.012
 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174
Fig. 2. Push test specimen to CP117 and BS5400.
mechanical action of the shear connectors. The ability of the
shear connector to transfer longitudinal shear forces therefore
depends on the strength of the shear connector, and also on
the resistance of the concrete slab against longitudinal cracking
induced by the high concentration of shear force. Previous
research by Lam et al. [3] has attempted to determine the
strength of shear connections in composite construction with
precast hollowcore slabs, but no standard procedure for the
testing has been developed. The objective of this paper is to
review the existing standard push test arrangement, and to
propose a new push test procedure for use in composite beams
with proprietary precast hollowcore slabs.
2. Standard push test
The push test was first devised in Switzerland in the 1930s
to determine the load transfer capacity of shear connectors.
Although the push test cannot exactly replicate the actual
conditions and the behaviour of the shear connectors in the
composite beam, it does enable the behaviour of different
types and sizes of shear connectors to be compared provided a
standardized test is used; therefore it is important that a standard
test and procedure is adhered to. The two most important pieces
of information relevant to composite beam design are: (1) the
ability of the shear connectors to transfer longitudinal shear
force, and (2) the amount of slip at the steel–concrete interface.
Most of the load–slip characteristics of the shear connectors
have been obtained from push tests.
In 1965, a standard push test was first published in CP117
[4] in the UK. The test consisted of a short length of steel
beam connected to two concrete slabs by means of the shear
connectors as shown in Fig. 2. The slabs are 300 mm wide ×
1161
460 mm long × 150 mm deep and reinforced with 10 mm mild
steel reinforcement. The specimen is bedded down onto the
platen of the compression machine. A vertical compressive load
is applied to the steel beam, and the slip between the steel beam
and the slabs are measured against the load. The code stated
that the rate of loading should be uniform with the failure load
is reached in not less than 10 minutes. With the introduction
of SI units, a metric version of the test was detailed in BS5400
[5] and later referred to in BS5950 [6]. Work by Johnson and
Yuan [7] on shear connectors in troughs of profiled sheeting
suggested that the existing rules for shear connectors in troughs
of profiled sheeting were of limited scope and low accuracy,
especially for studs placed off-centre in the trough. The results
of such push tests were also found to be widely scattered due
to differences in test specimens, methods of casting and testing
procedures.
In Eurocode 4 [8], the standard push test was once again
modified from BS5400. Vertical push test specimens with
larger slabs, heavier reinforcement, wider steel sections and
connectors placed at two levels were introduced to allow
for redistribution of forces. Fig. 3 shows the proposed push
test specimen in Eurocode 4. The changes were proposed
because the specimen specified in BS5400 was criticized for its
very small slabs which were prone to splitting longitudinally,
with light and poorly anchored mild steel reinforcement and
with only one level of connectors, which in effect prevented
redistribution of load. Push tests with metal deck floorings have
previous been reviewed by Johnson and Yuan [7], and push tests
with solid slabs have recently been reviewed by Ernst et al. [9].
The standard push test currently specified in Eurocode
4 is not suitable for use in precast hollowcore composite
1162 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174
Fig. 3. Push test specimen to Eurocode 4.
construction for the following reasons:
1. The dimensions specified for the slab are too narrow and too
short for precast composite construction.
2. The reinforcement specified in the standard test is not
suitable since only transverse reinforcement is used for
the composite construction with precast hollowcore slabs.
Unlike the solid RC slab and metal decking floor, no
longitudinal reinforcement is used in this type of composite
construction.
3. For the current standard push-test, the steel section should
be cut longitudinally along its length and two slabs should
be cast simultaneously before re-welding the steel section to
form the push off specimen. This method is unsuitable for
precast construction because of the need to avoid handling
the assembly after the construction of the precast/in-situ
joints.
4. Recent work [10] has also suggested that the measured
connector strength determined from the typical push test
specimen can be strongly influenced by frictional forces
developing between the base of the test slabs and the
reaction floor, in turn artificially increasing the measured
shear strength.
As the current standard push test is not suitable for
composite precast hollowcore construction, a new standardised
push test is badly needed to fill the gap in the scope of BS5950
and Eurocode 4.
3. New push test for hollowcore slabs
A new horizontal push test arrangement is proposed as
shown in Fig. 4. The test specimens each consisted of four
600 mm wide × 800 mm long prestressed hollowcore units
connected to a 254 × 254 × 73 UC or HE206B with a single
row of 6 pre-welded headed studs at 150 mm distances. The first
stud is located 200 mm from the end of the slabs as suggested
in the Eurocode 4. Cores 500 mm long were left open to allow
for the placement of the transverse reinforcement. A 600 mm
slab width was chosen instead of the common 1200 mm width
so that the effect of the transverse joint could be observed. The
position of the hollowcore slabs relative to the position of the
studs is irrelevant, as their positions will be random in real life.
The in-situ concrete infill was cast horizontally and tested when
the required design strength was reached. A horizontal load was
applied to the specimen by two hydraulic jacks bracketed in
parallel onto the steel beam, and working against the slab via
spreader beams.
Longitudinal slip is measured by LVDTs at the end of the
slabs until the load has dropped to 20% below the maximum
load reached. This enables the load and slip capacity to
be determined. Because the slab is cast and loaded in the
horizontal position as it would be in practice, the construction
difficulties using this standard push test for hollowcore slabs
(HCS) and the inherent problems in the standard vertical push
test where the weaker concrete slab fails first are eliminated.
The test procedures for the horizontal push test for composite
 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174
Fig. 4. General arrangement for horizontal push test.
beams with HCS are as follows:
1. A minimum of three specimens are required for each test.
Each push test specimen consists of four 600 mm wide ×
800 mm long prestressed hollow core units. Fig. 5 shows a
specimen before casting.
2. The steel beams are wire brushed to remove loose scale and
rust before the hollowcore units are placed.
3. Transverse reinforcement is placed in each opened core.
4. The in-situ concrete infill is cast and cured horizontally in
the laboratory.
5. All three specimens should normally be cast and tested on
the same day when the required in-situ concrete strength is
reached.
6. Load is applied at 40 kN increments up to 60% of the
expected failure load and reduced to 10 kN increments
thereafter.
7. The loading is cycled 25 times between 5% and 40% of the
expected failure load.
8. The characteristic shear capacity of the headed stud
connectors is the maximum load sustained by the studs. The
slip capacity at which the maximum load is obtained is also
recorded.
1163
9. If all three test results are within 10% of the mean result,
then the lowest result should be used. If the test results are
outside 10% of the mean result, the tests should be repeated.
4. Validation of the horizontal push test
For the purposes of consistency, 7 sets of horizontal push
tests with 19 and 22 mm diameter headed shear connectors in
solid in-situ concrete slabs were carried out, and the results
were compared with the current codes of practice. This was
to ensure that the results and procedures are consistent and
representative so that the test arrangement and procedures could
be used to determine the shear and slip capacity of headed
stud in composite HCS. The test arrangement for the solid slab
specimen is shown in Fig. 6 and the load–slip curve for the
headed shear connectors in the solid slab is given in Fig. 7.
The results compared well with the resistance strength specified
in BS5950, Eurocode 4 and the equation for static strength
prediction by Oehlers and Johnson [11]. Table 1 shows the test
results and the predicted resistance of the shear connector. It
showed that results from the horizontal push tests are consistent
and compatible with the predicted results, and therefore can be
1164 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174

Table 1
Headed shear stud in solid concrete slabs
Test Concrete strength Stud dia. Max. load per stud Slip at max. load BS5950 EC4a Oehlers
ref. (N/mm2 ) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN) equ.b (kN)
RC1 15.3 19 71.7 3.7 95 60.4 79.3
RC2 29.1 19 102.6 6.2 100 88.9 112.9
RC3 28.5 19 101.6 6.9 100 87.8 111.7
RC4 28.0 19 100.1 6.3 100 86.8 110.6
RC5 50.1 19 133.2 9.0 109 113.5 152.3
RC6 24.0 22 120.8 5.2 119 106 136.2
RC7 44.6 22 124.3 6.2 139 152.1 191.5

a P 2 √ f E or P πd 2
R D = 0.29αd ck c R D = 0.8 f u 4 .
b P = 5.0A f (E /E )0.40 ( f / f )0.35 , Table 5, BS5950 [6].
p u c s cu u

stud connectors in hollowcore slabs, but all tests performed

Fig. 5. Push test specimen before casting of the in-situ concrete.
Fig. 6. Push test for solid slabs before casting.
used as the standard push test to determine the shear capacity
of shear connectors for hollowcore composite construction.
5. Push test results for headed studs in hollowcore slabs
72 full-scale push tests were carried out with different
parameters, i.e. studs sizes, HCS depth, gap, end profile, in-situ
concrete infill strength and amount of transverse reinforcement
in accordance to Table 2. Previous research by Lam et al. [3]
showed that gap between the hollowcore slabs, the transverse
reinforcement and the in-situ concrete infill strength were
the main parameters affecting the capacities of the headed
in the previous research were on 150 mm deep units with
chamfered end profiles and 19 mm headed studs; therefore
further tests are proposed with these additional parameters,
i.e. square end profile, different HCS depths and 22 mm dia.
studs. The additional parameters will no doubt provide more
comprehensive data for analysing the shear capacity of the
headed studs in hollowcore slabs. Fig. 8 shows the position of
transverse reinforcement and end details of the push tests.
The results reported in Table 2 include the maximum
capacity per stud, the amount of slip when the maximum load
is achieved and most importantly, the headed stud’s capacity at
6 mm slip. In accordance with Eurocode 4, shear connectors
should have sufficient deformation capacity to justify any
inelastic redistribution of shear assumed in design. Ductile
connectors are those with sufficient deformation capacity to
justify the assumption of ideal plastic behaviour of the shear
connection in the structure assuming the characteristic slip
capacity δuk is at least 6 mm. Hence, it is recommended that
the stud capacity at 6 mm slip should be used to specify the
characteristic capacity of the shear connectors.
In all the tests carried out, only a slip of 0.1 mm was
noticed at 40% of the expected failure load, and very little
amount of slip was observed during the 25 load cycles. A
longitudinal crack was first observed near the central region of
the slab with the transverse bar strain at around 2 micro-strains
and a corresponding slip of approximate 1.5–2 mm. Load
was applied to the specimens until slips of at least 8–10 mm
were recoded, unless the specimens failed before the required
slip was reached. All tests were continued until a failure
was reached and finally, the specimens were dismantled to
investigate the condition of the studs after the tests. The tensile
strength of the reinforcing bars was determined in accordance
with BS4449 [12]. Table 3 shows the yield and ultimate tensile
strength of the reinforcing bars used in the tests.
6. Modes of failure
Three modes of failure were observed from the push-off
test. The first mode of failure is concrete cone failure where no
shearing off of headed stud is observed. For this mode of failure,
the concrete around the stud started to fail in compression
before the stud yielded, the compression failure progressing
through the thickness of the concrete and forming a conical
 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174 1165

Table 2
Push test results
Test In-situ Rebar @ Studs φ × l HCS’s End profile Gap Max. load Slip at Load at Reduction
ref. concrete 300 mm c/c (mm) depth. (mm) per stud max. 6 mm slip (%)
strength and length (mm) (kN) load (kN)
(MPa) (mm) (mm)
PT1 23.38 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 65 63.4 1.43 54 14.8
PT2 23.38 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 65 57.8 0.78 50 13.5
PT3 34.20 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 73.5 2.38 68 7.5
PT4 34.20 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 100 82.1 2.43 76 7.4
PT5 52.27 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 91.7 2.1 83 9.5
PT6 38.80 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 120 83.2 1.75 73 12.3
PT7 38.80 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 140 82.1 2.41 76 7.4
PT8 53.30 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 120 89.1 1.67 77 13.6
PT9 26.15 T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 84.8 3.34 83 2.1
PT10 40.17 2T10/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 89 3.01 84 5.6
PT11 29.02 2T12/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 80 101 3.98 99 2.0
PT12 40.33 T12/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 81.3 2.27 76 6.5
PT13 26.15 T12/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 112.8 4.13 111 1.6
PT14 24.87 T12/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 85.3 4.6 83 2.7
PT15 19.91 T12/1000 19 × 100 300 Square end 100 90.9 2.22 83 8.7
PT16 26.41 T12/1000 19 × 100 300 Square end 100 99.7 3.4 91 8.7
PT17 46.60 T12/1000 19 × 100 300 Square end 100 113.3 2.66 90 20.6
PT18 24.71 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 80 99.7 5.63 99 0.7
PT19 24.71 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 80 105.7 8.1 104 1.6
PT20 28.49 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 60 91.8 3.46 88 4.1
PT21 28.49 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 100 100 4.74 97 3.0
PT22 28.49 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 40 87.8 3.96 86 2.1
PT23 23.43 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 114.3 6.75 111 2.9
PT24 23.43 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 95.3 6.27 95 0.3
PT25 23.43 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 101.9 4.26 101 0.9
PT26 26.09 T16/1000 19 × 100 250 Square end 80 105.1 5.76 104 1.0
PT27 26.09 T16/1000 19 × 100 250 Square end 80 97.6 6.16 97 0.6
PT28 42.10 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 127.8 6.06 127 0.6
PT29 42.10 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 128.1 5.58 127 0.9
PT30 51.70 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 112.8 8.48 112 0.7
PT31 26.15 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 117.7 7.84 115 2.3
PT32 26.15 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 114.3 8.72 112 2.0
PT33 35.72 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 80 110.6 6.81 110 0.5
PT34 44.13 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Square end 80 130.1 9.2 126 3.2
PT35 26.15 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 82.5 5.3 82 0.6
PT36 29.17 T16/1000 19 × 125 200 Square end 80 102.7 4.71 102 0.7
PT37 29.17 T16/1000 19 × 125 200 Square end 80 102.7 4.71 102 0.7
PT38 29.17 T16/1000 19 × 125 150 Square end 80 82.6 2.91 78 5.6
PT39 26.15 T16/1000 19 × 125 150 Square end 80 89.2 3.67 86 3.6
PT40 25.09 T16/1000 19 × 125 250 Square end 80 86.5 5.7 85 1.7
PT41 25.09 T16/1000 19 × 125 250 Square end 80 97.4 2.77 85 12.7
PT42 24.44 T16/1000 22 × 100 150 Square end 80 117.5 4.61 116 1.3
PT43 24.44 T16/1000 22 × 100 150 Square end 80 114.6 4.64 110 4.0
PT44 24.44 T20/1400 22 × 100 150 Square end 80 114.5 4.08 102 10.9
PT45 26.79 T20/1400 22 × 100 150 Square end 80 116.2 2.7 108 7.1
PT46 26.06 T20/1400 19 × 100 150 Square end 80 108.8 6.37 108 0.7
PT47 26.06 T20/1400 22 × 100 150 Square end 80 131.7 4.31 126 4.3
PT48 26.06 T20/1400 22 × 100 150 Square end 80 129.8 5.15 128 1.4
PT49 26.72 T20/1400 22 × 100 200 Square end 80 121.2 4.62 111 8.4
PT50 28.80 T20/1400 22 × 100 250 Square end 80 131.6 2.64 110 16.4
PT51 28.80 T20/1400 22 × 100 250 Square end 80 125.3 3.95 124 1.0
PT52 27.85 T20/1400 22 × 125 250 Square end 80 118.5 4.26 115 3.0
PT53 27.85 T20/1400 22 × 125 250 Square end 80 128.3 3.49 123 4.1
PT54 27.85 T20/1400 22 × 125 200 Square end 80 124.6 5.09 123 1.3
PT55 24.27 T20/1400 22 × 125 200 Square end 80 117.3 3.95 116 1.1
PT56 26.62 T12/1000 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 65 69.9 2.05 65 7.0
PT57 26.09 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 65 93.3 3.54 89 4.6
PT58 26.62 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 65 81.1 6.69 81 0.1
PT59 39.67 T16/1000 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 65 118.0 5.35 118 0.0
PT60 24.87 T16/1000 19 × 100 200 Chamfered end 65 92.1 3.2 87 5.5
(continued on next page)
1166 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174

Table 2 (continued)

Test In-situ Rebar @ Studs φ × l HCS’s End profile Gap Max. load Slip at Load at Reduction
ref. concrete 300 mm c/c (mm) depth. (mm) per stud max. 6 mm slip (%)
strength and length (mm) (kN) load (kN)
(MPa) (mm) (mm)
PT61 22.03 T16/1000 19 × 125 200 Chamfered end 65 104.5 6.28 104 0.5
PT62 22.03 T16/1000 19 × 125 200 Chamfered end 65 90.6 4.48 90 0.7
PT63 26.79 T16/1000 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 65 104.5 4.04 100 4.3
PT64 26.79 T16/1000 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 65 102.9 4.2 101 1.8
PT65 26.62 T16/1000 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 65 98.2 5.68 96 2.2
PT66 24.74 T20/1400 19 × 100 250 Chamfered end 65 103.4 8.0 102 1.4
PT67 24.74 T20/1400 19 × 100 250 Chamfered end 65 92.4 3.25 89 3.7
PT68 24.27 T20/1400 22 × 100 250 Chamfered end 65 98.8 5.9 98 0.8
PT69 24.27 T20/1400 22 × 100 250 Chamfered end 65 97.3 2.83 90 7.5
PT70 24.74 T20/1400 22 × 100 200 Chamfered end 65 91.7 4.14 89 2.9
PT71 26.30 T20/1400 22 × 100 200 Chamfered end 65 128.9 5.91 128 0.7
PT72 26.30 T20/1400 22 × 125 200 Chamfered end 65 116.9 3.34 116 0.8

Fig. 7. Load vs. slip curves for push tests with solid RC slabs.

(a) Single reinforcing bar per open core with square HCS.

(b) Dual reinforcing bars per open core with square end HCS. (c) Single reinforcing bar per open core with
chamfered end HCS.

Fig. 8. Transverse reinforcement position and end profiles of HCS.

 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174 1167

Table 3
Strength of transverse reinforcement

Reinforcement Yield strength (N/mm2 ) Ultimate tensile strength (N/mm2 )

T8 525–545 589–617
T10 544–552 630–733
T12 514–525 601–619
T16 535–549 627–633
T20 505–526 604–623

Table 4
Main parameters

Main parameter Variables

Transverse reinforcement per core T10, T12, 2T10, T16, 2T12, T20
Fig. 9. Concrete conical failure.
In-situ concrete gap (mm) 40, 60, 65, 80, 100, 120, 140
In-situ concrete infill strength (N/mm2 ) 20, 40, 50
Slab thickness (mm) 150, 200, 250, 300
of the concrete element is not reached. Fig. 10 shows a test
End profile Square-end, chamfered-end specimen with this failure mode.
Finally, the third mode of failure is the combined failure of
stud and concrete slab when maximum stresses are reached in
shape around the stud. A test specimen that failed in this mode stud and concrete elements. All three modes of failure were
is shown in Fig. 9. observed in the experimental push tests.
The second mode of failure is that the stud connector fully 7. Discussion
yields and no concrete failure is observed. This mode of failure
is identified as the stud failure mode, where the yield stress of The behaviour of the shear connection in the composite
the headed stud is reached while the maximum concrete stress beam with precast hollowcore slabs depends mainly on the
Table 5
Effect of transverse reinforcement
Test ref. In-situ concrete Rebar @ 300 mm c/c and length Max. load per stud Slip at max. load Load at 6 mm slip Reduction (%)
strength (MPa) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN)
PT1 23.38 T10/1000 63.4 1.43 54 14.8
PT9 26.15 T10/1000 84.8 3.34 83 2.1
PT13 26.15 T12/1000 112.8 4.13 111 1.6
PT10 40.17 2T10/1000 89 3.01 84 5.6
PT11 29.02 2T12/1000 101 3.98 99 2.0
PT23 23.43 T16/1000 114.3 6.75 111 2.9
PT32 26.15 T16/1000 114.3 8.72 112 2.0
PT46 26.06 T20/1400 108.8 6.37 108 0.7

Table 6
Effect of in-situ infill gap

Test In-situ concrete Rebar @ 300 mm c/c Slabs thkn. Gap Max. load per Slip at max. load Load at 6 mm Reduction (%)
ref. strength (MPa) and length (mm) (mm) (mm) stud (kN) (mm) slip (kN)
PT1 23.38 T10/1000 150 65 63.4 1.43 54 14.8
PT2 23.38 T10/1000 150 65 57.8 0.78 50 13.5
PT3 34.20 T10/1000 150 80 73.5 2.38 68 7.5
PT4 34.20 T10/1000 150 100 82.1 2.43 76 7.4
PT6 38.80 T10/1000 150 120 83.2 1.75 73 12.3
PT7 38.80 T10/1000 150 140 82.1 2.41 76 7.4
RC2 29.1 T10@200c/c 150 ∞ 102.6 6.2 102.6 0.0
RC3 28.5 T10@200c/c 150 ∞ 101.6 6.9 100 0.01
RC4 28.0 T10@200c/c 150 ∞ 100.1 6.3 100 0.01
PT22 28.49 T16/1000 200 40 87.8 3.96 86 2.1
PT20 28.49 T16/1000 200 60 91.8 3.46 88 4.1
PT18 24.71 T16/1000 200 80 99.7 5.63 99 0.7
PT19 24.71 T16/1000 200 80 105.7 8.1 104 1.6
PT33 35.72 T16/1000 200 80 110.6 6.81 110 0.5
PT21 28.49 T16/1000 200 100 100 4.74 97 3.0
1168 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174

Table 7
Effect of in-situ concrete strength

Test ref. In-situ concrete Rebar @ 300 mm c/c and HCS’s depth End profile Max. load per stud Load at
strength (MPa) length (mm) (mm) (kN) 6 mm slip
(kN)
RC1 15.3 T10@200c/c 150 RC 71.7 70.5
RC4 28.0 T10@200c/c 150 RC 100.1 100
RC3 28.5 T10@200c/c 150 RC 101.6 100
RC2 29.1 T10@200c/c 150 RC 102.6 102.6
RC5 50.1 T10@200c/c 150 RC 133.2 130.3
PT2 23.38 T10/1000 150 Square end 57.8 50
PT3 34.20 T10/1000 150 Square end 73.5 68
PT10 40.17 2T10/1000 150 Square end 89 84
PT5 52.27 T10/1000 150 Square end 91.7 83
PT15 19.91 T12/1000 300 Square end 90.9 83
PT16 26.41 T12/1000 300 Square end 99.7 91
PT17 46.60 T12/1000 300 Square end 113.3 90
PT18 24.71 T16/1000 200 Square end 99.7 99
PT19 24.71 T16/1000 200 Square end 105.7 104
PT36 29.17 T16/1000 200 Square end 102.7 102
PT37 29.17 T16/1000 200 Square end 102.7 102
PT33 35.72 T16/1000 200 Square end 110.6 110
PT34 44.13 T16/1000 200 Square end 130.1 126
PT23 23.43 T16/1000 150 Square end 114.3 111
PT24 23.43 T16/1000 150 Square end 95.3 95
PT25 23.43 T16/1000 150 Square end 101.9 101
PT31 26.15 T16/1000 150 Square end 117.7 115
PT32 26.15 T16/1000 150 Square end 114.3 112
PT28 42.10 T16/1000 150 Square end 127.8 127
PT29 42.10 T16/1000 150 Square end 128.1 127
PT30 51.70 T16/1000 150 Square end 112.8 112
PT58 26.62 T16/1000 150 Chamfered end 81.1 81
PT59 39.67 T16/1000 150 Chamfered end 118.0 118

could be ignored. However, for beams designed with partial

shear connections, the effects of slip cannot be neglected.
The ability of the shear connectors to maintain the maximum
capacity with slip, i.e. the ductility of the shear connector,
became a very important issue; therefore, it is important to
record the slip of the shear connectors in push tests up to at
least 10 mm. 72 such full-scale push tests were carried out,
and their load–slip characteristics are reported below; the main
parameters that affected the load–slip characteristics of the
headed shear connectors are now discussed in detail. Table 4
shows the main parameters and variables that affected the
load–slip characteristics of the shear connectors.

7.1. The effect of transverse reinforcement

Fig. 10. Yielding of the headed shear stud.
load–slip characteristics of the shear connectors at the interface
between the top flange of the steel sections and the concrete
slabs. This load–slip behaviour, usually found in push-off tests,
depends on the type of connectors, their sizes and dimensions,
the amount of transverse reinforcement, their spacing and the
gap and strength of the in-situ concrete infill. Early work
by Lam et al. [2] showed that for beams with full shear
connections, a slip of only 2 mm was observed in the full-scale
beam tests at the ultimate load, and therefore the effects of slip
The current practice in designing composite steel beams
with metal decking or solid RC slabs is to provide sufficient
transverse reinforcement, and in most of the cases, over-
reinforcement to avoid tensile splitting failure. For composite
beams with precast hollowcore slabs, the transverse bars are
placed uniformly perpendicular to the line of shear connectors
to ensure a uniform shear flow. However, for composite beams
with precast hollow core slabs, the cores for placing the
transverse reinforcing bars are opened during casting, and only
alternative non-edge cores are opened to avoid the risk of
 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174 1169

Table 8
Effect of hollowcore slabs’ thickness
Test ref. Studs φ × l (mm) HCS’s depth (mm) End profile Max. load per stud (kN) Slip at max. load (mm) Load at
6 mm
slip (kN)
PT23 19 × 100 150 Square end 114.3 6.75 111
PT24 19 × 100 150 Square end 95.3 6.27 95
PT25 19 × 100 150 Square end 101.9 4.26 101
PT32 19 × 100 150 Square end 114.3 8.72 112
PT31 19 × 100 150 Square end 117.7 7.84 115
PT18 19 × 100 200 Square end 99.7 5.63 99
PT19 19 × 100 200 Square end 105.7 8.1 104
PT21 19 × 100 200 Square end 100 4.74 97
PT36 19 × 125 200 Square end 102.7 4.71 102
PT37 19 × 125 200 Square end 102.7 4.71 102
PT40 19 × 125 250 Square end 86.5 5.7 85
PT41 19 × 125 250 Square end 97.4 2.77 85
PT27 19 × 100 250 Square end 97.6 6.16 97
PT26 19 × 100 250 Square end 105.1 5.76 104
PT16 19 × 100 300 Square end 99.7 3.4 91
PT44 22 × 100 150 Square end 114.5 4.08 102
PT45 22 × 100 150 Square end 116.2 2.7 108
PT47 22 × 100 150 Square end 131.7 4.31 126
PT48 22 × 100 150 Square end 129.8 5.15 128
PT49 22 × 100 200 Square end 121.2 4.62 111
PT54 22 × 125 200 Square end 124.6 5.09 123
PT55 22 × 125 200 Square end 117.3 3.95 116
PT50 22 × 100 250 Square end 131.6 2.64 110
PT51 22 × 100 250 Square end 125.3 3.95 124
PT52 22 × 125 250 Square end 118.5 4.26 115
PT53 22 × 125 250 Square end 128.3 3.49 123
PT57 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 93.3 3.54 89
PT58 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 81.1 6.69 81
PT59 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 118.0 5.35 118
PT60 19 × 100 200 Chamfered end 92.1 3.2 87
PT61 19 × 125 200 Chamfered end 104.5 6.28 104
PT62 19 × 125 200 Chamfered end 90.6 4.48 90
PT63 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 104.5 4.04 100
PT64 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 102.9 4.2 101
PT65 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 98.2 5.68 96
PT70 22 × 100 200 Chamfered end 91.7 4.14 89
PT71 22 × 100 200 Chamfered end 128.9 5.91 128
PT72 22 × 125 200 Chamfered end 116.9 3.34 116
PT68 22 × 100 250 Chamfered end 98.8 5.9 98
PT69 22 × 100 250 Chamfered end 97.3 2.83 90

core wall collapse. The two main functions of the transverse
reinforcement are: (a) to transfer the shear force from the steel
beam to the slabs, and (b) to provide confinement against
concrete splitting. Transverse reinforcement enhances the in-
plane shear resistance of the composite slab in the same way
that stirrups strengthen a concrete beam in vertical shear.
It is also required for control, and limits the longitudinal
splitting of the slab caused by local forces from individual
shear connectors. Table 5 shows the summary of our test
results with the main variable being the amount of transverse
reinforcement and all the other variables being kept constant. A
dual reinforcing bars arrangement, as shown in Fig. 8, was also
compared to investigate the effectiveness of this arrangement.
From the results shown in Table 5 and Fig. 11, specimens
with a high reinforcement ratio showed a significant increase in
ductility over specimens with a low reinforcement ratio. This
phenomenon was observed in all the push-off tests when the
mode of failure was concrete failure or combined stud shearing
and concrete failure; all specimens with a low reinforcement
ratio achieved their maximum load with slip less than 4 mm,
and a significant reduction in capacity was observed when
6 mm of slip was reached. An idealised load–slip relationship
for shear connectors with high and low reinforcement ratios is
shown in Fig. 12.
Resistance against concrete splitting is provided by the
tensile strength of the concrete, Fct , and after cracking, by the
tensile strength of the transverse reinforcement, Ft . For the push
test specimens with low reinforcement ratios, i.e. Ft < Fct , the
shear capacity drops immediately after the concrete is cracked,
as the transverse reinforcement is immediately yielded.
Whereas, the specimens with high transverse reinforcement
ratios, i.e. Ft > Fct , the shear connectors are able to maintain
1170 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174

Table 9
Effect of hollowcore slabs’ end profile and stud height

Test ref. Studs φ × l (mm) HCS’s depth (mm) End profile Max. load per stud (kN) Load at 6 mm slip (kN)
PT23 19 × 100 150 Square end 114.3 111
PT24 19 × 100 150 Square end 95.3 95
PT25 19 × 100 150 Square end 101.9 101
PT57 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 93.3 89
PT58 19 × 100 150 Chamfered end 81.1 81
PT18 19 × 100 200 Square end 99.7 99
PT19 19 × 100 200 Square end 105.7 104
PT20 19 × 100 200 Square end 91.8 88
PT21 19 × 100 200 Square end 100 97
PT60 19 × 100 200 Chamfered end 92.1 87
PT61 19 × 125 200 Chamfered end 104.5 104
PT62 19 × 125 200 Chamfered end 90.6 90
PT50 22 × 100 250 Square end 131.6 110
PT51 22 × 100 250 Square end 125.3 124
PT53 22 × 125 250 Square end 128.3 123
PT52 22 × 125 250 Square end 118.5 115
PT68 22 × 100 250 Chamfered end 98.8 98
PT69 22 × 100 250 Chamfered end 97.3 90
PT42 22 × 100 150 Square end 117.5 116
PT43 22 × 100 150 Square end 114.6 110
PT63 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 104.5 100
PT64 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 102.9 101
PT65 22 × 100 150 Chamfered end 98.2 96
PT49 22 × 100 200 Square end 121.2 111
PT54 22 × 125 200 Square end 124.6 123
PT55 22 × 125 200 Square end 117.3 116
PT70 22 × 100 200 Chamfered end 91.7 89
PT71 22 × 100 200 Chamfered end 128.9 128

Fig. 11. Load–slip curves for specimens with high and low transverse reinforcement ratios.

the load as redistribution of stresses takes place between the
concrete and transverse reinforcement, with a failure slip of at
least 6 mm. These specimens only failed when the ultimate
strength of the transverse reinforcement was reached. This
effect is particularly important when a partial shear connection
design is adopted when the ductility of the shear connectors
becomes an important issue.
After the slab has split, the load is transferred from the
slab to the stud through the cone of concrete by transverse
reinforcement. Failure occurs when either the stud shears
off or the transverse reinforcement yields. If the transverse
reinforcement is not yielded immediately after the concrete
splitting occurs, the load is transferred through the transverse
reinforcement; therefore no sudden drop of load capacity of the
 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174
Fig. 12. Idealised load–slip curves for specimens with high and low transverse
reinforcement ratios.
stud is observed. Plastic analysis allows the concrete cracking
and stress redistribution in the floor slab to be considered. The
tensile force exerted by the transverse reinforcement can be
taken as the ultimate strength of reinforcing bar.
If the transverse reinforcement yields immediately after
the concrete splitting occurs, the post-splitting confinement
strength developed by the transverse reinforcement is much
lower, and the shear resistance of the stud will drop,
causing considerable slip to occur across the interface. The
corresponding slip at maximum load will be less than the
required slip of 6 mm suggested by Johnson [13]. The
shear connection will fail due to concrete failure. However,
if yielding of the transverse bars does not occur before
concrete splitting, the post-splitting confinement strength of
the transverse reinforcement will enable the maximum load
to be maintained until the ultimate strength of the transverse
reinforcement is reached.
7.2. The effect of the in-situ infill gap
For the composite beam to achieve its composite action,
the compressive forces have to be transferred through the slab.
Therefore, an adequate amount of concrete is to be placed and
compacted around the shear connectors. For composite precast
hollowcore beams, the gap of the in-situ infill depends on the
width of the steel flange and the bearing of the hollowcore slabs.
Fig. 13. Capacity of shear stud vs. in-situ infill gap.
1171
A minimum bearing width of 50 mm onto the steel beam is
recommended. (Fig. 1) Parametric studies of the effect of the
in-situ infill gap to the resistance of the shear connectors were
carried out. Push tests with identical arrangements apart from
the in-situ infill gap were tested. The gap in the in-situ infill
ranged from 40, 60, 65, 80, 100, 120, 140 mm and ∞ (i.e. solid
slab), and the results are shown in Table 6.
The results show an increase of the stud capacity with
increases in the in-situ infill gap between the hollowcore slabs.
Research by Moy and Tayler [14] on the effect of solid precast
concrete planks on shear connector strength also indicated a
reduction in shear strength as the bearing length increased (i.e. a
reduction in the in-situ infill gap). The relationship between
the ultimate load resistance of the shear connectors and the
gap in the in-situ infill is illustrated in Fig. 13. The results
showed that the optimum gap width for the composite beams
with square-end hollowcore slabs is in the region of 80 mm,
which suggested that a larger in-situ infill gap is required for
the square-end as compared with the chamfered-end units.
7.3. The effect of in-situ concrete strength
The effect of the in-situ infill strength was investigated in
both composite beams with RC slabs and composite beams with
hollowcore slabs. Table 7 shows the summary of the test results
with the main variable being the in-situ infill concrete strength,
with all the other variables being kept constant.
Fig. 14 shows the effect of the in-situ concrete strength on
the shear capacity of the headed stud. As previously reported on
in-situ solid concrete slabs by Menzies [15], the results of these
push tests showed that the in-situ concrete strength affected the
shear capacity of the headed studs in solid RC slabs as well as
in hollowcore slabs. Increases in in-situ concrete strength led
to increases in the shear connector capacity, and the rates of
increase were similar for all the groups tested.
7.4. The effect of hollowcore slabs thickness
The effect of the hollowcore slabs’ thickness was
investigated in composite beams with hollowcore slabs. Table 8
1172 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174

Fig. 14. Load per stud vs. in-situ concrete strength.

7.5. The effect of hollowcore slabs’ end profile and stud height

Table 9 shows the push tests results for square-end and

chamfered-end hollowcore slabs. 100 mm long-headed shear
studs were used with the chamfered-end hollowcore slabs to
compare with the test results of the 125 mm long headed studs.
The results showed that a premature failure occurred for
some of the chamfered-end specimens with 100 mm long-
headed studs. A new mode of failure occurred, which was not
observed with 125 mm long-headed stud with a chamfered-end
or with the square-end hollowcore slabs. The in-situ concrete
infill was pushed off along the shear plane above the studs,
which led to premature failure of the specimen, as shown in
Fig. 15. Therefore it is recommended the top of the headed
studs should be at least 35 mm above the chamfered-end of the
hollowcore slabs.

8. Design equations

The design equations for the ultimate shear capacity of

headed studs in composite precast hollowcore slabs were
derived based on the earlier work of Lam et al. [3]. The first
equation represented the failure of the concrete, and the second
corresponded to the failure of the headed studs. The lesser of
the two values is used in design. Coefficients for the reduction
due to the in-situ infill gap and percentage of reinforcement
were introduced, and were based on the push test results on
chamfered-end HCS.
Fig. 15. Premature failure in the push test with chamfered-end specimens with
PR D = 0.29αβεd 2 f ck E c /γv
p
100 mm headed studs. (1)

shows the summary of the test results with the main variable π d2
PR D = 0.8 f u (2)
being the hollowcore slab’s thickness, with all the other 4γv
variables being kept constant. The results showed that the effect where
of slab thickness to the capacity of the shear studs was not
significant. For practical purposes, it is recommended to use the f ck is the average cylinder strength of the in-situ and
125 mm long headed studs for the hollowcore slabs thickness precast concrete.
over 300 mm, so that the transverse reinforcement can be placed Ec is the average modulus of elasticity of the in-situ and
below the head of the studs. precast concrete (N/mm2 ).
 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174
Fig. 16. Comparison of the test results/predicted shear capacity of the headed studs.
fu is the ultimate tensile strength of the headed stud
(450 N/mm2 ).
γv is the partial safety factor, and is taken as 1.25 at the
ultimate limit state.
α is the factor which takes into account the height of stud
and is given by 0.2(h/d + 1) ≤ 1.0.
β is the factor that takes into account the in-situ infill gap
between the HCS, gi , and is given by 0.5(gi /71+1) ≤
1.0 and gi ≥ 30.
ε is the factor that takes into account the transverse
reinforcement, and is given by 0.5(φ/20 + 1) ≤ 1.0,
where φ is the diameter of transverse reinforcement.
Fig. 16 shows the comparison of the predicted shear capacity
of the headed studs against the push test results, which include
both chamfered-end and square-end HCS, and good agreement
is obtained between the two. Hence, the proposed equations can
be used to predict the shear capacity of headed shear studs in
hollowcore slabs.
9. Conclusions
A standard push test procedure is developed for use with
composite beams with precast hollowcore slabs to determine
the shear capacity of the headed shear connectors. Push tests
were first carried out on headed studs in solid RC slabs to
validate the testing procedures to show that the new test is
compatible with the results specified in the current codes
of practice. Once a standard procedure is established, push
tests on headed studs in hollowcore slabs are performed to
determine the capacities of the headed stud connectors in
precast hollowcore slabs. 72 full-scale push tests were carried
out, and their load–slip characteristic curves were produced.
The results showed that 100 mm long-headed studs with
square-end hollow core slabs performed as well as 125 mm
long-headed studs with tapered-end slabs. For the tapered-end
slabs, the top of the headed stud should be at least 35 mm
above the chamfered-end of the hollowcore slabs to avoid
1173
premature failure of the slabs. The optimum in-situ gap width
of 80 mm should be used for square-end hollow core slabs.
Transverse reinforcement is the dominant factor affecting both
shear capacity and slip ductility. 16 mm diameter high tensile
bars are recommended to be used as transverse reinforcement to
ensure that a slip ductility of 6 mm minimum is maintained at
the maximum load. The design equations proposed for ultimate
shear capacity compare well with the experimental results, and
can be used to estimate the shear capacity of headed shear
connectors in precast hollowcore slabs.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge a research grant
provided by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council, the support provided by Severfield—Revee Structures
Ltd. in supplying the steel specimens and Bison Concrete
Products Ltd. for supplying the precast hollowcore slabs used
in this study. The author would also like to thank Dr. Ivan
Nip for his help in carrying out the tests, and the skilled
assistance provided by the technical staff in the School of Civil
Engineering at University of Leeds.
References
[1] Lam D, Elliott KS, Nethercot DA. Designing composite steel beams with
precast concrete hollow core slabs. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Structures and Buildings 2000;140:139–49.
[2] Lam D, Elliott KS, Nethercot DA. Experiments on composite steel
beams with precast concrete hollow core floor slabs. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings 2000;140:127–38.
[3] Lam D, Elliott KS, Nethercot DA. Push off tests on shear studs with
hollow-cored floor slabs. The Structural Engineer 1998;76(9):167–74.
[4] CP117. Part 1: Composite construction in structural steel and concrete.
London: British Standards Institution; 1965.
[5] BS5400. Part 5: Steel, concrete, and composite bridges. London: British
Standards Institution; 1979.
[6] BS5950. Part 3.1: Structural use of steelwork in building. London: British
Standards Institution; 1990.
1174 D. Lam / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 1160–1174
[7] Johnson RP, Yuan H. Existing rules and new tests for stud shear
connectors in troughs of profiled sheeting. Proceedings of The Institution
of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings 1998;128:244–51.
[8] BS EN1994-1-1. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete
structures: Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. London: British
Standards Institution; 2004.
[9] Ernst S, Bridge RQ, Wheeler A. Strength of headed stud shear connection
in composite beams. In: Australian structural engineering conference.
Newcastle (Australia); 2005.
[10] Hicks SJ, Couchman G. The shear resistance and ductility requirements
of headed studs used with profiled steel sheeting. In: United engineering
foundation conference, composite construction in steel and concrete. vol.
V; 2004.
[11] Oehlers DJ, Johnson RP. The strength of stud shear connec-
tions in composite beams. The Structural Engineer 1987;65B(2):
44–48.
[12] BS4449. Specification for carbon steel bars for the reinforcement of
concrete. London: British Standards Institution; 1997.
[13] Johnson RP, Molenstra N. Partial shear connection in composite beams
for buildings. Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2 1991;
91:679–704.
[14] Moy SSJ, Tayler C. The effect of precast concrete planks on shear
connector strength. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1996;36(3):
201–13.
[15] Menzies JB. CP117 and shear connectors in steel–concrete composite
beam. The Structural Engineer 1971;49(3):137–54.