Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013 (VEESD 2013)

C. Adam, R. Heuer, W. Lenhardt & C. Schranz (eds)
28-30 August 2013, Vienna, Austria
Paper No. §§§

Low cyclic tests on headed stud connectors in hybrid shear wall systems
H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann

Institute for Steel Structures, RWTH Aachen University, Germany

Abstract. An experimental campaign on the connection between a steel girder and two concrete infills has been
conducted, representing a detail of the typical shear connection in a hybrid or composite shear wall system. The
results obtained are compared to existing provisions on shear connectors and used to answer questions raised in
preliminary studies on the design process of hybrid shear walls.
Two different test set ups have been used, one to investigate shear load action and one for combined shear and
tensile action in the studs. With each set up one monotonic test has been performed to identify the respective
static load capacity. Each time two subsequent cyclic tests have been used to test the capability of the connection
to maintain integrity of the frame system when subjected to cyclic loads.

Keywords: Headed stud connectors, Hybrid shear wall system, Low cyclic experimental tests, SRCW-systems

1 INTRODUCTION

Steel frames with reinforced concrete infill walls (SRCW) have already shown good resistance when
subjected to earthquake loads. They do not only withstand high lateral loads, but also dissipate
earthquake energy. Figure 2 shows schematically a section of a SRCW.

In scope of European research project INNOHYCO optimisation of the composite SRCW system is
attempted by including exchangeable parts into the frame structure. Thus creating a hybrid shear wall
system, where individual advantages of each material are utilised to enhance the overall behaviour of
the structure. That is tensile strength of steel and compressive strength of concrete. (Reference to other
INNOHYCO publications). Preceding the optimization process was identification of critical aspects
and lack of clarity in design process. Preliminary case studies have shown that shear connectors
between steel frame and infill wall are the most critical aspect in the design process.

Though Eurocode (EC) 8 covers SRCW-systems in general, the code lacks information on
dimensioning of shear connectors in between. Information provided by EC 8 refers to composite
girders with concrete slab. However, the studs connecting frame and infill wall are arranged in plane
of the infill and thus have notably small distances to the wall edge. This and the additional shear and
tensile action result in a different load distribution in the studs than the one in the concrete slab of a
composite girder.

Figure 1. Headed stud connection between steel frame and concrete infill wall
H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann / VEESD 2013 2

Figure 2. Concrete shear wall in a steel frame

2 DESIGN OF SPECIMENS

2.1 Dimensioning according to Eurocode provisions

At the beginning of the INNOHYCO project, preliminary case studies were performed on typical
examples of possible fields of application of SRCW systems. Two cases were distinguished. A four-
floor and an eight-floor office building were dimensioned for a medium strength seismic event, likely
to occur in Europe. Regarding the design of shear connectors between infill wall and steel frame
several drawbacks and missing information in the standards were revealed.

In EC 8, section 7.10 directly refers to SRCW systems. According to this section shear connectors
(e.g. headed studs) should be provided to transfer vertical and horizontal shear. However, information
on how to design the shear connectors to withstand earthquake loads is not given. Nonetheless section
7.6.2 says that the design resistance of connectors between steel beams and concrete slabs in
dissipative zones can be calculated by multiplying the design resistance according to EC 4-1 by a
reduction factor of 0.75. As part of the experimental testing it was investigated, if a multiplication of
static values with the reduction factor 0.75 is also valid for obtaining the shear connector resistance in
shear wall systems subjected to low cyclic loading.

The dimensioning of the headed studs was performed according to the following formulas for the
longitudinal shear capacity for static loading.

(1)

√
(2)

(3)

Formulas (1) and (2) are given in EC 4-1. Formula (1) describes failure due to shearing of one headed
stud. Formula (2) describes concrete failure around one headed stud. Both resistances depend only on

young´s modulus Ecm and headed stud dimensions diameter d and ratio  between height and diameter
material properties (headed stud tensile strength fu, concrete compressive strength fck, concrete´s

of the stud). To include the distance to the edge of the wall (see Figure 1) and therefore possible
failure due to occurrence of splitting forces into the design, formula (3) was considered. The formula

resistances of course have to be reduced by the factor v, which was set to 1.0 for the dimensioning of
was taken from EC 2-2, thus strictly speaking an application of bridge construction. All design

the specimens.
H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann / VEESD 2013 3

Figure 3. Technical drawing specimens

2.2 Specification of test parameters

The specimens (see Figure 3) were designed following the material properties and dimensions of the
shear wall systems investigated in the case studies. This means in particular the choice of the steel
profile, dimensions of the headed studs and the wall thickness (200 mm) of the specimen. Moreover
the width of the concrete (450 mm) and the position and dimensions of the stirrups respectively were
chosen to represent encased corner regions of the shear walls investigated in the case studies.
Nevertheless a lower concrete strength (C30/37 instead of C40/50) was chosen to obtain concrete
failure rather than shearing of the headed studs. This leads to the following material properties of the
specimens:



HEB 200, S355


C30/37
Headed studs: ∅ 19 mm, hsc = 300 mm, fu = 500 N/mm²
 Reinforcement: ∅ 8(stirrups), ∅10 (longitudinal reinforcement), BSt 500 S (B)

The related characteristic headed stud resistances result as 113 kN (1), 105 kN (2) and 107 kN (3),
where concrete failure is expected before shear failure of the studs. Taking into account the real
material properties increases the values slightly to 132 kN (1), 115-116 kN (2) and 121-122 kN (3).
According to the manufacturer´s information, the stud tensile strength is fu = 580 N/mm², which is
considered in formula (1). Formulas (2) and (3) take the actual concrete strength after 43 days
(fcm = 40.9 N/mm²) and after 120 days (fcm = 41.9 N/mm²) into account. All tests were performed
within this time window. However, the expected concrete failure mode (2) remains the same.
H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann / VEESD 2013 4

Figure 4. Experimental set up

3 TEST ASSEMBLY

Figure 4 shows pictures of the experimental setups. Loads were transferred into the specimens via a
bolt. In the monotonic tests the steel girders were pulled, thus pressing the concrete infills against the
steel girders behind them. During the cyclic tests, the specimens were alternately pulled and pushed.

Two test set ups were realised to investigate the specimens´ answer to mere shear loading (set up 1)
and to combined shear and bending action resulting in higher tensile action in the studs (set up 2).
Figure 5 depicts schematically the resulting tension and compression struts in the concrete infills.

Figure 5. Scheme of tension and compression struts in the two test set ups (xxx neu zeichnen mit Corel…)
H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann / VEESD 2013 5

4 TEST EXECUTION AND RESULTS

Before the specimens were concreted, strain gauges were placed on headed studs and stirrups. The
strain gauges on the studs were placed on top and underneath of them, the ones on the stirrups were
placed on top of them. The gauges had to be protected against damage from moisture and chemical
reaction from the surrounding concrete as well as mechanical damage from the concreting process
(reference XXX?). Figure 6 shows details of the preparation of the specimens. The underlying
surfaces were cleaned and in case of the reinforcement smoothed down to ensure an optimal glued
connection between strain gauge and specimen. Cables were inserted into cladding tubes and secured
in their final position before soldering them to the strain gauges. The sealing of the strain gauges and
the soldered joints was obtained by layers of bi-component glue.

The low cyclic tests were executed according to the specifications given in EN 15129 (2009).
Following the given testing procedure, a structural component is sufficiently tested to withstand
seismic loads up to a certain value, if it can resist the following load history:

 5 cycles at ± 25%,
 5 cycles at ± 50%,
 10 cycles at ± 100% of the displacement, related to the load.

Usually the test is aborted after that point. In the following, this value will be referred to as reference
value Fref.

To test the validity of the reduction factor 0.75, described in section 2.1, the reference value Fref for the
low cyclic tests was set to 75% of the static value Fstat, obtained with the respective preceding
monotonic test (set up 1 or 2). The tests results (see Figure 8) from the first of the two cyclic tests,
respectively performed with each set up, showed that the specimen could not withstand the required
number of load cycles at 100 % of the reference value Fref. Therefore the respective second cyclic test
was performed with a reduced reference value of 50 % of the static value.

All specimens failed due to shearing of the studs, though the expected failure mode (see section 2.2)
was concrete failure. A detail of the sheared off headed studs can be taken from Figure 7. Though
evaluation of tensile forces in the studs, obtained from measurements with the strain gauges, showed
that higher tensile forces occurred with set up 2, both set ups lead to very similar results regarding
total load capacity and therefore transferability of shear loads.

4.1 Monotonic tests

The results obtained with the monotonic tests showed higher load capacities (set up 1: 943 kN/ set
up 2: 954 kN) than calculated with the formulas in section 2.2. The specimens would be expected to
fail at 6 * 115 kN = 690 kN.

4.2 Low cyclic tests

Table 1 summarizes the number of load cycles the specimens were subjected to at each load level. The
row with the respective reference values is highlighted in grey. Those specimens that could withstand
the ten load cycles at their reference values were subjected to additional load cycles at higher loads.
The loads were increased by 0.2 * Fref for each new load level and subjected to five cycles per level
until failure.
H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann / VEESD 2013 6

Figure 6. Preparation of specimens

Table 1. Number of cycles and related load levels

Set up 1 Set up 2
Fref = 50 % Fstat Fref = 75 % Fstat Fref = 50 % Fstat Fref = 75 % Fstat
Fcyc [kN] cycles Fcyc [kN] cycles Fcyc [kN] cycles Fcyc [kN] cycles
0.25 * Fref ± 177 5 ± 118 5 ± 177 5 ± 119 5
0.50 * Fref ± 353 5 ± 236 5 ± 354 5 ± 238 5
Fref ± 707 1 ± 471 10 ± 707 2 ± 477 10
1.20 * Fref ± 566 5 ± 572 5
1.40 * Fref ± 660 3 ± 667 5

Figure 7. Specimens after testing

H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann / VEESD 2013 7

Figure 8. Force – Displacement curves

H. Bigelow, B. Hoffmeister, M. Feldmann / VEESD 2013 8

5 CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of the real concrete strength and tensile strength of the headed studs cannot explain the
higher resistance. More importantly, it cannot explain either, why the studs fail due to shearing,
though concrete failure mathematically still should occur first.

The specimens, subjected to cyclic loading, all failed within the same load range. The specimens
tested with set up 1 failed at 76 % and 71 % of the static load capacity Fstat. The specimens tested with
set up 2 failed at 75 % and 81 % of their static reference test load.

There does not seem to be a correlation between the total number of load cycles performed before
crossing a certain critical load value and the failure load. Specimens 3 and 5 were subjected to 12 and
11 load cycles, while specimens 4 and 6 were subjected to 30 and 28 cycles before their failure.

Comparison of the cyclic tests results to the static values calculated with the real material properties
shows that the specimens can easily withstand cyclic loading with the procedure according to EN
15129 (2009) when taking 75 % of the thus calculated value as the reference value. The calculated
values are given in section 2.2.

A possible explanation of the better fitting of the calculated values could be that the formulas for the
estimation of the headed stud resistance have been derived based on experimental tests. The common
procedure for the testing of headed stud resistance is a standard push out test, as e.g. described in
EC 4-1. It requires 25 load cycles between 5 % and 40 % of the expected failure load before actually
performing the test, thus minimizing static friction between steel girder and concrete slab. Within the
performed testing campaign this was not done for two reasons. First, the performed test was not a
standard push out test and second it was feared that pre-applied load cycles would affect the accuracy
of the cyclic test results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is based on the INNOHYCO (INNOvative HYbrid and COmposite steel concrete structural
solutions for building in seismic areas) -project funded by the research fund of coal and steel (RFCS),
which is gratefully acknowledged here. The steel components of the specimens were provided by
project partner OCAM s.r.l. Furthermore the authors wish to thank August Friedberg GmbH for the
contribution of high-strength bolts, specifically produced for the load transfer between test cylinder
and specimens.

REFERENCES

EN 15129: 2009: Anti-seismic devices

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings, 2011.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings, 2010.
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures - Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings,
2010.
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures - Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges, 2010.
Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings, 2010.