See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268601283

Channel Shear Connectors in Composite Beams: Push-Out Tests

Conference Paper · February 2006

DOI: 10.1061/40826(186)47

CITATIONS READS
13 89

2 authors, including:

Mel Hosain
University of Saskatchewan
40 PUBLICATIONS   495 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

I have retired from the University. Now a days, I just make PowerPoint presentations at the Public Libraries and Service Clubs on my travels around the world. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mel Hosain on 20 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHANNEL SHEAR CONNECTORS IN COMPOSITE BEAMS:
PUSH-OUT TESTS

M.U. Hosain
Professor, Department of Civil & Geological Engineering
University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Canada
[email protected]

Amit Pashan
Graduate Student, Department of Civil & Geological Engineering
University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Canada
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
This paper briefly summarizes the results of an experimental research program involving the
testing of push-out specimens with channel shear connectors. The test program consisted of
three series, each with twelve push-out specimens. In each series, six specimens had solid
concrete slabs and the other six specimens had concrete slabs incorporating wide-rib profiled
metal deck with ribs parallel to the beam. The test parameters included the compressive
strength of concrete, length and web thickness of the channel shear connector. The test results
showed that, for a given length of channel, the concrete strength dictates the failure mode. In
specimens with higher strength concrete, failure was caused by the fracture of the channel web.
Crushing of the concrete adjacent to the channel web was the observed mode of failure in
specimens with solid slabs when lower strength concrete was used. In most of the specimens
with metal deck slabs, a concrete shear plane type of failure was observed.

INTRODUCTION
Composite steel-concrete beams have been used for a considerable time in bridge and building
construction. An essential element of a composite beam is the shear connection between the
concrete slab and steel section. Many types of devices have been used as shear connectors
and economic considerations continue to motivate the development of new products. Presently,
the headed stud is the most widely used shear connector in composite construction. Its
popularity stems from proven performance, simplicity and the ease of installation using a
welding gun. However, some concerns have been expressed about the reliability of the
installation technique under field conditions. Unless special care is taken, the strength of the
weld can be adversely affected by poor weather, the surface condition of the metal decking or
coating on the steel beam flange. Due to these drawbacks, the new perfobond rib connector is
being promoted as a viable alternative to headed stud connectors and research is in progress in
Europe (Studnicka et al. 2002) and Japan (Nishido et al. 2002). Some of the older generations
of shear connectors such as channels and T-sections are also gaining a resurgence in Japan
(Hidehiko and Hosaka 2002).
The advantages of the channel shear connector include the fact that it does not require an
expensive machine to install. The installation procedure would be similar to that used for beam
stiffeners and connection components. Thus, adopting this option eliminates one trade on the
job site, the shear connector installation crew, resulting in further savings in construction costs.
Inspection procedures such as bending tests required for headed studs may not be necessary
for channel connectors. It is robust and can take rough handling. A few channel connectors will
replace a large number of headed studs. This would avoid the clutter usually produced by studs
which creates an unsafe workplace during construction.
A review of literature indicated that little research work on channel connectors has been carried
out. An important source of information is a University of Illinois Bulletin (Viest et al. 1952) which
reports the test results of full size and push-out specimens with channel shear connectors. The
results of tests on small scale shear connectors including channel shear connectors were also
reported by Rao (1970).
The current Canadian Standard, CAN/CSA-S16-01 specifies that the factored resistance, qrs , of
a channel shear connector embedded in a solid concrete slab be evaluated using Eq. 1:
[1] qrs = 36.5 φSC (t + 0.5w)Lc√f’c
where φSC = Resistance factor for shear connectors
t = Flange thickness of channel
w = Web thickness of channel
Lc = Length of channel shear connector
f’c = Compressive cylinder strength of concrete
Eq. 1 is based on the work at Lehigh University by Slutter and Driscoll (1965). The overall test
program involved beam and push-out specimens with headed stud connectors, spiral
connectors as well as channels. Most of the 41 push-out specimens with channel connectors
featured six inch (152 mm) long and 4 inch (102 mm) high channels. Five specimens had 3 inch
(76 mm) high channels and only two featured 5 inch (127 mm) high channels. Thus, Eq. 1 is
strictly applicable to 4 inch high channels and does not include channel height as a parameter.
No equation is currently available for channel connectors embedded in concrete slab with ribbed
(profiled) metal deck.
This paper briefly summarizes the results of the second phase of a continuing experimental
research program involving the testing of push-out specimens with channel shear connectors.
The results of the first phase of this project were reported earlier (Pashan and Hosain 2003).
The main objective of this investigation was to study the structural behaviour of channel shear
connectors and to develop new equations for predicting the ultimate shear capacity of channel
connectors in composite beams with solid slab as well as those with concrete slab featuring
wide-rib (average rib width is at least 1.5 times the height) profiled metal deck with ribs parallel
to the beam. The 36 push-out specimens in Phase 2 had 102 mm high channel connectors
rather than 127 mm used in Phase 1. The compressive strength of concrete was considered to
be an important variable. Within each phase, three series of tests were conducted each with a
different concrete strength.
In addition to realizing the aforementioned objectives, the test program was designed to provide
further information on a number of important issues. Specifically, the study focused on the effect
of the following parameters on the shear capacity of the connector:
(i) Length of the channel shear connector
(ii) Web thickness of the channel shear connector

TEST PROGRAM
The test program in Phase 2 consisted of three series (D, E and F), each with twelve push-out
specimens. In each series, six specimens had solid concrete slabs and the other six specimens
had concrete slabs with wide-rib profiled metal deck with ribs parallel to the beam. The test
parameters included the compressive strength of concrete, length and web thickness of the
channel shear connector. As indicated earlier, all specimens in this phase featured 102 mm high
channels. In order to pour concrete on both slabs of the push-out specimen at the same time, a
different mode of fabrication, as described below, was used in this phase. A typical push-out
test setup is shown in Figure 1.

Detail-1

Detail-1

Fig. 1 - A Typical Push-out Test Setup

Series D featured 12 specimens, six with solid concrete slabs and six with concrete slabs
incorporating wide-ribbed metal deck with ribs parallel to the beam. As shown in Figure 2, each
push-out specimen was designated by a coded specimen name. The first letter of each name
signifies the name of the series, followed by a serial number of the specimen and the last letter
as S or D identifying solid or deck slab, respectively. Specimens D1S, D2S and D3S were
fabricated with C100x11 channels whereas Specimens D4S, D5S and D6S were made using
C100x8 channels, with web thickness of 8.2 mm and 4.7 mm, respectively. These six
specimens featured 150 mm thick solid slabs. A companion set of six specimens, D1D to D3D
and D4D to D6D, were made with wide-ribbed metal deck slabs. The length of channel for
Specimens D1S, D2S and D3S was 150 mm, 100 mm and 50 mm, respectively. Specimens
D4S, D5S and D6S also featured 150 mm, 100 mm and 50 mm long channels. Similar variation
in the channel length was also maintained for Specimens D1D to D3D and D4D to D6D with
metal deck slabs. Concrete with a compressive cylinder strength of 21.18 MPa was used in this
series.
Series E also involved 12 specimens with similar variables of channel connector as described
for Series D. Higher strength concrete, with a compressive cylinder strength of 34.80 MPa, was
used in this series. In Series F, the specimens were similar to those in Series D and E except
that the compressive strength of concrete was 28.57 MPa.

Description of Specimens
As shown in Figure 1, the push-out specimens consisted of a short W200x59 steel beam
section held in a vertical position by two identical reinforced concrete slabs. The concrete slabs
were attached to the beam flanges by channel shear connectors. The assembly was subjected
to a vertical load which produced shear load along the interface between the concrete slab and
the beam flange on both sides. The over-all thickness of the concrete slab was 150 mm. The
width of the concrete slab was 530 mm and the height was 712 mm. A recess of 100 mm was
provided between the bottom of the slab and the lower end of the steel beam to allow for slip
during testing. The distance between the channel connector and the bottom of the slab was kept
constant at 437 mm for all specimens.
 Fig. 2 - Specimens F1S to F6S of Phase 2
For all push-out specimens, the channel connector was welded directly to the beam flange. For
those with metal deck, a rectangular opening was made at the location of the channel connector
and the metal deck was lowered on to the beam flange. Wide-ribbed metal deck of Type HB
30V, 75 mm in height, was used. The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of four # 10 bars
(area = 100 mm2). For transverse reinforcement, four # 10 bars were used. These bars were
placed 25 mm above the metal deck and the longitudinal reinforcing bars were placed on top of
them. A single layer of 152 x 152 x MW 25.8 (wire diameter = 5.7 mm) standard welded wire
mesh was used in the slabs of all specimens.
The slabs were cast horizontally, to simulate the actual casting conditions in a composite beam.
To be able to pour concrete in both slabs of a push-out specimen at the same time, it was
necessary to cut the steel I-beam section along the middle of the web into two identical T-
sections. After the concrete slabs were cast on both flanges separately, the companion T-
sections were welded back together.
As shown in Figure 3, a Hydro-jet Precision cutting machine was utilized to ensure enhanced
accuracy of cutting with minimum loss of material. A jet of water containing abrasive material, at

Fig. 3. - Precision cutting of steel beam sections

a very high pressure, was used to cut the steel. This technique avoids undue temperature
stresses during the cutting process. The likelihood of warping and the development of additional
stresses are minimal with this cutting system.
As indicated earlier, the companion T-sections were welded back together after the casting of
slabs to form a push-out specimen. To ensure proper alignment of the two T-sections, two 5/8
inch (16 mm) thick steel plates were placed on each side of the webs and were clamped at both
ends as well as in the middle. Welding was first applied along four pre-cut openings in the steel
plates. The steel plates were then removed and the welding was completed.
Test Setup and Instrumentation
An Amsler testing machine of 2000 kN capacity was used for testing the push-out specimens.
Two LVDT displacement transducers were installed on either side of the specimen to measure
the slip at the steel-concrete interface. The base of the LVDT was set against the top surface of
the I-beam and the stem was set bearing against the centre of the top surface of the concrete
slab. Initially, the load was applied at an interval of 50 kN and when the load-slip curve started
to deviate from a straight line, the load interval was reduced to 20 kN. The loading of the
specimen was continued until failure occurred or until a significant amount of load release had
occurred beyond the ultimate load.

TEST RESULTS
Failure Mechanism and Load-Slip Behaviour
For specimens with solid slabs, two types of failure mechanism were observed; fracture of the
channel web near the fillet with the channel acting like a cantilever beam and failure by concrete
crushing followed by splitting. The typical failure mechanism involving fracture of channel web is
shown in Figure 4. The concrete crushing-splitting type of failure is illustrated in Figure 5.
Considerable amount of deformation was observed in the channel connector (Figure 6) after the
crushed concrete slab was removed. It appears that, as the deformation of the channel
connector progressed, the upper flange of the connector exerted an outward horizontal thrust on
the outside surface of the slab, resulting in the splitting of the concrete slab as shown in Figure
5. The load-slip curves of two specimens representing these two types of failure appear on
Figure 7. It is seen that the load-slip curve associated with channel failure, although quite
ductile, ends abruptly. Concrete crushing-splitting type of failure provides considerable warning
as the load carrying capacity decreases slowly.
Specimens with metal deck slabs are more susceptible to concrete related failures because of
very high concentration of stresses within a smaller area. In most of these specimens, a
concrete shear plane (shear bond) type of failure was observed. As shown in Figure 8, the
channel connector remained intact and the concrete contained within the flute in front of the
channel web sheared off along the interface. This type of failure is not likely to occur along the
whole span of a composite beam. Full size beam tests are required to determine the exact
nature of this type of failure in composite beams. In only two specimens, channel web fracture
type of failure was observed because of the smaller load carrying capacity of the channel
resulting from smaller web thickness (4.7 mm) and smaller length (50 mm) of the channel.

Fig. 4 - Typical Failure by Channel Web Fracture

 Fig. 6 – Deformation of Channel Connector

Fig. 5 - Typical Concrete Crushing-Splitting Failure

Load vs. Slip Behaviour of Specimens E2S and E3S

1200
Concrete Failure f’c = 34.80 MPa
1000 w = 8.2 mm

Load 800
(kN)
600
Channel Failure
400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Slip in "mm"

Fig. 7 - Typical Load-Slip Curves Fig. 8 - Concrete Shear Plane Failure

Effect of Concrete Strength

Figure 9 presents the load-slip curves for three companion specimens in Series D, E and F with
the same type of channel. The compressive strength of concrete used in Series D, E and F was
21.18, 34.80 and 28.57 MPa, respectively. It appears that, for a given length of channel, the
concrete strength governs the mode of failure. Channel web fracture type of failure was
observed in the specimen with the highest strength concrete while those with lower strength
concrete failed by concrete crushing.
Figure 10 presents the load versus √f’c curves for the nine specimens (channel web thickness =
8.2 mm) in Series D, E and F. According to Androutsos and Hosain (1994), for concrete related
failures the ultimate capacity of a shear connector is proportional to √f’c. Figure10 shows that
the specimens with higher strength concrete, which are more susceptible to channel web
fracture failure, do not follow the trend.
 Specimens D4S, E4S and F4S (L = 150 mm, w = 4.7 mm
1200
f'c = 34.80 MPa
1000
f'c = 28.57 MPa
800
Load
(kN) 600
f'c = 21.18 MPa
400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Slip in "mm"

Fig. 9 - Effect of Concrete Strength

Specimens of Series D, E and F with Solid Slab ( w = 8.2mm)
1400

1200 L = 150 mm

1000 L = 100 mm
Ult.
Load 800
(kN) L = 50 mm
600

400

200

0
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
f’c
Fig. 10 - Effect of Variation in Concrete Strength

Effect of Variation of Channel Length

The load-slip curves for Specimens E4S, E5S and E6S are shown in Figure 11. These
specimens were similar in every respect except that the length of the channel connector was 50,
100 and 150 mm, respectively. All three specimens failed due to channel web fracture. Figure
12 shows the effect of variation in the channel length for nine specimens in Series D, E and F.
The increase in the load capacity appears to be approximately in proportion to the increase in
length.
Specimens E4S, E5S and E6S (w = 4.7 mm; f'c = 34.80 MPa) Specimens of Series D, E and F with solid slab (w = 4.7mm)
1200 1200
L = 150 mm f'c = 34.80 MPa

1000 1000
f'c = 28.57 MPa

800 Ult. 800 f'c = 21.18 MPa

Load
Load
(kN) 600 600
L = 100 mm (kN)
400 400
L = 50 mm
200 200

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 50 100 150 200
Slip in "mm"
Channel Length "mm"

Fig. 11 - Load-Slip Curves of Specimens Fig. 12 - Effect of Variation in Channel with

Different Channel Length Length
 Solid Versus Metal Deck Slab
Figures 13 and 14 illustrate the effects of deck geometry on the load carrying capacity. The
load-slip curves for Specimens F1S and F1D are shown in Figure 13. These specimens were
similar in every respect except that Specimen F1S had solid concrete slabs whereas Specimen
F1D featured metal deck slabs. The specimen with solid slabs carried over 39% more load.
Both specimens experienced concrete related failure.

Specimens F1S and F1D

1200
f'c = 28.57 MPa
1000
Solid Slab L = 150 mm
800 w = 8.2 mm
Load
(kN) 600

400
Deck Slab
200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Slip in "mm"

Fig. 13 - Load-slip Curves of Specimens with Solid Slabs and with Metal Deck Slabs

Specimens of Series E, with Solid Slab & Deck Slab

1200
Solid Slab
1000
Deck Slab
Ult. 800
Load
600
(kN)
400 f'c = 34.80 MPa
w = 4.7mm
200

0
0 50 100 150 200
Channel Length (mm)

Fig. 14 - Influence of Deck Geometry

The load versus channel length curve for Specimens E4S, E5S and E6S, all with solid concrete
slabs, is shown in Figure 14. The same curve for their companion specimens with metal deck
slabs (Specimens E4D, E5D and E6D) is also shown for comparison purpose. The increase in
load capacity of the specimens with solid concrete slabs varies from 12% (50 mm long channel
connector) to more than 33% (150 mm long channel connector). The overall increase in load
capacity was 22.5% for the specimens with solid slabs.
Effect of Web Thickness
The load versus slip curves for Specimens F1S and F4S, both with solid concrete slabs, are
shown in Figure 15(a). The two specimens were similar in every respect except that the web
thickness of the channel connector was 8.2 mm and 4.7 mm, respectively. As the load-slip
curves indicate, both specimens failed due to concrete crushing. Specimen F1S with the thicker
channel web carried approximately 8% more load than that of Specimen F4S with the thinner
channel web. For concrete related failures, the specimens with thicker channel web carried only
6.44% higher load on an average.
Specimens F1S and F4S (L = 150 mm; f'c =28.57 MPa) Specimens F3S and F6S (L = 50 mm; f'c =28.57 MPa)
1200 600
Web Thickness = 8.2 mm Web Thickness = 8.2 mm
1000 500
Web Thickness = 4.7 mm
800 400
Load Load
(kN) 600 (kN) 300

400 Web Thickness = 4.7 mm

200

200 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Slip in "mm" Slip in "mm"
(a) (b)
Fig. 15 – Influence of Channel Web Thickness

The load versus slip curves for Specimens F3S and F6S, both with solid concrete slabs, are
shown in Figure 15(b). Once again, the two specimens were similar in every respect except that
the web thickness of the channel connector was 8.2 mm and 4.7 mm, respectively. As the load-
slip curves indicate, both specimens failed due to channel web fracture. Specimen F3S with the
thicker channel web carried 21% more load than that of Specimen F6S with the thinner channel
web. For failure by channel web fracture, the specimens with thicker channel web carried
17.29% higher load on an average. However, for similar specimens with higher strength
concrete (34.8 MPa), the increase was as high as 41%. This is due to lower flexural deformation
in the channel web in specimens with higher strength concrete.

Current CSA Equation for Channel Connectors

A comparison of the observed ultimate load values per channel and those predicted by Eq. 1 is
presented in Figure 16. In computing the predicted values, the performance factor (φSC) was not
considered. It appears that Eq. 1 gives very conservative values. This equation is based on the
work at Lehigh University by Slutter and Driscoll (1965). Most of the 41 push-out specimens
tested at Lehigh University had 6 inch (152 mm) long and 4 inch (102 mm) high channel
connectors. Therefore, the discrepancy is least, but still over 50%, for similar specimens tested
in this project. The predicted values become even more conservative for specimens with smaller
channel lengths. A similar variation in the test and predicted values was also observed for
specimens with channel connectors having 8.2 mm channel web thickness.
3.00

2.50
Series D
2.00 Series E
qu(Test) Series F
1.50
qu(Pred.) Solid Slab
w = 4.7mm
1.00

0.50

0.00
0 50 100 150 200
Channel Length (mm)

Fig. 16 - Comparison of Observed and Predicted Values Using Eq. 1

 CONCLUSIONS
The test results showed that the load carrying capacity of the channel connector increases
almost linearly with the increase in the channel length.
For a given length of channel, the concrete strength dictates the failure mode. In specimens with
higher strength concrete, failure was caused by the fracture of the channel web near the fillet.
Crushing of the concrete adjacent to the channel web was the observed mode of failure in
specimens with solid concrete slabs when lower strength concrete was used. In most of the
specimens with metal deck slabs, a concrete shear plane type of failure was observed.
The specimens with solid slabs carried higher loads compared to those with metal deck slabs.
The increase was approximately 33% for specimens with 150 mm long channel connectors but
only 12% for those with 50 mm long channel connectors.
The influence of web thickness of the channel connector was significant when failure occurred
due to channel web fracture but minimal for concrete crushing type failure.
The equation currently used to evaluate the shear capacity of channel shear connectors in solid
slab provides very conservative results. Work on the development of new equations for channel
connectors in composite beams with solid slab as well as those with concrete slab featuring
wide-rib profiled metal deck with ribs parallel to the beam is in progress. Results will be
published in near future.

REFERENCES
Androutsos, C and Hosain, M.U. 1994. Design equation for headed studs in narrow-ribbed metal
deck. Proceedings of the CSCE Annual Conference, Winnipeg, June 1-4, Vol. II, 249-258.
Canadian Standards Association 2001, CAN/CSA S16-01, Limit States Design of Steel Structures,
Toronto, Ontario.
Hidehiko ABE and Hosaka, T. 2002. Flexible Shear Connectors for Railway Composite Girder
Bridges. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV, ASCE, February, 71-80.
Nishido, T., Fuji, K. and Ariyoshi, T. 2002. Slip Behavior of Perforated Rib Shear Connector and Its
Treatment in FEM. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV, ASCE, February, 415-
425.
Pashan, A. and Hosain, M.U. 2003. Behaviour of Channel Shear Connectors in Composite Beams:
Push-out Tests. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering, Moncton, NB, June 4-7. GCF-333, 1-10.
Rao, S. N. 1970. Composite Construction-Tests on Small-Scale Shear Connectors. The Institute
of Engineers, Australia, Civil Engineering Transactions, April.
Slutter, R. G. and Driscoll, G. C. 1965. Flexural Strength of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams.
ASCE Journal of Structures Division, Volume 91, No. ST1, February, 71-99.
Studnicka, J., Machacek, J., Krpata, A., and Svitakova, M. 2002. Perforated Shear Connector for
Composite Steel Concrete Beams. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV, ASCE,
February, 415-425.
Viest, I. M., Siess, C. P., Appleton, J.H. and Newmark, N.M. 1952. Full-Scale Tests of Channel
Shear Connectors and Composite T-Beams. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment
Station Bulletin Series No. 405. Vol. 50. No. 21, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

View publication stats