buildings

Article
Shear Performance of Prefabricated Steel Ultra-High-
Performance Concrete (UHPC) Composite Beams under
Combined Tensile and Shear Loads: Single Embedded Nut
Bolts vs. Studs
Guodong Wang, Bingxiong Xian, Feiyang Ma and Shu Fang *

School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China;
3121002901@[Link] (G.W.); 3121003037@[Link] (B.X.);
2112309104@[Link] (F.M.)
* Correspondence: fangshu@[Link]

Abstract: Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) is widely used in precast concrete-steel compos-

ite beams because of its beneficial properties, including reduced structural weight, higher flexural
rigidity, and reduced tensile crack formation. In comparison to conventional steel-concrete composite
beams, steel-UHPC composite beams exhibit superior characteristics, including reduced structural
deadweight, enhanced flexural stiffness, and the capacity to withstand tensile cracking. One success-
ful attempt at meeting the current demands for expedited girder engineering is the development of
steel-UHPC composite beams with full-depth precast slabs as key components affecting the overall
structural performance using dismountable single embedded nut bolts (SENBs) and widely used
studs as competitive alternatives. In contrast, shear connectors are exposed to a combined tensile
and shear stress in service life rather than shear only. The corresponding scientific problem is the
problem of combined effects under stress in practical applications, but there is currently no relevant
research. The shear performance of SENBs in precast steel-UHPC composite beams under tension and
shear loads remains unclear. For this purpose, ten push-out specimens and theoretical analyses were
Citation: Wang, G.; Xian, B.; Ma, F.;
performed in this paper, considering the influence of the connector’s type and tensile-to-shear ratio.
Fang, S. Shear Performance of However, ten specimens were conducted to investigate the tensile-to-shear ratio, and the connector’s
Prefabricated Steel Ultra-High- type on shear performance is limited. In the future, an increasing number of specimens and test pa-
Performance Concrete (UHPC) rameters should be considered to investigate the shear performance of precast steel-UHPC composite
Composite Beams under Combined beams. An increase in the tension-to-shear ratio resulted in a substantial reduction in the ultimate
Tensile and Shear Loads: Single shear capacity, initial shear stiffness, and ductility of the studs. The increase in the tensile-shear ratio
Embedded Nut Bolts vs. Studs. from 0 to 0.47 resulted in a 16.9% decline in the ultimate shear capacity, a 30.4% reduction in the initial
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425. https:// shear stiffness, and a 21.7% decrease in the ductility of the Series I samples. However, an increase in
[Link]/10.3390/buildings14082425
the tensile-to-shear ratio of the Series II samples from 0 to 0.47 resulted in a 31.3% decline in ultimate
Academic Editor: Elena Ferretti shear strength, a 33.2% decline in initial shear stiffness, and a 41.9% decline in ductility. The SENBs
demonstrated minimal deviations in ultimate shear capacity compared to their stud counterparts,
Received: 8 June 2024
despite exhibiting notable differences in shear stiffness, and ductility. A lower tensile-to-shear ratio
Revised: 1 August 2024
was recommended in practical engineering, which might achieve a larger ultimate shear capacity,
Accepted: 4 August 2024
Published: 6 August 2024
stiffness, and ductility. The design-oriented models with enhanced applicability were developed to
predict the tension-shear relationship and the load-slip curve of SENBs in prefabricated steel-UHPC
composite beams subjected to combined tensile and shear loads. For a tensile-shear relationship
model, the point error range was 0 to 0.08, with an average error of 0.03. The square coefficient (R2 )
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. was 0.99 for a load-slip curve model. The study findings could offer a credible reference for the shear
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. mechanism of such economical and environmentally friendly precast steel-UHPC composite beams
This article is an open access article
in accelerated bridge construction.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Keywords: ultra-high-performance concrete; prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams; single
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
embedded nut bolts; studs; shear performance; combined tensile and shear loads
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Buildings 2024, 14, 2425. [Link] [Link]

Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 2 of 26

1. Introduction
Normal concrete (NC) is widely utilized in beam construction due to its reliability and
economy. However, it is often necessary to use large concrete structures to ensure reliable
performance, which might require longer construction times. In addition, crushing and
spalling concrete appear on NC due to its concrete strength. With the increasing demand for
better behavior and lower costs, mounting research has been devoted to upgrading or ex-
ploiting structural mechanical performance by introducing innovative materials, structures,
and techniques [1–5]. As a modern cement composite material, ultra-high-performance
concrete (UHPC) has exceptional structural characteristics that minimize the life cycle
costs of concrete structures [6–8]. The dense microstructure and distributed steel fibers of
UHPC provide outstanding mechanical properties (e.g., strength, stiffness, and ductility)
and durability (e.g., crack controllability and resistance to harsh environments), resulting
in a lightweight structure compared to normal concrete (NC) [9–11]. With these favor-
able material properties and advanced manufacturing technologies, UHPC has become
a concentrated research area in structures [12–14]. Recently, the combination of UHPC
and precast technologies has gained the attention of academic and engineering commu-
nities due to the demand for energy efficiency and green construction [15,16]. One of the
competitive approaches is using UHPC in steel-concrete composite beams. Compared to
conventional steel-concrete composite beams, steel-UHPC composite beams exhibited su-
perior characteristics, including reduced structural deadweight, enhanced flexural stiffness,
and the capacity to withstand tensile cracking [17]. Nevertheless, conventional steel-UHPC
composite beams often require on-site casting, steam curing operations, and extensive tem-
porary formwork, which cannot be considered adequate for accelerated beam construction
(ABC) [18,19].
As a posteriori response to this constraint, prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams
were designed with full-depth precast slabs and presented in Figure 1. These prefabricated
steel-UHPC composite beams are assembled from factory-fabricated steel beams and full-
depth precast UHPC panels, which are conveniently assembled through shear pockets by
arranging the shear connectors in groups in the shear pockets. Shear connectors represent
a fundamental component of steel-concrete composite beams. Their primary function is to
transmit shear forces along the steel-concrete interface, with a direct consequence on the
overall static behavior of steel-concrete composite beams. In recent years, several concen-
trated efforts have been made to investigate the shear performance of high-strength bolted
shear and stud connectors within steel-concrete composite beams [18,20–23]. Conventional
welded studs are usually clustered in a tight shear zone in order to achieve an important
component of the effective action of the composite beams (Type I in Figure 1) [18,24,25].
Given the analogous failure mechanisms of conventional welded studs and SENBs, single-
embedded nut bolts (SENBs) with one pre-embedded nut and one external nut on either
side of the steel flange can also be employed in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams
with full-depth precast UHPC slabs, as demonstrated in Figure 1 (Type II), which offer
superior material properties, easier assembly, and superior accountability in comparison to
conventional welded studs. Due to higher manufacturing tolerances, SENBs also exhibit a
more significant ease of installation than the widely used high-strength friction-grip bolts
(HSFGB). In addition, combining UHPC and demountable SENBs makes it possible to fully
utilize their excellent material properties. Moreover, these new prefabricated steel-UHPC
composite beams enable rapid dismantling and replacement around degraded members,
extending the life of the structure at minimal cost. However, in the existing studies on
steel-prefabricated UHPC composite beams using SENBs as shear connectors in full-depth
prefabricated UHPC slabs, the shear mechanism remained unclear.
24, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25

Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 3 of 26

SENBs as shear connectors in full-depth prefabricated UHPC slabs, the shear mechanism
remained unclear.

Figure 1. Full-depth precast steel-UHPC composite beams with grouped shear connectors.
Figure 1. Full-depth precast steel-UHPC composite beams with grouped shear connectors.

Among existing investigations

Among on the shear
existing investigations performance
on the of connectors
shear performance in steel-con-
of connectors in steel-concrete
crete compositecomposite
beams, increasing the diameter
beams, increasing of the connector
the diameter couldcould
of the connector effectively enhance
effectively enhance the
shearstiffness,
the shear strength, strength, stiffness, and ductility
and ductility [26–29].[26–29].
In ourInprevious
our previous study,
study, thethe connectors with
connectors
with a diametera diameter
of 22 mmofpresented
22 mm presented
superiorsuperior shear performance
shear performance [21].
[21]. In In addition,
addition, increasing
increas-
the height of the connector would enhance the shear strength
ing the height of the connector would enhance the shear strength [26,27]. However, the [26,27]. However, the shear
strength had an insignificant effect when the height was greater than 60 mm. The grade of
shear strength had an insignificant effect when the height was greater than 60 mm. The
concrete significantly affected shear strength when the compressive strength was less than
grade of concrete significantly affected shear strength when the compressive strength was
50 MPa [26,29–31]. However, in this study, the compressive strength of UHPC was at least
less than 50 MPa120 [26,29–31]. However,
MPa. Increasing in thisofstudy,
the number the compressive
connectors could improvestrength
the shearofperformance
UHPC of
was at least 120 MPa. Increasing the number of connectors could improve the shear per-
composite beams [32,33]. In our previous studies, 4d was the best spacing of the connectors,
formance of composite
which mightbeams [32,33].
achieve In our
superior previous
shear studies,
performance 4dIn
[10]. was
thethe
casebest spacing of steel-
of prefabricated
the connectors,UHPC
whichcomposite
might achieve superior shear
beams incorporating performance
full-depth [10]. In
precast slabs, the case
current of pre- have
investigations
examined the in-situ behavior of these elements, including
fabricated steel-UHPC composite beams incorporating full-depth precast slabs, current the effects of stud diameter,
bolted grade, bolted prestressing, casting method, and shear
investigations have examined the in-situ behavior of these elements, including the effects connector type on their
shear behavior, including failure modes, load-slip behavior, ultimate shear/slip capacity,
of stud diameter, bolted grade, bolted prestressing, casting method, and shear connector
frictional resistance, and initial shear stiffness [34]. Nevertheless, with the expansion of
type on their shear behavior, including failure modes, load-slip behavior, ultimate
the number of composite structural applications, shear connectors are used in specific
shear/slip capacity,
cases frictional resistance,
for both tension and and
shearinitial shear stiffness
applications, [34].
including Nevertheless,
composite beams,with
composite
the expansion columns,
of the number
connections in composite truss beams, and cable beam suspension in are
of composite structural applications, shear connectors composite
used in specificcable-stayed
cases for both tension
beams. Theand shearof
findings applications,
these studiesincluding composite of
on the combination beams,
tension and
composite columns, connections
shear showed in shear
that the composite truss
resistance ofbeams,
the jointsand cable beam
diminished suspension
as the tension in in
the joints
composite cable-stayed beams. The findings of these studies on the combination of tension
and shear showed that the shear resistance of the joints diminished as the tension in the
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 4 of 26

increased. The mode of failure of the studs under mixed loading was characterized by
shear deformation and necking [35]. It had been demonstrated that the ultimate shear
strength of welded studs might be reduced when subjected to combined loads, with
this reduction being more pronounced at higher tensile forces [36–41]. The laboratory
evidence led McMackin et al. [42] to derive an elliptical equation for the ultimate shear
strength of studs under combined tensile and shear forces, which was later recognized
as a standard by PCI 6th (2004). Bode et al. [43] conducted an in vitro experiential study
and proposed a triple equation for calculating the ultimate shear strength of headed studs
under combined tension and shear loads. This equation was subsequently identified as
the most appropriate by the PCI 6th [44] and ACI 318-08 [45]. In a study published in 2008,
Takami and colleagues [9] presented a circular equation for calculating the ultimate shear
strength of studs under the joint action of tensile and shear stresses. The Japan Society of
Civil Engineers (JSCE) [46] later endorsed this equation. Johnson et al. [47] conducted an
investigation into the response of studs to combined forces and concluded that the failure
of studs was attributable to the mixed action of tensile and shear stresses. The test results
of studs subjected to different tensile forces were analyzed by Lin et al. [35], who identified
the necessary calculation equations for the ultimate shear strength of studs under combined
tensile and shear forces. The focus of previous studies has been on the performance of
conventional studs under conditions of mixed shear and tension stress. Few investigations
have been made on the behavior of precast steel-UHPC composite beams using SENBs as
shear connectors in full-depth precast UHPC slabs under the simultaneous application of
tension and shear, and the shear mechanism is still unclear.
In this paper, 10 push-out samples were used to investigate the shear behavior of both
SENBs and studs under mixed tensile and shear loading. Various inclination angles were
examined to evaluate the influence of tensile-shear ratios on failure modes, load-slip curves,
load-uplift curves, ultimate shear capacity, shear stiffness, and ductility of SENBs and studs
in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams with full-depth precast slabs. On the basis of
the results of the present and previous investigations, the models for the prediction of the
shear-tension interaction strength and the load-slip relations of SENBs embedded in UHPC
under combined tensile and shear loading have been established. The study findings could
offer a credible reference for the shear mechanism of such economical and environmentally
friendly precast steel-UHPC composite beams in accelerated bridge construction, bridge
the existing knowledge gap, meet the increasingly widespread demand for composite
structure applications, and enhance the competitive application of UHPC in construction
and bridge engineering.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Specimen Details and Preparation
The push-out test is a cost-effective tool to study the shear behavior of shear connectors
in steel-concrete composite beams. The design formulae in Eurocode 4, as well as in other
design codes, were developed based on lots of push-test results. And it was also suggested
that the shear strength of connectors can be directly determined through the push-out test.
The results and conclusions from the push-out tests can be regarded as references for the
design of the steel-precast UHPC composite structures. To determine the shear behav-
ior of SENBs and studs in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams under combined
tension-shear loading, ten samples were prepared in this study. In our previous study,
the combination of UHPC slabs with a thickness of 75 mm and high-strength friction-grip
bolts with a diameter of 22 mm and a strength grade of 12.9 allowed the specimens to
present superior shear performance [48]. More recently, the feasibility of prefabricated
steel-UHPC composite beams with grouped SENBs has been demonstrated through com-
prehensive experimental and numerical investigations. The typical configurations and
dimensions of these samples were determined according to Eurocode 4 (2004) [49], as
depicted in Figure 2. To analyze the structural performance of different shear connectors,
these tests could be divided into two series, with each series consisting of one standard
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 5 of 26

push-out (SP) and four modified push-out (MP) specimens. The SP sample represented a
push-out sample under pure shear loading, in which the inclination angle was 90◦ from
the horizontal interface, according to Figure 2a. Each push-out test was composed of a
450 mm high HW250 × 250 × 14 × 9 hot-rolled steel beam and two UHPC side panels.
All precast panels were designed to represent the full-depth precast panels with the same
geometric dimensions of 450 mm in height, 400 mm in breadth, and 75 mm in gauge. The
steel and concrete sections were connected using two pairs of shear connectors arranged
in two rows and two columns. These connectors had the same height of 60 mm and a
longitudinal distance of 100 mm. In addition, these shear connectors were embedded in
inverted conical shear pockets, which have dimensions of 255 mm × 255 mm on the outside
and 215 mm × 215 mm on the inside on each side of the samples. Unlike the SP samples,
the hot-rolled steel beams in all MP samples needed to be cut through the symmetry plane
for the corresponding assembly process, as depicted in Figure 2b. The front face of the
steel beam was trapezoidal with a thickness of 14 mm, while the other dimensions of the
steel beam were variable as a function of the slope gradient of the steel-UHPC interface.
Accordingly, the UHPC panels in all MP samples were 400 mm wide, 75 mm thick, and
450 mm high, but varied in height according to the tension-shear ratio. In addition, a height
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 25
difference of 100 mm was established at the upper end of the steel and concrete sections.
This was done to allow for interfacial sliding during testing.

(a)

(b)
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Sample
Sample extraction
extraction details
details(unit:
(unit: mm).
mm). (a)
(a) Standard
Standard push-out
push-outsample
sample(SP
(SPsample).
sample).(b)
(b)Modi-
Mod-
ified push-out sample (MP sample).
fied push-out sample (MP sample).

Table 1 lists the sample

Table detailednames
sampleanddesignations
arrangement anddetails.
arrangements.
Figure 2To compare
depicts the the dif-
typical
ferent types
structure andofmeasurements
shear connectors, two
of the series of
standard push-out
and tests
modified were set
push-out testupsamples
using SENBs
of the
(Series series.
SENBs I) and The
studs (Series push-out
standard II). To compare the shear
test (SP-Test) behavior
sample of the two
represented types of
a push-out shear
sample
connectors under different ◦
combinations of forces, each series was further set up
tested at an inclination angle of 90 from the horizontal interface, i.e., under pure shear with five
separate angles of inclination from the horizontal interface (90°, 80°, 75°, 70°, and 65°). The
samples were labeled according to these test parameters, i.e., “connector type-connector
diameter-the angle of inclination from the horizontal interface.” For example, SP sample
B-D22A90 in Series I indicated a sample with a 22 mm diameter SENB and an inclination
angle of 90° from the horizontal interface.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 6 of 26

loading, and consisted of a 450 mm high HW250 × 250 × 14 × 9 hot-rolled steel beam and
two lateral UHPC slabs of the same dimensions and configuration. Designed to represent
full-depth precast panels, all precast panels had essentially the same geometric dimensions
of 450 mm high, 400 mm wide, and 75 mm thick. Due to the inverted conical shear pockets,
which increased the confinement of the surrounding concrete, the ultimate load capacity,
initial shear stiffness, and ductility of the samples were improved [50,51]. The steel and
concrete sections were attached using two pairs of shear connectors in two rows and two
columns embedded in inverted conical shear pockets measuring 255 mm × 255 mm on the
outside and 215 mm × 215 mm on the inside on each side of the sample. These connectors
had the same height of 60 mm and a distance of 100 mm in the longitudinal direction.
Figure 2a is a diagram of a grouped stud array and additional features of the push-out
samples. Figure 2b shows a sample from the SENBs series with an inclination angle of 75◦
from the horizontal interface. Unlike the SP-Test samples, the hot-rolled steel beams in
all MP-Test samples needed to be cut through the symmetry plane for the corresponding
assembly process. The front face of the steel mesh was trapezoidal with a thickness of
14 mm, while the different measurements of the steel beams varied according to the angle
of inclination of the steel-UHPC interface, i.e., the angle of inclination from the horizontal
interface. Correspondingly, the width of the UHPC plate in all the MP-Test samples was
400 mm, the thickness was 75 mm, and the outer height varied according to the tensile-
shear ratio, and the inner height was 450 mm so that the front view of the UHPC plate was
trapezoidal. The dimensions of the inverted conical shear pockets of the MP test samples
were the equivalent of those of the SP test samples, and the measurements of the studs were
the equivalent of those of the grouped studs. The connector layouts were the following:
the same as the SP test sample. The MP sample had the same inverted conical shear pocket
dimensions as the SP test sample, and the stud dimensions and grouped stud layout were
the same as the SP test sample. Other details are shown in Figure 2b. In addition, a 100 mm
height difference was allowed at the top of the rebar and concrete sections to allow for
interfacial sliding during testing.

Table 1. Specifications of push-out tests.

Ratio of Tension
Series Specimen Connector Type Angle (◦ )
to Shear
B-D22A90 90 0.00
B-D22A80 80 0.18
I B-D22A75 SENB 75 0.27
B-D22A70 70 0.36
B-D22A65 65 0.47
S-D22A90 90 0.00
S-D22A80 80 0.18
II S-D22A75 Stud 75 0.27
S-D22A70 70 0.36
S-D22A65 65 0.47

Table 1 lists the detailed sample designations and arrangements. To compare the
different types of shear connectors, two series of push-out tests were set up using SENBs
(Series I) and studs (Series II). To compare the shear behavior of the two types of shear
connectors under different combinations of forces, each series was further set up with five
separate angles of inclination from the horizontal interface (90◦ , 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ ). The
samples were labeled according to these test parameters, i.e., “connector type-connector
diameter-the angle of inclination from the horizontal interface.” For example, SP sample
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 25

Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 7 of 26

effect of material properties. As shown in Figure 3 Step4, the curing procedure for the
shear pocketinconcrete
B-D22A90 was the same
Series I indicated as that
a sample withfor
a 22the
mm precast panels.
diameter SENBWhen and anthe shear pocket
inclination
concrete ◦
angle ofcured,
90 from twotheindividual
horizontal T-shaped
interface. steel beams were welded together to form the
target push-out tests. Finally,
Figure 3 presents the beams and
the manufacturing precast
process slabs
for all were leveled
samples. to minimize
The fabrication of thefabri-
steel beams was conducted before the fabrication of the concrete slabs.
cation errors. Through the above-mentioned process, ten push-out samples were prepared To minimize the
difference in material properties among the concrete slabs, the steel beams were
and ready for load testing, as shown in Figure 3 Step5. Six cylindrical samples (ɸ 100 × 200 cut along
mm the
2) symmetry plane into twofor
were manufactured T-shaped sections.
each batch andThewere
flanges of the steel
hardened joists were
under supplied
the same circum-
with bolted holes of the appropriate diameters. After the bolts had been installed in the
stances to evaluate the physical characteristics of the concrete.
precast holes, a preload was applied to the bolts. As shown in Figure 3, Step1, to ensure
sufficient preload, the torque coefficient was tested using a torque wrench. As shown in
Table 1. Specifications
Figure of push-out
3, Step2, twenty tests. wooden formworks were made. Then UHPC was
corresponding
poured into wooden formworks to obtain the precast slabs with reverse shear
Ratio pockets. to
of Tension
Series
These slabs were curedSpecimen
in a specificConnector Type Angle
curing environment (°)
with temperatures exceeding
Shear
80 ◦ C and a relative humidity of not less than 95% for three days after the hardening of
the concrete (in 24 h).B-D22A90
The cured slabs were then placed on the 90steel flange in accordance
0.00
B-D22A80
with Figure 3, Step3. Grease was applied to the steel flanges to80
relieve the surface 0.18
adhesion
between I the steel andB-D22A75
concrete componentsSENBprior to the placement
75 of the pocket0.27 concrete.
The pocket connections on each sample were poured at the same time to minimize the
B-D22A70 70 0.36
effect of material properties. As shown in Figure 3 Step4, the curing procedure for the shear
pocket concrete was the B-D22A65 65 the shear pocket0.47
same as that for the precast panels. When concrete
cured, two individualS-D22A90
T-shaped steel beams were welded together90 to form the target0.00push-
out tests. Finally, the S-D22A80
beams and precast slabs were leveled to 80minimize fabrication 0.18errors.
ThroughII the above-mentioned
S-D22A75 process, ten push-out
Stud samples were 75 prepared and 0.27 ready for
load testing, as shown in Figure 3 Step5. Six cylindrical samples (ϕ 100 × 200 mm2 ) were
S-D22A70 70
manufactured for each batch and were hardened under the same circumstances to evaluate
0.36
S-D22A65
the physical characteristics of the concrete. 65 0.47

Figure 3. 3.
Figure Key sample
Key samplepreparation procedures.
preparation procedures.

[Link]. Material Properties

Material Properties
The UHPC cast in precast slabs and shear pockets had the same properties. The UHPC
The UHPC cast in precast slabs and shear pockets had the same properties. The
mixtures consisted of 52.5R silicate cement, silica fume, nano-CaCO3 , silica sand, steel fibers,
UHPC mixtures consisted
super-plasticizers, of 52.5R
and water with asilicate
mass ofcement,
829, 216,silica fume,
35, 1079, 156, 29, and 1943,kg/m
nano-CaCO silica3 ,sand,
steel fibers, super-plasticizers,
respectively. and water with
Accordingly, the corresponding a mass of of
serviceability 829, 216,
fresh 35, 1079,
UHPC 156, 29, and 194
was determined
kg/m 3, respectively. Accordingly, the corresponding serviceability of fresh UHPC was de-
by flow testing according to ASTM C1437 (2015) [50]. The density of fresh UHPC was
termined by flow according
then evaluated testing according to ASTMspecified
to the procedure C1437 (2015) [50]. The
in ASTM density(2016)
C29/C29M of fresh UHPC
[51].
was then evaluated according to the procedure specified in ASTM C29/C29M (2016) [51].
As previously described, several cylinders with diameters of 100 mm and heights of 200
mm were prepared to measure the compressive strength fc’ (ASTM C1231/C1231M 2015)
[52], modulus of elasticity Ec (ASTM C469/C469M 2014) [53], Poisson’s ratio v (ASTM
 Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 8 of 26

As previously described, several cylinders with diameters of 100 mm and heights of

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25
200 mm were prepared to measure the compressive strength fc ’ (ASTM C1231/C1231M
2015) [52], modulus of elasticity Ec (ASTM C469/C469M 2014) [53], Poisson’s ratio v (ASTM
C469/C469M 2014) [53], and the split tensile strength ft ’ (ASTM C496/C496M 2011) [54] of
C469/C469M
UHPC. Table 2014) [53], and the
2 summarizes the split tensile
average strength
results for theft’above-mentioned
(ASTM C496/C496M 2011)properties
material [54] of
UHPC.
for at Table 2 summarizes
least three samples. the average results for the above-mentioned material proper-
ties for at least three samples.
Table 2. Material characteristics of UHPC in both fresh and hardened conditions.
Table 2. Material characteristics of UHPC in both fresh and hardened conditions.
Mechanical
fc ’ (MPa) ft ’ (Mpa) E (Mpa) v
Mechanical Properties fcProperties
’ (MPa) ft’ (Mpa) Ec (Mpa) c v
Precast slab 172.08slab
Precast 18.42
172.08 18.42 50457 50457 0.232 0.232
Shear pocket 174.82
Shear pocket 18.46
174.82 18.46 45718 45718 0.215 0.215

As shown in Figure 4, tensile tests had been carried out on the production of the steel.
As shown
The material in Figure 4,
performance oftensile tests hadwas
the fasteners been carried out
measured byon the production
examining of themm
three 12.5 steel.
The material performance of the fasteners was measured by examining three 12.5 mm
diameter circular tensile samples from the same lot as the push-out samples. The direct
diameter circular tensile samples from the same lot as the push-out samples. The direct
tensile performance of the steel beams was obtained by testing three dog-bone shaped
tensile performance of the steel beams was obtained by testing three dog-bone shaped
samples cut from the same lot as the push-out samples. The average test results, including
samples cut from the same lot as the push-out samples. The average test results, including
the modulus of elasticity Es, the yield strength fy, and the corresponding tensile strength
the modulus of elasticity E , the yield strength fy , and the corresponding tensile strength fu ,
fu, are depicted in Table 3. s
are depicted in Table 3.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure4. [Link]
Mechanicalproperty
propertytesting
testing for steel productions.
for steel productions.(a)
(a)Compressive
Compressivetest
test
forfor UHPC.
UHPC. (b) (b)
Split-
Splitting tensile test for UHPC. (c) Tensile test for steel productions.
ting tensile test for UHPC. (c) Tensile test for steel productions.

Table 3. Mechanical properties of steel productions.

Table 3. Mechanical properties of steel productions.
Types Es (GPa) fy (MPa) fu (MPa)
Types Es (GPa) fy (MPa) fu (MPa)
Diameter 22 stud 211.08 388.96 486.67
Diameter 22 stud 211.08 388.96 486.67
Diameter 22 bolt 202.20 642.38 877.93
Diameter
Steel beam22 bolt 202.20
202.11 642.38
274.65 877.93
462.66
Steel beam 202.11 274.65 462.66
2.3. Test Setup and Instruments
[Link]
theSetup andLaboratory
Bridge Instruments of the Guangdong University of Technology, China, all
push-out investigations were carried
At the Bridge Laboratory out Guangdong
of the on a 500 T compression
University machine (FigureChina,
of Technology, 5). Thisall
500T compression
push-out machinewere
investigations withcarried
the serial
outnumber
on a 500YA2005114S was machine
T compression an automatic pressure
(Figure 5). This
testing
500T machine thatmachine
compression was made bythe
with Zhejiang SchlikorYA2005114S
serial number equipment was manufacturing
an automaticco., LTD
pressure
in testing
China. machine
To guarantee consistent
that was made load transfer,Schlikor
by Zhejiang a 25 mmEquipment
thick force-expanding
ManufacturingsteelCo.,
plate
Ltd.
was used onTothe
in China. upper side
guarantee of the sample,
consistent and aathin
load transfer, coating
25 mm thickof high-strength gypsum
force-expanding steel plate
was
was used
usedbetween the sample
on the upper side of and the machine
the sample, and a platform forofstress
thin coating transfer on
high-strength the up-
gypsum was
per/lower sides the
used between of the sample.
sample Eight
and the linear platform
machine variable for
displacement transducers
stress transfer (LVDTs)
on the upper/lower
were installed to track the displacement during the push-out tests (Figure 5), including
four 50 mm LVDTs oriented vertically to gauge the relative longitudinal slip between the
steel beams and the UHPC slab, and four 10 mm LVDTs oriented horizontally to measure
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 9 of 26

sides of the sample. Eight linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were installed
to track the displacement during the push-out tests (Figure 5), including four 50 mm LVDTs
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25
oriented vertically to gauge the relative longitudinal slip between the steel beams and the
UHPC slab, and four 10 mm LVDTs oriented horizontally to measure the relative transverse
displacements.
the These transducers
relative transverse wereThese
displacements. attached to the four
transducers edges
were of the sample
attached at a height
to the four edges
equal to the center of the shear pocket.
of the sample at a height equal to the center of the shear pocket.

Figure 5. Test set-up and instrumentations.

Figure 5. Test set-up and instrumentations.
A two-phase loading procedure was used for this investigation. Before official load-
A two-phase loading procedure was used for this investigation. Before official loading,
ing, the samples were preloaded to 20 kN. For the formal loading, force loading was first
the samples were preloaded to 20 kN. For the formal loading, force loading was first applied
applied at a velocity of 1 kN/s. The force-controlled loading was ramped up to 100 kN and
at a velocity of 1 kN/s. The force-controlled loading was ramped up to 100 kN and then
then switched to displacement-controlled loading. The sample was loaded monotonically
switched to displacement-controlled loading. The sample was loaded monotonically at
at a velocity
a velocity ofof 0.18
0.18 mm/minwithout
mm/min withoutstopping
stoppingfor
forthe
the duration
duration of
of the
the push-out
push-out test.
test. The
The
test
test was terminated when the shear connector broke or the load was reduced to half
was terminated when the shear connector broke or the load was reduced to half the
the
ultimate
ultimate shear
shear capacity.
capacity.

3.
3. Discussion
Discussion of of the
the Results
Results of
of the
the Experiment
Experiment
3.1. Typical
3.1. Typical Failure
Failure Modes
Figure 66 illustrates
Figure illustrates thethe typical
typical failure
failure modes
modes and and close-up
close-up views
views of the samples. It It
could be
could be noticed
noticed that that there
there was
was aa slight
slight difference
difference in in the
the fracture
fracture appearance
appearance on on the
the outer
outer
side of
side of the
the concrete
concrete slab slab for
for the
the samples
samples fromfrom Series
Series I.I. Figure
Figure 6a 6a showed
showed thatthat cracks
cracks were
were
found
found only around the shear pockets on the outside of the slab, but only
the shear pockets on the outside of the slab, but only a small number a small number of
fractures
of fractureswerewereseen on the
seen exterior
on the of the
exterior of concrete
the concreteslab of sample
slab B-D22A75.
of sample As displayed
B-D22A75. As dis-
in Figure
played in 6b, the 6b,
Figure samples exhibited
the samples concreteconcrete
exhibited crushing in the region
crushing in thenear thenear
region root the
of the
rootbolt.
of
Thisbolt.
the localized concrete concrete
This localized crushingcrushing
in the vicinity
in theof the connector
vicinity root was root
of the connector due was
to the large
due to
bearing pressure at the steel-concrete joint [55]. The failure pattern
the large bearing pressure at the steel-concrete joint [55]. The failure pattern was con- was controlled by the
fracture
trolled byofthe
thefracture
bolts adjacent to the
of the bolts beam-pocket
adjacent interface, with
to the beam-pocket only awith
interface, small portion
only of
a small
concrete damage below the bolt roots. According to Figure
portion of concrete damage below the bolt roots. According to Figure 6a,b, no evident 6a,b, no evident variation in
crack development and failure in the regions close to the bolt root
variation in crack development and failure in the regions close to the bolt root was found was found in samples
with
in different
samples withtension-to-shear ratios, which
different tension-to-shear might
ratios, which be might
relatedbetorelated
the small diameter
to the small di-of
the SENBs.
ameter of the SENBs.
However, after
However, after removing
removing the thesteel
steelbeams
beamsafter
afterthe thetests,
tests,a aslight
slightplastic
plasticdeformation
deformation of
the predrilled holes was noted, accompanied by the penetration
of the predrilled holes was noted, accompanied by the penetration of the bolt threads of the bolt threads through
the wallsthe
through ofwalls
the holes. It could
of the holes. be noticed
It could through
be noticed Figure
through 6c that
Figure the the
6c that shearing
shearingforce on
force
the bolts decreased and the deformation on the bolt holes decreased as the tension-shear
on the bolts decreased and the deformation on the bolt holes decreased as the tension-
ratio increased.
shear ratio increased.
Unlike the push-out tests with SENBs, all the samples in Series II showed similar
failure modes. However, horizontal cracks between the shear pockets and the surround-
ing precast slabs could be found in Figure 6a, which was attributed to the horizontal and
vertical deformation between the shear pockets and the surrounding precast slabs when
subjected to large loads. Consequently, for samples with a large ultimate shear capacity
(e.g., S-D22A90), the concrete splitting around the shear pockets were more pronounced
and tended to propagate from the bottom corners to the precast slabs. In addition, due to
 steel beams remaining intact. The restraining effect of the weld ring resulted in a predom-
inantly compression collapse of the concrete. However, as illustrated in Figure 6b, signif-
icant concrete crushing and localized spalling occurred in front of the stud roots on the
inner side of the precast slabs due to stress concentration. It was also observed from Figure
6c that there was no appreciable variation in the failure modes of the Series I sample with
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 10 of 26
different tensile/shear ratios, which further resulted in similar load-slip behavior as de-
scribed below.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Failure
Failure modes
modes of of samples.
samples. (a)
(a) Crack
Crack patterns
patterns on
on outer
outer slab
slab surfaces.
surfaces. (b)
(b) Crack
Crack patterns
patterns on
on
inner slab surfaces. (c) Installation position of shear connectors on steel beams.
inner slab surfaces. (c) Installation position of shear connectors on steel beams.

3.2. Relationship between Load

Unlike the push-out andwith
tests Interfacial
SENBs, Slip
all the samples in Series II showed similar
failure modes.
Figure However, the
7 illustrates horizontal cracks between
relationships between the
the exerted
shear pockets andthe
load and thevertical
surrounding
inter-
precast slabs
facial slip could to
(referred be as
found in Figure relation”).
the “load-slip 6a, which The was shear
attributed to the
capacity washorizontal
defined asand
the
vertical deformation
load applied to eachbetween
connector,thewhile
shear the
pockets and the
slippage surrounding
at the precast
interface was slabs when
specified as the
subjected to large value
average recorded [Link],
the four LVDTs forinstalled
samples inwith
theavertical
large ultimate shear
direction. capacity
As shown in
(e.g., S-D22A90), the concrete splitting around the shear pockets were more
Figure 7, the minimum value of the load applied to the push-out specimens was 0. For pronounced
and tended to propagate from the bottom corners to the precast slabs. In addition, due to
the superior pullout resistance of the high-strength bolts, crack development was more
significant in the samples with studs compared to those with SENBs, as shown in Figure 6a.
Due to the confinement of the root region by the weld, the position of the bolts’ sections
was produced above the weld. The section of the bolts had an inclined planar shape, which
was related to the tensile shear ratio. In addition, samples in Series II failed in stud fracture,
and all fractured studs remained encased in pocket concrete with the welds on the steel
beams remaining intact. The restraining effect of the weld ring resulted in a predominantly
compression collapse of the concrete. However, as illustrated in Figure 6b, significant
concrete crushing and localized spalling occurred in front of the stud roots on the inner side
of the precast slabs due to stress concentration. It was also observed from Figure 6c that
there was no appreciable variation in the failure modes of the Series I sample with different
tensile/shear ratios, which further resulted in similar load-slip behavior as described below.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 11 of 26

3.2. Relationship between Load and Interfacial Slip

Figure 7 illustrates the relationships between the exerted load and the vertical interfa-
cial
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW slip (referred to as the “load-slip relation”). The shear capacity was defined as the 11 load
of 25
applied to each connector, while the slippage at the interface was specified as the average
recorded value of the four LVDTs installed in the vertical direction. As shown in Figure 7,
the minimum value of the load applied to the push-out specimens was 0. For Series I
Series I specimens,
specimens, the maximum
the maximum loads to
loads applied applied to the specimens
the specimens from B-D22A90
from B-D22A90 to B-
to B-D22A65
D22A65
were: were:
1497, 1497,
1351, 1351,
1319, 1319,
1294, 1294,
and 1243and
kN.1243
ForkN. ForIISeries
Series II specimens,
specimens, the maximum
the maximum loads
applied to the specimens from S-D22A90 to S-D22A65 were: 1724, 1533, 1464, 1269,1269,
loads applied to the specimens from S-D22A90 to S-D22A65 were: 1724, 1533, 1464, and
and 1184
1184 kN. kN.

(a) (b)
Figure7.7. Relationships
Figure Relationshipsbetween
betweenthe
theload
load and
and interfacial
interfacialslip
slip of
of push-out
push-out samples.
samples. (a)
(a) Series
Series II SENBs.
SENBs.
(b) Series II Studs.
(b) Series II Studs.

As illustrated in
As in Figure
Figure7a,7a,ititwaswas noticed
noticed that thethe
that samples
samples of Series I exhibited
of Series I exhibiteda com- a
parable pattern
comparable in their
pattern overall
in their load-slip
overall load-slipresponses. The The
responses. general load-slip
general relations
load-slip con-
relations
consisted of four
sisted of four distinct
distinct regions,
regions, i.e.,i.e., elastic,
elastic, plastic,
plastic, strengthening,
strengthening, andand decline
decline phases.
phases. In
In
thethe initiatingelastotic
initiating elastoticphase,
phase,a alinear
linearcorrelation
correlationwas was established
established with the applied applied loadload
and
and interfacial
interfacial slip
slip [14,56],
[14,56], resulting
resulting in inthe
thephysical
physical abrasion
abrasion of of the
the nut
nutembedded
embedded in in the
the
steel
steel beam
beam due due totothe
thepreload
preloadof ofthe
thebolts.
bolts. Once
Once thethe friction
friction was
was overcome,
overcome, the the slope
slope of of
the curve for the load-slip relationship decreased significantly, indicating
the curve for the load-slip relationship decreased significantly, indicating that the plastic that the plastic
phase
phase was reached.
[Link] The apparent
apparent interfacial
interfacial slipslip at this
at this stagestage was mainly
was mainly causedcaused
by thread by
thread penetration and the nonlinear responses of the bolts and
penetration and the nonlinear responses of the bolts and concrete slabs. During the sub-concrete slabs. During the
subsequent strengthening
sequent strengthening phase,
phase, thethe yieldingofofthe
yielding thebolts
boltsand
anddeformation
deformation of of the
the preformed
preformed
holes
holes occurred,
occurred, increasing
increasing shearshear capacity
capacity with with decreasing
decreasing slope
slope until
until the
the ultimate
ultimate shearshear
capacity was reached. During the post-peak decline phase, the
capacity was reached. During the post-peak decline phase, the shear load dropped ab- shear load dropped abruptly,
indicating the brittle
ruptly, indicating thebehavior of the bolt
brittle behavior fracture.
of the bolt fracture.
The
The load-slip relations for the Series IIII samples
load-slip relations for the Series samples are are illustrated
illustrated in in Figure
Figure 7b,
7b, which
which
also
also exhibited similar four-stage behavior. However, different to the Series I samples, no
exhibited similar four-stage behavior. However, different to the Series I samples, no
significant
significant change
change was was observed
observed between
between the the elastic
elastic and
and plastic
plastic phases
phases because
because the thestud
stud
shear
shearresistance
resistancewas wasprovided
providedbyby the bearing
the bearing mechanism
mechanism rather
ratherthan by mechanical
than by mechanical friction.
fric-
Due to the absence of thread penetration, studs exhibited stiffer
tion. Due to the absence of thread penetration, studs exhibited stiffer load-slip behavior load-slip behavior than
bolts
than during the plastic
bolts during [Link].
the plastic
Although
Although the load-slip responses
the load-slip responses of of all
all push-out
push-out samples
samples werewere comparable,
comparable, the the char-
char-
acteristic values used to define the performance of the connectors varied with the test
acteristic values used to define the performance of the connectors varied with the test pa-
parameters. However, it could be observed from Figure 7a,b that the ultimate shear bearing
rameters. However, it could be observed from Figure 7a,b that the ultimate shear bearing
capacity, initial shear stiffness, and corresponding slip capacity of samples of the same
capacity, initial shear stiffness, and corresponding slip capacity of samples of the same
shear connector type decreased as the tensile-shear ratio increased. In the subsequent
shear connector type decreased as the tensile-shear ratio increased. In the subsequent par-
paragraphs, this phenomenon is discussed.
agraphs, this phenomenon is discussed.

3.3. Relationship between Load and Interface Bulge

The load-uplift relations for all push-out tests are presented in Figure 8, and the up-
lifts (separations) at the ultimate shear capacity 𝑃 are also listed in Table 4. During the
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 12 of 26

3.3. Relationship between Load and Interface Bulge

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25
The load-uplift relations for all push-out tests are presented in Figure 8, and the
uplifts (separations) at the ultimate shear capacity Pu are also listed in Table 4. During
the push-out tests, the slabs tended to lift from the beams, resulting in lateral separation
each each
from [Link].
Figure 8 shows
Figure the load-slab
8 shows uplift
the load-slab relationship
uplift for all
relationship fortests. NoteNote
all tests. thatthat
the up-
the
lifts here
uplifts were
here wereaveraged
averagedfrom
fromthe
thefour
fourhorizontal
horizontalLVDTs
LVDTsobtained
obtainedas asshown
shown in in Figure
Figure 5.
5.
In particular,
In particular, positive
positive and
andnegative
negativevalues
valuescorresponded
correspondedtoto inward
inward andandoutward
outwardslabslab
ro-
tation, respectively.
rotation, respectively.

(a) (b)
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Relationships
Relationships between
between the
the load
load and
and interfacial
interfacial uplift
uplift of
of push-out
push-out samples.
samples. (a)
(a) Series
Series II
SENBs. (b) Series II Studs.
SENBs. (b) Series II Studs.

Table 4. Test result summary.

Table 4. Test result summary.
Ultimate Shear Capacity Initial Shear Stiffness Silp Capacity Uplift at Pu
Specimens Ultimate Shear Initial Shear
(kN) (kN/mm) (mm)Silp Capacity (mm) at Pu
Uplift
Capacity Stiffness
𝑷𝒖
Specimens (kN) 𝒌 (kN/mm) 𝑺𝒖 (mm) 𝑼(mm)
𝒖
B-D22A90 187.10 311.05 5.66 −0.12
Pu k Su Uu
B-D22A80 168.88 284.81 5.13 0.09
B-D22A90 187.10 311.05 5.66 −0.12
B-D22A75 164.89 262.17 4.74 0.17
B-D22A70 B-D22A80
161.69 168.88246.56 284.81 4.56 5.13 0.09
0.19
B-D22A65 B-D22A75
155.40 164.89216.49 262.17 4.43 4.74 0.17
0.40
S-D22A90 215.50
B-D22A70 161.69358.45 246.56 3.84 4.56 −1.52
0.19
S-D22A80 191.63
B-D22A65 155.40340.12 216.49 3.64 4.43 −1.28
0.40
S-D22A75 183.00
S-D22A90 215.50302.84 358.45 3.43 3.84 −1.00
−1.52
S-D22A70 158.63 275.37 2.54 −0.48
S-D22A80 191.63 340.12 3.64 −1.28
S-D22A65 148.00 239.32 2.23 −0.43
S-D22A75 183.00 302.84 3.43 −1.00
S-D22A70 158.63
It could be found that 275.37
most of the curves for the Series I 2.54 −0.48first in
samples expanded
the negative
S-D22A65direction and then in the positive
148.00 load increased,−indicating
direction as the 2.23
239.32 0.43
the first outward separation between the steel and concrete components. Subsequently,
the precast
It couldpanels exhibited
be found an inward
that most rotating
of the curves fortendency
the SeriestoI separate due to the first
samples expanded lateral
in
separation of the bolts. Even with loads up to 0.8 𝑃
the negative direction and then in the positive direction as the load increased, indicatinga
, uplift was observed to range from
negative
the value of separation
first outward 0.2 mm to between
a positivethevalue
steelofand
0.2concrete
mm, which was less than
components. 7% of the
Subsequently,
corresponding interfacial slip. However, except for the sample with
the precast panels exhibited an inward rotating tendency to separate due to the a large angle (B-
lateral
D22A90), the
separation plate
of the tended
bolts. to rotate
Even inward
with loads upbefore
to 0.8 reaching
Pu , upliftthe
waspeak load. to range from
observed
One possible
a negative value ofexplanation
0.2 mm tofor this interesting
a positive value ofphenomenon
0.2 mm, which was was
that less
the lateral
than 7%sepa-
of
ration was limited by the normal action induced by the bolt pre-tension, which gradually
increased with the development of interfacial slip [34]. However, the increase in preten-
sion in sample B-D22A90 might not be able to resist lateral separation. As a result, the
uplift in B-D22A90 (about −0.15 mm) at peak load was about 3% of the corresponding slip
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 13 of 26

the corresponding interfacial slip. However, except for the sample with a large angle
(B-D22A90), the plate tended to rotate inward before reaching the peak load.
One possible explanation for this interesting phenomenon was that the lateral separa-
tion was limited by the normal action induced by the bolt pre-tension, which gradually
increased with the development of interfacial slip [34]. However, the increase in pretension
in sample B-D22A90 might not be able to resist lateral separation. As a result, the uplift in
B-D22A90 (about −0.15 mm) at peak load was about 3% of the corresponding slip capacity.
As the tension-to-shear ratio increased, the greater the normal tensile force applied to the
Series I samples, the more significant the degree of transverse uplift of the concrete slabs at
the ultimate shear load capacity.
Unlike the curves of the Series I samples, the curves of the Series II samples were all
stretched in the negative direction, as depicted in Figure 8b, indicating the corresponding
outward plate rotation between the steel and concrete components.
Conventional studs tended to segregate with outward rotation of the precast slab
during interfacial slip due to the constraints of the weld ring. With an increase in the slope
angle, the transverse buckling of the Series II samples at ultimate shear capacity increased.
The rapid increase in uplift might be related to the sliding of the slab on the stud collar [57].
Therefore, the use of high-strength SENBs in precast slabs was an effective way to reduce
lateral separation, which led to an unfavorable combination of tensile, shear, and bending
effects of shear-resistant connectors.

3.4. Shear Properties of SENBs and Studs in Prefabricated Steel-UHPC Composite Beams
The evaluation of the shear behavior of SENBs and studs in prefabricated steel-UHPC
composite beams was based on the experimental data from the push-out tests, as indicated
in Table 4. Meanwhile, in order to facilitate analysis and perception, the Ishikawa causality
diagram (Figure 9) was used for analysis. This paragraph reviewed the implications of
tension/shear ratios and shear connector types on ultimate shear capacity, original shear
stiffness, and slip capacity. The ultimate shear capacity Pu was determined as the quotient
of the peak load and the number of joints. To further assess the deformation capacity of
the composite beams in service, initial shear stiffness was k introduced and calculated as
the steepness of the tangent of the load-slip graph at 0.2 mm slip [7]. In addition, the shear
connectors were assessed for their ability to slip capacity Su . Shear connectors with a slip
capacity greater than 6 mm could be identified as being in ductile response to Eurocode
4 (2004). The slip capacity is suggested to be the maximum slip recorded at 90% of the
shear-bearing capacity after breakage. Taking into account the instantaneous load loss due
to the failure of bolted shear connectors, the slip capacity Su was assessed by measuring
the relative vertical slip when loaded to peak, as adopted in previous studies.

3.4.1. Comparison between SENBs and Studs

This section provided a comparison of the SENBs and studs under combined tension-
shear loading. It was found that the deviation in ultimate shear bearing capacity between
Series I and II samples having the same tensile-to-shear ratios (0, 0.18, 0.27, 0.36, and 0.47)
was about 13%, 12%, 10%, 2%, and 5%, respectively.
The effective area of the bolt thread (B-D22A90, 303 mm2 ) was approximately 0.8 times
that of the S-D22A90 (380 mm2 ), so a stud of the same diameter and inclination angle of
the horizontal interface should have a greater bearing effect than a bolt. However, due to
the deviation in material properties, the ultimate shear bearing capacity of specimens with
different shear connectors and the same tensile shear ratio had not fully demonstrated this
pattern. In addition, the ultimate shear capacities of the corresponding Series I samples
were superior to those of the Series II samples for both tensile-to-shear ratios of 0.36 and
0.47, which could be attributed to the fact that the material properties of the studs were not
as good as those of the SENBs.
 shear connectors were assessed for their ability to slip capacity 𝑆 . Shear connectors with
Series I and II samples having the same tensile-to-shear ratios (0, 0.18, 0.27, 0.36, and 0.47)
a slip capacity greater than 6 mm could be identified as being in ductile response to Euro-
was about 13%, 12%, 10%, 2%, and 5%, respectively.
codeThe 4 (2004). Thearea
effective slipof
capacity
the boltis thread
suggested to be the303
(B-D22A90, maximum
mm2) was slipapproximately
recorded at 90% 0.8 of
the shear-bearing capacity after breakage. Taking into account the instantaneous
times that of the S-D22A90 (380 mm2), so a stud of the same diameter and inclination angle load loss
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 14 of 26
due to the failure of bolted shear connectors, the slip capacity 𝑆 was
of the horizontal interface should have a greater bearing effect than a bolt. However, due assessed by meas-
uring
to the relative
the deviation in vertical
materialslip when loaded
properties, to peak,shear
the ultimate as adopted
bearingincapacity
previous of studies.
specimens
with different shear connectors and the same tensile shear ratio had not fully demon-
strated this pattern. In addition, the ultimate shear capacities of the corresponding Series
I samples were superior to those of the Series II samples for both tensile-to-shear ratios of
0.36 and 0.47, which could be attributed to the fact that the material properties of the studs
were not as good as those of the SENBs.
In addition, a clear difference in the initial shear stiffness could be found in Figure
10b, where it could be observed that the initial shear stiffness of all Series I samples with
the same angle of inclination from the horizontal interface was smaller than that of Series
II samples.
However, the low initial shear stiffness of the SENBs was a result of the early onset
of nonlinearity, which was mainly due to the overcoming of interfacial friction, the pene-
tration of the bolt threads through the hole wall, and the reduction in the bearing capacity
of the concrete ahead of the embedded nut [19].
As illustrated in Figure 10c, the slip capacities exhibited by the different shear con-
nectors were also quite different. The slip capacities of the connectors in Series I were
larger than those of the Series II samples with the same angle of inclination from the hor-
izontal interface.
This was because the slip 𝑆 was the relative vertical slip under peak load. Due to
[Link]
Figure Ishikawacause-and-effect
cause-and-effectdiagram.
diagram.
the superior ductility of the bolts, the relative slip at bolt fracture was much greater than
the relative vertical slip at peak load. In contrast, SENBs exhibited a brittle failure pattern,
[Link] between
addition, a clear SENBs
difference inand Studs shear stiffness could be found in Figure 10b,
the initial
and the relative slip at fracture was not much different from the relative vertical slip at
where it could
This
peak load. be provided
section
However, observed
the shearathat the initial
comparison
connectors ofshear stiffness
the SENBs
resulted in moreandof all concrete
studs
severe Series
underI combined
samples
damage,with the
tension-
which
same
shear angle of
loading. inclination
It was found from
thatthe
the horizontal
deviation interface
in ultimate was smaller
shear bearing
was not conducive to fully utilizing the constructive performance of the steel-concrete
than that
capacity of Series
between
II samples.
composite beams.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 10.
10. Influences
Influencesofof
angle
angleonon
thethe
shear behavior
shear of connectors.
behavior (a) Ultimate
of connectors. shear shear
(a) Ultimate capacity. (b)
capacity.
Initial shear stiffness. (c) Slip capacity.
(b) Initial shear stiffness. (c) Slip capacity.

[Link],
Effect of Sample
the lowTensile Shear stiffness
initial shear Ratio of the SENBs was a result of the early onset of
nonlinearity,
This study which was mainly
considered due to theangles
five different overcoming of80°,
(i.e., 90°, interfacial
75°, 70°,friction,
and 65°)the
topenetration
illustrate
of the
the boltofthreads
effect throughratio
tension-shear the hole
on thewall, andbehavior
shear the reduction in the
of bolted bearing
shear capacity
connectors of the
in pre-
concrete ahead
fabricated of the embedded
steel-UHPC compositenut [19]. under tension and shear loads. The ultimate
beams
shearAs illustrated
bearing in Figure
capacity 10c,
of Series the slip with
I samples capacities exhibited
inclination anglesbyofthe
80°,different
75°, 70°,shear con-
and 65°
nectors
were were88.1%,
90.3%, also quite
86.4%,different.
and 83.1% The slip90°
of the capacities
samples,ofrespectively.
the connectors The in Series shear
ultimate I were
larger than those of the Series II samples with the same angle of inclination from the
horizontal interface.
This was because the slip Su was the relative vertical slip under peak load. Due to
the superior ductility of the bolts, the relative slip at bolt fracture was much greater than
the relative vertical slip at peak load. In contrast, SENBs exhibited a brittle failure pattern,
and the relative slip at fracture was not much different from the relative vertical slip at
peak load. However, the shear connectors resulted in more severe concrete damage, which
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 15 of 26

was not conducive to fully utilizing the constructive performance of the steel-concrete
composite beams.

3.4.2. Effect of Sample Tensile Shear Ratio

This study considered five different angles (i.e., 90◦ , 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ ) to illustrate
the effect of tension-shear ratio on the shear behavior of bolted shear connectors in prefab-
ricated steel-UHPC composite beams under tension and shear loads. The ultimate shear
bearing capacity of Series I samples with inclination angles of 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ were
90.3%, 88.1%, 86.4%, and 83.1% of the 90◦ samples, respectively. The ultimate shear bearing
capacity of the Series II samples with inclination angles of 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ were 88.9%,
84.9%, 73.6%, and 68.7% of the 90◦ samples, respectively.
Table 4 and Figure 10 showed that the angle of inclination contributed significantly to
the ultimate shear capacity of the UHPC precast slabs. For Series I samples, the change in
ultimate shear capacity of the UHPC precast slabs began to decrease when the tensile shear
ratio increased to 0.18 or above. Therefore, it was recommended to design SENB samples
with a pull-to-shear ratio less than 0.18. For both series of push-out samples, the ultimate
shear capacity decreased with an increasing angle of inclination from 90◦ to 65◦ .
As illustrated in Table 4, a decrease in the inclination angle from the horizontal interface
caused a reduction in the initial shear stiffness. Compared to the 90◦ samples in Series I, the
initial shear stiffness for samples with inclination angles of 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ decreased
by 8.4%, 15.7%, 20.7%, and 30.4%, respectively. For Series II samples with inclination angles
of 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ , the initial shear stiffness decreased by5.1%, 15.5%, 23.1%, and
33.2%, respectively, compared to the 90◦ samples.
When the reduction in the angle of inclination from the horizontal interface was large,
the initial shear stiffness of the studs was significantly reduced because the presence of
tensile force accelerated the destruction of the stud [58]. It was found that the tensile-shear
ratio exerted a greater constraint on shear stiffness.
As mentioned in Table 4, the increase in inclination angle affected the ductility of
the studs. For Series I samples with inclination angles of 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ , the slip
capacity was 90.6%, 83.7%, 80.6%, and 78.3% of those of the 90◦ samples, respectively.
For Series II samples with inclination angles of 80◦ , 75◦ , 70◦ , and 65◦ , the slip capacities
were 94.8%, 89.3%, 66.4%, and 58.1% of that of the 90◦ samples, respectively. When the
corresponding tensile shear ratio changed from 0.27 to 0.36, the slip capacity significantly
decreased. Therefore, it was recommended to design Studs samples with a pull-to-shear
ratio less than 0.27.
It was found that the angle of inclination had a pronounced influence on the elongation
of studs embedded in UHPC. The reduction in the angle of inclination from the horizontal
was not significant. However, a noticeable decline in the slip capacity of the studs was
noted at higher tension-shear ratios.

4. Design Recommendations
4.1. Ultimate Shear Capacity
The correlation between the tension ratio (Pst−t /Pt ) and the shear ratio (Pst−s /Ps ) was
an essential factor in estimating the shear behavior of shear connectors under mixed tension
and shear loads. Pst−t and Pst−s were the tensile component and shear component of the
shear bond subjected to the combined tensile-shear load, respectively; Pst was the ultimate
load carrying capacity of the push-out sample under the combined tensile-shear load; Ps
was the ultimate shear resistance of the push-out sample under a pure shear load; and
Pt was the ultimate tensile resistance of the push-out sample under a pure tensile load.
In this study, the calculation method in PCI 5th was used, i.e. Pt , the value was equal to
0.9nAsc f u ; n was the number of bolts in the sample; Asc was the cross-sectional area of the
shear connector embedded in the UHPC; and f u was the ultimate tensile strength of the
shear connector.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 16 of 26

In this study, the shear and tension forced on the studs in the MP samples were a
priori determined by the tensile-shear ratio. Nevertheless, in the context of modeling the
shear-tension in situ interactions of the studs, it was deemed advisable to establish the
tension ratio and the shear force ratio based on the limit conditions of the shear connectors
under tension, shear, and combined shear-tension loads. The tensile-to-shear ratio for each
MP sample was converted to tensile and shear ratios, as summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Ultimate strength of the test.

Ps Pt Pst Pst−s Pst−t

Specimen Pst−s /Ps Pst−t /Pt
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
B-D22A90 1496 --
B-D22A80 1496 1915.27 1351.01 1330.74 0.88 235.08 0.12
B-D22A75 1496 1915.27 1319.08 1274.23 0.82 341.64 0.18
B-D22A70 1496 1915.27 1293.50 1215.89 0.69 442.38 0.23
B-D22A65 1496 1915.27 1243.19 1126.33 0.62 525.87 0.27
S-D22A90 1724 --
S-D22A80 1724 1331.95 1532.71 1509.72 0.89 266.69 0.2
S-D22A75 1724 1331.95 1464.14 1414.36 0.85 379.21 0.29
S-D22A70 1724 1331.95 1269.19 1193.04 0.81 434.06 0.33
S-D22A65 1724 1331.95 1184.14 1072.83 0.75 500.89 0.38

To address the combination of shear and tension in studs, several design codes and
prior studies have proposed various schemes, as outlined in Table 6. Equations (1) and (2)
implied that interactions between shear and tension ought to be taken into account when
studs were subjected to both tension and shear loads, irrespective of the magnitude of the
shear or tensile forces. In addition, for high-strength bolts, Zhang et al. [59] proposed an
equation (Equation (3)) that was more consistent with the combination of tension and shear
in studs. However, the shear-tension combination could be neglected if the shear or tension
load of studs under combined loading was under 20% of their ultimate tensile or shear
strength, and therefore Bode et al. [43] proposed Equation (4). However, in an analytical
experiment by Lin et al. [35], when a tensile load equal to 20% of the tensile strength of
the joint was applied, a reduction in the shear capacity of the studs was still identified.
Therefore, if the applicable shear or tension was under 10% of the ultimate strength under
only shear or tension, it was possible to ignore the effect of interactions between variables,
and Equation (5) was proposed to facilitate the design operation. Only when the stress ratio
became lower than 0.1 could the effect of the stress on the shear capacity of the connectors
be disregarded, and thus the bilinear interaction Equation (6) occurred. Ding et al. [60]
found that the effectiveness of tension on shear capacity could be disregarded when the
tension ratio was below 0.1. When the tensile ratio exceeded 0.1, the stud shear connector
in the UHPC exhibited a different tensile-shear interaction relationship than the connector
embedded in the NC, and therefore Equation (7) was proposed.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 17 of 26

Table 6. Summaries of the shear-tension interaction models in previous studies.

Researchers Calculation Models Pros or cons of Formulas

 5  5
Mcmakin et al. [61] Pst−t 3
+ PstP−s s
3
=1 (1)
Pt
 2  2
Pst−t
Talami et al. [62]
Pt + PstP−s s = 1 (2)

Pst−t 3
   3
Zhang et al. [59]
Pt + PstP−s s = 1 (3)
Pst−s Pst−t
Ps = 1, Pt ≤ 0.2 (4)
Pst−t
Bode and Roik [43] Pt = 1, PstP−s s ≤ 0.2

Pst−t
 
Pst−s The existing models had significant errors
Pt + Ps = 1.2, PstP−t t > 0.2, PstP−s s > 0.2
because the formulas were based on the
Pst−s
= 1, Pst−t
≤ 0.1 (5) concrete type obtained using NC.
Ps Pt
Pst−t Pst−s
P = 1, P ≤ 0.1
Lin et al. [35]  2  t 2 s
Pst−t
Pt + 0.5 + PstP−s s + 0.5 = 2.61, Pst−t
Pt > 0.1, PstP−s s >
0.1
Pst−s Pst−t
Ps
= 1, P ≤ 0.1 (6)
An et al. [63]  1.3 t 1.3
Pst−t
Pt + 0.95 PstP−s s = 1, Pst−t
Pt > 0.1
Pst−s
= 1, PstP−t ≤ 0.1
Ps (7) Despite Equation (7) having a squared
Ding et al. [60]  0.83  t 0.83 correlation coefficient of 0.95, its accuracy
Pst−t Pst−s Pst−t
1.17 Pt + Ps = 1, Pt > 0.1 was still insufficient.

As shown in Figure 11a, none of the above design-oriented models could accurately
predict the tensile-shear relationships of the two series of push-out samples with squared
correlation coefficients, ranging from 0.75 to 0.95. Of these, Equation (7) had a squared
correlation coefficient of 0.95, which was a better predictor of the experimental performance
of the Series I and Series II samples. The squared correlation coefficient for other models
ranged from 0.75–0.71. The existing models were inherently flawed due to their reliance
on test results obtained from bolts subjected to mixed tensile and shear loads in a non-
conforming environment (NC). In addition, Zhang et al. [59] conducted a study on the shear
behavior of high-strength friction-type gripper bolts (HSFGB) under both tensile and shear
loading, which also investigated the shear behavior of high-strength bolts and was similar
to the tests on the Series I samples in this investigation. However, Equation (3) presented by
Zhang et al. [59] was based on high-strength bolts embedded in NC, which differed from
this study. Therefore, it was necessary to develop a more appropriate model for predicting
the tension-shear relationship of SENBs in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams.
Therefore, an equation for accurate prediction of the coupling strength by a simplified
design procedure has been proposed based on Equation (3). This equation (Equation (8))
quoted the exponential expression of Equation (3), where α and β were the undetermined
coefficients. Pst−t and Pst−s were the tensile component and shear component of the shear
bond subjected to the combined tensile-shear load, respectively; Pst was the ultimate load
carrying capacity of the push-out sample under the combined tensile-shear load; Ps was
the ultimate shear resistance of the push-out sample under a pure shear load; and Pt was
the ultimate tensile resistance of the push-out sample under a pure tensile load. In this
study, the calculation method in PCI 5th was used, i.e., Pt , the value was equal to 0.9nAsc f u ;
n was the number of bolts in the sample, Asc was the cross-sectional area of the shear
connector embedded in the UHPC, and f u was the ultimate tensile strength of the shear
connector. The undetermined coefficients in the improvement equation were re-determined
by fitting the regression analysis technique, and the final formula was obtained as shown
in Equation (9).
Pst−t α Pst−s β
   
+ =1 (8)
Pt Ps
 Furthermore, Ding et al. [60] examined the shear characteristics of studs subjected to
combined tension-shear loading, similar to the Series II samples in this study. The squared
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 18 of 26
correlation coefficient between the test results of Series II samples and Equation (7) pro-
posed by Ding et al. [60] was about 0.95, indicating that the test results of Series II samples
were well fitted to Equation (7). Therefore, the tensile-shear relationship of studs in pre-
Pst−t 1.75 P −s 0.50
  
fabricated steel-UHPC composite beams +understmixed tensile
= 1 and shear loading could (9) be
P Ps
demonstrated by using Equation t(7) proposed by Ding et al. [60].

(a) (b)
Figure 11.
Figure 11. The
Theshear-tension
shear-tensioninteraction
interactionstrength
strengthbehavior forfor
behavior connectors embedded
connectors in concrete.
embedded (a)
in concrete.
Fitting of experimental results. (b) Analysis of fitting curve error [59].
(a) Fitting of experimental results. (b) Analysis of fitting curve error [59].

4.2. Load-Slip
The results Relation
of the prediction, as shown in Figure 11b, were generally acceptable. The
errorsTheof the points were
correlation in the
between range
load of 90–110%.
(P) and slip (S) wasThe range critical
another of point error is for
indicator 0 toevalu-
0.08,
with
atingantheaverage error of 0.03.
shear behavior Even so, in
of connectors thecomposite
applicability
beamsof this
[64].model hadultimate
And the to be further
shear
capacity 𝑃The
evaluated. wasrelevant data from
determined Zhang
as the et al. of
quotient [59] onpeak
the the shear
load behavior of HSFGB
and the number of under
joints.
mixed
Due totension-shear loading
the different types was employed
of studs, to validate
the correlation betweenthe load
proposed model.
and slip wouldIt could be
be inves-
seen from Figure 11b that the predicted results demonstrated
tigated separately for SENBs and studs in the following sections. an accurate representation
of the observed data, with an error range of 90% to 110%. Therefore, the model presented
in thisLoad-Slip
4.2.1. study wasRelation
applicable to the tension-shear relationship of SENBs under combined
for SENBs
tension-shear loading.
To investigate the relationship between loading and slip for SENBs, several design
Furthermore, Ding et al. [60] examined the shear characteristics of studs subjected
codes and previous studies were proposed, as summarized in Table 7. The exponential
to combined tension-shear loading, similar to the Series II samples in this study. The
design-oriented model (Equation (10)) presented by Ollgaard et al. [65] and the propor-
squared correlation coefficient between the test results of Series II samples and Equation (7)
tional correspondence model (Equation (11)) presented by Buttry et al. [66] had been
proposed by Ding et al. [60] was about 0.95, indicating that the test results of Series II
widely used in previous studies. Using appropriate coefficients, these two classical mod-
samples were well fitted to Equation (7). Therefore, the tensile-shear relationship of studs
els were also suitable for reflecting the load-slip relationships of bolted shear connectors.
in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams under mixed tensile and shear loading could
On the basis of data fitting, Yang et al. [64] developed a fractional construction-oriented
be demonstrated by using Equation (7) proposed by Ding et al. [60].
model (Equation (12)) to simulate the load-slip curves of multiple HSFGBs in precast steel-
NC Load-Slip
4.2. composite beams. The load-slip curve of HSFGBs in precast steel-steel fiber reinforced
Relation
concrete (SFRC) composite beams could be calculated by Equation (13) [14]. In addition,
The correlation between load (P) and slip (S) was another critical indicator for evalu-
the modified exponential design-oriented model could be used to simulate the load-slip
ating the shear behavior of connectors in composite beams [64]. And the ultimate shear
relation of
capacity Pu Grade 8.8/10.9 HSFGBs
was determined (Equation
as the quotient (14))
of the or Grade
peak load and12.9the
HSFGBs
number(Equation
of joints. (15))
Due
in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams [67].
to the different types of studs, the correlation between load and slip would be investigated
The applicability
separately for SENBs and of these
studsmodels for the load-slip
in the following relationship of SENBs under com-
sections.
bined tension-shear loading in this study still needed to be evaluated, as shown in Figure
12. The
4.2.1. above design-oriented
Load-Slip Relation for SENBs models could not accurately predict the load-slip curves of
SENBs,
To investigate the relationshipcorrelation
and the average squared coefficients
between loading and ofslipthe
forSeries
SENBs,I samples ranged
several design
from 0.93 to 0.98. This should be related to the fact that previous
codes and previous studies were proposed, as summarized in Table 7. The exponential studies mainly concen-
design-oriented model (Equation (10)) presented by Ollgaard et al. [65] and the proportional
correspondence model (Equation (11)) presented by Buttry et al. [66] had been widely
used in previous studies. Using appropriate coefficients, these two classical models were
also suitable for reflecting the load-slip relationships of bolted shear connectors. On the
basis of data fitting, Yang et al. [64] developed a fractional construction-oriented model
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 19 of 26

(Equation (12)) to simulate the load-slip curves of multiple HSFGBs in precast steel-NC
composite beams. The load-slip curve of HSFGBs in precast steel-steel fiber reinforced
concrete (SFRC) composite beams could be calculated by Equation (13) [14]. In addition,
the modified exponential design-oriented model could be used to simulate the load-slip
relation of Grade 8.8/10.9 HSFGBs (Equation (14)) or Grade 12.9 HSFGBs (Equation (15)) in
prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams [67].

Table 7. Summary of load-slip relation models from previous related studies.

Researchers Calculation Models

0.40
Ollgaard [65] P/Pu = 1 − e−0.71S (10)
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 25
Buttry [66] P/Pu = 3.15S/(1 + 3.15S) (11)
P/Pu = 0.137S for S ≤ 0.59 mm (12)
Yang [64]
P/Pu = (S − 0.38)/(2.08 + 0.87S)
trated on the shear behavior of SENBs under pure shear loading rather

0.4 than under com-
Zhang [14] P/Pu = 1 − e−0.20S (13)
bined tensile-shear loading. Consequently, it was imperative to devise a more precise
− 0.47S

0.36
Fang
model to anticipate the[67]
load-slip relationship of SENBs
P/Pu in
= prefabricated
1−e steel-UHPC
(14) com-
posite beams subjected to composite tension-shear loading. 0.5
Fang [67] P/Pu = 1 − e−0.47S


(15)

Table 7. Summary of load-slip relation models from previous related studies.

The applicability of these models for the load-slip relationship of SENBs under com-
Researchers Calculation
bined tension-shear loading in this study still needed Models as shown in Figure 12.
to be evaluated,
. .
The Ollgaard [65]
above design-oriented 𝑃/𝑃could
models )
= (1 not𝑒 accurately (10) curves of
predict the load-slip
Buttry [66] 𝑃/𝑃 = 3.15𝑆/(1 + 3.15𝑆) (11)
SENBs, and the average squared correlation coefficients of the Series I samples ranged from
𝑃/𝑃to=the
0.93 to 0.98. This should be related 0.137𝑆
fact that 𝑆 ≤ 0.59mm
for previous studies mainly(12)
concentrated
Yang [64]
on the shear behavior of SENBs under𝑃/𝑃 (𝑆 0.38)/(2.08
pure=shear + 0.87𝑆)
loading rather than under combined
tensile-shear loading. Consequently,
Zhang [14] 𝑃/𝑃 it=was 𝑒 . ) . to devise a more
(1 imperative precise model
(13)
. .
to anticipate the
Fang [67] load-slip 𝑃/𝑃 = (1 𝑒
relationship of SENBs in )
prefabricated steel-UHPC
(14) composite
beamsFang
subjected
[67] to composite tension-shear𝑃/𝑃 loading.
= (1 𝑒 . ) .
(15)

Figure12.
Figure [Link]
Performanceofofexisting
existingload–slip
load–slipmodels
modelsfor
forSENBs
SENBsembedded
embeddedininUHPC.
UHPC.

ItIthad
hadbeen
beenshown
shownthat thatalmost
almostidentical
identicalpredictions
predictionswere
wereobtained
obtainedusing
usingexpressions
expressions
ininexponential and fractional forms. Based on the comparison, the widely
exponential and fractional forms. Based on the comparison, the widely used exponen- used exponential
expressions werewere
tial expressions introduced.
[Link] et [Link][18] usedused
al. [18] normalized Pnorm
loadload
normalized (Pnorm
Pnorm (Pnorm 𝑃/𝑃u ),),
= =P/P
normalized
normalized slipslip SSnorm (Snorm
norm (S =S/S
=𝑆/𝑆
norm ), and
), uand regression
regression analysis
analysis techniques
techniques to predict
to predict the
the load-
load-slip relation
slip relation of SENBs
of SENBs in prefabricated
in prefabricated steel-UHPC
steel-UHPC composite
composite beams
beams (Equation
(Equation (16)).
(16)).
.
𝑃/𝑃 = 1 𝑒 −. 2.73S/S
/ 0.68 (16)
P/Pu = 1 − e u (16)
As shown in Figure 13a, the normalized model exhibited a better fit in general, with
the squared correlation coefficients ranging from 0.81 to 0.89. However, P/P and S/S
exhibited a linear correlation before the SENBs overcame the preloading, as shown in Fig-
ure 12. Furthermore, the predictions based on Equations (10)–(14) still failed to adequately
forecast the relationships between load and slip. Therefore, it was necessary to propose a
more accurate and applicable predicted load-slip model for SENBs in prefabricated steel-
UHPC composite beams, as presented by Equation (17).
 Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 20 of 26

As shown in Figure 13a, the normalized model exhibited a better fit in general, with the
squared correlation coefficients ranging from 0.81 to 0.89. However, P/Pu and S/Su exhib-
ited a linear correlation before the SENBs overcame the preloading, as shown in Figure 12.
Furthermore, the predictions based on Equations (10)–(14) still failed to adequately forecast
the relationships between load and slip. Therefore, it was necessary to propose a more
accurate and applicable predicted load-slip model for SENBs in prefabricated steel-UHPC
composite beams, as presented by Equation (17).
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 2
P/Pu = D0.60 S/Su , S ≤ PPt Ds
= 0.048
 1.20 c (17)
P/Pu = 1.30 − e−1.40S/Su , S > PPt D
s
= 0.048

whereWang
D was the diameter of the𝑃/𝑃
[67] bolt;=P(𝑆/𝑑)/(0.006 + 1.02𝑆/𝑑)
s was the ultimate shear capacity of the push-
(18)
. .
Wangunder
out sample [7] pure shear loading;𝑃/𝑃and = (1
Pt was 𝑒 the )magnitude of the preload (19) force
. .
applied on the
Tong [68]individual bolts. The𝑃/𝑃 = (1output
forecast 𝑒 was ) shown in Figure 13,(20) and the
correlation coefficient was 0.99, which was better in .
terms of . applicability and accuracy.
Ding [69] 𝑃/𝑃 = (1 𝑒 ) (21) In
conclusion, the load-slip model proposed in this study . was suitable to predict the load-slip
/
relationship of SENBs in𝑃/𝑃
Fang [70]
= 1 𝑒 steel-UHPC
prefabricated For 50 mm
composite UHPC
beams slabcombined (22)
under
tension-shear loading. 𝑃/𝑃 = (1 𝑒 . ) . For 75 mm UHPC slab

Figure13.
Figure [Link]
Performance of existing
of proposed load-slip
load-slip models
models for studs embedded
for connectors embedded ininUHPC.
UHPC.

4.2.2. Load-Slip Relation for Studs

However, Equations (20) and (22) presented a trend that was ultimately similar to th
test Load-slip
results. Tongrelations
et [Link] studs
[68] subjected
examined thetostatic
combined tension-shear
characteristics loads in shear
of grouped prefabri-
connector
cated steel-UHPC composite beams were important for analyzing their shear properties.
in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams with full depth thin slabs, similar to th
The analytical results of this study were valid against seven representative load-slip models
Series II samples
summarized in Tablein 8.
theTwopresent study.
of these It was
models worth
had been mentioning
presented forthat theinstudy
studs normal presented
by Fang[65,66]
concrete et al. [70] focused
and others foron the in
studs influence of slabThe
UHPC [66–70]. thickness and stud
exponential diameter, and on
design-oriented
of the UHPC
model suggested slabbythicknesses
Ollgaard etin [Link]
[65]study was 75
(Equation mm,
(10)) and which was in line
the fractional with the applica
counterpart
bility conditions
suggested by Buttry of et
[Link] suggested
[66] (Equation by were
(11)) Fangused.
et al. (Equation (22)-T75)
The latter five models [70].
wereThe objec
subjected to study
tive of this empirical
wasanalysis,
to examine withthe
theshear
results presentedofinstuds
properties Equations (18) and (19)steel-UHPC
in prefabricated by
Wang et al. [7,67].
composite beams The remainingtothree
subjected models were
composite derived
tensile empirically
and shear by Tong
loading. Tonget [Link].
[68]and Fang
(Equation (20)), Ding et al. [69] (Equation (21)), and Fang et al. [70] (Equation
et al.’s research [68,70] was conducted under pure shear loading in studs. However, th (22)) for studs
in precast steel-UHPC composite beams. It was important to note that the model suggested
mean squared correlation coefficient of the experimental test results of Series II sample
by Fang et al. [70] was specifically designed to investigate the influence of slab thickness
withbolt
and Equation
diameter, (20) suggested
which could be byreadily
Tong applied
et al. [68]
to and Equation
situations (22)-T75
involving proposed
grouped studs by Fang
et al. [70] in
embedded was calculated
full-depth to be
precast asUHPC
thin high as 0.99, which indicated that the experimental tes
slabs.
results of Series II samples fitted well with Equation (20) and Equation (22)-T75. Therefore
the load-slip relation of studs in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams under com
posite tensile and shear loading could be demonstrated to be applicable by using Equation
(22) suggested by Tong et al. [68] and Equation (22)-T75 proposed by Fang et al. [70].

5. Conclusions
This paper presented a study on the shear behavior of single embedded nut bolts and
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 21 of 26

Table 8. Summary of load-slip relation models from previous related studies.

Researchers Calculation Models

0.40
Ollgaard [65] P/Pu = 1 − e−0.71S (10)
Buttry [66] P/Pu = 3.15S/(1 + 3.15S) (11)
Wang [67] P/Pu = (S/d)/(0.006 + 1.02S/d) (18)
0.96
Wang [7] P/Pu = 1 − e−1.1S


(19)
0.64
Tong [68] P/Pu = 1 − e−1.55S


(20)
0.6
Ding [69] P/Pu = 1 − e−1.08S


(21)
 2
 0.76
P/Pu = 1 − e−1176S/d For 50 mm UHPC slab (22)
Fang [70]
0.57
P/Pu = 1 − e−1.47S


For 75 mm UHPC slab

In Figure 14, the capability of the above-mentioned formulas for the prediction of the
load-slip curves in this study has been evaluated. Overall, some of the formulas were not ac-
curate in predicting the push-out test outcomes in this research. Equations (10), (11), and (21)
exhibited large deviations at the stage between P/Pu = 0.6 and reaching the peak load
because all three classical models of Equations (10), (11), and (21) reflected the load-slip
relation of bolted connector shear connectors rather than studs. The empirical Equation (18)
proposed by Wang et al. [67] for a single large bolted UHPC shear connector exhibited a
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
large deviation at the stage between P/Pu ≈0.9 and reaching the peak load. Their proposed 20 of 25
empirical Equation (19) for grouped large stud-UHPC connections showed large deviations
until the peak load was reached, which might be due to the different sizes selected for the
stud shear connectors.
the load-slip In addition,
model proposed thestudy
in this modelwas
proposed
suitablebytoFang et al.
predict the[70] focusedrelation-
load-slip on the
effect of slab thickness and bolted diameter. Equation (22) showed a small deviation
ship of SENBs in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams under combined tension- but a
larger
shear prediction
loading. before reaching the peak load.

Figure14.
Figure [Link]
Performanceofofexisting
proposed load-slip
load-slip models
models forfor connectors
studs embeddedembedded in UHPC.
in UHPC.

4.2.2. Load-SlipEquations
However, Relation for(20)Studs
and (22) presented a trend that was ultimately similar to
the test results. Tong et al. [68]
Load-slip relations for studs examined
subjectedthetostatic characteristics
combined of grouped
tension-shear loads in shear con-
prefabri-
nectors in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams with full depth
cated steel-UHPC composite beams were important for analyzing their shear properties. thin slabs, similar
toThe
theanalytical
Series II results
samples of in
thisthe present
study werestudy. It was seven
valid against worthrepresentative
mentioning that the study
load-slip mod-
presented by FanginetTable
els summarized al. [70] focused
8. Two on the
of these influence
models hadofbeen
slabpresented
thickness for
andstuds
stud diameter,
in normal
and one of[65,66]
concrete the UHPC slab thicknesses
and others for studs ininUHPC
this study was The
[66–70]. 75 mm, which was
exponential in line with
design-oriented
the
model suggested by Ollgaard et al. [65] (Equation (10)) and the fractional counterpart[70].
applicability conditions of the model suggested by Fang et al. (Equation (22)-T75) sug-
The objective
gested of this
by Buttry study
et al. was to examine
[66] (Equation the shear
(11)) were used. properties of studs
The latter five modelsin were
prefabricated
subjected
steel-UHPC
to empiricalcomposite
analysis, withbeams thesubjected to composite
results presented tensile and
in Equations shear
(18) andloading. Tong et
(19) by Wang etal.
al.
[7,67]. The remaining three models were derived empirically by Tong et al. [68] (Equation
(20)), Ding et al. [69] (Equation (21)), and Fang et al. [70] (Equation (22)) for studs in precast
steel-UHPC composite beams. It was important to note that the model suggested by Fang
et al. [70] was specifically designed to investigate the influence of slab thickness and bolt
diameter, which could be readily applied to situations involving grouped studs embed-
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 22 of 26

and Fang et al.’s research [68,70] was conducted under pure shear loading in studs. How-
ever, the mean squared correlation coefficient of the experimental test results of Series
II samples with Equation (20) suggested by Tong et al. [68] and Equation (22)-T75 pro-
posed by Fang et al. [70] was calculated to be as high as 0.99, which indicated that the
experimental test results of Series II samples fitted well with Equation (20) and Equation
(22)-T75. Therefore, the load-slip relation of studs in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite
beams under composite tensile and shear loading could be demonstrated to be applicable
by using Equation (22) suggested by Tong et al. [68] and Equation (22)-T75 proposed by
Fang et al. [70].

5. Conclusions
This paper presented a study on the shear behavior of single embedded nut bolts and
studs in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams under combined tensile and shear
loading, with a total of 10 push-out tests. The effectiveness of shear connector type and
inclination angle on the failure mode, load-slip relation, load-uplift relation, ultimate shear
capacity, initial shear stiffness, and ductility were investigated. The inference that can be
drawn from the evidence presented is as follows:
(1) For the Series I samples, shear fracture occurred in single embedded nut bolts in
precast UHPC slabs, and single embedded nut bolts with different tensile-to-shear
ratios exhibited a four-stage load-slip behavior. As the tension-shear ratio increased,
the shear force carried by the bolt holes decreased, the deformation on the bolt holes
decreased, and the thread penetration on the steel beam was weakened.
(2) For the Series II samples, there were no substantial variations in the damage patterns
of the shear connectors with different tension-shear ratios. The damage on the precast
slabs was dominated by compression collapse, with significant concrete crushing and
localized spalling ahead of the bolt roots on the inner surface of the precast panels.
As the tension-to-shear ratio and the tension force on the bolts increased, the crack
development on the surface of the UHPC slab became more pronounced.
(3) In the two series of compression test samples with the same tensile-to-shear ratio, there
was a deviation of approximately 13%, 12%, 10%, 2%, and 5% between their ultimate
shear capacities. The series I samples exhibited reduced shear rigidity compared to
the series II samples. Furthermore, the series I samples exhibited greater slip values
than the series II samples. A comparison of the shear rigidity of the two series of
samples revealed that the original rigidity of Series I was less than that of Series II.
Furthermore, the degree of slip exhibited by the former was observed to be greater
than that observed in the latter series.
(4) A significant negative correlation was observed between the tensile-shear ratio and
the ultimate shear capacity, shear stiffness, and ductility of the samples. An increase
in the tensile-shear ratio from 0 to 0.47 resulted in a 16.9% decline in the ultimate
shear capacity, a 30.4% reduction in the initial shear stiffness, and a 21.7% decrease in
the ductility of the Series I samples. However, an increase in the tensile-to-shear ratio
of the Series II samples from 0 to 0.47 resulted in a 31.3% decline in ultimate shear
strength, a 33.2% decline in initial shear stiffness, and a 41.9% decline in ductility.
(5) The prevailing design-oriented models were unable to provide an accurately predic-
tive framework for the test results of a single embedded nut bolt under tensile-shear
loads. Based on the existing experimental data, more accurate models were de-
rived to forecast the tension-shear relationships and load-slip characteristics of single
embedded nut bolts in prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams, with quadratic
correlation coefficients R2 , both of which are 0.99. In addition, the tension-shear
relationships and load-slip curves of single embedded nut bolts in prefabricated steel-
UHPC composite beams could be predicted by using the existing model for studs in
prefabricated steel-UHPC composite beams.
(6) In practical engineering, connectors with a small tensile-to-shear ratio were intro-
duced, which could increase the shear strength, stiffness, and ductility. For crack
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 23 of 26

patterns, insignificant concrete crushing and spalling were caused by SENBs, which
could effectively exploit the material porosities of precast steel-UHPC composite
beams. As a comparable connector, SENBs were recommended in practical engineer-
ing. Due to the deviation of the experiment, the results of this study should be verified
further by more research. In the future, more and more specimens and test parameters
should be introduced to investigate the shear performance of precast steel-UHPC
composite beams under combined tension-shear loads.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.F.; methodology, S.F.; software, G.W.; validation, G.W.,
B.X. and S.F.; formal analysis, G.W. and B.X.; investigation, G.W., B.X., F.M. and S.F.; resources, S.F.;
data curation, G.W., B.X., and F.M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.W.; writing—review and
editing, S.F.; visualization, G.W.; supervision, S.F.; project administration, S.F.; funding acquisition,
S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China with the
grant number of 52208156, 52078150, and 51878196 and the Applied Basic Research Foundation of
Guangdong Province with the grant number 2022A1515110394.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

UHPC ultra-high-performance concrete SENBs single embedded nut bolts

NC normal concrete ABC accelerated beam construction
HSFGB high-strength friction-grip bolts fc ’ compressive strength
ft ’ split tensile strength Ec modulus of elasticity
v Poisson’s ratio Es modulus of elasticity
fy yield strength fu corresponding tensile strength
Pu ultimate shear capacity k Initial shear stiffness
Su Silp capacity Uu Uplift at Pu
tensile component of the shear bond shear component of the shear bond subjected
Pst−t Pst−s
subjected to the combined tensile-shear load to the combined tensile-shear load
ultimate load carrying capacity of the push-out the ultimate shear resistance of the push-out sample
Pst Ps
sample under the combined tensile-shear load under a pure shear load
ultimate tensile resistance of the push-out
Pt n number of bolts in the sample
sample under a pure tensile load
cross-sectional area of the shear connector
Asc α undetermined coefficients
embedded in the UHPC
β undetermined coefficients P load
S slip Pnorm normalized load
Snorm normalized slip D diameter of the bolt

References
1. Cao, X.Y.; Shi, J.Z.; Xu, J.G.; Ji, E.Y.; She, Y.B.; Wang, Z. The combined influence of bond–slip and joint-shear in the seismic
upgrading via externally-attached BFRP-bar reinforced precast sub-frames. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 80, 107984. [CrossRef]
2. He, S.H.; Huang, X.; Zou, L.Q.; Zheng, C.; Xin, H.H.; Liang, J.S. Performance assessment of channel beam bridges with hollow
track bed decks. Structures 2024, 61, 105988. [CrossRef]
3. He, S.H.; Lv, B.T.; Huang, X.; Zou, L.Q.; Zhou, D.F. Cracking performance in the hogging moment region of HSS-UHPC
continuous composite girder bridges. Structures 2024, 61, 106081. [CrossRef]
4. Yang, Z.M.; Pan, H.S.; Jiang, Z.X.; Lv, J.H.; Ruan, G.W.; Lai, H.M.; Lin, J.X. Pseudo strain-hardening alkali-activated composites
with up to 100% rubber aggregate: Static mechanical properties analysis and constitutive model development. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2024, 439, 137338. [CrossRef]
5. Xiao, J.; Zeng, H.; Huang, H.; Liu, L.; Li, L.; Yuan, B.; Zhong, Z. Experimental Investigation on the Influence of Strength Grade on
the Surface Fractal Dimension of Concrete under Sulfuric Acid Attack. Buildings 2024, 14, 713. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 24 of 26

6. Cao, X.Y.; Feng, D.C.; Wang, C.L.; Shen, D.J.; Wu, G. A stochastic CSM-based displacement-oriented design strategy for the novel
precast SRC-UHPC composite braced-frame in the externally attached seismic retrofitting. Compos. Struct. 2023, 321, 117308.
[CrossRef]
7. Wang, J.Q.; Xu, Q.Z.; Yao, Y.M.; Qi, J.N.; Xiu, H.L. Static behavior of grouped large headed stud-UHPC shear connectors in
composite structures. Compos. Struct. 2018, 206, 202–214. [CrossRef]
8. Zou, Y.; Zheng, K.D.; Zhou, Z.X.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Guo, J.C.; Jiang, J.L. Experimental study on flexural behavior of hollow steel-UHPC
composite bridge deck. Eng. Struct. 2023, 274, 115087. [CrossRef]
9. Cao, J.H.; Shao, X.D.; Deng, L.; Gan, Y.D. Static and fatigue behavior of short-headed studs embedded in a thin ultrahigh-
performance concrete layer. J. Bridg. Eng. 2017, 22, 4017005. [CrossRef]
10. Fang, S.; Zhang, S.F.; Cao, Z.P.; Zhao, G.F.; Fang, Z.C.; Ma, Y.H.; Jiang, H.B. Effects of stud aspect ratio and cover thickness on
push-out performance of thin full-depth precast UHPC slabs with grouped short studs: Experimental evaluation and design
considerations. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 67, 105910. [CrossRef]
11. He, S.H.; Yang, G.; Jiang, Z.; Wang, Q.; Dong, Y. Effective width evaluation for HSS-UHPC composite beams with perfobond strip
connectors. Eng. Struct. 2023, 295, 116828. [CrossRef]
12. Lin, J.X.; Luo, R.H.; Su, J.Y.; Guo, Y.C.; Chen, W.S. Coarse synthetic fibers (PP and POM) as a replacement to steel fibers in UHPC:
Tensile behavior, environmental and economic assessment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 412, 134654. [CrossRef]
13. Xiong, Z.; Wei, W.; He, S.H.; Liu, F.; Luo, H.W.; Li, L.J. Dynamic bond behaviour of fibre-wrapped basalt fibrereinforced polymer
bars embedded in sea sand and recycled aggregate concrete under high-strain rate pull-out tests. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 276,
122195. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Y.J.; Liu, A.R.; Chen, B.C.; Zhang, J.P.; Pi, Y.L.; Bradford, M.A. Experimental and numerical study of shear connection in
composite beams of steel and steel-fibre reinforced concrete. Eng. Struct. 2020, 215, 110707. [CrossRef]
15. Jiang, H.B.; Fang, H.Z.; Wu, J.P.; Fang, Z.C.; Fang, S.; Chen, G.F. Push-out tests on demountable high-strength friction-grip bolt
shear connectors in steel-precast UHPC composite beams for accelerated bridge construction. Steel Compos. Struct. 2022, 45,
797–818.
16. Fang, Z.C.; Hu, L.K.; Jiang, H.B.; Fang, S.; Zhao, G.F.; Jiang, H.B. Shear performance of high-strength friction-grip bolted shear
connector in prefabricated steel–UHPC composite beams: Finite element modelling and parametric study. Case Stud. Constr.
Mater. 2023, 18, e01860. [CrossRef]
17. Dieng, L.; Marchand, P.; Gomes, F.; Tessier, C.; Toutlemonde, F. Use of UHPFRC overlay to reduce stresses in orthotropic steel
decks. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 89, 30–34. [CrossRef]
18. Fang, Z.C.; Jiang, H.B.; Chen, G.F.; Dong, X.T.; Shao, T.F. Behavior of grouped stud shearconnectors between precast high-strength
concrete slabs and steel beams. Steel Compos. Struct. 2020, 34, 837–854.
19. Pavlovic, M.; Markovic, Z.; Veljkovic, M.; Bucfevac, D. Bolted shear connectors vs. headed studs behaviour in push-out tests.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 88, 134–149. [CrossRef]
20. Fang, Z.C.; Zhang, S.F.; Wu, J.P.; Ma, Y.H.; Fang, S.; Zhao, G.F.; Jiang, H.B. Experimental and numerical study on shear performance
of grouped bolt-UHPC pocket connections under static loading. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 76, 106966. [CrossRef]
21. Fang, Z.C.; Liang, W.B.; Fang, H.Z.; Jiang, H.B.; Wang, S.D. Experimental investigation on shear behavior of high-strength
friction-grip bolt shear connectors in steel-precast UHPC composite structures subjected to static loading. Eng. Struct. 2021,
244, 112777.
22. Fang, Z.C.; Wu, J.J.; Xu, X.Q.; Ma, Y.H.; Fang, S.; Zhao, G.F.; Jiang, H.B. Grouped rubber-sleeved studs–UHPC pocket connections
in prefabricated steel–UHPC composite beams: Shear performance under monotonic and cyclic loading. Eng. Struct. 2024,
305, 117781. [CrossRef]
23. Fang, Z.C.; Fang, H.Z.; Li, P.J.; Jiang, H.B.; Chen, G.F. Interfacial shear and flexural performances of steel-precast UHPC composite
beams: Full-depth slabs with studs vs. demountable slabs with bolts. Eng. Struct. 2022, 260, 114230. [CrossRef]
24. Semendary, A.A.; Stefaniuk, H.L.; Yamout, D.; Svecova, D. Static performance of stud shear connectors and UHPC in deck-to-
girder composite connection. Eng. Struct. 2022, 255, 103917. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, Y.J.; Chen, B.C.; Liu, A.R.; Pi, Y.L.; Zhang, J.P.; Wang, Y.; Zhong, L.C. Experimental study on shear behavior of high
strength bolt connection in prefabricated steelconcrete composite beam. Compos. Part B-Eng. 2019, 159, 481–489. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, S.; Jia, Y.M.; Ding, Y.X. Study on the Flexural Behavior of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams Based on the Shear Performance
of Headed Stud Connectors. Buildings 2022, 12, 961. [CrossRef]
27. Wu, F.W.; Tang, W.L.; Xue, C.F.; Sun, G.R.; Fen, Y.P.; Zhang, H. Experimental Investigation on the Static Performance of Stud
Connectors in Steel-HSFRC Composite Beams. Materials 2021, 14, 2744. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Chen, J.; Wang, W.; Ding, F.X.; Xiang, P.; Yu, Y.J.; Liu, X.M.; Xu, F.; Yang, C.Q.; Long, S.G. Behavior of an Advanced Bolted Shear
Connector in Prefabricated Steel-Concrete Composite Beams. Materials 2019, 12, 2958. [CrossRef]
29. Deng, P.; Niu, Z.W.; Shi, Y.H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, W.L. Shear Performance of Demountable High-Strength Bolted Connectors: An
experimental and Numerical Study Based on Reverse Push-Out Tests. Buildings 2024, 14, 1052. [CrossRef]
30. Peng, K.; Liu, L.J.; Wu, F.W.; Wang, R.Z.; Lei, S.; Zhang, X.Y. Experimental and Numerical Analyses of Stud Shear Connectors in
Steel–SFRCC Composite Beams. Materials 2022, 15, 4665. [CrossRef]
31. Guo, J.; Zhou, Z.; Zou, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, J. Finite Element Analysis of Precast Concrete Deck-Steel Beam-Connection Concrete
(PCSC) Connectors Using Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) for the Composite Beam. Buildings 2022, 12, 1402. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 25 of 26

32. Xue, C.F.; Fan, Z.; Wu, F.W.; Liu, L.J.; He, L.Q.; Cui, X. Research on the Shear Behaviour of Composite Shear Connectors. Buildings
2022, 12, 1726. [CrossRef]
33. Zhang, Z.; Jin, W.H.; Deng, E.F.; Yu, C.Y.; Wan, W.D.; Duan, C.Z.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S.B. Shear Behavior and Design of Innovative
Stud-Reinforced Embedded Shear Connectors with Flanges. Buildings 2024, 14, 632. [CrossRef]
34. Fang, Z.C.; Wu, J.P.; Xian, B.X.; Zhao, G.F.; Fang, S.; Ma, Y.H.; Jiang, H.B. Shear performance and design recommendations of
single embedded nut bolted shear connectors in prefabricated steel–UHPC composite beams. Steel Compos. Struct. 2024, 50,
319–336.
35. Lin, Z.; Liu, Y.; He, J. Behavior of stud connectors under combined shear and tension loads. Eng. Struct. 2014, 81, 362–376.
[CrossRef]
36. Mirza, O.; Uy, B. Effects of the combination of axial and shear loading on the behaviour of headed stud steel anchors. Eng. Struct.
2010, 32, 93–105. [CrossRef]
37. Shen, M. Structural Behaviour of Shear Connection in Composite Structures Under Complex Loading. Ph.D. Thesis, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China, 2013. Conditions.
38. Shen, M.H.; Chung, K.F. Structural Behaviour of Stud Shear Connections with Solid and Composite Slabs Under Co-Existing
Shear and Tension Forces. Structures 2017, 9, 79–90. [CrossRef]
39. Varsani, H.; Tan, E.L.; Singh, B. Behaviour of innovative demountable shear connectors subjected to combined shear and axial
tension. Ce/papers 2017, 1, 1948–1955. [CrossRef]
40. Classen, M.; Herbrand, M.; Adam, V.; Kueres, D.; Sarac, M. Puzzle-shaped rib shear connectors subjected to combined shear and
tension. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018, 145, 232–243. [CrossRef]
41. Wang, J.Y.; Guo, J.Y.; Jia, L.J.; Chen, S.M.; Dong, Y. Push-out tests of demountable headed stud shear connectors in steel-UHPC
composite structures. Compos. Struct. 2017, 170, 69–79. [CrossRef]
42. McMackin, P.J.; Slutter, R.G.; Fisher, J.W. Headed steel anchors under combined loading. Eng J AISC (Second Quart.) 1973, 10,
43–55. [CrossRef]
43. Bode, H.; Roik, K. Headed studs-embedded in concrete and loaded in tension. Spec. Publ. 1987, 103, 61–88.
44. PCI design handbook. In Precast and Prestressed Concrete, 6th ed.; Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute: Chicago, IL, USA, 2004.
45. ACI 318–08; Building Code Requirements for Structure Concrete (ACI 318–08) and commentary (ACI 318R–08). American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2008.
46. JSCE. Standard Speciffcations for Hybrid Structures; Japan Society of Civil Engineers: Tokyo, Japan, 2009. (In Japanese)
47. Johnson, R.P.; May, I.M. Partial-interaction design of composite beam. Struct. Eng. 1975, 53, 305–311.
48. Fang, Z.; Fang, S.; Liu, F. Experimental and Numerical Study on the Shear Performance of Short Stud Shear Connectors in
Steel–UHPC Composite Beams. Buildings 2022, 12, 418. [CrossRef]
49. Eurocode 4; Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structure. Part 2: General Rules for Bridge. European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
50. ASTM C1437-15; Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2015.
51. ASTM C29/C29M-16; Standard Test Method for Bulk Density and Voids in Aggregate. ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2016.
52. ASTM C1231/C1231M-15; Standard Practice for Use of Unbond Caps in Determination of Compressive Strength of Hardened
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
53. ASTM C469/C469M-14; Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
54. ASTM C496/C496M-11; Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM Interna-
tional: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
55. Ataei, A.; Zeynalian, M.; Yazdi, Y. Cyclic behaviour of bolted shear connectors in steel-concrete composite beams. Eng. Struct.
2019, 198, 109455. [CrossRef]
56. Yang, F.; Liu, Y.Q.; Jiang, Z.B.; Xin, H.H. Shear performance of a novel demountable steel-concrete bolted connector under static
push-out tests. Eng. Struct. 2018, 160, 133–146. [CrossRef]
57. Luo, Y.B.; Hoki, K.; Hayashi, K.; Nakashima, M. Behaviour and strength of headed stud–SFRCC shear connection. I: Experimental
study. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142, 4015112.
58. Li, W.C.; Liao, F.F.; Zhou, T.H.; Askes, H. Ductile fracture of Q460 steel: Effects of stress triaxiality and lode angle. J. Const. Steel
Res. 2016, 123, 1–17. [CrossRef]
59. Zhang, Y.J.; Zhang, J.P.; Liu, A.R.; Chen, B.C.; Safaei, B.; Yang, Z.C. Study on thebehavior of high-strength friction-grip bolts under
combined shear and tensile forces. Structures 2022, 45, 854–866. [CrossRef]
60. Ding, I.N.; Zhu, J.S.; Shi, T. Performance of grouped stud connectors in precast steel-UHPC composite bridges under combined
shear and tension loads. Eng. Struct. 2023, 277, 115470. [CrossRef]
61. Mcmackin, P.J.; Slutter, R.G.; Fisher, J.W. Headed steel anchor under combinedloading. Eng. J. 1973, 10, 43–52. [CrossRef]
62. Takami, K.; Nishi, K.; Hamada, S. Shear strength of headed stud shear connector subjected to tensile load. J. Constr. Steel 2000, 7,
233–240.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2425 26 of 26

63. An, R.; Wang, Y.Z.; Zhou, L.; Xu, X.J. Experiment and analytical model of shear stud connectors uder combined tension and shear
force. J. Chang. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2020, 40, 42–52.
64. Yang, T.; Liu, S.Y.; Qin, B.X.; Liu, Y.Q. Experimental study on multi-bolt shear connectors of prefabricated steel-concrete composite
beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 173, 106260. [CrossRef]
65. Ollgaard, J.; Slutter, R.; Fisher, J. Shear strength of stub connectors in lightweightand normal-weight concrete. AISC Eng. J. 1971, 8,
55–66. [CrossRef]
66. Buttry, K. Behavior of Stud Shear Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete; Report No. 68-6; Missouri Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Missouri State Highway Department and University of Missouri: Columbia, MO, USA, 1965.
67. Wang, J.Q.; Qi, J.N.; Tong, T.; Xu, Q.Z.; Xiu, H.L. Static behavior of large stud shear connectors in steel-UHPC composite structures.
Eng. Struct. 2019, 178, 534–542. [CrossRef]
68. Tong, L.W.; Chen, L.H.; Wen, M.; Xu, C. Static behavior of stud shear connectors in highstrength-steel–UHPC composite beams.
Eng. Struct. 2020, 218, 110827. [CrossRef]
69. Ding, J.N.; Zhu, J.S.; Kang, J.F.; Wang, X.C. Experimental study on grouped stud shear connectors in precast steel-UHPC composite
bridge. Eng. Struct. 2021, 242, 112479. [CrossRef]
70. Fang, Z.C.; Fang, H.Z.; Huang, J.X.; Jiang, H.B.; Chen, G.F. Static behavior of grouped stud shear connectors in steel–precast
UHPC composite structures containing thin fulldepth slabs. Eng. Struct. 2022, 252, 113484. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.