Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-015-0762-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Behavior of V-shaped angle shear connectors: experimental
and parametric study
Mahdi Shariati . N. H. Ramli Sulong . Ali Shariati .
Mohammadmehdi Arabnejad Khanouki
Received: 15 October 2015 / Accepted: 24 November 2015
Ó RILEM 2015
Abstract In this paper a new shear connector called
V-shaped angle shear connector for steel–concrete
composite system is proposed. This shear connector
was proven to improve some mechanical properties of
shear connectors, including high shear transfer, uplift
resistance, sufficient ductility, and strength degrada-
tion resistance under cyclic loading, as well as to being
cost effective compared with similar shear connectors,
such as C-shaped channel and angle shear connectors.
A total of 14 push-out tests were performed on
composite beams with these connectors under mono-
tonic and low cyclic loading. The failure mode, shear
resistance, and ductility of the push-out specimens
were investigated. The study also comprises of finite
element and parametric analysis using an effective
numerical model of the experimental push-out tests
using the program ABAQUS. The finite element
models were validated against the test results pre-
sented in experimental tests. Results showed that
V-shaped angle shear connector has excellent behav-
ior in terms of both shear strength and ductility. In
addition, high resistance under cyclic loading was
exhibited since the shear resistance of this connector
M. Shariati  N. H. Ramli Sulong (&) 
A. Shariati (&)  M. A. Khanouki
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: hafizah_ramli@um.edu.my
A. Shariati
e-mail: alishariati@siswa.um.edu.my
was almost similar in both monotonic and cyclic
loadings. Finite element results show good agreement
with experimental results. The results discussed on the
ductility and strength of this connector with different
size and slope of inclination. In addition, the channel
and angle shear connectors were compared with
V-shaped angle shear connectors. V-shaped angle
shear connectors behave much better than other
similar connectors, such as normal angle shear con-
nectors, and are superior to channel shear connectors
in most specimens.
Keywords V-shaped shear connector  Angle shear
connector  New shear connector  Cyclic loading 
Push-out test  Finite element
1 Introduction
Several shear connectors were recently proposed and
used in steel–concrete composite structures [1–6]
since these structures are types of system that com-
bines the advantages of steel and reinforced concrete
structure [7]. However, most of these shear connectors
have some restrictions in terms of fabrication, instal-
lation, and structural behavior.
Headed shear stud [8–10] and Perfobond [11–13]
shear connectors are the most common types of shear
connectors used in steel–concrete composite struc-
tures. Perfobond shear connector, which consists of a

plane perforated steel plate welded onto a steel beam
upper flange [2], is also widely adopted in current
practice. Although headed stud and Perfobond shear
connectors are the most common types of shear
connectors, the application of C-shaped shear connec-
tors [14–16] (Fig. 1a, b) to composite beams has been
increasing over the last decade.
Given the limitations and difficulties of using
headed stud and Perfobond shear connectors in terms
of manufacturing process and cost, especially in
developing countries, utilizing other shear connector
shapes, such as C-shaped shear connectors, is recom-
mended as an alternative. For example, stud connec-
tors have some restrictions in fatigue behaviors under
cyclic loading and require high-power generators for
welding on site [17, 18]. Problems in Perfobond shear
connectors also appear when steel bars have to cross
connector openings, and positioning a slab for lower
reinforcement is difficult [19].
C-shaped shear connectors can be built with both
angle and channel profiles. Reliable researches on the
Fig. 1 C-shaped angle
(a) and channel (b) shear
connector
Materials and Structures
behavior of angle and channel shear connectors have
been reported. As one of the most well-known
C-shaped shear connectors, channel connectors were
used primarily in scale-model composite bridges and
were initially tested in comprehensive studies by
Slutter and Driscoll [8], Pashan [20], and Viest et al.
[14]. Recently, the behavior of C-shaped channel
connectors embedded in different concrete types when
subjected to monotonic and low-cycle fatigue loads
were investigated by the authors of this paper and by
other researchers [15, 17, 18, 21–24].
Choi et al. [25, 26], Fukazawa et al. [27], Saidi et al.
[28], and Ros and Shima [29] conducted a series of
studies on C-shaped angle shear connectors to exam-
ine the performance of such connectors in composite
beams.
The push-out test has been widely performed to
measure the shear strength of interaction between steel
and concrete slab in composite floor systems and many
researches have been used by this method of testing
[20, 30–34]. The primary push-out test results on
Materials and Structures

Fig. 2 The details of

geometrics for V-shaped
angle shear connector

Table 1 The V-shaped angle connector’s geometric properties Office. Figure 2 shows the geometry and details of
this new shear connector. The connector comprises a
Specimen Leg Height Slope of
(mm) (mm) inclination simple steel angle profile cut in oriented slices and
(degree) welded onto the flange of a steel I-beam in a steel–
concrete composite beam. The front face of the
RC30-45-100 30 100 45
connector has a slope of inclination with the flange
RC30-50-75 30 75 50
of an I-beam to prevent a slab from moving in case
RC30-60-75 30 75 60 of uplift.
RC50-60-75 50 75 60 Slope of inclination helps the connector claw the
RC50-50-100 50 100 50 concrete and resist lateral movements. A different
RC40-45-75 40 75 45 slope of inclination degrees are considered and studied
RC40-50-75 40 75 50 for the V-shaped angle shear connector (Table 1).
Thus, the optimum flange thickness and slope of
specimens with several shear connectors, including inclination degree are proposed for this connector. The
channel and angle shear connectors, were reported by behavior of this shear connector under low cyclic
Rao [19]. The results indicated that channels with fatigue loading is investigated for comparison with
C-shaped shear connectors provide considerable flex- other C-shaped shear connectors.
ibility and show greater load-carrying capacity than This study, discuss the results of 14 experimental
other shear connectors. push-out tests performed under monotonic loading.
Since the use of C-shaped shear connectors can be The different parameters that affect the behavior of
efficient in composite beams, the authors of this this shear connector are considered. The parameters of
research conducted relevant investigation on beha- this connector include length, height, and leg thickness
viour of C-shaped angle shear connectors under fully of the connectors, as well as the slope of inclination
reversed cyclic fatigue loading as well as the effi- between the V-shaped angle connector and an I-beam
ciency of such connectors [16, 35, 36]. Cyclic push- flange (Fig. 2). The behavior of the specimens is
out test is of interest for understanding the perfor- inspected in terms of failure modes, load–slip analysis,
mance of composite beam under fatigue or seismic and effect of geometric properties.
loads and has been applied for many types of shear Analytical tools like finite element analysis have
connectors [17, 37–42]. been used for behavior of steel–concrete composite
A V-shaped angle shear connector is proposed to beams [7, 30, 43–46]. The results of these analyses
achieve the benefits of both C-shaped channel and have to be verified compared to careful and accurate
angle connectors with a similar economic shear experimental test results. The interaction between the
connector. The aforementioned shear connector is shear connectors as steel part slab as concrete part
patented in the Malaysian Intellectual Property using three-dimensional nonlinear performance of the
 Materials and Structures

push out specimens causes their mathematical mod- This study focuses on behavior of V-shaped angle
eling very complicated. This issue is considered in shear connector as a new proposed experimentally and
such comprehensive finite element analysis of shear analytically to investigate the different parameters that
connectors in literature [21, 23, 45, 47–50]. affect the performance of this connector.

Fig. 3 Details of a typical

specimen used in push-out
test and test setup
Materials and Structures
2 Experimental program
2.1 Specimen descriptions
The push-out specimens consisted of a steel I-beam,
where two slabs were attached to each flange of the
beam. One shear connector was welded onto each beam
flange throughout the whole length of the angle legs.
Two layers of steel bars with four 10 mm diameter steel
bar hoops with 300 MPa yield stress were mounted in
two perpendicular directions for all the slabs. Following
common practice, each of the two concrete slabs was
horizontally cast in composite beams.
For specimen symbolization, five or six digits and
letters are used. The first letter or letters indicate the
concrete type. The first digit shows the dimension of
the leg length of the connector in mm, and the next two
digits indicate the slope of inclination between the leg
and the flange of the connector of the I-beam in
degrees. The last two or three digits indicate the
vertical height of the shear connector. For example,
RC-30-45-100 means that the specimen with the
V-shaped angle shear connector has 30 mm leg length
and is embedded in reinforced concrete with a 45°
slope of inclination with the I-beam flange, while the
height of the connector is 100 mm. The letters M and
C specify monotonic and cyclic loadings. Figure 3
shows the details of the typical specimen used in the
push-out test.
Fourteen push-out specimens divided into two groups
were tested under monotonic and low cyclic fatigue
loadings. All the specimens were embedded in normal
reinforced concrete slabs. Three different angle sizes
with leg lengths of 30, 40 and 50 mm were used with
different degrees of inclination angle and different total
top heights of the connector (Table 1).
2.2 Material properties
Fine siliceous aggregate with a maximum nominal
size of 4.75 mm and crushed coarse granite aggregate
with a maximum nominal size of 10 mm were used.
Ordinary Portland cement was used in all the mixtures
and corresponded to the ASTM C150 type II [51]. To
attain a workable concrete, superplasticizer (SP) with
a specific gravity of 1.19 and a pH of 6.0–9.0 was used
in all the mixtures. Rheobuild 1100 SP was used in this
concrete mixture. The specific gravity of the SP was
approximately 1.195, and this SP was dark brown with
a pH that ranged from 6.0 to 9.0 [52]. The concrete mix
design comprise of 460 (kg/m3) Portland Cement, 910
(kg/m3) coarse aggregate, 825(kg/m3) fine aggregate,
168 (kg/m3) water, 40(kg/m3) silica fume, 1 (%) SP
and 0.37 of water to cement ratio. The steel I-beam and
angle section for the shear connector had 245 MPa
nominal yield strength.
2.3 Test description
Push-out tests were performed to study the V-shaped
angle shear connector behavior and thus establish the
load–slip relation. According to Eurocode 4 (2004),
the push-out specimen consists of a steel beam section
held in vertically by two identical concrete slabs, as
shown in Fig. 3. Load was applied using a universal
testing machine with 600 kN capacity through a
specific support (Fig. 3). The cyclic loading proce-
dure, as presented by Civjan and Singh [53], and
Maleki and Bagheri [17, 53], was considered in the
current study. Load was applied at a rate of 0.04 mm/s.
Monotonic loading involved a slow load increase until
the specimen failed. Pseudo-dynamic loading
involved three cycles (six half cycles) at ±1/3 M,
±2/3 M, and ±M, where M is the static yield capacity
of the control specimen achieved from the load–slip
plot of monotonic loading. For low cyclic fatigue
loading, each specimen experienced a load relative to
the cycle of the specimen up to the target load. At the
end of each half cycle, the actuator was stopped, and
then the specimen was rotated by 180° around the
X axis to apply the new half cycle. The specimen in the
new position was again subjected to the load to
complete the cycle.
The applied load, and the relative slip between the
steel I-beam and the concrete block were automati-
cally recorded in each load increment using the
universal test machine. To obtain a hysteresis loop
record for the low-cycle fatigue test, the load–slip
behavior was carefully recorded in each half cycle of
the test during the reversal of the specimen.
3 Finite element analysis (FEA)
3.1 Introduction
An effective numerical model is proposed via the finite
element method to simulate the push-out test of V-shaped
 Materials and Structures

angle shear connectors focusing on the shear capacity of deformation. The elasticity modulus (Es), density (c),
shear connectors embedded in a concrete slab under and Poisson ratio (t) for all steel materials were
monotonic loading. The models were validated against assumed at 205 GPa, 7800 kg/m3, and 0.3, respec-
the test results presented in the experimental tests. The tively. The yield and ultimate strength of steel com-
parametric studies using this nonlinear model were ponents were achieved from the steel coupon testing.
performed to investigate the variations in concrete
strength and connector dimensions.
3.2.2 Concrete
The results of finite element and parametric study
can be used for an extensive verification of connector
The stress–strain relationship, according to EC2 [55],
performance without resorting for expensive push-out
was used to define the behavior of the concrete
tests. In addition, parametric modeling can help
material. Figure 4b shows an equivalent uniaxial
achieve certain results that are not observed through
stress–strain curve to consider the nonlinear behavior
experimental testing. This objective is achieved once
of concrete in compression. The compression curve is
the accurate modeling considers the parameters, such
divided into three parts, namely, elastic range,
as nonlinear materials and geometries (i.e., concrete
nonlinear parabolic portion, and descending slope.
crushing and cracking, contact interaction), as well as
The value of the first part is the proportional limit
suitable elements to model the interaction between
stress of 0.4 fck [55], where fck is defined as the
steel and concrete. The modeling must provide
concrete strength of the cylinder specimen and is equal
appropriate solutions to overcome the problematic
to 0.8 fcu, whereas fcu is the concrete strength of the
convergence.
cubic specimen. The strain (ec1) in relation to fck is
The specimens modeled in FEA were close to the
equal to 0.0022. The stress for nonlinear parabolic part
specimens in the experimental tests and those devel- can be obtained as presented in Eqs. 1 and 2 [55]:
oped in the finite element program, ABAQUS [54].  
Any model was proved to predict the shear capacity kn  n2
rc ¼ fck ; ð1Þ
close to the values obtained from tests. Therefore, the 1 þ ðk  2Þn
effects of various parameters, such as flange and web
where n ¼ eec1c and k ¼ 1:1 Ecm  efckc1 :
thickness, height and length of shear connectors, and
The descending part can be used to define the post
different concrete properties, can be effectively pre-
failure for concrete compression behavior in speci-
dicted through this model.
mens in which concrete crushing occurred. The
The finite element models matching the properties
descending slope ceases at a stress value of r fck. In
of experimental specimens were developed in this
this paper, r is the reduction factor obtained by
parametric study, and the results were compared with
Ellobody et al. [43]. The range of r can range from 1 to
the push-out test results. After adopting the appropri-
0.5, which is equivalent to the concrete cube strength
ate material model, mesh sizing, and interface bound-
with a range of 30 MPa to 100 MPa. The ultimate
ary conditions, the model was considered accurate
strain of concrete at failure (ecu) is equal to e.
enough to predict the shear capacity of shear connec-
According to EC2 [55], ecu is equal to 0.0035, which
tors embedded in their relative concrete.
means that in this paper, a is equal to 1.75, and
Poisson’s ratio (t) is assumed at 2.350 kg/m3 and 0.2,
3.2 Material properties
respectively. The elasticity module, (Ecm), was
obtained from EC2 [55], as presented in Eq. 2.
3.2.1 Steel
1
Ecm ¼ 9:5ðfck þ 8Þ3 Ecm in GPa andfck in MPa
The kinematic bilinear stress–strain relationship with
ð2Þ
full plastic stress was considered for the shear connec-
tors and steel reinforcing bar in the concrete slab. No confinement effect for the concrete was con-
Figure 4a shows the stress–strain relationship for the sidered in the analysis because it assumed that the
steel materials. The Von Mises yield criterion was used effect can be ignored.
to define the material yield surface, and an associated The nonlinear behavior of concrete in tension using
flow rule was used to determine the plastic the uniaxial stress–strain curve is shown in Fig. 5a. The
Materials and Structures

Fig. 4 Stress-strain
relationship for steel
materials (a) and stress–
strain relationship for
compression behavior of
concrete (b)

tensile stress in concrete increases linearly to the strain
before the concrete cracks and decreases to zero once
the concrete cracks. Cracking can be defined in three
ways (i.e., linear, bilinear, and exponential function)
when no reinforcing bars or only a few reinforcing bars
exist in the concrete [54]. The exponential function
type was used to define tension softening in this
analysis [56]. Figure 5b shows the tension stress–crack
displacement relationship. In the models, damage for
concrete cracking was defined for the specimens.
The element size for the concrete part was chosen very
small such that the effect of cracking could be defined
correctly and there was no instability in the analysis.
The concrete damage plasticity model presumes a
nonassociated potential plastic flow. The Drucker–
Prager hyperbolic function was used as the flow
potential. The material dilation angle (W) and eccen-
tricity (e) were taken as 15° and 0.1, respectively. The
ratio of biaxial compressive strength to uniaxial
 
compressive strength ffb0c0 was taken as 1.16.
3.3 Modeling of the specimens
All components, including the steel I-beam, shear
connectors, reinforcing bars, and concrete slab, were
modeled through ABAQUS software to obtain
accurate results. General contact in the ABAQUS
explicit program was employed to model the
interaction between the components. This part is
very important in the analysis and needs significant
attention because inappropriate interaction may
cause a convergence problem. The geometry of the
specimens was described earlier. The geometric
models consist of three main parts: (1) steel
including steel I-beam and shear connector, which
are merged and made as a single part, (2) concrete
slab, and (3) reinforcing bars.
The geometry of the parts in a typical specimen and
the steel and concrete parts that modeled in software
separately are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5 Stress-strain
relationship for the tensile
behavior of concrete (a) and
exponential function of
tension softening model (b)

3.4 Element type
The mesh size was selected such that it satisfies a good
accuracy and a reasonable computational time. The
types of element used in the finite element modeling
are presented as follows:
Eight-node solid element (C3D8R) was used to
model the steel beam, shear connector, and concrete
slab and has three translational degrees of freedom at
each node. This element can consider concrete crack-
ing and crushing in three orthogonal directions at each
integration point. A steel profile could be modelled
using shell or brick elements depending on what the
investigation is required [57]. Using brick elements
instead of shell element brings more advantaged such
as stress and strain distribution as well as of global
quantities like displacements, no presence of buckling
in steel profile and easiest contact algorithms. A
comprehensive study investigating mesh-dependence
has been carried out in order to define the best
distribution of the elements. This analysis has been
performed by changing the number of the elements,
especially in the concrete slab [57].
Truss element (T3D2) was used to model the
reinforcing bars. This element has three translational
degrees of freedom (translation in the x, y, and
z directions) at each node. Instead of truss element,
beam element can be replaced to consider transfer-
ring of shear force in the concrete block, but there is
no difference between the two elements in this
analysis.
Fig. 6 Typical geometric
modeling of the specimens
(a) and steel part with
connector in specimen (b)
Materials and Structures
3.5 Element interaction
FEA behavior is dependent on accurate defining of the
relationship among the parts. The interaction between
the reinforcing bars and the concrete slab was assumed
fully bonded with no slip between them. Conse-
quently, the embedded element was used for this
purpose. To assign the embedded element, the part of
the concrete slab, which was close to the reinforcing
bars, was defined as embedded.
3.6 Contact interaction
General contact was chosen to define the contact
interaction between the steel and concrete parts. To
define general contact, some text comments, such as
*CONTACT CLEARANCE ASSIGNMENT and
*CONTACT CONTROL ASSIGNMENT, were
defined in the ABAQUS Explicit program.
3.7 Contact properties
Both the normal and tangential contacts were consid-
ered in the contact interaction. Geometry scaling,
which is a softened pressure-over closure relationship,
was used to model the normal contact between the
steel and concrete. This model provides a simple
interface to increase the default contact stiffness when
a critical penetration is exceeded, as shown in
Fig. 7. The penetration measure, d, is defined either
Materials and Structures
Fig. 7 Softened pressure-over closure relationship—geometry
scaling
directly or as a fraction, r, of the minimum element
length, Lelem, in the contact region. Each time the
current penetration exceeds a multiple of this pene-
tration measure, the contact stiffness is scaled by a
factor, S. The initial stiffness Ki is given in Eq. 4.
Ki ¼ S0  kdflt ; ð4Þ
where i is segment member, S is geometric scale
factor, kdflt is default stiffness, r is overclosure factor,
Lelem is element length, d = r. Lelem is overclosure
measure, and S0 is initial scale factor.
In this analysis, parameters such as S0, S, and d are
considered as follows:
3\S0\10 1:05\S\1:1 1  106 \d\1  107 m
Tangential contact was used to define the friction
contact between steel and concrete. The Coulomb
friction model was used to model the friction contact
between steel and concrete. The friction coefficient
between the steel and concrete was assumed 0.3.
Channel surfaces contact separately with the cor-
responding surface in the concrete slab in the shape of
surface to surface contact. In all cases, the contact
surfaces of the slab act as master and channel surface
acts as slave.
3.8 Loading and boundary condition
The similar loading of the test specimen was consid-
ered for the loading in FEA. A vertical velocity
loading was applied to the concrete slab. The load
direction is downward. Velocity-controlled loading
provides a more stable system in the nonlinear stage
compared with force-controlled loading. A special
100 mm/s rate of velocity was monotonically used for
the loading rate. This rate was achieved by comparing
the kinematic energy with the internal energy when the
effect of dynamic analysis could be neglected. The
real rate, which is smaller than the special rate
mentioned earlier, results in longer time analysis with
slight effect on the accuracy of the results.
The loading step is then conducted after assembling
the parts. Linear loading was considered in this
analysis. This loading is similar to the experimental
loading procedure in push-out test when the load was
applied instantly. Given that the ultimate load cannot
be realized in parametric analysis, 1.5 times of the real
shear strength of any specimen is considered for
maximum loading.
The next step is to obtain the output results of the
parameters, such as stress, strain, and boundary
condition loads. The more parameters achieved, the
more time is needed for the analysis.
3.9 Analysis solution
The available analysis, which is a general static in
ABAQUS Standard, was used for the initial analysis.
However, this analysis caused a convergence problem and
stopped the analysis even at the beginning of the analysis.
The results of the RIKS method also resulted in a
convergence problem by Kim and Nguyen [50]. Conse-
quently, ABAQUS Explicit was employed for analysis,
which is suitable for nonlinear materials and geometry,
large deformation and concrete damage, and discontinu-
ous parts. Referring to recent and old researches reduced
integration and enhanced strain approaches have been
used to solve general complex solid problems trying, at the
same time, to avoid locking and spurious strain-free modes
[58–60]. This has also been successfully applied to
consistent computational costs.

4 Results and discussions
4.1 Experimental results
4.1.1 Failure mode
Basically, two types of failures for shear connectors
are defined in the push-out specimens. The first is
connector failure, and the second is concrete crushing
splitting [15, 17]. For the V-shaped angle shear
connectors, all the push-out specimens experienced
the connector fracture mode of failure under both
monotonic and low-cycle fatigue loads. Although the
same type of failure occurred under monotonic and
cyclic loadings in all the specimens, the failure in the
low-cycle test was less ductile compared with that in
the monotonic load. The same finding was observed in
the C-shaped channel and angle shear connectors [22].
Concrete was crushed around the connectors because
of high bearing force (Fig. 8a). Notably, damage from
previous cycles could affect the remaining strength.
Therefore, the basic response under monotonic load
may be inappropriate for the low-cycle load. Some
cracks formed around the surface of the connectors
Fig. 8 Crushed concrete
around the connectors after
connector failure (a) and
propagated cracks at the side
surface (b)
Materials and Structures
and in a direction parallel to the steel I-beam. The
interaction between the concrete and the connectors
was partly lost.
Some cracks were observed in those slabs that used
connectors with shorter leg length on the top surface of
the specimens. Cracks propagated on the side surfaces
as well (Fig. 8b). When the connector fracture
occurred, the slabs with longer connectors experi-
enced concrete cracking on the sides of the slabs,
whereas cracks on top of the surface developed around
the connectors for the slabs with shorter connectors.
Generally, concrete cracked more when longer con-
nectors were used for the specimens.
4.1.2 Load–slip analysis of monotonic curves
The load–slip curve for all the specimens with the
V-shaped angle shear connector embedded in the
reinforced concrete slab is illustrated in Fig. 9. Based
on Eurocode 4 (2004), where a connector may be
considered ductile if the characteristic slip capacity is
at least 6.0 mm, the V-shaped shear connectors can be
considered as partially ductile connectors when the
relative slip measured is 3.0–6.0 mm in all the
Materials and Structures

Fig. 9 Load–slip curves of V-shaped angle shear connectors embedded in reinforced concrete under monotonic loading

Table 2 Cyclic test results for similar pair to pair specimens

Pair to pair Failure Strength Maximum
similar load (kN) degradation slip (mm)
specimen (%)

RC30-45-100 M 155.3 31.4 5.5

RC30-45-100 C 106.41 3.0
RC30-50-75 M 91.4 1.0 1.5
RC30-50-75 C 90.5 4.0
RC30-60-75 M 80.0 1.8 2.5
RC30-60-75 C 78.6 3.0
RC50-60-75 M 148.3 0.0 4.0
RC50-60-75 C 148.3 3.0
RC50-50-100 M 145.5 0.5 6.5
RC50-50-100 C 144.8 4.5
RC40-45-75 M 100.5 0.0 2.0
RC40-45-75 C 100.5 6.0
RC40-50-75 M 97.8 0.0 4.5
RC40-50-75 C 97.7 2.5

connectors. A sudden termination of the load–slip
curve did not occur, unlike in other C-shaped channel
and angle shear connectors. Based on the comparison
of the V-shaped angle connectors with other C-shaped
shear connectors, one of the main differences was the
yield plateau behavior. Almost all the specimens
experienced an excellent yield plateau, which
increased the slip while the load peaked during the
push-out tests. This behavior made the V-shaped angle
shear connector resistance similar to that of the
C-shaped channel shear connector.
The shear connector capacity and ductility are
summarized in Table 2. In conclusion, the V-shaped
angle connectors with a longer leg length had better
 Materials and Structures

Fig. 10 Typical load–slip curves of specimen RC30-45-100 and RC40-45-75 under cyclic loading

shear connector resistance and were more ductile concentrations generated by the interaction between
compared with those with shorter leg length. This the stress areas of the connector and the concrete.is
finding was most likely caused by stress segment member, S is
Materials and Structures
4.1.3 Load–slip analysis of cyclic curves
The cyclic tests revealed the behavior of the V-shaped
angle shear connector embedded in a reinforced
concrete slab under cyclic loading, as summarized in
Table 4. The typical load–slip curves for specimens
RC30-45-100 and RC40-45-75 under cyclic loading
are shown in Fig. 10.
All the push-out specimens resisted the first and
second half loading cycles at 1/3 M and 2/3 M, as well
as the first half cycle of the whole loading (M).
Subsequently, the specimens fractured at the second
half cycle of M, as shown by the cyclic failure in
Table 2. In summary, all the specimens, except one,
had 99 % resistance to their individual monotonic
capacity when subjected to full reversed cyclic fatigue
loading. Based on the comparison of this shear
capacity resistance with the other two C-shaped shear
connectors, this shear connector exhibited excellent
behavior in terms of cyclic loading resistance because
of the similar shear resistance in both monotonic and
cyclic loadings. A decrease in shear capacity did not
occur in the V-shaped shear connector after numerous
load cycles. Although the shape of the connector was
completely different from the other two C-shaped
shear connectors, a similar connector fracture mode of
failure to the channel connector was observed.
4.1.4 Effect of connector geometries
Considering pairs of similar specimens, the effect of
connector height on the behavior of composite beams
was assessed. As mentioned earlier, two similar pairs
of specimens were tested under monotonic and low-
cycle fatigue loads, where these pairs could be
compared. The specimen pairs differed in terms of
connector leg and total connector height. Evidently,
connector thickness varied for each pair according to
the increase in connector leg size.
By referring to the load–slip curves of monotonic
loading, long connectors clearly carried high loads,
which seemed related to the tendency of a short
connector to concentrate on the applied load in a small
area.
The effect of connector legs on shear strength
capacity is shown in Table 2. A longer connector leg
length used meant more shear capacity resistance. In
conclusion, based on the push-out test results, the
specimens with a V-shaped angle connector of 50 mm
in leg length were slightly more flexible than those
with a shorter connector. The amount of slip at the
ultimate load was observed to be 4.0–6.5 mm for the
50 mm leg connector compared with 2.0–4.5 mm for
the 40 mm leg connector and 1.5–5.5 mm for the
30 mm one. In the case of low-cycle fatigue reverse
load, the amount of slip at the ultimate load was
3.0–4.5 mm for the 50 mm leg connectors,
2.5–6.0 mm for the 40 mm, and 3.0–4.0 mm for the
30 mm one.
4.1.5 Effect of connector slope
According to the push-out test results, using a bigger
slope of inclination between the connector and the
steel I-beam reduced the shear resistance of the
connectors more than those with a smaller slope of
inclination. This finding seemed related to the ten-
dency of a short connector to concentrate on the
applied load in a small area.
These criteria were also valid for the ductility of
connectors. Hence, more ductility was obvious when
the slope of inclination was smaller, whereas less
ductility was observed when a bigger slope of
inclination was applied. Among the tested specimens
under monotonic loading, those with 45° slope of
inclination and with longer legs at 50 mm were
recommended for practical applications.
4.1.6 Comparison of the V-shaped angle shear
connector with channel and angle connectors
The authors compared the behavior of the V-shaped
angle shear connector with that of C-shaped channel
and angle shear connectors [34, 35]. The comparison
was conducted based on the geometric properties and
weight of the steel in the connection of each group.
Different slopes of inclination were included in this
comparison. The summary of the comparison is shown
in Table 3.
Based on the table, the V-shaped angle shear
connector generally exhibited excellent behavior in
both shear strength and ductility. The V-shaped angle
shear connectors behaved considerably better than the
normal C-shaped angle shear connector, and even
performed better than the C-shaped channel shear
connector in most specimens.
 Materials and Structures

Table 3 Comparison between C-shaped angle, channel and monotonic loading. The models were validated against
V-shaped angle shear connectors the experimental test results. Parametric studies using
Compared Monotonic Slip Best Best these nonlinear models were performed to investigate
specimens strength (mm) strength slip the variations in concrete strength and connector
(kN) (kN) (mm) dimensions.
RCC10050 (C-shaped 152.5 6.5 H H
channel)
4.2.1 Verification of finite element results
RCA10050 (C-shaped 141.0 2.0
angle)
The finite element results should be verified with the
RC50-50-100 145.5 6.5 H
experimental test results to ensure the accuracy of
RCC7550 (C-shaped 139.7 5.5 H
channel) modeling. A typical comparison of the load–slip rela-
RCA7550 (C-shaped 109.6 1.5 tionship between the finite element results and the
angle) experimental results is shown in Fig. 11. According to
RC50-60-75 148.4 4.0 H the results, FEA can exhibit the accurate elastic and
RCC10030 (C-shaped 112.3 5.0 inelastic behavior of the connections. There is good
channel) agreement between experimental and finite element
RCA10030 (C-shaped 77.9 1.5 analysis in term of linear and nonlinear areas such that the
angle) pick point of the load deflection curve could be estimated.
RC30-45-100 155.3 5.5 H H
RCC7530 (C-shaped 109.5 3.5
channel) 4.2.2 Parametric investigations based on finite
RCA7530 (C-shaped 69.6 1.5 element method
angle)
RC50-60-75 148.4 4.0 H H A parametric study was conducted using the finite
element model to investigate the effect of various
4.2 Finite element results concrete compressive strengths and geometric prop-
erties of the connector. After verifying the finite
Effective numerical analyses were proposed through element results against the experimental test results,
finite element method to simulate the push-out test of the shear capacities of V-shaped angle shear connec-
all three types of shear connectors. The motivation tors obtained from FEA were evaluated and discussed.
was the shear capacity prediction of connectors under The discussion deliberated mostly on the shear

Fig. 11 Typical
comparison of load–slip
between FEA and
experimental test
Materials and Structures

Table 4 The results of Specimens fc (MPa) V-shaped angle connector specification Shear capacity (kN)
finite element and (mm)
experimental study for
V-shaped angle connectors Leg Height Slope of inclination FE analysis Experimental
embedded in reinforced
concrete RC30-45 38.0 30 75 45 91.3 –
30 100 45 155.2 155.3
30 120 45 163.5 –
30 140 45 172.6 –
RC30-50 38.0 30 75 50 91.0 91.4
30 100 50 97.4 –
30 120 50 108.1 –
30 140 50 120.7 –
RC30-60 38.0 30 75 60 79.8 80.0
30 100 60 96.6 –
30 120 60 101.3 –
30 140 60 117.6 –
RC40-45 38.0 40 75 45 102.5 100.5
40 100 45 167.2 –
40 120 45 174.3 –
40 140 45 189.9 –
RC40-50 38.0 40 75 50 95.6 97.8
40 100 50 122.2 –
40 120 50 119.4 –
40 140 50 147.0 –
RC40-60 38.0 40 75 60 89.2 –
40 100 60 111.7 –
40 120 60 135.0 –
40 140 60 118.7 –
RC50-45 38.0 50 75 45 152.0 –
50 100 45 192.0 –
50 120 45 191.0 –
50 140 45 198.0 –
RC50-50 38.0 50 75 50 139.5 –
50 100 50 144.0 145.5
50 120 50 151.3 –
50 140 50 177.4 –
RC50-60 38.0 50 75 60 127.4 148.4
50 100 60 130.5 –
50 120 60 144.7 –
50 140 60 150.5 –

capacity alterations under monotonic loading while
different dimensions of shear connector and types of
concrete were used.
The connector shear capacity and ductility of
V-shaped angle shear connector in FEA were mea-
sured and summarized in Table 4.
It was concluded from these results that the
V-shaped angle shear connectors with larger leg size
resist more shear compared with those with smaller
legs. The connectors with larger slope of inclination
resist less shear resistance compared with those with
smaller slope of inclination. Among the other tested

specimens, the specimens with smaller slope of
inclination and those with larger leg were the best
choice for this type of connector.
5 Conclusion
Fourteen push-out tests were performed on composite
beams using the V-shaped angle shear connectors
under monotonic and low-cycle fatigue loadings to
assess the performance of the V-shaped angle
connector.
This study also investigates the behavior of
V-shaped angle shear connectors in solid concrete
slabs using finite element and parametric analysis.
This comprehensive numerical study was used to
simulate an effective numerical model of the exper-
imental push-out tests through the finite element
program, ABAQUS. The focus of this study is to
assess and compare the shear capacity of the shear
connectors embedded in a solid reinforced concrete
slab under monotonic loading. The finite element
models were validated against the test results pre-
sented in the experimental tests. Parametric studies
using nonlinear models were performed to investigate
the variations in concrete strength and connector
dimensions. The experimental results agree well with
finite element results. The results also proved that
connectors with larger leg size resist more shear and
are more ductile compared with those with smaller
legs. Increased ductility can be observed with small
slope of inclination. Moreover, minimal ductility was
reported when the large slope of inclination was
applied. The C-shaped channel and angle shear
connectors were compared with V-shaped angle shear
connectors. Thus, V-shaped shear connectors behave
considerably better than C-shaped angle shear con-
nectors in all cases, whereas V-shaped shear connec-
tors behave better than C-shaped channel shear
connectors in most of the specimens performed. The
V-shaped angle shear connectors with larger leg
length resist more shear and are more ductile com-
pared with those with smaller leg length. Large
connectors carried increased load. This finding is
apparently attributed to the fact that the small
connector tends to concentrate on the applied load
on a small area. The larger the connector leg length
used, the more shear capacity resistance is obtained.
Materials and Structures
Using larger slope of inclination between connector
and steel I-beam caused the connectors to resist less
shear resistance compared with those connectors with
smaller slope of inclination. Increased ductility can be
observed once the slope of inclination is decreased.
Moreover, decreased ductility was reported when the
large slope of inclination was applied.
In general, the V-shaped angle shear connector
shows good behavior in case of both shear strength and
ductility. The V-shaped angle shear connectors behave
much better than angle shear connectors in all cases,
and they perform better than channel shear connector
in most cases.
Overall, the V-shaped angle shear connector exhib-
ited excellent behavior in terms of both shear strength
and ductility. The connectors in reinforced concrete
had a relative slip of 3.0–6.0 mm.
Almost all the specimens experienced a good yield
plateau, which increased the slip while the load peaked
during the push-out tests. The connectors with longer
leg size resisted more shear and were more ductile
compared with those with shorter legs.
The V-shaped angle connectors with a bigger slope
of inclination had less shear resistance than those with
a smaller slope of inclination. Those connectors with
longer leg length resisted considerably more shear
than those with shorter ones. Through a smaller slope
of inclination, more ductility was evident; by contrast,
less ductility was observed when a bigger slope of
inclination was applied. The connectors in reinforced
concrete under low cyclic fatigue loading fractured at
the first half cycle of the whole loading (M) and
resisted 99 % of the monotonic capacity of the
specimens. This shear connector exhibited excellent
behavior in terms of resistance to cyclic loading
because the shear resistance was almost similar in both
monotonic and cyclic loadings. The specimens with
the V-shaped connector with 50 mm leg length were
slightly more flexible compared with those with
shorter leg length.
Based on the comparison of the C-shaped channel
and angle shear connectors with the V-shaped angle
shear connector, the V-shaped angle connector
behaved considerably better than the normal C-shaped
angle shear connector, and even performed better than
the C-shaped channel shear connector in most spec-
imens. Although the V-shaped shear connector had
different configurations compared with other
Materials and Structures
C-shaped shear connectors, the same fracture mode of
failure was observed.
Similar to the C-shaped channel and angle
connectors, the V-shaped angle connectors also
present the following advantages compared with
the other connectors. The V-shaped angle connec-
tors can be produced in large numbers, assume a
particular form and shape, and be easily welded
onto steel profile without requiring special equip-
ment. Moreover, the welding process for the
V-shaped angle connector can be performed either
on site or in an industrial unit. Based on several
tests performed previously for other C-shaped
connectors and on the results of this research,
concrete strength and slab transversal reinforcement
influence both connection load capacity and ductility
of V-shaped shear connectors. Therefore, the rela-
tive connection load capacity of the connectors can
be controlled properly by selecting the concrete
strength and reinforcement rate.
Acknowledgments The study presented herein was made
possible by the University of Malaya Higher Impact Research
(HIR) Grant: UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/57 and University of
Malaya Research Grant (UMRG): RP004C-13AET. The authors
would like to acknowledge the support.
References
1. Leonhardt F et al (1987) New improved shear connector
with high fatigue strength for composite structures. Beron-
und Stahlbetonbau Heft 12(12):325–331
2. Zellner W (1987) Recent designs of composite bridges and a
new type of shear connectors. Compos Constr Steel Concr
II:240–252
3. Hegger J et al (2001) Studies on the ductility of shear
connectors when using high-strength concrete, vol 2.
RILEM Publications, Bagneux, pp 1024–1045
4. Galjaard H, Walraven J, Eligehausen R (2001) Static tests
on various types of shear connectors for composite struc-
tures. Van Hattum en Blankevoort/Volker Stevin Con-
struction Europe, Delft, pp 1313–1322
5. Verı́ssimo G (2004) Desenvolvimento de um conector de
cisalhamento em chapa dentada para estruturas mistas de
aço e concreto e estudo do seu comportamento. Universi-
dade Federal de Minas Gerais-Programa de Pós-graduação
em Engenharia de Estruturas, Belo Horizonte
6. Hauke B (2005) Shear connectors for composite members
of high strength materials. In: 4th European conference on
steel and composite, pp 4.2.57–64
7. Yan J-B et al (2015) Experimental and analytical study on
ultimate strength behavior of steel–concrete–steel sandwich
composite beam structures. Mater Struct 48(5):1523–1544
8. Slutter R, Driscoll GC (1965) Flexural strength of steel-
concrete composite beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 91(2):71–99
9. Shariati A et al (2012) Various types of shear connectors in
composite structures: a review. Int J Phys Sci 7(22):
2876–2890
10. Viest I (1956) Investigation of stud shear connectors for
composite concrete and steel T-beams. ACI, Michigan
11. Veldanda M, Hosain M (1992) Behavior of perfobond rib
shear connectors: push-out tests. Can J Civ Eng 19(1):1–10
12. Oguejiofor E, Hosain M (1992) Behaviour of perfobond rib
shear connectors in composite beams: full-size tests. Can J
Civ Eng 19(2):224–235
13. Oguejiofor E, Hosain M (1994) A parametric study of per-
fobond rib shear connectors. Can J Civ Eng 21(4):614–625
14. Viest I et al (1952) Full-scale tests of channel shear con-
nectors and composite t-beams. Bull Ser 405
15. Shariati M et al (2010) Behavior of channel shear connec-
tors in normal and light weight aggregate concrete (exper-
imental and analytical study). Adv Mater Res 168–170:
2303–2307
16. Shariati M et al (2012) Behaviour of C-shaped angle shear
connectors under monotonic and fully reversed cyclic
loading: an experimental study. Mater Des 41:67–73
17. Maleki S, Bagheri S (2008) Behavior of channel shear
connectors. Part I: experimental study. J Constr Steel Res
64:1333–1340
18. Hosain M, Pashan A (2009) New design equations for
channel shear connectors in composite beams. Can J Civ
Eng 36:1435–1443
19. Rao SN (1970) Composite construction-tests on small-scale
shear connectors. J Inst Eng 4:106–115
20. Pashan A (2006) Behaviour of channel shear connectors:
push-out tests. MS Thesis, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, University of Saskatchewan
21. Maleki S, Bagheri S (2008) Behavior of channel shear
connectors. Part II: analytical study. J Constr Steel Res
64:1341–1348
22. Shariati M, Ramli Sulong NH, Khanouki MMA (2011)
Experimental assessment of channel shear connectors under
static and fully reversed cyclic loading in high strength
concrete. Mater Des. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.08.008
23. Maleki S, Mahoutian M (2009) Experimental and analytical
study on channel shear connectors in fiber-reinforced con-
crete. J Constr Steel Res 65(8–9):1787–1793
24. Shariati M et al (2011) Shear resistance of channel shear
connectors in plain, reinforced and lightweight concrete. Sci
Res Essays 6(4):977–983
25. Choi SM et al (2008) Fatigue strength of angle shape shear
connector used in steel-concrete composite slab. Int J Steel
Struct 8(3):199–204
26. Choi SM (2011) Fatigue resistance of angle shape shear
connector used in steel-concrete composite slab. PhD The-
sis, Graduate School of Engineering of Nagoya University
27. Fukazawa K et al (2002) Fatigue durability of steel-concrete
composite slab, MELAB and application to continuous com-
posite steel girder bridge. Mitsui Zosen Tech Rev 6:8–18
28. Saidi T, Furuuchi H, Ueda T (2008) The transferred shear
force-relative displacement relationship of the shear con-
nector in steel-concrete sandwich beam and its model.
Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshuu E 64(1):122–141

29. Ros S, Shima H (2009) A new beam type test method for
load-slip relationship of L-shape shear connector. In: The
8th symposium on research and application of hybrid and
composite structures, p 1–8
30. Yan J-B et al (2014) Push-out tests on J-hook connectors in
steel–concrete–steel sandwich structure. Mater Struct
47(10):1693–1714
31. Dallam L (1968) Push-out tests of stud and channel shear
connectors in normal-weight and lightweight concrete slabs.
Bulletin series. University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia
32. Slutter RG (1963) Pushout Tests of Welded Stud Shear Con-
nectors in Lightweight Concrete. Report No. 200.63.409.1,
Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University
33. Hegger J et al (2005) Push-out tests on headed studs in high-
strength concrete. Spec Publ 228:769–786
34. An L, Cederwall K (1996) Push-out tests on studs in high
strength and normal strength concrete. J Constr Steel Res
36(1):15–29
35. Shariati M et al (2013) Comparison of behaviour between
channel and angle shear connectors under monotonic and fully
reversed cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 38:582–593
36. Shariati A et al (2014) Experimental assessment of angle
shear connectors under monotonic and fully reversed cyclic
loading in high strength concrete. Constr Build Mater
52:276–283
37. Naithani K, Gupta V, Gadh A (1988) Behaviour of shear
connectors under dynamic loads. Mater Struct
21(5):359–363
38. Singh P (2003) Behavior of shear studs subjected to fully
reversed cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 129:1466
39. Bursi O, Gramola G (2000) Behaviour of composite sub-
structures with full and partial shear connection under quasi-
static cyclic and pseudo-dynamic displacements. Mater
Struct 33(3):154–163
40. Ciutina AL (2008) Stratan a cyclic performances of shear
connectors. ASCE, Winter Park
41. Nakajima A et al (2003) Cyclic shear force-slip behavior of
studs under alternating and pulsating load condition. Eng
Struct 25(5):537–545
42. Bursi O, Gramola G (1999) Behaviour of headed stud shear
connectors under lowcycle high amplitude displacements.
Mater Struct 32(4):290–297
43. Ellobody E (2002) Finite element modeling of shear con-
nection for steel concrete composite girders. Ph.D. thesis.
Leeds: School of Civil Engineering, The University of
Leeds
44. Queiroz F, Vellasco P, Nethercot D (2007) Finite element
modelling of composite beams with full and partial shear
connection. J Constr Steel Res 63(4):505–521
Materials and Structures
45. Lam D, EI-Lobody E (2001) Finite element modelling of
headed stud shear connectors in steel-concrete composite
beam. Elsevier Science Ltd., Amsterdam
46. Tahmasebinia F, Ranzi G, Zona A (2012) Beam tests of
composite steel-concrete members: a three-dimensional
finite element model. Int J Steel Struct 12(1):37–45
47. Wang AJ, Chung KF (2008) Advanced finite element
modelling of perforated composite beams with flexible
shear connectors. Eng Struct 30:2724–2738
48. Chengxi HKG (2010) The finite element analysis of bearing
capacity of channel shear connector. Steel Constr 4:012
49. Razaqpur AG, Nofal M (1989) A finite element for mod-
elling the nonlinear behavior of shear connectors in com-
posite structures. Comput Struct 32(1): 169–174
50. Nguyen H, Kim S (2009) Finite element modeling of push-
out tests for large stud shear connectors. J Constr Steel Res
65(10–11):1909–1920
51. Cement AP, ASTM C 150, type I or II, except type III may
be used for cold-weather construction. Provide natural color
or white cement as required to produce mortar color indi-
cated. 1
52. Sajedi F, Razak HA (2011) Effects of thermal and
mechanical activation methods on compressive strength of
ordinary Portland cement-slag mortar. Mater Des
32(2):984–995
53. Civjan SA, Singh P (2003) Behavior of shear studs sub-
jected to fully reversed cyclic loading. J Struct Eng
129(11):1466–1474
54. Manual ASU (2010) Version 6.10. ABAQUS Inc
55. EN C (2004) 1-1, eurocode 4: design of composite steel and
concrete structures—Part 1.1: general rules and rules for
buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
56. Cornelissen H, Hordijk D, Reinhardt H (1986) Experi-
mental determination of crack softening characteristics of
normalweight and lightweight concrete. Heron 31(2):1986
57. Santagati S, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R (2012) Strain life
analysis at low-cycle fatigue on concentrically braced steel
structures with RHS shape braces. J Earthq Eng
16(sup1):107–137
58. Belytschko T, Wong BL, Chiang H-Y (1992) Advances in
one-point quadrature shell elements. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 96(1):93–107
59. Nascimbene R, Venini P (2002) A new locking-free equi-
librium mixed element for plane elasticity with continuous
displacement interpolation. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 191(17):1843–1860
60. Nascimbene R (2014) Towards non-standard numerical mod-
eling of thin-shell structures: geometrically linear formulation.
Int J Comput Methods Eng Sci Mech 15(2):126–141