Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Tensile resistance of J-hook connectors used in Steel-Concrete-Steel

sandwich structure
Jia-Bao Yan, J.Y. Richard Liew ⁎, M.H. Zhang
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, E1A-07-03, 1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Steel-Concrete-Steel (SCS) sandwich panel with ultra-lightweight cement composite core has been proposed to
Received 7 August 2013 produce slim decking for bridge and building construction. One special feature of this lightweight sandwich panel
Accepted 11 April 2014 is the use of J-hook connectors to improve the structural performance against combined actions of vertical shear
Available online xxxx
and bending moment on the section. The proposed J-hook connectors provide effective bond between the steel
and concrete, prevent local buckling and separation of the steel face plate, and enhance the transverse shear
Keywords:
J-hook
resistance to the structure. This paper investigates the tensile resistance of this new form of J-hook connectors
Shear connector by performing tensile tests on 79 sandwich specimens with various types of core materials including normal
Shear resistance weight concrete, lightweight concrete, and ultra-lightweight cement composite. Their ultimate tensile resis-
Steel-concrete-steel sandwich structure tances were obtained and corresponding failure modes were reported. The main parameters that influenced
Tensile resistance of connector the tensile resistance of J-hook connectors were discussed and analyzed. Theoretical methods were developed
Ultra lightweight concrete to predict the tensile resistance of the J-hook connectors and their accuracy was verified against test results.
Finally, recommended methods were proposed for design purposes.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of J-hook connector is that tensile resistance can be provided to resist

In Steel-Concrete-Steel (SCS) sandwich composite structures, shear
connectors are usually used to achieve composite action transferring
longitudinal shear forces at the steel and concrete interface and resisting
transverse shear forces applied on the structures. Different types of
shear connectors have been developed for SCS sandwich structures in
the past three decades including headed studs [1,2], Bi-Steel connectors
[3], angle connectors [4], through bolt connector [5], and bi-directional
corrugated strip connector [6]. To produce slim depth and lightweight
sandwich structures to withstand impact and blast loads, J-hook con-
nectors were proposed by the main author [7]. Sandwich beams and
plates with J-hook connectors showed promising performances subject
to static and impact loads in author’s recent research [7–10]. As shown
in Fig. 1, the J-hook connectors work in pairs and interlock the central
concrete core in SCS sandwich structures. By this interlocking system,
the steel face plates are prevented from up-lifting as well as local
buckling.
In SCS sandwich composite structures with J-hook connectors, trans-
verse shear force is resisted by concrete core and J-hook connectors. The
J-hook connectors act as shear links to resist diagonal shear cracks in the
concrete core as shown in Fig. 2. From this point of view, tensile resis-
tance of the J-hook connectors contributes certain transverse shear
resistance to the structure. Another scenario of the working condition
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 65162154; fax: +65 67791635.
E-mail address: ceeljy@nus.edu.sg (J.Y.R. Liew).
local buckling of the steel face plates and prevent separation between
the steel face plates and concrete core. Local buckling of the steel face
plates can occur when the flat sandwich member is subjected to com-
pression (Fig. 3a), or in the compression zone of the steel plate subject
to flexural loading (Fig. 3b). When a sandwich wall is subject to lateral
impact or blast loading [7], severe debonding and cracking of concrete
core may lead to separation between the steel plate and concrete core,
and the J-hook connectors can interlock the two face plates and prevent
tensile separation and maintain the overall structural integrity, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3c. In summary, the tensile resistance of J-hook connectors
is an important parameter that will affect the structural performance
of SCS sandwich structure. This provides the motivation to the present
research to investigate the tensile resistance of this new form of
connectors.
Extensive experimental studies were carried out on tensile resis-
tance of headed studs. From these studies, it was found that the tensile
resistance of the headed studs embedded in the concrete was closely re-
lated to their failure modes [11]. The observed failure modes of the stud
connector subjected to tension were steel failure of connector, pullout
failure, concrete breakout failure, side-face blowout, and concrete split-
ting, as shown in Fig. 4 [11]. Therefore, the tensile resistance was deter-
mined by the lowest value of the strengths corresponding to these
failure modes. Research was carried out to investigate the strengths of
headed studs for different failure modes. The concrete breakout
strength was widely investigated and theoretical models were devel-
oped for prediction purposes [12–18]. The influence of the cracks and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.04.023
0143-974X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 147

Notation

Abrg Local bearing area of the head of stud or anchor bolt

Av Shear interaction area
D Inner diameter of the hook a) SCS sandwich beam with J-hook shear
Ec Elastic Young’s modulus of the concrete material
connectors (before casting)
Es Elastic Young’s modulus of the steel material
P General tension force acted on the connector
PT Tensile resistance of a pair of J-hook connectors in
concrete
PTD Design tensile capacity
b) SCS sandwich beam with J-hook shear
PTc Concrete breakout for tension
PTs Tensile fracture strength of the connector
connectors (after casting)
PTh Pullout strength of J-hook connectors in concrete
P'Th Hook straightening strength of pure J-hook connectors
PTV Punching shear strength of the steel face plate
a Length of equivalent square section to the circular sec-
tion of the J-hook
d Diameter of the J-hook shear connectors
dH Diameter of the headed shear stud connectors
eh Projection length of the anchoring length of the L-shape
of hook shape connectors
hs Height of the shear connectors
c) SCS sandwich shell with the J-hook shear
hef Effective height of the headed shear stud connectors connector(before casting)
fck Compressive strength of concrete cylinders
fcu Compressive strength of concrete cubes
fut Ultimate tensile strength of the stud steel material
fy Yield strength
w Density of the concrete
x Distance from the upper compression region to the neu-
tral axis in the section
α Safety factor

Abbreviations
CC Concrete breakout failure
COV Coefficient of variance
HS Hook straightening
Mean Average value of the ratios
PO Pullout failure
PS Punching shear failure of the steel face plate
STF Steel bar tension failure
STDEV Standard deviation
fibers in concrete were reported in Refs. [19] and [20], respectively, and
the research findings were incorporated into design codes (ACI 349
[11], ACI 318 [21]). The strengths for other failure modes were also
specified in these codes. Little information is available to predict the
shear and tensile resistance of a pair of interlocked connectors, such as
J-hook connectors and overlapped headed shear studs, to be used in
the SCS sandwich structures. In the design guide published by SCI [22]
on SCS sandwich composite structures, only the ultimate tensile frac-
ture strength of the connectors was used to calculate the transverse
shear resistance of the structures. This may significantly overestimate
the transverse shear resistance of the structures.
The authors had proposed a new form of J-hook connectors to be
used with ultra lightweight cement composite (ULCC) [23] to produce
slim and lightweight SCS sandwich deck. In this paper, tensile tests are
carried on 79 sandwich specimens with interlocked J-hook connectors
embedded in different kinds of concrete and lightweight cement com-
posite core. Parameters influencing the tensile resistance of J-hook con-
nectors are analyzed and discussed. Theoretical models are developed
to predict the tensile resistances for different failure modes and their
accuracy is verified against the test results. Finally, a step-by-step design
d) SCS sandwich shell with the J-hook shear
connector (after casting)
Fig. 1. SCS sandwich composite structure with J-hook shear connectors.
procedure is proposed to calculate the tensile resistance of the
interlocked J-hook connectors in the SCS sandwich structures. The
tensile resistance of the connectors is needed to quantify the trans-
verse shear resistance of the SCS sandwich composite to be used in
beams, slab, and shell structures.
2. Experimental program
The tensile resistance of a pair of J-hook connector embedded in con-
crete may be obtained directly from tensile tests. Two tests methods are
available in the literature: one method (herein named as method A)
was recommended for straight bar connectors in Bi-steel structure pro-
posed by Xie and Chapman [24]. Another method (called method B)
was developed initially by Sohel and Liew [8] for direct tensile test. In
this research, both methods A and B were used and the experimental
results obtained were compared for the recommendation of the proper
test method for J-hook connectors.
2.1. Test setup, loading procedure, and measurements
All the specimens were tested under a universal testing machine
with a load carrying capacity of 300 kN. A displacement controlled load-
ing with a velocity of 0.05 mm/min was used until failure of the speci-
mens. Once the J-hook connectors were straightened or pulled out,
148 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162
J-hook connector
T T
T T
Shear crack in
concrete core
Fig. 2. Effectiveness of J-hook connectors to resist vertical shear in SCS sandwich structure.
the tests were terminated. The two test methods are described below to
obtain the tensile resistance of the J-hook connectors.
In method A, a prefabricated steel frame was used to hold the spec-
imen. Top J-hook connectors, extending from the holes reserved in the
top steel plate, were clamped for tension. The bottom part of the
frame was anchored to the base of the testing machine. During the
test, the tensile force was applied to the extending steel bars. This ten-
sile force was transferred to the bottom base through the holding
frame. The test setup is shown in Fig. 5. Linear Varying Displacement
Transducers (LVDTs) were used to record the axial elongation of the
connector. The only limitation of test method A is that the concrete
core is under compression and well confined by the holding plate and
the surrounding steel tube. Thus, it is difficult to observe the breakout
failure of the inside concrete. Anchor pullout failure occurred in most
of the specimens. In some cases, the tensile resistance of the J-hook con-
nectors obtained from test method A will be greater than the true value
due to the concrete confinement effect.
In test method B, a steel bar of diameter 20 mm was welded to the
bottom steel plate of the specimen as shown in Fig. 5. During the test,
this bar was clamped to the bottom base of the testing machine and
the tensile force was applied to the top J-hook connector. LVDTs were
used to record the elongation of the connectors. The only shortcoming
of this test method is that nominal moment may be introduced due to
the eccentricity of the tension steel bars welded to the bottom steel
plate with respect to the applied load, as shown in Fig. 5. Such eccentric-
ity will introduce additional moment to the steel plate and may lead to
premature failure of the connectors. Thus, the test results will be lower
than the true tensile resistance. This shortcoming can be minimized by
using thicker steel plates to prevent plate bending.
2.2. Test specimens
A total of 79 Specimens in two groups, 40 specimens in group A and
39 specimens in group B, were prepared and tested by method A and
method B, respectively. Concrete was cast in a steel tube to simulate
the effect of confined concrete on the J-hooks. The radius of the steel
tube was determined based on typical spacing of the connectors in the
structure. The outer diameter and thickness of the steel tube were
200 mm and 6 mm, respectively.
Parameters influencing the tensile resistance of interlocked J-hook
connectors were carefully chosen. These selected variables consider
both material and geometry of the specimens. Main variables investi-
gated are as follows:
(a) Type and strength of concrete. Four types of concrete mixtures
were used, i.e. normal weight concrete (NWC), lightweight
concrete (LWC), high performance concrete (HPC) and ULCC.
There are four grades of the NWC (C30, C45, C60, and C80),
Concentrated Force
T T
T T
T=Tension force by
J-hook connector
three grades of the LWC (C30, C45 and C60), and one grade
each for ULCC and HPC.
(b) Diameter of the steel bar for the J-hook connectors: Steel bars
with four different diameters (i.e. 6, 10, 12, and 16 mm) were
used to fabricate the J-hook connectors. The shank diameters of
the J-hooks were 6, 10, and 12 mm for the specimens in both
groups A and B, and 16 mm for the specimens in group B only.
(c) Ratio of diameter of hook bend to bar diameter i.e. D/d ratio (as
shown in Fig. 5): Hooks with three diameters of bend (D) were
used. The D/d ratios were 2, 3, and 4.
(d) Embed depth of the connector, hef , as shown in Fig. 5. Three
depths of embedment were considered i.e. 100, 150, and
200 mm.
Details of the specimens and variables are listed in Tables 1 and 2 for
specimens in groups A and B, respectively.
2.3. Material properties
The tensile resistances of the steel bars used to fabricate J-hook con-
nectors were obtained from coupon tests in accordance with ASTM
A370 [25]. Compressive and tensile strength of the concrete were ob-
tained through compression and splitting tensile tests on the cylinders
according to ASTM C39/C39M-05 [26] and ASTM C496/C496M-04
[27], respectively. The material properties are shown in Tables 1 and
2. Mechanical properties of the ULCC, LWC, NWC, and HPC are given
in Table 3.
The maximum granite coarse aggregate size used in NWC was
20 mm (see Fig. 6a). Three grades of NWC concretes used in specimens
tested by method A were C30, C45, and C80 while the concretes in spec-
imens by method B were C30, C45, and C60.
Lightweight concretes (LWC) were made of natural sand (Fig. 6b),
expanded clay lightweight coarse aggregate (Fig. 6c), cement, and
water. The expanded clay aggregate (Liapor F4.5, F6.5, and F7.0) is
commercially available, and was used to produce LWC of grade C30,
C45, and C60, respectively.
A type of fiber-reinforced ultra-lightweight cement composite
(ULCC) was developed by Chia et al. [23] with 28-day compressive
strength above 60 MPa and density of 1450 kg/m3. Compared with
typical concrete with similar strength and density of 2400 kg/m3 ,
the ULCC has a high specific strength (strength-to-density ratio)
above 40 kPa/(kg/m3) versus 25 kPa/(kg/m3) for the former. Besides
a 40% weight reduction from conventional concrete, the ULCC exhibits
ultimate tensile and flexural strengths comparable with conventional
concrete of similar strength. Due to its porous structure, the ULCC has
lower modulus of elasticity approximately 50% that of conventional
concrete. Typical stress–strain curves in flexural and compression be-
haviors of the ULCC are given in Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively.
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 149

J-hook connector C

Local Buckling
T T
Tension force
provided by J-hook T
T

T T
T=Tension
C=Compression
C
a) Local bucklingof face plate resistedby J-hook
connectors for compression member

Local Buckling C=Compressive force

T=Tensile force
J-hook connector M=bending moment
P

T
C T T C

M M
T T
T T T
b) Local buckling of face plate restrained byJ-hook
connectors when subject to bending

Protective structure

T T=Tension force T T

T T T T Separation
Impact force
Explosion
T T T
Separation
T T T T
J-hook connector
T T T T

c) J-hook connectors preventseparation between steel and

concreteunder blast and impact

Fig. 3. Effectiveness of J-hook connectors to achieve structural integrity of sandwich structures.

The ultra-lightweight cement composite (ULCC) was made of ordi-
nary Portland cement, silica fume, water, chemical admixtures, polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) fibers, and cenospheres with particle sizes ranging from 10
to 400 μm (as shown in Fig. 6d). The cenospheres are hollow alumino-
silicate spheres obtained from fly ash from coal-burning power plants,
and commercially available. The fibers had a length of 6 mm and a
diameter of 27 μm to reduce the brittleness of the ULCC. Fresh ULCC is
flowable and suitable for grouting the sandwich structures. Benefiting
from the excellent workability, the ULCC can be pumped and less vibra-
tion is needed, which greatly increase the construction efficiency.
High performance concrete (HPC) was used in this experimental
study for comparison. This HPC was a proprietary mixture made of
150 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162
T T
a) Steel Failure b) Pullout Failure
T T
d) Side-face blowout e) Concrete splitting
Fig. 4. Failure modes of anchorage subjected to tensile loading.
cementitious materials, chemical admixtures, and fine mineral ag-
gregate (bauxite). The density, compressive strength, and modulus
of elasticity of the HPC were 2738 kg/m3 , 160 MPa and 60 GPa,
respectively.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Failure modes and test results
Three main failure modes were observed during the tests, includ-
ing breakout failure of the concrete material, pullout failure of J-hook
connectors, and tensile fracture failure of the J-hook connectors
(Fig. 8).
The concrete breakout failure (CC) is shown in Fig. 8a and b. Speci-
mens failed in this mode are characterized by pulling a concrete cone
out of the specimen. As shown in these figures, the inclination between
failure cone and free concrete surface is 35° on the average. Typical pull-
out failure of J-hook connectors (HS) is that the J-hook connectors was
straightened and pulled out from the concrete material where the con-
nectors were embedded. Meanwhile, there was no concrete breakout
cone failure observed in the specimen. As shown in Fig. 8c–d, the
J-hooks of the specimens failed in this type of mode were straightened.
The tensile failure of the J-hook connectors (STF) is shown in Fig. 8e–f.
From these figures, it can be seen that the shanks of the J-hook connec-
tors are necked and finally failed in fracture.
Ultimate tensile resistances and corresponding failure modes of the
tested specimens are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. It can be observed
that 30 out of 79 specimens failed in CC, 46 failed in HS, two failed in STF
and one specimen failed in punching shear of the steel plate (PS).
3.2. Discussions on test results
3.2.1. Effect of concrete mixtures and strength of the concrete
Fig. 9 shows the influence of concrete compressive strength on the
ultimate tensile resistance of specimens. From this figure, it can be
seen that in general the ultimate tensile resistance of J-hook connectors
increases with the concrete strength. This can be explained by that
higher strength concrete provides higher breakout resistance and pull-
out resistance. Thus, the pre-mature failure modes prior to tensile frac-
ture can be avoided if the strength of the concrete is high enough. Take
specimens TD4A1 and TD4B1 with high performance concrete for
T
c) Concrete breakout
T T T
example, the tensile resistance of the test specimens is almost equal to
the ultimate tensile resistance of the J-hook connectors and failure
was governed by tensile fracture of the connector. This is because high
performance concrete offers higher breakout resistance and pullout re-
sistance and thus the failure is governed by tensile fracture of the steel
bar.
3.2.2. Effect of diameter of connector
Fig. 10 shows the tensile test results with respect to the diameter
of J-hook connectors. It is apparent that the ultimate tensile resis-
tance of the specimen is significantly affected by the diameter of
the connectors. As the diameter of the connector increases, the an-
choring length of the J-hook connector in concrete (D + d) increases
whereas D/d ratio is constant. This resulted in greater pullout resis-
tance of the J-hook connectors. From Fig. 10, it is noted that the
extent of increase in the ultimate tensile resistance is related to the
concrete compressive strength. This may be explained by the in-
crease in the confinement effect with the increases in the concrete
strength. Moreover, higher concrete strength results in higher break-
out resistance. This higher confinement and breakout resistance
changed the failure mode of the specimens from concrete breakout to
pullout or even tensile fracture of the connector. In addition, as the
steel bar diameter of the J-hook connectors is increased, the projected
area (3d2) of the hook also increases, which will lead to greater resis-
tance to hook straightening.
3.2.3. Effect of embed depth of the connector hef
The effect of embed depth of the connectors in the ULCC and NWC
with compressive strength of 60 MPa on the ultimate tensile resistance
of the J-hook connectors is shown in Fig. 11. Different embed depths of
100, 150, and 200 mm of the J-hook connectors were used in the test
specimens with bar diameter of 12 mm.
From Fig. 11, it can be observed that the tensile resistance of the con-
nectors is generally increased with the increase in the embed depth.
However, the influences on the tensile resistance of the specimens
are more significant in specimens with ULCC than specimens with
NWC. For example, with the increase in the hef from 100 to 150 and
200 mm, the ultimate tensile resistance of specimens with ULCC is in-
creased by 25% and 41% for specimens tested by method A, and 22%
and 32% for specimens tested by method B. However, with the increase
in the hef from 100 to 150 and 200 mm, the ultimate tensile resistance of
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 151

Tensile Force

holding Reserved
plate hole

Steel Tube
hc
Specimen
J-hook
Side View connector
Frame
Steel Tube Linking
Blots

J-hook
connector
Top View
Tensile Force
Test set-up Specimen Frame

est Method A
T

D
hc hef
d

Eccentricity
T Top View
Elevation View
est ethod B
Fig. 5. Tensile test methods for J-hook connectors.

specimens with NWC is increased only by 5% and 9% for method A, and
1% and 12% for method B, respectively. Explanations for these observa-
tions are 1) for specimens with ULCC that failed in concrete breakout,
higher hef leads to larger breakout failure surface that offers higher ten-
sile resistance; 2) for specimens with NWC C60 that failed in hook
straightening, higher hef has no significant influence on the tensile resis-
tance of the specimen.
3.2.4. Effect of D/d ratio (D = diameter of hook bend, d = diameter of the
connector)
Fig. 12 shows the influence of D/d ratio on the tensile resistance of
the J-hook connectors embedded in ULCC. In general, the ultimate ten-
sile resistance increases with the increase in D/d ratio. However, the
extent of the increase is more significant for specimens tested by
method A than that by method B. Based on the test results, with the in-
crease in the D/d ratio from 2 to 3 and 4, the ultimate tensile resistance
of specimens tested by method A increases by 7% and 18% for specimens
tested by method A, and 3% and 8% for specimens tested by method B.
Moreover, the three specimens designed for this ratio and tested by
method A all failed in hook straightening mode, and the other three
specimens tested by method B failed in concrete breakout mode.
3.2.5. Effect of the fiber content
Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) fibers (6 mm long) were used to reduce the
brittleness of the ULCC. Fig. 13 shows the effect of PVA fiber content on
the tensile resistance of the specimens with ULCC in comparison to re-
sults reported by Sohel [28] with NWC and LWC. It is observed that
fiber content has limited influence on the tensile resistance of the
NWC and LWC specimens. The ultimate tensile resistance is increased
by 32% as the PVA fiber content in the ULCC increases from 0.5% to
0.9%. However, the ultimate tensile resistance decreases by 15% as the
fiber content increases to 2% which may be related to reduced workability
and compaction of concrete. Adding of steel fibers to the lightweight con-
crete increases its resistance to crack propagation and tensile strength,
which probably prevents concrete breakout failure and leads to higher
tensile resistance of the specimen.
4. Analytical model to predict tensile resistance of J-hook connectors
in concrete
From the literature review, the tensile capacity of the standard
headed shear connectors is determined by the smallest value of the
strengths corresponding to different failure modes. Four basic failure
152 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162

Table 1
Details of specimens and test results from pullout tests using method A.

No. Specimen Core material d (mm) Test type D/d hef (mm) Fiber (%) fu (MPa) Failure mode PT (kN)

1 TUA1 2 CC&PO 23.40

2 TUA2 U1 12 A 3 100 0.5 490 CC&PO 25.00
3 TUA3 4 CC&PO 27.70
4 TUA4 U1 12 A 2 150 0.5 490 PO&CC 29.30
5 TUA5 200 PO&CC 32.90
6 TUA6 U1 12 A 2 100 1.0 490 CC&PO 30.80
7 TUA7 2.0 CC&PO 27.10
8 TUA8 U1 12 A 2 95 0.5 470 CC&PO 26.76
9 TUA9 125 PO 29.80
10 TUA10 PO 28.39
11 TUA11 U3 12 A 2 95 0.5 470 PO 30.48
12 TUA12 PO 27.10
13 TUA13 U3 16 A 2 95 0.5 405 CC 37.81
14 TUA14 20 125 CC 57.54
15 TLA1 10 - PO 16.23
16 TLA2 12 - PO 22.40
17 TLA3 LC30 12 A 2 100 - 490 PO 19.98
18 TLA4 12 - PO 23.66
19 TLA5 16 - CC 27.41
20 TLA6 6 - 500 PO 9.80
21 TLA7 LC45 10 A 2 100 - 520 PO 17.60
22 TLA8 12 - 490 CC 19.90
23 TLA9 6 - 500 PO 10.80
24 TLA10 LC60 10 A 2 100 - 520 PO 23.60
25 TLA11 12 - 490 CC 36.80
26 TNA1 6 - 500 PO 7.70
27 TNA2 NC25 10 A 2 100 - 520 PO 20.60
28 TNA3 12 - 490 PO 20.80
29 TNA4 6 - 500 PO 7.60
30 TNA5 NC45 10 A 2 100 - 520 PO 23.20
31 TNA6 12 - 490 PO 24.30
32 TNA7 6 - 500 PO 8.40
33 TNA8 NC60 10 A 2 100 - 520 PO&CC 24.60
34 TNA9 12 - 490 CC 28.70
35 TNA10 NC60 12 A 2 150 - 490 PO 30.20
36 TNA11 200 - PO 31.40
37 TNA12 NC80 6 A 2 100 - 490 PO 13.75
38 TNA13 12 - PO 42.50
39 TD4A1 HPC 12 A 2 100 - 490 STF 57.20
40 TD4A2 95 - 470 CC 53.93

The bold figures are the investigated parameters in the experimental study. Remarks: PO = pullout failure; CC = concrete breakout failure; STF = Steel tension fracture of connector; PS =
Punching shear failure of steel face plate.

modes are identified: (1) concrete breakout, (2) pullout failure of For a single tensile anchor, the breakout capacity of concrete cone
connector, (3) steel tension failure, and (4) punching shear failure may be obtained from:
of the face plate.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P TC ¼ 0:33 f ck AN ð1Þ
4.1. Tensile resistance of single J-hook connector !
dh
where AN ¼ πh2ef 1 þ is the projected area of the cone surface to
hef
4.1.1. Concrete breakout strength
There are two ways to calculate the concrete breakout strength the free concrete surface.
i.e. 45-degree cone method (shown in Fig. 14a) and concrete capacity
4.1.1.2. Tensile resistance by concrete capacity design method. In concrete
design method (CCD) or four-sided pyramid failure surface method
capacity design method, a four-sided pyramid failure surface with con-
(shown in Fig. 14b).
stant tensile resistance is assumed for the calculation of tensile resis-
For a pair of directly interlocked J-hook connectors, there is no differ-
tance of the connector. The slope between the failure surface and the
ence in breakout resistance between the single hook and a pair of J-hook
free surface of the concrete is assumed as 35-degree as shown in
connectors. For the concrete breakout strength, the theoretical methods
Fig. 14b. This method is reported in ACI 318 [21] and PCI 7th Edition
are reported in Refs. [11–13,21,29,30].
[32]. In ACI 318 [21], the breakout strength of the concrete four-sided
pyramid may be determined as:
4.1.1.1. Tensile breakout capacity by 45-degree cone method. General qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
AN 1:5
information on calculating the breakout strength of the concrete P TC ¼ ψ ψ ψ k f ck hs ð2Þ
cone is given in CEB [31] and ACI 349 [11]. In the 45-degree cone AN0 1 2 3
method, the tensile resistance of the pulled out concrete is computed
1
by assuming of a conical surface with a slope of 45-degree between where ψ1 ¼   ≤1 is the modification factor for eccentri-
the failure surface and 1 þ 2e0N = 3hef
pthe
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi free concrete
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi surface (Fig. 14a). A constant
tensile stress of 0.96 f ck (4 f ck in lb) is assumed to act on the cone cally loaded anchor groups; eN′ = the eccentricity; ψ2 is the same as
shaped surface. specified in Eq. (2); ψ3 = 1.25 for cast-in anchor; and ψ3 = 1.4 for
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 153

Table 2
Details of specimens and test results from pullout tests using method B.

No. Specimen Core material d (mm) Test method D/d hef Fiber (%) fu (MPa) Failure mode PT (kN)

1 TUB1 6 500 PO 9.00

2 TUB2 U2 10 B 2 100 0.5 520 PO&CC 17.10
3 TUB3 12 490 CC&PO 21.50
4 TUB4 U2 12 B 3 100 0.5 490 CC&PO 22.10
5 TUB5 4 CC&PO 23.20
6 TUB6 12 B 2 150 0.5 490 PO&CC 26.20
7 TUB7 U2 200 PO&CC 28.40
8 TUB8 0.5 CC&PS 34.60
9 TUB9 U2 16 B 2 100 1.0 390 CC 34.10
10 TUB10 2.0 CC 33.40
11 TLB1 - PO 17.30
12 TLB2 LC25 12 B 2 100 - 490 PO 16.30
13 TLB3 - PO 15.30
14 TLB4 LC45 6 B 2 100 - 500 PO 8.10
15 TLB5 10 - 520 PO 16.50
16 TLB6 12 - 490 PO&CC 21.70
17 TLB7 16 - 390 CC 29.60
18 TLB8 LC60 6 B 2 100 - 500 PO 8.50
19 TLB9 10 - 520 PO&CC 18.10
20 TLB10 12 - 490 CC 21.30
21 TLB11 16 - 390 CC&PO 36.10
22 TNB1 NC25 6 B 2 100 - 500 PO 6.00
23 TNB2 10 - 520 PO 16.70
24 TNB3 12 - 490 PO 21.50
25 TNB4 16 - 390 CC 32.30
26 TNB5 NC45 6 B 2 100 - 500 PO 9.34
27 TNB6 10 - 520 PO&CC 25.00
28 TNB7 12 - 490 CC 26.40
29 TNB8 16 - 390 CC 36.20
30 TNB9 6 - 500 PO 7.00
31 TNB10 NC60 10 B 2 100 - 520 PO 19.60
32 TNB11 12 - 490 CC 25.80
33 TNB12 NC60 12 B 2 150 - 490 PO&CC 26.00
34 TNB13 200 - CC 28.90
35 TNB14 NC60 16 B 2 100 - 390 CC 35.30
36 TNB15 NC80 12 B 2 100 - 490 CC&PO 30.15
37 TNB16 16 - 390 CC&PO 33.20
38 TD4B1 HPC 6 B 2 100 - 500 STF 14.20
39 TD4B2 12 - 490 PS 44.80

The bold figures are the investigated parameters in the experimental study. Remarks: PO = pullout failure; CC = concrete breakout failure; STF = Steel tension fracture of connector; PS =
Punching shear failure of steel face plate.

post-installed anchor; k = 10.1 for cast-in anchors, and k = 7.1 for post- A theoretical model on tensile breakout capacity, based on linear
installed anchors. elastic fracture mechanics in which the failure criterion is governed by
In PCI 7th Edition [32], similar design method is used. Strength of the energy consumed per unit crack length increment, was proposed
concrete breakout capacity is calculated by by Bazant [29], and Eligehausen & Ozbolt [30] as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
AN 1:5 k1 f ck h2ef
P TC ¼ 12:53C crb ψed f ck hs ð3Þ P TC ¼   ð4Þ
AN0 1 þ hef =50

where Ccrb =1.0 for uncracked concrete (most common); Ccrb =0.8 for
where k1 = 2.93 for undercut and cast-in-place anchors, and 2.66 for
locations likely to become cracked; Ccrb is the cracking factor; ψed is
wedge and sleeve-type expansion anchors.
equal to ψ2 as specified in Eq. (2).

Table 3
4.1.2. Tensile fracture strength of the connector
Material properties of the concrete mixture. Tensile resistance of the shank of the connectors may be determined
as follows:
Category Grade fck (MPa) fcu (MPa) fsp (MPa) Ec (GPa) w (kg/m3)

NWC C30 33.11 46.07 3.95 20.2 2337 1) In PCI 7th Edition [32], the tensile resistance of the steel connectors
(NC) C45 48.73 62.37 4.40 23.3 2360 is determined as
C60 54.67 65.44 4.56 24.2 2368
C80 66.51 77.32 5.43 27.5 2350 P TS ¼ ϕAse f ut ð5aÞ
LWC C30 26.65 22.92 3.06 18.0 1602
(LC) C45 47.86 51.68 3.29 18.0 1852 where ϕ = the reduction factor of the steel; ϕ = 0.75 for connec-
C60 60.62 54.74 4.63 20.8 1883
tors under tension; Ase is the cross section area of the connector
HPC (H) - 154.38 161.33 12 60.5 2738
ULCC(U1) 0.5% fiber 57.75 52.19 4.41 16.3 1423 shank; fut = specified tensile strength of the stud steel material.
(U1) 1% fiber 53.1 51.15 5.38 16.5 1409 2) In ACI 318 [21], the tensile resistance of the steel material is
(U1) 2% fiber 66.07 62.07 7.30 16.5 1589 governed by
ULCC(U2) 0.5% 55 52.19 4.41 16 1446
ULCC(U3) 0.5% 65 64.1 4.40 16.5 1490 P TS ¼ Ase f ut ð5bÞ
154 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162

a) Crushed granite b) Natural sand c) Expanded clay d) Cenosphere

Fig. 6. Different types of aggregates used in the concrete.

where fut is the tensile strength which shall not be taken greater than
the smaller of 1.9 fy and 862 MPa.
4.1.3. Pullout strength of bare J-hook in concrete
This failure mode occurs at the contacting area between the connec-
tors and their surrounding concrete. The tensile force applied on the
connector is transferred to and taken by the surrounding concrete,
which is finally failed by the contacting area in compression. Once the
concrete in this area fails, the connector will be pulled out of the con-
crete. For the hook shaped connector, the connector will be straight-
ened. This is called the pullout failure as shown in Fig. 15.
Pullout resistance needs to be considered when calculating the ten-
sile resistance of the J-hook connectors. In ACI 318 [21], the pullout
strength of a single hook bolt is
P Th ¼ 0:9ψ4 f ck eh d ð6aÞ

where ψ4 = 1.4 for an anchor located in a region of a concrete member

where analysis indicates no cracking; otherwise, ψ4 = 1.0; eh = the dis-
tance from the inner shaft of a J- or L-bolt to the outer tip of the J- or
L-bolt, and 3d0 ≤ eh ≤ 4.5d0.
Similar design method is used in PCI [32]. The hook straightening
strength is

P Th ¼ 1:26 f ck eh dC crp ð6bÞ

where Ccrp is the cracking coefficient, and Ccrp = 1.0 for uncracked con-
crete, Ccrp = 0.8 for locations likely to be cracked.

4.1.4. Punching strength of the steel face plate

Punching shear failure may occur to the connectors when the diam-
eter of the connector is much larger than the plate thickness.
Based on EC3 [33], the punching shear strength of the steel face plate
around the connector can be obtained as
a) Tensile stress of concrete under
flexural loading pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
P TV ¼ Av f u = 3 ¼ πdt f u = 3 ð7Þ

where t = thickness of the steel plate.

This type of failure can be avoided if the stud diameter is limited
within a range of one to 2.5 times the steel plate thickness [22].

4.1.5. Tensile resistance of specimen with single J-hook connector

In conclusion, the tensile resistance and failure mode of single J-
hook connector will be determined by the smallest value of the
four strengths corresponding to the concrete breakout failure, pull-
out failure, tensile fracture, and punching shear failure of the steel
face plate. Therefore, the tensile resistance for the single J-hook con-
nector is

P T ¼ minðP TC ; P Th ; P TS ; P TV Þ ð8Þ

4.2. Tensile resistance of J-hook connectors in sandwich structure

b) Compression stress strain relationship The force transfer mechanism and tensile resistance of a pair of
interlocking J-hook connectors will be different from a single J-hook
Fig. 7. Flexural and compression behaviors of ULCC. connector. The tensile resistances need to be carefully analyzed and
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 155

a b

c d

e f
Fig. 8. Failure modes of the pullout test: (a) ~ (b) breakout failure; (c) ~ (d) pullout failure; (e) ~ (f) steel tension failure of the connector.

determined through modifying the existing formulas which have been by assuming the plastic hinge developed in the J-hook as shown in
developed for single connector. Fig. 16b. To simplify the analysis, the circular section of the connector
is simplified to a square section with the same area. Based on force equi-
4.2.1. Tensile resistance of specimen failed in concrete breakout mode librium, the external applied force P equals to the internal force resul-
When the concrete breakout failure takes place, the tensile fracture tants
strain of the concrete is much smaller compared with the yield strain
of the steel, and the bare J-hook straightening does not take place. P ¼ T−C ð10aÞ
Hence, only the concrete breakout resistance is considered for the ten-
sile resistance of a pair of interlocked J-hook connector. This concrete T = fyax is the internal tension force acting on the cross section of
breakout resistance PTC can be calculated by Eqs. (1)–(4). the J-hook connector; C = fya(a − x) is the compression resultant
force; a = length of the square section with the same area as the circular
4.2.2. Tensile resistance of specimen failed in pullout mode section of the connector, =0.89d; x = position of the neutral axis of the
For a pair of interlocked J-hook connectors in a sandwich plate, the section as shown in Fig. 16b; and d = diameter of the J-hook.
tensile force acting on one connector will be partially transmitted By taking moment about the neutral axis of the section,
directly to the other connector and partially to the surrounding concrete
 
as shown in Fig. 16a. Therefore, the tensile resistance of a pair of J-hook D d−a x2 ða−xÞ2
connector consists of two parts: (1) pullout strength of a single J-hook P þ þ a−x ¼ f y a þ f y a ð10bÞ
2 2 2 2
and (2) bare J-hook straightening strength. This can be expressed as
the following where D = inner diameter of the steel hook.
0 Submitting Eq. (10a) into Eq. (10b), the neutral axis position can be
P T ¼ P Th þ P Th ð9Þ solved as

where, PT = tensile resistance; PTh = pullout strength of a single J-hook

′ = hook straightening strength of the bare steel J-hook.
connector; PTh x ¼ 0:38d ð10cÞ
′ ,
PTh can be calculated by Eq. (6). For hook straightening strength PTh
Finally, the tensile force required to straighten a bare J-hook connec-
a theoretical method was developed to calculate the strength.
tor can be obtained as
′
4.2.3. Hook straightening resistance of the bare J-hook PTh
A bare J-hook connector without embedding in concrete will be 0 2
straightened by the applied tension force. Plastic analysis is carried out P Th¼ P ¼ 0:116 f y d ð10dÞ
156 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162

50 45
LWC-A d=6mm LWC 30-A
45 40 LWC 45-A
NWC-A d=6mm LWC 60-A
40 LWC-A d=10mm 35 NWC30-A
NWC-A d=10mm NWC45-A
35 30 NWC60-A
NWC-A d=12mm
30 NWC80-A

PT (kN)
25
PT (kN)

25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5 5

0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
fck (MPa) d (mm)
a) Results based ontest method A a) Specimens tested bymethod A
40 40
LWC-B d=6mm NWC-B d=6mm LWC 45-B
LWC-B d=10mm NWC-B d=10mm 35 LWC 60-B
35
NWC30-B
LWC-B d=12mm NWC-B d=12mm
30 30 NWC45-B
NWC60-B
25 ULCC-B
25

PT (kN)
PT (kN)

20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 d (mm)
fck (MPa) b) Specimens tested by method B
b) Results based ontest method B
Fig. 10. Effect of connector diameter on tensile resistance.
Fig. 9. Effect of concrete strength and type of the concrete mixture on the tensile resistance
of J-hook connectors. 4) For punching shear failure of the face plate where the connectors are
welded to, the tensile resistance is

4.2.4. Tensile fracture resistance of the connector and punching shear
strength of face plate
Eqs. (5a) and (5b) can be used to calculate the tensile resistance of a
pair of J-hook connectors failed by tensile fracture. For punching shear
failure of the steel face plate, Eq. (7) is applicable.
4.2.5. Tensile resistance of J-hook connectors in Steel-Concrete-Steel
sandwich structure
The tensile resistance of J-hook shear connectors in steel-concrete-
steel sandwich structure can be calculated based on the corresponding
failure modes summarized as follows:
1) For concrete breakout failure, the tensile resistance is
P T ¼ P TC
2) For pullout failure mode,
0
P T ¼ P Th þ P Th
3) For tensile fracture of the connector’s shank,
P T ¼ P TS
P T ¼ P TV ð11dÞ
The smallest value obtained from Eq. 11(a) ~ (d) determines the ten-
sile resistance of a pair of interlocked J-hook connector
P T ¼ minðP TC ; P Th ; P TS ; P TV Þ ð11eÞ
5. Verifications of the analytical model
5.1. Prediction of concrete breakout strength
Table 4 summarizes the test results. There are 30 specimens failed by
ð11aÞ concrete breakout mode. These test results are compared with the tensile
resistances predicted by Eqs. (1)–(4) which should be used to predict ten-
sile resistance due to concrete breakout failure. The comparisons of results
are shown in Table 4. Among these four formulae, Eq. (1) offers the sec-
ð11bÞ ond lowest mean value of 1.26 and the smallest coefficient of variance
(COV) 0.17. Although Eq. (4) offers the lowest mean value of 1.08 and a
COV of 0.17, it over-predicts 1/3 of the test results with maximum error
of 26% on the unsafe side. On the other hand, Eq. (1) only over-predicts
4 out of 30 specimens with a maximum error of 9%. Therefore, consider-
ð11cÞ ing accuracy, reliability and variance of the predictions, Eq. (1) offers the
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 157

35 35

30

30 25

PT (kN)
20
PT (kN)

25 15
d=12mm, Method A, ULCC
10
Sohel (2009), NWC
20 ULCC, Method A, d=12mm 5
Sohel (2009), LWC
ULCC, Method B, d=12mm
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
15 Fiber content (%)
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Depth h ef (mm) Fig. 13. Effect of volume content of the PVA fiber on tensile resistance.
a) Specimens with ULCC
35 concrete. As specified in ACI, ψ4 = 1.0 is used for cracked concrete and
ψ4 = 1.4 for uncracked concrete. Due to physical eccentricity between
the geometric centerline of the J-hook connectors and the line of action
of the tensile force as shown in Fig. 5, additional moment will be pro-
30
duced which may cause cracks in the concrete. Thus ψ4 = 1.0 is recom-
mended for the calculation of the tensile resistance. The predicted
tensile resistances by Eq. (11b) are compared with the test results in
PT (kN)

25 Table 5. The mean value of the test-to-prediction ratio is 1.18 with a

COV of 0.17 based on 46 test results.
Finally, it is recommended that the tensile resistance of a pair of
interlocked J-hook connectors that fails in pullout mode may be predicted
20 NWC C60, Method A, d=12mm from Eq. (11b) as
NWC C60, Method B, d=12mm
2
P T ¼ 0:9f ck eh d þ 0:116f y d ð12Þ
15
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Depth h ef (mm)
b) Specimens with NWC C60
Fig. 11. Effect of the embedding depth on tensile resistance.

most reasonable predictions and is recommended for the calculation of

tensile resistance of J hook connectors embedded in NWC, LWC and ULCC.

5.2. Prediction of pullout resistance

In Eqs. (6a) and (6b), different values of coefficient ψ4 were used to

calculate the pullout strength of the hook connectors embedded in the
29 a) 45-degree cone method
27

25
PT (kN)

23

21

19
ULCC, d=12mm, Method A
17 ULCC, d=12mm, Method B

15
1 2 3 4 5
D/d b) Concrete capacity design method
Fig. 12. Effect of D/d ratio on tensile resistance. Fig. 14. Methods to determine concrete breakout strength.
158 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162

Confinement by the Fig. 17 and Table 6, which also show the predicted failure modes as
concrete compared with the observed failure modes from tests.
The followings are some findings:

1) 67 out of 79 tests (85% of test specimens) have predicted failure

modes matching those observed from tests. The explanation for
Confinement the 15% errors of the predicted failure modes is that the predicted
by the pullout resistance is very close to the concrete breakout resis-
concrete tance (e.g. sometimes the difference between the two is about
5%).
P 2) The average test-to-prediction ratio for 79 specimens is 1.25 with a
P COV of 0.17. The average 25% over prediction might be caused by
the eccentricity between the centerlines of the J-hook connectors
Fig. 15. Pullout failure of J-hook connector. in the specimen as shown in Fig. 5.
3) Though there are some inaccurate predicted failure modes and
5.3. Prediction of tension fracture and punching shear of the steel face plates 25% average overestimations of predicted tensile resistance,
the developed analytical method offers reasonable agreements
There are only two specimens failed in the tension fracture mode and with the test results, and the developed design models are
one specimen failed in punching shear mode at the welding toe of con- recommended to calculate the tensile resistance of a pair of
nectors. For this type of failure, well-developed design formula in interlocked J-hook connectors embedded in NWC, LWC, HPC
Eurocode 3 [33] can be used for the prediction. From Table 6, it can be and ULCC.
found that the predicted results for these two types of failure modes
were smaller than the test results, and it implies that the predictions 5.5. Comparisons of test results by test methods A and B
are reliable.
Fig. 5 shows the difference between the two test set out of method A
5.4. Comparison with test results and method B. For method A, it represents the working condition of the
connectors embedded in a concrete core which is subjected to compres-
The tensile resistance of J-hook connectors should be based on the sion. This provides a better simulation of the pullout behaviour of a pair
lowest value obtained from various possible failure modes. The lowest of J-hook in SCS sandwich beams and slabs. Although the test frame
predicted resistances are compared with the test results as shown in may provide some degree of concrete confinement but its effect can
be minimized by selecting the diameter of steel tube to be at least 10
a times the diameter of the hook connector. For method B, the offset be-
tween the center of the welded steel bar to the center of the J-hook con-
nector creates eccentricity and thus produce bending moment to the
Force taken by bottom steel plate as shown in Fig. 5. This may lead to failure of the
the interlocked steel face plate prior to other expected failure modes, and also reduce
J-hook the tensile resistance of the connector.
Tensile resistances of 26 specimens tested by method A are com-
Confinement of pared with those obtained by testing another 26 specimens with identi-
surrounding concrete cal geometry and material properties using method B (see Table 7).
Strength ratio of PTA/PTB as listed in Table 7 was used to evaluate the
differences between the two test methods. From Table 7, it can be
P seen that the average PTA/PTB ratio was 1.18, i.e., average test results by
method A is 18% higher than that of test method B. The main reasons
b P are as explained in the above paragraph.
P Therefore, method A is the preferred test method as compared to
Method B as the concrete core is always under compression, which rep-
resents the SCS slab or beam under lateral load.

6. Procedure to calculate tensile capacity of J-hook connectors and

fy fy
transverse shear resistance of SCS sandwich beam
D
T C
The design procedures to determine tensile capacity of the J-hook
d x d connector and hence the transverse shear resistance of the SCS sand-
CZ wich beam section is shown below:

a 1) Calculate the tensile resistance due to concrete breakout failure by

Eq. (11a) i.e. Eq. (1).
2) Calculate the pullout strength Eq. (12). The hook straightening
TZ
strength should be considered when calculating the pullout strength
a Tension Compression
zone (TZ) of the J-hook connector.
zone (CZ)
P 3) Calculate the tensile fracture strength PTS of the J-hook connector by
Forces in the section Eq. (5).
4) Calculate the punching shear strength PTV of the face steel plates at
Fig. 16. Pullout failure and pure-steel-hook-straightening failure. the weld toe of the connector by Eq. (7).
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 159

Table 4
Comparisons between the test results and predicted results for specimens failed in concrete breakout mode.

No. Specimen Test results P1TC by Eq. (1) Ratio of PT/P1TC P2TC by Eq. (2) Ratio of PT/P2TC P3TC by Eq. (3) (kN) Ratio of PT/P3TC P4TC by Eq. (4) Ratio of PT/P4TC
PT (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (3)/(4) (6) (3)/(6) (8) (3)/(8) (10) (3)/(10)

1 TUA1 23.40 22.88 1.02 22.47 1.04 22.31 1.05 27.95 0.84
2 TUA2 25.00 22.88 1.09 22.47 1.11 22.31 1.12 27.95 0.89
3 TUA3 27.70 22.88 1.21 22.47 1.23 22.31 1.24 27.95 0.99
4 TUA6 30.80 21.94 1.40 21.55 1.43 21.39 1.44 26.80 1.15
5 TUA7 27.10 24.47 1.11 24.04 1.13 23.86 1.14 29.89 0.91
6 TUA8 26.76 22.15 1.21 21.53 1.24 21.37 1.25 27.36 0.98
7 TUA13 37.81 23.84 1.59 18.00 2.10 17.86 2.12 28.70 1.32
8 TUA14 57.54 40.68 1.41 28.20 2.04 27.99 2.06 45.21 1.27
9 TLA5 27.41 17.69 1.55 13.71 2.00 13.61 2.01 21.10 1.30
10 TLA8 19.90 20.78 0.96 20.59 0.97 20.43 0.97 25.41 0.78
11 TLA11 36.80 23.44 1.57 23.02 1.60 22.85 1.61 28.63 1.29
12 TNA9 28.70 22.27 1.29 21.87 1.31 21.71 1.32 27.20 1.06
13 TD4A2 53.93 36.87 1.46 35.83 1.51 35.56 1.52 45.52 1.18
14 TUB3 21.50 22.33 0.96 21.93 0.98 21.77 0.99 27.27 0.79
15 TUB4 22.10 22.33 0.99 21.93 1.01 21.77 1.02 27.27 0.81
16 TUB5 23.20 22.33 1.04 21.93 1.06 21.77 1.07 27.27 0.85
17 TUB8 34.60 23.95 1.44 18.56 1.86 18.42 1.88 28.57 1.21
18 TUB9 34.10 23.53 1.45 18.24 1.87 18.10 1.88 28.07 1.21
19 TUB10 33.40 26.25 1.27 20.34 1.64 20.19 1.65 31.32 1.07
20 TLB7 29.60 22.35 1.32 17.32 1.71 17.19 1.72 26.66 1.11
21 TLB10 21.30 23.44 0.91 23.02 0.93 22.85 0.93 28.63 0.74
22 TLB11 36.10 25.14 1.44 19.48 1.85 19.34 1.87 29.99 1.20
23 TNB4 32.30 18.86 1.71 14.62 2.21 14.51 2.23 22.50 1.44
24 TNB7 26.40 21.02 1.26 20.64 1.28 20.49 1.29 25.67 1.03
25 TNB8 36.20 22.54 1.61 17.47 2.07 17.34 2.09 26.89 1.35
26 TNB11 25.80 22.27 1.16 21.87 1.18 21.71 1.19 27.20 0.95
27 TNB13 28.90 25.10 1.15 21.24 1.36 21.08 1.37 20.35 1.42
28 TNB14 35.30 23.88 1.48 18.51 1.91 18.37 1.92 28.49 1.24
29 TNB15 30.15 24.55 1.23 24.12 1.25 23.94 1.26 29.99 1.01
30 TNB16 33.20 26.34 1.26 20.41 1.63 20.26 1.64 31.42 1.06
Mean 1.26 1.48 1.49 1.08
COV 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.17

5) Determine the tensile capacity of the J-hook connectors based on the 6) The transverse cross sectional shear resistance contributed by the
lowest strengths from steps 1 to 4 as J-hook connectors in the SCS sandwich composite structures may
be calculated as
P T ¼ min ðP TC ; P Th ; P TS ; P TV Þ=γs ð13Þ
z
V s ¼ PT cotθ ð14Þ
γs = 1.25 is a partial factor for connector as in Eurocodes. s

Table 5
Comparisons between the test results and predicted results for specimens failed in pullout mode.

No. Specimen PT (kN) PTh (kN) PT No. Specimen PT (kN) PTh (kN) PT
P Th P Th
(1) (2) (3) (4) (3)/(4) (6) (3)/(6) (8) (3)/(8) (10)

1 TUA4 29.30 27.63 1.06 24 TNA11 31.40 26.45 1.19

2 TUA5 32.90 27.63 1.19 25 TNA12 13.75 8.14 1.69
3 TUA9 29.80 30.45 0.98 26 TNA13 42.50 31.04 1.37
4 TUA10 28.39 30.45 0.93 27 TUB1 9.00 7.02 1.28
5 TUA11 30.48 30.45 1.00 28 TUB2 17.10 19.49 0.88
6 TUA12 27.10 30.45 0.89 29 TUB6 26.20 26.56 0.99
7 TLA1 16.23 10.35 1.57 30 TUB7 28.40 26.56 1.07
8 TLA2 22.40 16.42 1.36 31 TLB1 17.30 14.12 1.23
9 TLA3 19.98 16.42 1.22 32 TLB2 16.30 14.12 1.15
10 TLA4 23.66 16.84 1.40 33 TLB3 15.30 14.12 1.08
11 TLA6 9.80 6.54 1.50 34 TLB4 8.10 6.33 1.28
12 TLA7 17.60 17.57 1.00 35 TLB5 16.50 17.57 0.94
13 TLA9 10.80 7.56 1.43 36 TLB6 21.70 23.80 0.91
14 TLA10 23.60 21.00 1.12 37 TLB8 8.50 7.56 1.12
15 TNA1 7.70 4.89 1.58 38 TLB9 18.10 21.00 0.86
16 TNA2 20.60 13.58 1.52 39 TNB1 6.00 4.98 1.20
17 TNA3 20.80 18.05 1.15 40 TNB2 16.70 13.85 1.21
18 TNA4 7.60 6.41 1.19 41 TNB3 21.50 18.44 1.17
19 TNA5 23.20 17.80 1.30 42 TNB5 9.34 6.41 1.46
20 TNA6 24.30 24.12 1.01 43 TNB6 25.00 17.80 1.40
21 TNA7 8.40 6.99 1.20 44 TNB9 7.00 6.99 1.00
22 TNA8 24.60 19.41 1.27 45 TNB10 19.60 19.41 1.01
23 TNA10 30.20 26.45 1.14 46 TNB12 26.00 26.45 0.98

Mean PT/PTh = 1.18 and COV = 0.17.

 160
Table 6
Comparisons between test results and predicted resulted based on Eqs. (1)–(9).

No. Specimen Test failure mode Predicted failure mode Test PT (kN) Predicted PT (kN) PT/PT Specimen Test Failure mode Predicted Failure mode Test PT (kN) Predicted PT (kN) PT/PT

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (5)/(6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (4)/(5)

1 TUA1 CC&PO PO 23.40 22.88 1.02 TUB1 PO PO 9.00 7.02 1.28

2 TUA2 CC&PO CC 25.00 22.88 1.09 TUB2 PO&CC PO 17.10 19.49 0.88
3 TUA3 CC&PO CC 27.70 22.88 1.21 TUB3 CC&PO PO 21.50 22.33 0.96
4 TUA4 PO&CC PO 29.30 27.63 1.06 TUB4 CC&PO CC 22.10 22.33 0.99
5 TUA5 PO&CC PO 32.90 27.63 1.19 TUB5 CC&PO CC 23.20 22.33 1.04
6 TUA6 CC&PO PO 30.80 21.94 1.40 TUB6 PO&CC PO 26.20 26.56 0.99
7 TUA7 CC&PO CC 27.10 24.47 1.11 TUB7 PO&CC PO 28.40 26.56 1.07
8 TUA8 CC&PO CC 26.76 22.15 1.21 TUB8 CC&PS CC 34.60 23.95 1.44

J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162
9 TUA9 PO PO 29.80 30.45 0.98 TUB9 CC CC 34.10 23.53 1.45
10 TUA10 PO CC 28.39 22.15 1.28 TUB10 CC CC 33.40 26.25 1.27
11 TUA11 PO CC 30.48 22.15 1.38 TLB1 PO PO 17.30 14.12 1.23
12 TUA12 PO CC 27.10 22.15 1.22 TLB2 PO PO 16.30 14.12 1.15
13 TUA13 CC CC 37.81 23.84 1.59 TLB3 PO PO 15.30 14.12 1.08
14 TUA14 CC PO 57.54 40.68 1.41 TLB4 PO PO 8.10 6.33 1.28
15 TLA1 PO PO 16.23 10.35 1.57 TLB5 PO PO 16.50 17.57 0.94
16 TLA2 PO PO 22.40 16.42 1.36 TLB6 PO&CC PO 21.70 20.84 1.04
17 TLA3 PO PO 19.98 16.42 1.22 TLB7 CC CC 29.60 22.35 1.32
18 TLA4 PO PO 23.66 16.49 1.43 TLB8 PO PO 8.50 7.56 1.12
19 TLA5 CC CC 27.41 17.69 1.55 TLB9 PO&CC PO 18.10 21.00 0.86
20 TLA6 PO PO 9.80 6.54 1.50 TLB10 CC CC 21.30 23.44 0.91
21 TLA7 PO PO 17.60 17.57 1.00 TLB11 CC&PO CC 36.10 25.14 1.44
22 TLA8 CC PO 19.90 20.78 0.96 TNB1 PO PO 6.00 4.98 1.20
23 TLA9 PO PO 10.80 7.56 1.43 TNB2 PO PO 16.70 13.85 1.21
24 TLA10 PO PO 23.60 21.00 1.12 TNB3 PO PO 21.50 17.58 1.22
25 TLA11 CC CC 36.80 23.44 1.57 TNB4 CC CC 32.30 18.86 1.71
26 TNA1 PO PO 7.70 4.89 1.58 TNB5 PO PO 9.34 6.41 1.46
27 TNA2 PO PO 20.60 13.58 1.52 TNB6 PO&CC PO 25.00 17.80 1.40
28 TNA3 PO PO 20.80 17.32 1.20 TNB7 CC PO 26.40 21.02 1.26
29 TNA4 PO PO 7.60 6.41 1.19 TNB8 CC CC 36.20 22.54 1.61
30 TNA5 PO PO 23.20 17.80 1.30 TNB9 PO PO 7.00 6.99 1.00
31 TNA6 PO PO 24.30 21.02 1.16 TNB10 PO PO 19.60 19.41 1.01
32 TNA7 PO PO 8.40 6.99 1.20 TNB11 CC PO 25.80 22.27 1.16
33 TNA8 PO&CC PO 24.60 19.41 1.27 TNB12 PO PO 26.00 26.45 0.98
34 TNA9 CC PO 28.70 22.27 1.29 TNB13 CC PO 28.90 26.45 1.09
35 TNA10 PO PO 30.20 26.45 1.14 TNB14 CC CC 35.30 23.88 1.48
36 TNA11 PO PO 31.40 26.45 1.19 TNB15 CC&PO CC 30.15 24.55 1.23
37 TNA12 PO PO 13.75 8.14 1.69 TNB16 CC&PO CC 33.20 26.34 1.26
38 TNA13 PO CC 42.50 24.55 1.73 TD4B1 STF STF 14.20 14.14 1.00
39 TD4A1 STF CC 57.20 37.41 1.53 TD4B2 CC PS 44.80 37.41 1.20
40 TD4A2 CC CC 53.93 36.87 1.46
For 40 specimens Mean 1.31 For 39 specimens Mean 1.19
COV 0.16 COV 0.17
For all 79 specimens Mean 1.25
COV 0.17

*Failure modes: PO = pullout failure; CC = concrete breakout failure; PS = punching shear failure of steel face plate; STF = steel tension fracture of connector.
 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162 161

60 PT
V
50 VS
40 z
Vs Vc
PTD (kN)

30

20 P T

Test-to-predict ratio
s s
10 Mean: 1.25
COV: 0.18
Fig. 18. Shear resistance of steel-concrete-steel sandwich section with J-hook connectors.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Test results show that the tensile capacity of the J-hook connectors is
Test results (kN)
significantly influenced by the concrete strength, diameter of the con-
nector, connector’s embedded depth to diameter ratio. Higher strength
Fig. 17. Comparisons between test results with predicted results.
concrete provides higher resistance against concrete breakout failure as
well as pullout failure. Increase of concrete strength changes the failure
where z = effective height of the section of the SCS sandwich mode from concrete breakout to pullout mode or even tensile fracture
composite structure; s = spacing of the connector; θ = the angle mode of the J-hook connector. Increasing the connector’s embedding
between the concrete compression strut and the beam axis perpen- depth to diameter ratio increases the projected area of the breakout fail-
dicular to the shear forces, and θ should be within the range of ure surface and thus increases the breakout strength. Adding fibers to
1 ≤ cot θ ≤ 2.5. z, s, θ are shown in Fig. 18. the concrete core does not enhance the tensile capacity of the J-hook
connectors. Pullout strength of the J-hook connectors also increases as
7. Conclusions the cross section and steel grade of the connector increase.
Analytical methods have been developed to predict the maximum
Tensile resistance behaviour of the J-hook shear connectors embed- tensile resistance of J-hook connectors based on various possible failure
ded in normal weight, lightweight and ultra-lightweight concretes were modes. For concrete breakout strength, the 45-degree cone method is
studied by carrying out tension tests on 79 steel-concrete-steel sand- recommended. For pullout strength of the connector, the modified ACI
wich specimens. Three main types of failure modes were observed 349 [11] or PCI [32] models may be used. In this modified method, the
from the tests: concrete breakout failure, pullout failure of the connec- J hook straightening strength was considered and EC3 may be used to
tor, and tensile fracture of the connector. predict the steel tensile fracture strength of the connector and punching

Table 7
Comparisons between test results obtained by methods A and B.

Tested by method A Tested by method B Ratio Geometry and material property

Specimen Failure mode PTA (kN) Specimen Failure mode PTB (kN) P TA fck (MPa) d (mm) D/d hef (mm) Fiber (%) fu (MPa)
P TB
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (3)/(6) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

1 TUA1 CC&PO 23.40 TUB3 CC&PO 21.50 1.09 57.75 12 2 100 0.5 490
2 TUA2 CC&PO 25.00 TUB4 CC&PO 22.10 1.13 57.75 12 3 100 0.5 490
3 TUA3 CC&PO 27.70 TUB5 CC&PO 23.20 1.19 57.75 12 4 100 0.5 490
4 TUA4 PO&CC 29.30 TUB6 PO&CC 26.20 1.12 57.75 12 2 150 0.5 490
5 TUA5 PO&CC 32.90 TUB7 PO&CC 28.40 1.16 57.75 12 2 200 0.5 490
6 TLA2 PO 22.40 TLB2 PO 16.30 1.37 26.65 12 2 100 - 490
7 TLA3 PO 19.98 TLB3 PO 15.30 1.31 26.65 12 2 100 - 490
8 TLA4 PO 23.66 TLB1 PO 17.30 1.37 26.65 12 2 100 - 470
9 TLA6 PO 9.80 TLB4 PO 8.10 1.21 47.86 6 2 100 - 500
10 TLA7 PO 17.60 TLB5 PO 16.50 1.07 47.86 10 2 100 - 520
11 TLA8 CC 19.90 TLB6 PO&CC 21.70 0.92 47.86 12 2 100 - 490
12 TLA9 PO 10.80 TLB8 PO 8.50 1.27 60.62 6 2 100 - 500
13 TLA10 PO 23.60 TLB9 PO&CC 18.10 1.30 60.62 10 2 100 - 520
14 TNA1 PO 7.70 TNB1 PO 6.00 1.28 33.11 6 2 100 - 500
15 TNA2 PO 20.60 TNB2 PO 16.70 1.23 33.11 10 2 100 - 520
16 TNA3 PO 20.80 TNB3 PO 21.50 0.97 33.11 12 2 100 - 490
17 TNA4 PO 7.60 TNB5 PO 9.34 0.81 48.73 6 2 100 - 500
18 TNA5 PO 23.20 TNB6 PO&CC 25.00 0.93 48.73 10 2 100 - 520
19 TNA6 PO 24.30 TNB7 CC 26.40 0.92 48.73 12 2 100 - 490
20 TNA7 PO 8.40 TNB9 PO 7.00 1.20 54.67 6 2 100 - 500
21 TNA8 PO&CC 24.60 TNB10 PO 19.60 1.26 54.67 10 2 100 - 520
22 TNA9 CC 28.70 TNB11 CC 25.80 1.11 54.67 12 2 100 - 490
23 TNA10 PO 30.20 TNB12 PO&CC 26.00 1.16 54.67 12 2 150 - 490
24 TNA11 PO 31.40 TNB13 CC 28.90 1.09 54.67 12 2 200 - 490
25 TNA13 PO 42.50 TNB15 CC&PO 30.15 1.41 66.51 12 2 100 - 490
26 TD4A2 CC 53.93 TD4B2 PS 44.80 1.20 154.38 12 2 95 - 470
Mean 1.16
COV 0.13
162 J.-B. Yan et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 100 (2014) 146–162
shear strength of the steel face plate. Comparisons with 79 test results
show that the proposed analytical method underestimates the test
results by an average of 25% with a maximum error of 14% on the
unconservative side. With an appropriate partial factor for connector
design, the developed analytical method can offer a safe prediction of
the tensile resistance of a pair of interlocked J-hook connectors embed-
ded in various kinds of concrete ranging from lightweight to high per-
formance types.
Finally, a step-by-step design procedure is proposed to calculate the
tensile resistance of J-hook connector and the transverse shear resis-
tance of the steel-concrete-steel sandwich beam. This is a necessary
step forward to evaluate the structural performance of steel-concrete-
steel sandwich composite structures subjected to transverse loads
such as static, impact and blast loads.
Acknowledgement
The research described herein was funded by the Maritime and
Port Authority of Singapore, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
and National University of Singapore under research project titled
“Curved steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite for Arctic region”
(Project No. R-302-501-002-490). The authors gratefully express their
gratitude for the support.
References
[1] Narayanan R, Wright HD, Francis RW, Evans HR. Double skin composite construction
for submerged tube tunnels. Steel Constr Today 1987;1:185–9.
[2] Narayanan R, Wright HD, Evans HR, Francis RW. Load tests on double skin composite
girders. Proc. Int. Conf. Composite Construction. Henneker, New Hampshire, USA; 1988.
[3] Bowerman H, Coyle N, Chapman JC. An innovative steel/concrete construction sys-
tem. Struct Eng 2002;80(20):33–8.
[4] Malek N, Machida A, Mutsuyoshi H, Makabe T. Steel-concrete sandwich members
without shear reinforcement. Trans Jpn Concr Inst 1993;15(2):1279–84.
[5] Berner DE, Gerwicklnc BC. Steel-Concrete-Steel Sandwich Composites In The Con-
tainment Of Cryogenic Liquids Offshore. Offshore Technology Conference. Houston,
Texas: OTC 5635; 1988. p. 173–8.
[6] Leekitwattana M, Boyd SW, Shenoi RA. Evaluation of the transverse shear stiffness of
a steel bi-directional corrugated-strip-core sandwich beam. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67(2):248–54.
[7] Liew JYR, Wang TY. Novel steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite plates subject to
impact and blast load. Adv Struct Eng 2011;14(4):673–87.
[8] Sohel KMA, Liew JYR. Steel-Concrete-Steel sandwich slabs with lightweight core -
Static performance. Eng Struct 2011;33(3):981–92.
[9] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA, Koh CG. Impact tests on steel-concrete-steel sandwich beams
with lightweight concrete core. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):2045–59.
[10] Dai XX, Liew JYR. Fatigue performance of lightweight steel-concrete-steel sandwich
systems. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(2):256–76.
[11] ACI Committee 349. Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Struc-
tures (ACI 349–01) and Commentary (ACI 349R-01). Farmington Hills: American
Concrete Institute; 2001.
[12] Fuchs W, Eligehausen R, Breen JE. Concrete capacity design (CCD) approach for fas-
tening to concrete. ACI Struct J 1995;92(1):73–94.
[13] Shirvani M, Klingner RE, Graves III HL. Breakout capacity of anchors in concrete-Part
1: Tension. ACI Struct J 2004;101(6):812–20.
[14] Klingner RE, Mendonca JA. Tensile capacity of short anchor bolts and welded studs:
A literature review. ACI J 1982;79(27):270–9.
[15] Lynch TJ, Burdette EG. Some design considerations for anchors in concrete. ACI
Struct J 1991;88(1):91–7.
[16] Cook RA, Collins DM, Klingner RE, Polyzois D. Load-deflection behavior of cast-in-
place and retrofit concrete anchors. ACI Struct J 1992;89(6):639–49.
[17] Steinberg EP. Reliability of tensile loaded cast-in-place headed-stud anchors for con-
crete. ACI Struct J 1999;96(3):430–7.
[18] Zamora NA, Cook RA, Konz RC, Consolazio GR. Behavior and design of single,
headed and unheaded, grouted anchors under tensile load. ACI Struct J
2003;100(2):222–30.
[19] Eligehausen R, Balogh T. Behavior of fasteners loaded in tension in cracked rein-
forced concrete. ACI Struct J 1995;92(3):365–79.
[20] HamadBila S, Haidar YA, Harajli MH. Effect of steel fibers on bond strength of hooked
bars in normal-strength concrete. ACI Struct J 2011;108(1):42–50.
[21] American Concrete Institute 318 (ACI). Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI 318–11) and commentary. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete
Institute; 2011.
[22] Narayanan R, Roberts TM, Naji FJ. Design guide for Steel-Concrete-Steel sandwich
construction. Volume 1: General Principles and Rules for Basic ElementsSCI publica-
tion P131. Ascot, Berkshire, UK: The Steel Construction Institute; 1994.
[23] Chia KS, Zhang MH, Liew JYR. Proceedings of 9th International Symposium on High
Performance Concrete - Design, Verification & Utilization, Rotorua, New Zealand;
2011.
[24] Xie M, Chapman JC. Static and fatigue tensile strength of friction-welded bar-plate
connections embedded in concrete. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(5):651–73.
[25] American Society of Testing Materials A370-05. Standard Test Method and Defini-
tions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, United States: ASTM International;
2005.
[26] ASTM C39/C39M-05. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Ma-
terials; 2005.
[27] ASTM C496/C496M-04. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylin-
drical Concrete Specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing
and Materials; 2004.
[28] Sohel KMA. Impact performance of steel-concrete-steel sandwich structures.
Singapore: PhD Dissertation, National University of Singapore; 2009.
[29] Bazant ZP. Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock, Metal. J Eng Mech ASCE
1984;110(4):518–35.
[30] Eligehausen R, Ozbolt J. Influence of crack width on the concrete cone failure load.
In: Bazant ZP, editor. Fracture Mechnics of Concrete Structures. Applied Science
Elsevier; 1992. p. 876–81.
[31] CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures. 3rd ed. Paris: Comité Euro-
International du Béton/FédérationInternationale de la Précontrainte; 1978.
[32] Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). PCI design handbook. 7th ed. Chicago (IL):
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute; 2010.
[33] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures-Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings;
2005 [BS EN 1993-1-1].