Materials and Design 41 (2012) 67–73

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /matdes

Behaviour of C-shaped angle shear connectors under monotonic and fullyreversed cyclic loading: An experimental study

Mahdi Shariati ⇑, N.H. Ramli Sulong, Meldi Suhatril, Ali Shariati, M.M. Arabnejad Khanouki, Hamid SinaeiDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 February 2012Accepted 19 April 2012Available online 27 April 2012

Keywords:E. FatigueE. FractureE. Mechanical

0261-3069/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.04.039

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 17 243 4142.E-mail addresses: shariati@siswa.um.edu.my,

(M. Shariati).

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents an evaluation of the structural behaviour of C-shaped angle shear connectors in com-posite beams, suitable for transferring shear force in composite structures. The results of the experimen-tal programme, including eight push-out tests, are presented and discussed. The results includeresistance, strength degradation, ductility, and failure modes of C-shaped angle shear connectors, undermonotonic and fully reversed cyclic loading. The results show that connector fracture type of failure wasexperienced in C-shaped angle connectors and after the failure, more cracking was observed in thoseslabs with longer angles. On top of that, by comparing the shear resistance of C-shaped angle shear con-nectors under monotonic and cyclic loading, these connectors showed 8.8–33.1% strength degradation,under fully reversed cyclic loading. Furthermore, it was concluded that the mentioned shear connectorshows a proper behaviour, in terms of the ultimate shear capacity, but it does not satisfy the ductility cri-teria, imposed by the Eurocode 4, to perform a plastic distribution of the shear force between differentconnectors along the beam length.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The component that assures the shear transfer between thesteel profile and the concrete slab in steel–concrete composite con-struction is the shear connector. Based on the authors experience,the headed shear stud [1–3] and Perfobond [4,5] shear connectorsare most common types of shear connectors used in steel–concretecomposite structures while the application of C-shaped shear con-nectors like channels [6–8], is increasing in composite beams overthe last decade.

Regarding to the limitations of the use of headed studs and Per-fobond shear connectors, the use of C-shaped shear connectors isrecommended as an alternative, especially in developing countries.For instance, some restrictions in fatigue behaviours of studs havebeen reported for commencement of fatigue crack, under cyclicloading, which is made by welds and necessity of specific weldingequipment with high power generators on site [9,10]. Also for thePerfobond shear connector, the problems appear when the steelbars need to cross the connector openings and it is difficult to posi-tion the slab for lower reinforcement [11].

In addition, manufacturing of headed studs and Perfobond shearconnectors is not as easy as C-shaped shear connectors with re-gards to the special shape of the headed studs and the need of

ll rights reserved.

shariatimehdi@yahoo.com

making holes in Perfobond shear connectors, which is a time con-suming and expensive procedure. There are commercial standardsizes for hot rolled steel profiles of C-shaped shear connectors inmost steel shops. It is also easy to prepare these types of connec-tors by simply cutting in their profiles. One may also notice thattheir manufacturing cost and time for C-shaped connectors are muchlower compared to the headed stud and Perfobond connectors.

On the other hand, the C-shaped connectors show high load car-rying capacity and could be welded to steel beam by using the con-ventional reliable welding system. Some inspections, like bendingtest needed for stud connectors, are not necessary for these typesof shear connectors and positioning the slab for lower reinforce-ment may not be a challenge when C-shaped shear connectorsare employed [12]. Generally speaking, C-shaped shear connectorsare preferred as they overcome the restraints and difficulties ofusing the headed studs and Perfobond shear connectors in com-posite beams.

The C-shaped shear connectors can be made with both angleand channel profiles as showed in Fig. 1. The angle profiles canbe used as L-shaped shear connectors in addition to the C-shapedone as well (Fig. 1). Since angle connectors in the absence of bot-tom flange, in comparison to channels, save more steel, its usagecould be cheaper and more economical than channel connectors.A hoop reinforcement should be provided for L-shaped angle con-nector to prevent uplift of concrete in the composite system [13]and same problem may be raised by this connector similar to Per-fobond connectors when the steel bars need to cross the connector

(a) Typical C-shaped angle shear connector

(c) Typical channel shear connector

(b) Typical L-shaped angle shear connector [Picture taken from Eurocode 4]

Fig. 1. Typical channel and angle shear connectors.

68 M. Shariati et al. / Materials and Design 41 (2012) 67–73

openings (Fig. 1). Therefore, the C-shaped angle shear connectorcan be a better choice than the L-Shaped one to be used in compos-ite beams.

Various reliable researches on the behaviour of channel shearconnectors and angle shear connectors in both L-shaped andC-shaped have been reported. Channel connector, as one of themost well-known C-shaped shear connectors, was first used inthe scale-model composite bridges and initially tested in the com-

prehensive studies presented by Slutter and Driscoll [1], Pashan [2]and Viest et al. [3]. Recently, the behaviour of channel connectorsembedded in different types of concrete when subjected to themonotonic and low cycle fatigue loads have been investigated bythe authors of this paper and other researchers as well [4–10].

The primary results of the push out tests on specimens withseveral shear connectors including channel and L-shaped angleshear connectors were reported by Rao [11]. The results indicatedthat the channels as C-shaped shear connectors provided consider-able flexibility and showed greater load carrying capacity thanother shear connectors.

In a research by Ciutina and Stratan [12], five different types ofshear connectors comprise of L-shaped angle shear connectorwhich were subjected to cyclic and monotonic loading were inves-tigated through limited number of push-out tests. It was concludedthat cyclic loading makes 10–40% reduction in shear resistance forall connectors including L-shaped angle shear connector comparedto the corresponding monotonic loading.

An equation for designing the L-shaped angle shear connector isprovided by the European standard (Eurocode 4) [13].

L-shaped angle shear connectors can be used in some otherstructural members too. For example, in extended connections,the L shaped angle connector can be applied as single or double an-gle bolted shear connections. A research conducted by Higgins [14]discussed on the design of bolted extended double angle, single an-gle, and tee shear connections and covers the design of the ex-tended connections using the mentioned connectors.

Being a shear connector embedded in concrete foundation canbe considered as another application of this connector. An equationfor capacity of angle shear connector embedded in concrete foun-dation is suggested by ASCE [15].

Also, a few numbers of studies have been conducted on thebehaviour of C-shaped angle shear connectors. Hiroshi and Osamu[16], investigated the ultimate strength and deformation of variouskinds of shear connectors, including C-shaped angles, channels,and T-shaped shear connectors in composite members. It was con-cluded that shapes and directions of shear connectors and concretestrength greatly affect the mode of failure of specimens in thepush-out test.

In a research by Choi et al. [17,18], the fatigue strength ofwelded joint between C-shaped angle shear connectors and bot-tom plate in steel–concrete composite slabs was investigatedthrough fatigue tests and finite element analysis. The results con-firmed that the stress level at the welded joint was low and consid-erably less than the fatigue limit.

Another research, done by Fukazawa et al. [19], undertook thewheel trucking test on the composite slab, applying C-shaped an-gle shear connectors, in order to explain their applicability to con-tinuous composite steel girder bridges and their performanceunder moving load conditions. Their results showed that the com-posite slab has sufficient fatigue durability and stiffness.

In a research carried out by Saidi et al. [20], the relationship be-tween transferred shear force and relative displacement on C-shaped angle shear connectors and T-shaped shear connectors uti-lized in steel–concrete sandwich beam was studied and a numeri-cal model was presented. In this model, the rotation at the edge ofthe shear connector and the horizontal movement of it were pre-sumed to be the boundary condition of the angle and the T shapedshear connectors.

A new test method was built by Ros and Shima [21], in order toexamine the shear load-slip relationship of C-shaped angle shearconnectors. The conclusions of their study showed that the direc-tion of the shear force on the shear connector influences the shearcapacity of the shear connector.

Since the use of C-shaped shear connector could be efficient incomposite beams and the authors could not find any relevant

M. Shariati et al. / Materials and Design 41 (2012) 67–73 69

investigation on behaviour of C-shaped angle shear connectors un-der fully reversed cyclic loading, current research was conductedto investigate the efficiency of the C-shaped angle shear connec-tors. The investigation included eight push-out tests, under mono-tonic and fully reversed cyclic loading, divided in two groupswhich each group contains four specimens: one group of speci-mens were subjected to monotonically increasing loading, whilethe specimens of another group were subjected to fully reversedcyclic loading. The results of the monotonic tests were later com-pared with those obtained with standard tests, under fully re-versed cyclic loading. The results provided useful information onboth the shape of the load–slip curves and the damage accumula-tion, at the end of each cycle.

2. Test programme

2.1. Specimens0 details and the test set up

Eight push-out specimens, divided into two groups to be testedunder monotonic and low cyclic fatigue loading, were prepared. Allspecimens were embedded in the normal reinforced concreteslabs. Four types of angles, 75 and 100 mm in height and 30 and50 mm in length, were considered for the current investigation.The nominal yield strength of these steel angles is 245 MPa.

Push-out specimens consisted of steel I-beam where two slabsattached to each flange of the beam. One angle shear connectorwas welded to each beam flange throughout of the angle leg.Two layers of steel bars with four 10 mm diameter steel bar hoopswith yield stress of 300 Mpa were mounted in two perpendiculardirections for all slabs. Concrete with compressive strength of28.5 Mpa was cast in order to produce reinforced concrete slabs.Fine siliceous aggregate with the maximum nominal size of4.75 mm and crushed coarse granite aggregate with the maximumnominal size of 10 mm were used. The particle size analysis of thefine aggregates is given in Table 1 [22]. The cement used in all mix-tures was Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and corresponds toASTM C150 type II [23] with chemical properties shown in Table 2

Table 1Particle size analysis for silica sand (SS) based on BS 822: Clause 11.

Sieve size (lm) Sieve No. WSS + WS(g) WS(g)

4750 3/16 in 409.9 408.32360 NO.7 462.3 375.71180 NO.14 437.2 343.0

600 NO.25 450.7 316.2300 NO.52 379.1 288.7150 NO.100 322.1 274.8

75 NO.200 309.9 275.2Pan – 250.8 240.4Total

Fineness modulus = 388.31/100 = 3.88; Water absorption for silica sand is 0.93%; WSS = S

Table 2Composition of cementitious materials for OPC (% by mass).

P2O5 SiO2 Al2O3 MgO Fe2O3 CaO

0.068 18.47 4.27 2.08 2.064 64.09

Table 3Mix proportions of concrete materials.

Cement (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) Fine aggregat

400 700 1100

[24]. To attain workable concrete, Super Plasticizer (SP) with spe-cific gravity of 1.19 and PH of 6.0–9.0 was used in all mixtures.The SP used in this concrete mixture is RHEOBUILD 1100. It is darkbrown in colour, with a pH of the range of 6.0–9.0 [25].The detailsof the mix designs are presented in Table 3. Each of the two con-crete slabs was horizontally cast since it is a common practice incomposite beams. A reliable quality of concrete for both sides ofthe specimen slabs was assumed as well. All specimens were curedin water at least 28 days before start testing.

To obtain the compressive strength of concrete, standard cylin-ders, with a diameter of 150 mm and length of 300 mm; and stan-dard cubes with a length of 100 mm, were cast with the push-outspecimens, simultaneously. All cylinders and cubes were cured, inwater, till the day of testing. The compressive strength of cylinderand cube specimens were measured in accordance with ASTM C39[23]. The average of the strength was reported as the compressivestrength of concrete.

The first two digits of specimen’s code denote the height andthe last two digits indicate the length of the shear connectorembedded in the concrete slabs. The letters M and C at the endof specimen’s code indicate if the each specimen’s was subjectedto the monotonic or cyclic loading. Fig. 2 shows the details of a typ-ical specimen.

2.2. Features of cyclic loading and test procedure

From each group as described in section 2.1, four specimenswere tested under monotonic and the other four specimens weretested under cyclic fatigue loading. The load was applied, using auniversal testing machine of 600 kN capacity, through a specificsupport as shown in Fig. 3. The cyclic loading procedure as pre-sented by Civjan and Singh [26] and Maleki and Bagheri [4,5]was considered in the current study. Load was applied at rate of0.04 mm/s. At the end of each half cycle, the specimen was rotatedaround its X axis by 180 degree. The specimen in its new positionwas again subjected to the load in order to complete a cycle. Mono-tonic loading involved a slow increase of load until the failure of

WSS(g) Ret.(%) Cum.Ret.(%) Pass (%)

1.6 0.32 0.032 99.6886.6 17.33 17.65 82.3594.2 18.85 36.5 63.50

134.5 26.93 63.42 36.5890.4 18.09 81.51 18.4947.3 9.47 90.99 9.0234.7 6.94 97.92 2.0810.4 2.08 – 0.00

499.7 388.31

ilica sand weight; WS = Sieve weight; Cum.Ret = Cumulative retained.

MnO K2O TiO2 SO3 CO2 LOI

0.045 0.281 0.103 4.25 4.20 1.53

e (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) SP (%) W/C

152 0.5 0.38

Fig. 2. Details of typical specimen.

(a) Typical test set up before loading

(b) Typical fractured specimen

Fig. 3. Push-out test setup.

70 M. Shariati et al. / Materials and Design 41 (2012) 67–73

specimen. Pseudo-dynamic loading involved three cycles (six halfcycles) at ±1/3 M,±2/3 M, and ±M, where M is the static yieldcapacity of the control specimen, achieved from the load–slip plotof monotonic loading.

The steel I-beams were placed on the universal test machinedeck. Based on the type of the shear connectors, connector orienta-

tion plays a role in the ultimate strength of the connector and itsrelative stiffness [5].This point was considered in the push-out testand then, the same orientation was selected, for angles in the firsthalf cycle loading of all cycles (Fig. 2). The applied load and the rel-ative slip between the steel I-beam and the concrete block wereautomatically recorded at each load increment by the universaltest machine. To obtain a hysteresis loop record for the low cyclefatigue test, the load–slip behaviour was carefully recorded in eachhalf cycle of the test during the reverse of the specimen.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Failure type

Basically, two types of failure for shear connectors are definedin the push-out specimens. The first type and the second typeare connector failure and concrete crushing splitting, respectively[4,8]. For C-shaped angle shear connectors, all the push-out speci-mens experienced connector fracture mode of failure under bothmonotonic and low cyclic fatigue loads. Although the same typeof failure was seen in monotonic and cyclic loading for all speci-mens, the failure in low cycle test was less ductile compared tothe monotonic load. This observation was reported for the channelshear connector as well [6]. Concrete crushes around the connec-tors while the amount of crushing is related to the concrete com-pressive strength. It should be noted that damage from previouscycles could affect the remaining strength. Therefore, the basicrelationship governed for the behaviour of monotonic load maynot be appropriate for the low cycle load. Some cracks formedaround the surface of connectors and in a direction parallel to steelI-beam. The interaction between the concrete and the connectorswas partly lost.

3.2. Effect of connector length and height

Considering pairs of similar specimens, the effect of connectorheight on the behaviour of composite beams was assessed. Asmentioned earlier, two similar pairs of specimens were tested un-der monotonic and low cyclic loads where these pairs can be com-pared together. The connector’s length and height increased foreach pair. By referring to the load–slip curves of monotonic loading(4), it’s obvious that longer and higher connectors carried a slightlyhigher load and this seems to attribute to this fact that the shorterand lower connector tends to concentrate on the applied load on a

Table 4The shear strength capacity reduction for similar pair to pair specimens.

Pair to pair similarspecimen

Failure load(kN)

Strengthdegradation (%)

Maximum slip(mm)

A10050-M 141.0 24.2 2.0A10050-C 106.9 1.5A7550-M 109.6 11.7 1.5A7550-C 96.8 1.0A7530-M 69.6 8.8 1.5A7530-C 63.5 1.0A10030-M 77.9 33.1 1.5A10030-C 52.1 0.5

(a) Fractured angle in slab

(b) Fractured angle attached to steel I beam

Fig. 5. Typical fracture of angle shear connector.

M. Shariati et al. / Materials and Design 41 (2012) 67–73 71

smaller area. The effect of length and height of connectors on theshear strength capacity reduction is summarized in Table 4.

It was concluded from the push-out test results that the speci-mens with connector of 100 mm height show slightly more flexi-bility in comparison to those with a connector of 75 mm height.The amount of slip at the ultimate load was observed as 1.5–2.0 mm for 100 mm height angles, equated with 1.5 mm for the75 mm height angles. In the case of low cyclic reversed load, theamount of slip at the ultimate load was 0.5–1.5 mm for100 mmheight angles, equated with 1.0 mm for the 75 mm height angle.The maximum slip at the ultimate load of all specimens is summa-rized in Table 4.

3.3. Crack

For specimens with higher length of connectors, some crackswere observed; at the top surface of the slab, once the maximumload was reached. The crack at the top surface of the specimenshad a propensity to run parallel to the long edge of the top surfaceof the slab. The cracks also propagated at the side surfaces. Whenconnector fracture occurred, slabs with longer connectors experi-enced concrete cracking on the sides of the slabs as well.

For specimens with shorter length of connectors, the cracks atthe top surface had a propensity to develop around the connectors.Generally speaking, concrete cracks more when longer connectorsare applied in the specimens [6].

3.4. Load–slip analysis for monotonic loading

The load–slip curve for all specimens was drawn and presentedin Fig. 4. The load–slip curve of specimens with failure of connectorfracture type came to a sudden end. The ultimate shear capacity ofthe connector is related to the compressive strength of concrete for

Fig. 4. Load–slip curves of specimens under monotonic loading.

concrete-related failures [27–30]. A growth in load capacity forchannel shear connectors, with the square root of compressivestrength of the concrete, can be seen in this study as reported inother studies [4,6]. Connector failure mechanism can be definedwhen the connector web yields and subsequently fractures, closeto the fillet weld in the connection area of the connector and thesteel I beam [4,6]. Fig. 5 shows this type of fracture failure for C-shaped angle shear connectors in the push-out test.

Analysing the load–slip curves of specimens with C-shaped an-gle shear connectors when subjected to the monotonic load (4)yielded to the maximum slip and shear load capacity. The load-slipcurve for one shear connector was employed to extract themechanical properties of that connector. The slip occurred be-tween the steel I-beam and the concrete block. Based on Eurocode4 [13], suggesting that a connector may be taken as ductile if thecharacteristic slip capacity is at least 6 mm, it can be concludedthat C-shaped angle shear connectors are not sufficiently ductilein the peak load for the monotonic loading. The relative slip wasmeasured as 1.5–2.0 mm, for all connectors. In all specimens, asudden termination of the load–slip curve was observed. Compar-ing to other C-shaped shear connectors, e.g. channel shear connec-tors, one of the main differences in the behaviour of C-shapedangle shear connector is that almost all angle specimens do notexperience a yield plateau, which results in an increase in the slipwhile the load reaches its peak, while channel shear connectorexperiences a yield plateau, in the push-out tests [4,6].

Fig. 6. Load–slip curves of specimens under cyclic loading.

Fig. 7. Load–slip curves of final half cycles.

72 M. Shariati et al. / Materials and Design 41 (2012) 67–73

It may then be concluded that an increase in the connectorheight from 75 to 100 mm leads to an increase in the connectorshear capacity. This increase was measured as 11.9–28.6%. Onthe other hand, an increase in the length of the connectors, from30 mm to 50 mm, did not lead to significant changes in the ductil-ity behaviour, but it increased the shear strength capacity by 57.5–81.1%. One may conclude that higher angle connectors resist lessshear once the length of the connector increases compared to low-er connectors once their length increases. In other words, in moreductile systems the shear capacity increases with a lower rate. Thisis most likely due to stress concentrations, generated by the inter-action between the stress areas of the concrete. In all tests, the on-set of failure involved the formation of a longitudinal crack alongthe slab, which progressed and opened with further loading. Thiswas followed by concrete crushing at the connector’s front face.Yielding of the connector at the advanced load stages was observedin some specimens. Fig. 5 shows a typical specimen, after the fail-ure. Table 4 presents the results of the push-out tests.

3.5. Load-slip analysis for reversed cyclic loading

Fig. 6 shows the load–slip curves for all specimens when sub-jected to the cyclic loading. A summary of the results can also beseen in Table 4. All push-out specimens resisted to the first andthe second cycles of loading, at 1/3 M and 2/3 M (M is consideredto be the failure load of the same specimen, under monotonic

loading) and then fractured, at the first half cycle of the wholeloading (M). This failure is indicated as the cyclic failure in Table 4.In summary, C-shaped angle shear connectors resisted 66.9–91.2%of their monotonic capacity when subjected to the fully reversedcyclic loading. Other researchers [4,6,26] have used the samedescription for the fracture of channel and stud connectors, under

M. Shariati et al. / Materials and Design 41 (2012) 67–73 73

cyclic loading. A decrease in capacity is understood to occur, after acertain number of load cycles. To prevent failure of the connector,this number of load cycles should be used, as the shear capacity,under cyclic loading. Cyclic testing at these levels of stress isneeded for shear connectors to ensure sufficient fatigue life underreversed load cycles [4].

One may conclude that all C-shaped angle shear connectorspecimens, under reversed cyclic loading, showed 8.8–33.1%strength degradation compared to monotonic cases where the fail-ure type did not change. Fig. 7 shows the results of static test, inaddition to the total significance of the failure of the half cycle ofthe low cycle fatigue tests, while positioned in zero preliminaryslip. It can be clearly noticed that the capacities of specimens whensubjected to the fully reversed cyclic loading was reduced.

This strength degradation resulted from cyclic loading can beattributed to the crushing of the concrete, next to the bottom ofthe connectors, on the compressive face of the slabs and due tothe large slip and the plastic yielding at this region. Once the shearforce is under cyclic loading, because the damaged concrete is sep-arated from the connector in the cycles, the cyclic behaviour maynot be as ductile as desired. The ductile performance is less but itis very similar to monotonic loading. Also, the high strain absorp-tion in the short length region can be considered as the cause ofless ductility in cyclic loading. The high strain absorption is causedby the weld heat which prevents the shear connector from actingefficiently under cyclic load reversals. These facts have been previ-ously reported for the channel [4,6] and the stud shear connectors[31]; and are validated for the C-shaped angle shear connectors inthe present study as well.

4. Conclusions

Limited push-out tests were performed to investigate thebehaviour of C-shaped angle shear connectors when subjected tothe monotonic and low cyclic fatigue loading. It is obviously con-cluded that the capacities reduced when fully reversed cyclic load-ing was introduced. It can be concluded that C-shaped angle shearconnectors showed 8.8–33.1% strength degradation under fully re-versed cyclic loading compared to monotonic cases where the fail-ure mode did not change. In general, C-shaped angle shearconnectors yielded in high ultimate shear capacity. However, itdid not satisfy the ductility criteria imposed by the Eurocode 4[13] to perform a plastic distribution of the shear force betweendifferent connectors along the beam length.

The following conclusions were also drawn based on the resultsof the current study:

� All the push-out specimens experienced connector fracturemode of failure under both monotonic and low cyclic fatigueloading.� The specimens, with connectors of 100 mm height, showed

slightly more flexibility and carried a slightly higher load com-pared to the specimens with a height of 75 mm.� Generally speaking, the concrete cracks more when longer con-

nectors were applied in the specimens.� An increase in the connector height, from 75 to 100 mm, led to

an increase in the connector shear resistance, 11.9–28.6%, whilean increase in the connector length, from 30 mm to 50 mm, ledto an increase in the shear strength resistance, 57.5–81.1%.� All push-out specimens resisted the first and the second half

cycles of loading at 1/3 M and 2/3 M and then fractured at thefirst half cycle of the whole loading (M).� The C-shaped angle shear connectors resisted 66.9–91.2% of

their monotonic capacity when subjected to the fully reversedcyclic loading.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by postgraduate research grant (IPPP)from University of Malaya. The authors gratefully acknowledge thesupport provided. The help and support of Dr. Fathollah Sajedi, Mr.Mehrdad Mahoutian, Mr. Sreedharanand and Mr. Mansor Hitam -for this research is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Slutter R, Driscoll GC. Flexural strength of steel-concrete composite beams. JStruct Eng ASCE 1965:71–99.

[2] Pashan A. Behaviour of channel shear connectors: push-out tests. MSc thesis.Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; 2006

[3] Viest I et al. Full-scale tests of channel shear connectors and composite Tbeams. Bull Ser 1952:405.

[4] Maleki S, Bagheri S. Behaviour of channel shear connectors. Part I:experimental study. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:1333–40.

[5] Maleki S, Bagheri S. Behaviour of channel shear connectors. Part II: analyticalstudy. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64:1341–8.

[6] Shariati M et al. Experimental assessment of channel shears connectors understatic and fully reversed cyclic loading in high strength concrete. Mater Des2012;33:325–31.

[7] Maleki S, Mahoutian M. Experimental and analytical study on channel shearconnectors in fiber-reinforced concrete. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(8–9):1787–93.

[8] Shariati M et al. Behaviour of channel shear connectors in normal andlightweight aggregate concrete (experimental and analytical study). Adv MaterRes 2010;168–170:2303–7.

[9] Shariati M et al. Shear resistance of channel shear connectors in plain,reinforced and lightweight concrete. Sci Res Essays 2011;6(4):977–83.

[10] Hosain M, Pashan A. New design equations for channel shear connectors incomposite beams. Can J Civil Eng 2009;36:1435–43.

[11] Rao SN. Composite construction-tests on small scale shear connectors. InstEngrs Civil Eng Trans, Australia 1970;12:106–15.

[12] Ciutina AL, Stratan A. Cyclic performances of shear connectors. In: Comp constrsteel concrete VI conference; 2008. p. 52–64.

[13] EN C: 1–1, Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures–Part1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee forStandardization; 2004.

[14] Higgins A. Design of all-bolted extended double angle, single angle, and teeshear connections. MSc thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA;2005.

[15] ASCE, design of latticed steel transmission structures; 2000.[16] Hiroshi Y, Kiyomiya O. Load carrying capacity of shear connectors made of

shape steel in steel-concrete composite members. Structures divisionsubaqueous tunnels and pipelines laboratory. Technical note 0595; 1987.

[17] Choi SM et al. Fatigue strength of angle shape shear connector used in steel-concrete composite slab. Int J Steel Struct 2008;8:199–204.

[18] Choi SM. Fatigue resistance of angle shape shear connector used in steel-concrete composite slab. PhD thesis. Graduate School of Engineering of NagoyaUniversity, Japan; 2011.

[19] Fukazawa K et al. Fatigue durability of steel-concrete composite slab, MELABand application to continuous composite steel girder bridge. Mitsui Zosen TechRev 2002;6:8–18.

[20] Saidi T, Furuuchi H, Ueda T. The transferred shear force-relative displacementrelationship of the shear connector in steel-concrete sandwich beam and itsmodel. Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshuu E 2008;64:122–41.

[21] Ros S, Shima H. A new beam type test method for load-slip relationship of L-shape shear connector. In: The 8th symposium on research and application ofhybrid and composite structures, vol. 60; 2009. p. 1–8.

[22] Sajedi F, Razak HA. Thermal activation of ordinary Portland cement–slagmortars. Mater Des 2010;31(9):4522–7.

[23] ASTM C39. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindricalconcrete specimens. Philadelphia (PA): ASTM; 2001.

[24] Razak HA, Sajedi F. The effect of heat treatment on the compressive strength ofcement–slag mortars. Mater Des 2011;32(8–9):4618–28.

[25] Sajedi F, Razak HA. Effects of thermal and mechanical activation methods oncompressive strength of ordinary Portland cement–slag mortar. Mater Des2011;32(2):984–95.

[26] Civjan SA, Singh P. Behaviour of shear studs subjected to fully reversed cyclicloading. J Struct Eng 2003;129(11):1466–74.

[27] Viest I. Investigation of stud shear connectors for composite concrete and steelt-beams. ACI; 1956.

[28] Davies C. Small-scale push-out tests on welded stud shear connectors. J Concr1967:311–6.

[29] Slutter R, Driscoll G. Test results and design recommendations for compositebeams. Lehigh University, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Report 1962; 279 (10).

[30] Ollgaard J, Slutter R, Fisher J. Shear strength of stud connectors in lightweightand normal-weight concrete. AISC 1971;8(2):55–64.

[31] McMullin KM et al. Innovative semi-rigid steel frames for control of theseismic response of buildings. Report no. UCB/CE-steel-93/02. Berkeley:University of California; 1993.