Non-Destructive and Ultimate Testing of Semi-Rigid Connections

Richard Kohoutek Faculty of Engineering University of Wollongong 2522, Australia

Testing of Semi-rigid Connections using dynamic nondestructive investigation of connection rigidity was carried out and is reported in this paper. Several test specimens were dynamically excited and modal analysis carried out experimentally. The effect of connections rigidity was evaluated using the Dynamic Deformation Method, where the coefficient can be used in static, dynamic and stability analyses of frame structures. The experimental determination of the rigidity in combination with the analytical model provides a possibility to investigate the effects of detailing on the overall performance of a structure. Furthermore, possible modification to the existing structures that are experiencing problems in three related areas of analyses (static, stability and dynamics) is also feasible. INTRODUCTION The basic assumption of structural analysis of frames is complete transfer or zero moment transfer at a connection. These assumptions are reflected in structural analyses and codes through the world, however, the situation is changing in both structural analyses and codes. The fact that this assumption is unrealistic (zero and complete transfers) has been known since the 1930s, but the technological developments did not allow any other treatment of the problem until several years ago. It is the technological advances in computers, computational techniques, and closely related measurements equipment and techniques developed during the last few decades that open a new era. The advances are essential for our ability to measure full scale structures or their large models, in particular, under dynamic loads. Dynamic measurements, if possible, are inherently more accurate then static measurements. There is a price to be paid for this improvement in more complicated analyses, measurements and processing time and cost. However, a better understanding of behaviour with better utilization of materials is the result - a path we have taken historically in the development of science and engineering. EXPERIMENTAL MODAL ANALYSIS Three groups of tested connections are presented; welded I-cross section, tubular cross section and combination of I-cross section with tubular cross section. The first series of tests were nondestructive; then all connections were strain gauged and tested for ultimate loads. All connections had the overall length dimensions 1,600 mm (chord) and 830 mm (branch) with variations of chord and branch sizes as shown in Table 1. Project supported by the Transfield Pty Ltd and Tubemakers Pty Ltd.

454

Table 1a - Dimensions of welded connections, all I-sections (mm) Chord Depth W1/3/250 W2/3/250 W3/3/250 W4/3/250 97 97 97 97 Width 99 99 99 99 Web 5 5 5 5 Depth 97 97 97 97 Branch Width 99 99 99 99 Web 5 5 5 5 fillet weld (f.w.) f.w. and stiffeners W2 with cross stiff. W2 with two sh. pl. Connection detail

Note: Variation is in stiffeners only

Table 1b -Dimensions and nondimensional parameters of tubular connections (mm) Dimensions Chord size T1/3 T2/3 T3/3 T4/3 219.1x8.2 219.1x8.2 219.1x8.2 219.1x8.2 Branch size 219.1x4.0 114.3x6.0 114.3x4.8 60.3x3.9 E 1.0 0.52 0.52 0.28 Nondimensional parameters J 13.36 13.36 13.36 13.36 W 0.49 0.73 0.59 0.48 D 13.69 13.69 13.69 13.69

Nomenclature listed on the end of this paper

Table 1c- Dimensions of tubular chords and I-sections branches (mm) Chord size Depth TCI1/1/250 TCI2/1/250 TCI3/1/250 139.7x4.88 139.7x4.88 139.7x4.88 97 97 97 Branch Width 99 99 99 Web 5 5 5 weld. channel 100 (ch.) ch. with bolts ch. with bolts and stiff. Connection detail

Modal analysis was performed on specimens with the support conditions approximating a hinge, which was verified experimentally. The excitation for modal analysis was generated by using an instrumented hammer and acceleration measured along the chord and branch in a number of points. The signal processing was made using the Tektronix Analyzer 2630 and Modal Analysis using the STAR package. This study concentrated on bending modes in the plane of a chord and a branch, where other modes were eliminated by the direction of the excitation force. Details of the testing procedure and analytical model are described in Kohoutek (5). In principle, a variation of the first bending natural frequency is influenced by the performance of the connection. A connection is defined as not only a detail of the intersection of two beams but also the intersection's surrounding regions, which will deform under an applied load. The procedure to determine the rigidity index consists of several basic steps:

455

design full or scaled down model of a connection, bearing in mind clarity of behaviour of all boundary conditions (supports and tested connection), make an analytical model using the Dynamic Deformation Method, experimentally test the model using Modal Analysis, which will reveal any large discrepancies in assumptions about boundaries and behaviour of modes, from the previous step, measured natural frequencies are used as the criterion to match analytical model performance with the experiment by finding the correct rigidity index .

Table 2a - Calculated and measured first and second natural frequencies in bending (Hz) with calculated rigidity index Gamma for the connection Connection W1/3/250 W2/3/250 W3/3/250 W4/3/250 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 DDM 129.93 129.93 129.93 129.93 90.52 90.52 90.52 90.52 Algor 114.96 114.96 114.96 114.96 Measured 84.2 86.8 83.8 84.5 103.2 110.1 116.7 119.2 0.72 0.81 0.85 0.89

Table 2b - Calculated and measured first natural frequencies in bending (Hz) with calculated rigidity index for the connections Connection T1/3 T2/3 T3/3 T4/3
a b c

DDMa 123.3 69.3 70.2 37.2

SAPb 124.1 68.8 69.9 36.7

SAPc 127.5 69.2 70.2 36.7

Measured 95 55 56.3 33.8

0.79 0.85 0.85 0.95

support conditions - hinges support conditions - hinges support conditions - fixed

Table 2c - Calculated and measured first and second natural frequencies in bending (Hz) with calculated rigidity index for the connections Connection TCI1/1/250 TCI2/1/250 TCI3/1/250 87.2 87.2 87.2 DDM 129.93 129.93 129.93 Algor 90.52 90.52 90.52 114.96 114.96 114.96 Measured 94.3 75.2 88.6 299.1 266.3 271.1 0.9 0.45 0.55

Connections made of I-sections were investigated for the effect of stiffeners. The basic geometry of T-sections tested is the same and only stiffeners were added. First, two stiffeners were added on the chord in the extension of the flanges of the branch (W2), then additional diagonal brace in the square created by the stiffeners and the flanges of the chord (W3), and

456

finally double shear plate in the same square (W4). The results confirm earlier tests on different size of cross sections reported in Kohoutek (4,5). The results which are shown in the Table 2a demonstrate a considerable increase in the global stiffness of the connection due to additional stiffeners. The highest is a double shear plate, which is also most demanding to fabricate. The tubular sections were selected based on nondimensional parameters after survey of off shore applications. These are currently becoming a focus of interest in the building industry. Several conclusions can be made from Tables 1b and 2b. First, the samples T2 and T3 have the same rigidity index ( = 0.85), where variation is only in the thickness of the branch, 6.0 mm and 4.8 mm, respectively. However, all their first frequencies in bending are also similar for all their analytical models. This indicates the sensitivity of the method. Second, the rigidity factor is inversely proportional to the relative stiffness of the intersecting elements (T1 and T4). Third, the sample's first natural bending frequency is not very sensitive to supporting conditions - the result is not strongly influenced by a minor variation in supports. The test samples where the cross section of the chord is tubular and the branch is I-section were tested dynamically with results shown in Table 2c. However, the ultimate load was applied to the first connection only (TCI1). The work is in progress on other connections. ULTIMATE LOAD The specimens were supported in a strong frame with the chord in the vertical position and the end of branch connected to a hydraulic jack as shown in Figure 1. Each connection was then progressively loaded to its ultimate capacity while readings of deflections and strains were taken from strain gauges installed.

Figure 1 - Ultimate load test-set up (diagrammatic only).

457

Figure 2 - Force-deflection diagram for tested connections. This section concentrates on the performance of tubular/tubular and tubular/I-section connections. The force-deflection diagram for the tested tubular connections shows large differences in the ultimate capacities between T1 and T4, and consequently, large slope differences. The trend appears to contradict rigidity factors measured dynamically earlier and shown in Table 2b. However, the values need to be normalized because there is a large difference in the capacities of connections. The normalization chosen here is based on the ultimate capacity of the smallest connection (T4), where a measure of the capacity is when the section starts to yield. That is ult reached at the top and bottom of the cross section, where the rest of the section is still elastic. Since the yield is possibly reached at other regions of the connection, including adjoining areas of contact, this may not be the first point in the connection to yield. The other uncertainty is determining when the plastic deformations are small enough to be included in the total elastic deflection. The results of this normalized process are in Table 3. A number of strain gauge readings were taken in the ultimate loading process, but are not shown here because of space limitations. It is clear from those readings and also from observations of the deformation process of the connections that hot-spots not only develop but also move around due to redistribution taking place within the connection as the load increases. Table 3 - Ultimate and Normalized Force Deflection Values

Connection T1/3 T2/3 T3/3 T4/3

a b c d

Ia 1.6521-5 3.5184-6 2.8147-6 3.3580-7

3

ITi/IT4 49.1994 10.4778 8.3822 1.0000

Force/deflectionb Normalized F/dc 833.3 188.4 158.23 33.10 16.6 17.97 18.88 33.10

d 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.95

Moment of inertia I (d t)/8 Force in N, deflection in mm Base used is T4 from Table 2

458

The only ultimately loaded connection from the last group was TCI1 (work on others is in progress). The load was increased in 1 kN increments until the ultimate capacity was reached (12 kN) with the corresponding deflection of 60.5 mm.

Figure 3 -a) Load/deflection diagram for TCI1.

b) position of the strain gauges on TCI1

The range from 0 to 7 kN is almost linear with the corresponding moment of 5.74 kNm for the upper limit. A failure of the specimen initially occurred in the tubular section just below the welded fillet connection. The final failure was tearing of the two fillet welds at maximum load. The strain gauges positions are shown in Figure x and the results of loading strain gauges are presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4 -

a) strain gauges #2 #3 over the loading range b) strain gauges #4 #5 over the loading range

Figure 4 confirms the linear performance in the range 0 to 7 kN, while the strain gauges also indicate local recovery due to redistribution of stresses (hot spots) mentioned for tubular/tubular sections above. CONCLUSION A method of dynamic nondestructive loading has been compared with the ultimate capacities of the same connections and some tentative correlations can be made between the two states. Dynamic loads are very small and cannot generate any inelastic strains in connections where the ultimate load produces large concentrations of stresses, which yield material locally. Furthermore, these localized yielding regions move due to redistribution that is taking place while the load is increasing. Therefore, it is very difficult to make definite correlations from the relatively small sample of specimens.

459

However, the elastic analysis of rigidity factor agrees with the ultimate load in the general trends, especially when ultimate results are normalized. It is expected that further work is needed on this normalization process before qualitative results between two states - elastic and inelastic can be finalized. The work on this project is still in progress. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to acknowledge contribution of Messrs M.Marix-Evans, C.McConville and Dr I.Hoshyari with the experimental part of this project. The project was supported by Transfield Pty Ltd and Tubemakers Pty Ltd. D ....chord diameter, d .... branch diameter, T .... chord thickness, t ....branch thickness, L .... chord length, l .... branch length = L/2D, = d/D, J= D/2T, W= t/T REFERENCES (1) Kohoutek, R., (1985). Analysis of Beams and Frames, Chapter 4 in Analysis and design of foundations for vibrations, pp 99-156; P. Moore, ed., 512pp, 1985, published by A.A.Balkema. (2) Kohoutek, R. (1990). Relationship between Static and Dynamic Stabilities for Structures with Semi-Rigid Joints, P. of The Twelfth Australian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials, September 24-26, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, pp191-196. (3) Kohoutek, R. (1990). Dynamics of Beam with Semi-Rigid Joints, Part I - Analytical Model,'' P. of The Australian Vibration and Noise Conference 1990, September 18-20, Monash University, Melbourne, pp 339-343. (4) Kohoutek, R. and Behrens, M. (1990). Dynamics of Beam with Semi-Rigid Joints, Part II Experimental Evaluation,'' P. of The Australian Vibration and Noise Conference 1990, September 18-20, Monash University, Melbourne, pp 344-348. (5) Kohoutek, R. (1991). Dynamic Tests of Semi-Rigid Connections,'' P. of The Second International Workshop on Connections, Invited paper, Pittsburgh, April 10-12, 9pp. (6) Kohoutek, R. and Hoshyari, I. (1992). ``Parametric Formulae of Rigidity for Semi-Rigid Joints,'' P. for Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering, Calgary, Canada, June 7-11. (7) Kohoutek, R. (1995). Stress prediction by Analytical Model verified by Modal Analysis,'' P. of The Thirteenth International Conference on Modal Analysis (IMAC), February 13-16, Nashville, Tennessee, pp710-717. (8) Kohoutek, R. (1993). Tests on Bridge over Talbragar River at Dubbo,'' P. of The International Conference on Modal Analysis (IMAC), 1-4 February, Kissimmee (Orlando), Florida, pp1168-1174. (9) Rotter, T. Kohoutek, R. and Marusiak, G. (1994). Modal Analysis of Railway Bridge in Mlada Boleslav,'' P. of The Twelfth International Conference on Modal Analysis (IMAC), January/February 31-4, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp1316-1320. (10) Kohoutek, R. and Marshall, P. (1994). Use of Modal Analysis of Nattai Bridge: Mittagong bypass,'' P. of The Twelfth International Conference on Modal Analysis (IMAC), January/February 31-4, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp706-712.

460

461

462

463