This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF CFT BRACING CONNECTIONS BEHAVIOR UNDER HALF CYCLIC LOADING
M.M. HASSAN*, H. RAMADAN*, M. ABDEL-MOOTY*, AND S.A. MOURAD*
Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo University
Gamaa Street, Giza, Egypt
Keywords: Concrete filled tube (CFT) columns, Connections, Ductility, Strength, Detailing.
Abstract. This paper investigates the behavior and performance of the connection between concrete filled steel tube columnsand bracing diagonals through an experimental program. The study included twelve connection subassemblies consisting of a fixed length steel tube and gusset plate connected to the tube end with different connection details tested under cyclic loading. A notable effect was observed on the behavior of different connection configurations with respect to capacity, failure mode, ductility, and stress distribution.
Concrete filled steel tube (CFT) columns are widely used in composite steel-concrete braced steel frames due to the gained advantages from combining concrete and steel. They increase the frames stiffness compared to open steel sections and decrease construction costs as they preclude the use of shuttering. The use of braced frames becomes indispensable especially in multi-story buildings to reach the drift limits recommended by the design codes. However, the main drawback of using CFT columns is the complexity of their connections. Although there is a wide range of connections that can be used with composite construction, designers usually face difficulties and insufficient design data when dealing with brace-to-column connections of composite braced frames with (CFT) columns. Additionally, the used design formulas may yield connections that might have capacities dissimilar towhat was anticipated.The 1 AISC 2010 specifications allow considering load transfer mechanisms which include direct bearing, shear connection, or direct bond interaction. These mechanisms are allowed to be considered separately due to lack of data on how to combine them as reported by Jacobs and 2 Hajjar . During earthquake excitation, the brace forces direction is reversed. Hence, the brace-tocolumn connection should ensure that the load is transferred to both steel and concrete in a manner that ensures satisfactory seismic performance of the system. The connection detailing is 3 crucial to guarantee minimum ductility requirements. Roeder et al. provided an overview of the seismic demands on the connection of the CFT braced frame systems. Accordingly, tests performed show that steel-to-steel connections possess higher bond stress demands than connections penetrating through the CFT column. Moreover, bond stresses between steel and concrete are mainly triggered by the vertical component of the brace force. The effect of bond stresses is less dominant when the diameter of column increases. Whilst, the main load transfer mechanism in connections with gusset plates penetrating through the column is direct bearing. This leads to concentration of bearing stresses beneath the gusset plate at intersection locations. These local bearing stresses may exceed the compressive strength of the concrete. 4 MacRaeet al. performed experimental and numerical study on different configurations of
Maximum allowable fillet weld sizes were used to join the gusset 2 . A. The studied parameters were the connection configuration. It is also aimed to study the effect of connection detailing on its behavior. Table 1 also shows thepipe diameter. The main goal of this paper is to present the results obtained from an experimental program carried out to investigate behavior and strength of different configurations of the brace-to-column connection under the action of compressive cyclic loading between zero and a value increasing till the capacity of the connection.. The connection details were divided into four types' No. The specimens consisted of a small part of circular pipe fabricated from 114or 168mm diameter. and Gross ) have investigated the behavior of gusset plate connections in braced frames. Part of test specimens after concrete pouring is shown in Fig. type 2 to connections with gusset plate fitting within slots in the steel tube. B & C depending on the loading and pipe size used. 2. the direction of load application as well as the thickness of gusset plate. Moreover. failure of the connection was observed under the connection area. tests on full-scale composite braced frames with CFT columns under pseudo-dynamic loading were conducted in order to give insight to the global behavior of system and the effect of connections 10 as reported by Tsai and Hsiao ... pipe thickness and plate edge distance were fixed. t. The percentage of the force carried by the second mechanism is 30% of the total transferred force.The distance between the gusset plate edge and all the specimens'ends was90mm. However. which represent a part of CFT column. and the level of axial force. D. 2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM A series of twelve tests designed to investigate the behavior. and type 4 to connections with gusset plate is welded directly to the steel tube shell which is considered as pilot connections. The connections with different shapes and configuration are attached to the specimens’ ends to avoid the effect of its deformation at mid-span on connection behavior. The studied parameters were thickness of tube and gusset plate. Moreover. 2. 3. The length of specimens was fixed to be 680mm. and 4. The tests were divided to three groups A. Many studies focused on addressing the yield mechanisms and failure mode behaviors of such connections under seismic loading effects. and existence of stiffeners.M. ) were conducted to analyze the behavior of gusset plate CFT-to-bracing connections while considering a wide range of parameters such as the load ratio on the CFT column. 1. and 5 Hu et al. This distance was chosen as the least probable distance in order to decrease the moment applied on the steel tube to the least value. tg. brace inclination angle. All other parameters that may affect the connection behavior such as pipe size. it was observed that the effect of shear studs is 4 negligible in transferring force between steel and concrete. coefficient of friction between steel and concrete. It was also found that increasing the thickness of gusset plate or introducing of cutouts has small effect on the ultimate strength of CFT column. this part is usually neglected as quantifying the force transferred by friction in actual situations is hard due to the shrinkage of concrete. It was found that the capacity of gusset plate connections is affected by thickness of gusset plate. The cyclic compressive load was applied to the top of the gusset plate parallel to the column axis. Abdel-Mooty M. and MouradS. type 3 to connections are similar to type 2 with an additional gusset plate welded perpendicular to the penetrating gusset plate.. yet they would cause more local bulged shapes on the steel tube below the connection area. Figure 1 shows a general layout of the different tested connections which summarized and listed in Table 1. Yam and Chang . shell thickness. and the thickness of the connection gusset plate. 6 7 8 9 Many researchers (Whitmore . Roeder et al. However. load capacity and failure mode of brace-to-CFT connections was carried out to failure in the laboratory ofAmerican University in Cairo. thickness of gusset plate. The authors stated that the force was transferred to the composite column by mainly two mechanisms: the bearing under the gusset plate and friction between steel plate and concrete core or steel tube. connected to stiffened steel seats by bolting.Hassan M. Analytical studies (MacRaeet al. brace-to-column connections in order to evaluate the bearing stress on concrete in partially loaded CFT columns. which varies according to the connection details and load application. Generally. experimental studies that address the transfer of force between the bracing member and the CFT column are rare and are usually conducted on subassemblies with the brace force applied in a manner that does not reflect the real situation. The studied connection composed of the composite circular column and the gusset plate. . Type 1 refers to connections with gusset plate welded directly to the steel tube shell with provision of shear connectors welded within the connections zone and embedded inside concrete. The data extracted from the tests will be used to perform a parametric study to addressing the effect of various parameters. Ramadan H. and introduction of cutouts. load capacity and failure mode which are considered as key aspects for the development of design provisions for such connections.
Shear Connectors Gusset Pl.Hassan M..2 General View of The Sub assemblage Specimens 3 . A. To study the adherent and compatibility of connection design to seismic specifications.M. plate to the steel tube that performed using E70 electrodes.Type 3 connections were designed such that the bearing area on the concrete was equivalent to type 2 connections. specimens SP-H1 and SP-H2 only were designed such that the CFT was stronger than the connection but the rest of specimens' connectionswere stronger than its CFT column.1 Configuration of Different Studied Connection Details Fig. and MouradS. Abdel-Mooty M. welded to the steel tube ° 60 Gusset Pl. penetrating through the steel tube Detail (1) Two Gusset Pl. Typically the strength capacity of the designed connection is higher than the connected members in order to ensure a ductile behavior at failure which is not exactly respected in the tested specimens.. penetrating through the steel tube 60 ° Detail (2) Gusset Pl.. This resulted in using a gusset plate with half of the thickness used in type 2 connections. welded to the steel tube Detail (3) Detail (4) Fig. Ramadan H.
Strong Wall Strong Wall Hydraulic Jack Hydraulic Jack Anchor Bolt A) Load Cell Anchor Bolt Anchor Bolt B) Load Cell LVDT-1 LVDT-3 LVDT-2 LVDT-4 LVDT-1 Anchor Bolt Fig.1 18. the additional rotation and displacement are subtracted from the results. The hydraulic mechanical actuator with capacity 1400kN and ±400mm stroke was supported by the strong wall from one side and attached to the specimen through a thick plate and two angles connected to the end of the connection gusset plate.1 18. Abdel-Mooty M.1 Test Configuration The basic test setup is composed of the tested subassemblies.3 3 Parallel [Vertical] Table 1 Test Unit Summary of Properties 2. b) Parallel direction 4 LVDT-2 Test Unit Test Unit . Ramadan H.The load is applied on the specimens in two different directions.Great care was given to leveling of the specimens to ensure that it was correctly aligned during testing.3 t (mm) 5 tg (mm) 12 12 12 12 6 12 12 12 12 6 12 12 Concrete Infill Filled F c’ (Mpa) 37.8 40.5 17..1 18. and loading system as shown in Fig. Such seats were connected to specimens' end plates by friction bolts and connected to the floor by 80mm diameter anchor bolts.M.The supporting system was designed to be compatible with the lab facilities available (strong wall..7 17.3 Test Set-up for Loaded Specimens: a) Perpendicular direction.5 18. parallel and perpendicular to the specimen that simulates the vertical and horizontal components of the brace forces.3 168.1 Loading Direction Perpendicular [Horizontal] Perpendicular [Horizontal] B 114.6 17.3. supportingsystem. A.7 17.5 17. It can be seen that specimens were supported at one central point at each end which resulted in rotating of the whole specimen around these points. The specimens were attached to the strong floor through two end seats composed of thick plates. and MouradS.3 3 Filled None Filled None C 114.Hassan M. strong floor.. and rigid frame).1 18. Test Group A Detail Number 1 2 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 4 Test Unit SP-H1 SP-H2 H-1 H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 V-1 V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5 D (mm) 168. Therefore.
Specimen-1 Specimen-2 Specimen-3 Specimen-4 Yield stress (MPa) 278.meanwhile. and concrete infill.Linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were used to measure displacements at different locations of specimens as illustrated in Fig.5.7 Elongation (%) 18.6. However. with 6mm gauge length. and quantifythe internal stresses of the specimens. respectively.5kN pro each successive cycle then drops to zero till reaching 25kN.Hassan M. measure deformations along the specimen. load-displacement curves. The location of tearing was at the end of the gusset plate and at 5cm away from the end of the gusset plate for the two specimens. respectively.M.3 Instrumentation The instrumentation of the specimens was designed to determine the applied loads. The value of the applied load was measured directly by the load cell attached to the actuator..Three strain gauges were also employed in specimens SP-H1 and SP-H2. Ramadan H.6 Ultimate stress (MPa) 347.1 Failure Modes Specimens SP-H1 and SP-H2 were not loaded till failure due to its higher strength and the lower capacity of the set-up. quality control during the mixing of concrete was made by the determination of mechanical properties of concrete by testing of 150x150x150mm standard cubes and 150mm diameter and 300mm height standard cylinder. A.Rest of specimens was loaded till failure.6 347. a small force was applied and increased gradually. Then the load was increased accordingly with 5kN pro each cycleuntil the specimens showed large deformations or failure of one of the structural elements. Abdel-Mooty M. Specimens H-2 and H-3 failed due to tearing of the steel pipe as shown in Fig.1 300. two strain gauges were used for the rest of the specimens. 4.8 293. Fourtest coupons were cut out from the steel pipes ends composing the columnsafter the completion of the experiments to evaluate the mechanical properties through tensile tests. respectively.8 267. the data acquisition system was observed to ensure that the readings are reasonable. were glued to the steel tube at the midpoint of the gusset plate to measure strains at the connection zone during different stages of loading. The observed failure mode for specimens H-1 and H-4 was bulging of the pipe shell underneath the gusset plate as shown in Fig..5kN/sec which was chosen as the slowest possible loading rate in order to preclude any impact or dynamic effects and guarantee better observation of the testing procedurewhile preserving a reasonable testing period. Table 1 shows the concrete compressive strength that was estimated at the testing day. Connecting angles were made of steel 37 which have yield strength and ultimate strength equal to 240 and 360MPa.8 30 33.Nevertheless. steel plates.75 25 Table 2 Mechanical Properties of Steel Shapes 2. The principle material properties measured in these tests are reported in Table 2.Electrical strain gages. Specimen No. cracks at the bottom of the fillet weld were observed in test unit SP-H2 as shown in Fig. 2. the forces were increased by 2. permanent deformations were observed in the gusset plate of test unit SP-H1. Initially. The applied compression load was 0. 3.4 356.8) which stands for yield strength and ultimate strength equal to 640 and 800MPa.failure patterns and strain measurements of the different specimens are outlined and discussed in the following sections. 2.4 Loading Procedure At the beginning of the test. The used shear studs were of grade (8. This may be attributed to the fact that for connections with gusset plate penetrating 5 . while. the steel tube itself preserved its integrity.4 362. 3. 3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The experimental results that show the specimens' behavior.7MPa for test group B and C. Moreover.. The control specimens are casted in the same time of pouring concrete in columns.0MPa for test group A and equal to 16.2 Material Properties The tested specimens included steel columns pipes. Besides. The mean compressive strength of concrete cylinders (fc’) after 28 days is equal to 38. and MouradS.
the observed failure mode was bulging of the pipe shell underneath the gusset plate and tearing of the steel shell at the other side of the pipe. the load is mainly transferred by the fillet weld which imposes moment on the pipe shell due to the eccentricity of loading. the observed failure mode was bulging of the pipe shell underneath the gusset plate in addition to tearing of the steel shell at the top of the gusset plate. Fig. and MouradS. Fig. 5 Bulging of Steel Tube in Test H-1. In these two specimens. 6 Tearing of Steel Tube in Test H-2.M. Fig.9. A. Fig. through the steel tube. 7 Tearing of Steel Tube in Test V-4. 7 for tests V-1 and V-4.. For test V-2 and V-3 as shown in Fig.4Fracture of weld in Test SP-H2 Fig. 8..Hassan M.As shown in Fig. Abdel-Mooty M.A significant and sudden loss of resistance was observed for the test units without concrete infill due to large plastic deformations observed at the gusset plate zone and beneath the applied load for specimens H-5 and V-5 as shown in Fig..8Tearing of the Steel Tube in Test V-3 Fig. increased portion of the load is imposed on the steel shape and the distribution of the load on the whole steel section is achieved. Ramadan H.9Large Plastic Deformations in Test H-5 6 .
• For specimens of Group B. and 12 show the loaddisplacement curves for each group of test units.For test group B.. and MouradS. 11. For specimens of Group C. 3. • The ductility of different connections was compared based upon the ratio between the displacement at failure and displacement at the end of the linear zone. the slope of the curve in the nonlinear zone is slightly higher for test unit SP-H1 which indicated that this connection type had a higher strength reserve after attaining permanent deformations. This behavior is expected due to the addition of a gusset plate that decreased the deformations corresponding to an applied force. which exhibits slightly higher stiffness due to the presence of the gusset plate penetrating through the connection. • The stiffness of test group 2 was almost identical. Tests V-4 and V-3 showed ductility values less than the ductility shown by tests V-1 and V-2 by an average value of 32% and 42%. For test group B.connection details 1. The following results can be outlined: • The twelve specimens showed a linear behavior followed by a nonlinear behavior as the loading increased. The stiffness of test unit V-5 was less than that exhibited by the other test units in test group C that may be attributed to the eccentricity resulting from the loading procedure which resulted in concentration of stresses at the end of the gusset plate. The percentage of increase of connection capacity was equal to 55% and 74% for test groups B and C. while the lowest load capacity was for detail 4 with a value 114 kN. connection details 3 and 4 had the lowest and highest load capacities with values 96 and 115 kN. the ductility decreased by 45% compared to the ductility of test H-1 and H-4.2 Load – Displacement Curves The displacement for the specimens loaded in the perpendicular direction is calculated at the middle of the gusset plate after removing the deformation resulting from the rotation of the test unit ends around the fixation point. respectively. • Specimens of test group A attained the highest load capacity due to the increased dimensions of the CFT column and the higher concrete strength properties. so evaluating the ductility was not possible. restraining movement under the applied loads. On the other hand. For test group A. the nonlinear behavior of specimens starts at load values ranged from 60 to 80 kN.Hassan M. Generally. the nonlinear behavior started at load level around 250 kN. This was expected as the use of shear studs did not restrain the movement under the effect of loading in the perpendicular direction.. This zone was weak due to the lack of the concrete infill which resulted in fast deterioration of the specimen. Consequently. in which the gusset plate was directly connected to the steel tube. Ramadan H. the nonlinear behavior of specimens starts at load values ranged from 80 to 100 kN. Figures 10. This could be due tothe restraining effect of the gusset plate penetratingthrough the CFT.While for test group C. 2& 3 have the highest load capacity with average value 128 kN. In test group 3. The least ductility was exhibited by test V-3. Abdel-Mooty M. 7 .M. respectively.For test group A. 3b.. When comparing the ductility of tests H-2 and H-3. the ductility of tests V-1 and V-2 was almost the same. The nonlinear behavior developed at different loading levels according to the direction of loading and the details of the specimens. respectively. the displacement for the specimens loaded in the parallel direction is calculated at the middle of the gusset plate as the average of the readings of LVDT-1 and LVDT-2 shown in Fig. the stiffness of tests V-1. For test group C. for tests units H-2 and H-3. it was observed that test unitSP-H2reached higher strength capacity. however. the ductility of tests H-1 and H-4 was identical. V-3 &V-4 was almost identical except for V-2. specimens with gusset plate penetrating through the CFT had a slightly higher capacity which is most pronounced in test H-3. test was stopped before failure. • The strength of the connections increasedfor concrete-filled columns. it was found that H-3 is higher by 14% due to the fact that a thinner gusset plate was used in this specimen. A. however. the lowest stiffness is observed in tests H-1 & H-4. Comparing the load-displacement curve for test units SP-H1 and SP-H2.
.0 20. A. and MouradS. 140 120 100 80 Load (kN) 60 40 20 0 0.0 Displacement (mm) 50. Ramadan H..0 Displacement (mm) 15. 8 .0 10.12Load-Displacement Curve of Group C. Abdel-Mooty M. 120 100 80 Load (kN) 60 40 20 0 0.10Load-Displacement Curve of Group A.0 V-1 V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5 Fig. 400 350 300 Load (kN) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 Displacement (mm) 5 6 SP-H1 SP-H2 Fig.0 60.0 10.Hassan M.11 Load-Displacement Curve of Group B.0 H-1 H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 Fig.M..0 5.0 30.0 40.
14Axial Strains of Group C Tests. It was observed that the strain response for test V-4 is lower than the other units which explain the lower load capacity carried by this joint compared to the other joints. Load 120 (kN) 100 V-1 V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5 60 40 20 0 -12.Hassan M.000 12.000 8.000 0 Strain (µε µε) µε 4. This can be attributed to the absence of axial load on the CFT column and the direction of loading which imposes compression forces within the zone of connection. The lowest hoop strain response was exhibited by test H-3 which indicatesthat added gusset plate is affecting the flow of stresses. For test V-5. Although tensile hoop strains are expected in CFT sections. the positive and negative strain responses were not identical which indicated that adding gusset plate in the connection changed the distribution of stresses on section.13Hoop Strains of Group B Tests. V-2. and MouradS.13.M. For test V-3. tested specimens showed negative values that denote compressive stresses rather than tensile.000 -800 -600 -400 Strain (µε µε) µε -200 0 H-1 H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 Fig. The neutral axis of the section was almost at the center for testsV-1.000 -8. 9 . 120 Load (kN) 100 80 60 40 20 0 -1.000 -4. Ramadan H. and V-4..3 Axial and Hoop Strains in Pipe The hoop strain response for test group 2 is illustrated in Fig. It was observedthat the bare steel column exhibited fast deterioration. Abdel-Mooty M. A. Figure 14 shows the axial strains measured at both sides of specimens for test group C... the compressive strains were larger than the corresponding tensile ones due to deformation of the pipe under the gusset plate.000 80 Fig. 3.
. J.H.. American rd Institute of Steel Construction.A. Chen. Behavior and Design of Gusset Plate Connections in Compression.  Roeder. Seismic Design Criteria for CFT Braced Frame Connections. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the Civil Engineering Research Center... Y. For connections with strength lower than the adjacent members.The experimental testing was performed at the Construction Engineering Laboratory. Lehman. Chicago.W. and Cheng. Engineering Experiment Station.. Faculty of Engineering. and MouradS. Taipei. 16. column dimensions. Moreover. Lehman.H. or loading direction. R. however.Draft Specification for Structural Steel Buildings..Hassan M. (2003)  MacRae. J. Performance-Based Seismic Design of BracedFrame Gusset Plate Connections. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (2008). Journal of Engineering Structures (2011).L. The cooperation and assistance of the technical staff of the laboratory is gratefully acknowledged.. Brace-Beam-Column Connections for Concentrically Braced Frames with Concrete Filled Tube Columns. C. P. K. National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering. 4 CONCLUSIONS - - - - This paper presented the experimental results of a series of CFT bracing connections with different configurations. Roeder.. Florida (2010). University of Tennessee (1952). Hajjar. February (2004).J. Hsuan T. connections with gusset plate penetrating through the CFT column showed higher stiffness values when loaded parallel to the column axis. D. Experimental Study of Gusseted Connections. Mei Y. Cairo University. Pseudo-Dynamic Test of a Full-Scale CFT/BRB Frame-Part II: Seismic Performance of Buckling-Restrained Braces and Connections. Chun W.F.W. On the other hand.  Tsai. Engineering Journal (AISC) (1990). Meanwhile. Gunderson. Meanwhile. the load carrying capacity of the connections loaded parallel to the specimen axis showed higher values for test units with gusset plate penetrating through the steel tube. Proceedings of the ASCE/SEI Structures Congress. pages 97-106.M..  W. Ramadan H. Abdel-Mooty M. and Hsiao. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Steel and Concrete Composite Construction (IWSCCC-2003). When using a bare steel column.C.  Hu. D... October 8-9.. G.. Taiwan..  Roeder... the American University in Cairo.  Gross. Taipei. ANSI/AISC 360-10. Inc.. Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset Plates.W.  Yam. The stiffness of connections is almost identical when loaded perpendicular to column axis. brittle failure modes are most likely to occur. 10 . Bulletin No. and Yoo. The tested subassemblies consisted of a part of a CFT column with the studied connection welded at its end. tearing of the steel tube at the tension side was the main failure mode for connections with gusset plate penetrating through the CFT column. the strength and stiffness values were dramatically reduced.. C.. REFERENCES  AISC (2010). M.A. C. Journal of Connections in Steel Structures V (2004). IL. MacRae..A.A.. Taiwan. Load Transfer in Composite Construction.E. C. Jacobs and J. C.E.E..R.P. This shows that the behavior of connections depends to some extent on the inclination of the brace force. The main conclusions drawn from the tests are summarized below: Local bulging of steel shell under the gusset plate was found to be a dominant failure mode for connections where the gusset plate is directly welded to the steel tube.C. failure was caused by large plastic deformations of the column wall. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE).. Huang. Kimura. Gunderson. Orlando. Journal of Constructional Steel Research (2002). the lowest load capacity was observed in the test unit imposing higher loads on the steel thin shell. It was found that the addition of concrete infill increased the capacity of the joints by 55% and 74% for connections loaded parallel and perpendicular to the specimen axis.  Whitmore. The load carrying capacity of the connections loaded perpendicular to the specimen axis exhibited higher values for test units with gusset plate welded directly to the steel tube. G. August 3 (2009). The experiments showed variability in behavior of connections depending on configuration. A. J. respectively.C.. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of CFT-toBracing Connections subjected to Axial Compressive Forces.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.