Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Poor aes Engineering Structures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate ngstruct ELSEVIER Component model for pull-out behaviour of headed anchored blind bolt within concrete filled circular hollow section Yusak Oktavianus*, Hongfei Chang””*, Helen M. Goldsworthy *, Emad F, Gad‘ *peparenen of fasactare Engineering Univers of Melbourne, Wi, 200, sre state ey Laboratory of Gomechaes and Beep Underground Enenerig China Univers of Ming ond Techy, Xushou 22111, Chine Fauly of Science. Engineering and Tecnology Swinburne Universi of Techloy. Hawthorn 312, Asta ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Revised 19 June 2057 This paper preseats a simplified approach to estimate the pull-out behaviour of headed anchor bind bolts (HARB) trom concrete fled circular hollow section (CFCHS). The approach was developed based on a ‘mult-inear component spring mode! representing the behaviour ofthe blind bol's components, Le the bol’s shank, the embedded head, and che washer bearing onthe inside of the tube wall. Extensive finite element analyses (FEA) were used to develop and calibrate the nonlinear behaviour ofeach com ponent for monotonic loading only. n wich the yield and ultimate strength as well as the initial and §ecant stiffness ofeach component were taken into account. Important parameters auch ae the ameter Component spin of the HARB, diameter and thickness ofthe cicular hollow section (CHS), embedment depth of the Headed snot bin Blt embedded head and concrete strength ar also incorporated in defining the component sping behaviout ar allow secon The proposed method was able to yield 2 good match with both the EA and test results forthe individual ‘component behaviour in terms of the initial and secant stiffness az well asthe ultimate strength “Moreover, the load transfer and failure sequences ofthe HABE within 2 CFCHS are discussed, and the assembly procedures ofthe component springs ate proposed, by which the combined component beh Keywords Component spring method our i demtitied and mat 1. Introduction During the past earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge ‘earthquake, it was observed that a lot of brittle failures occurred, af steel beam to column moment-resisting connections. These fall- lures occurred especially at the complete joint penetration (JP) ‘welds between the bottom flange of the beam and column flange at vety low levels of plastic demand [1 In order to avoid tis brit tle failure, researchers have been exploring the possibilty of using bolted connections in preference to welded ones. This renewed interest in the use of bolted connections in special moment resist- ing frames has encouraged researchers to develop new methods of ‘characterising connection behaviour 2]. The results from mechan- ical modelling of bolted T-seub connections used to connect the top and bottom beam flanges to a universal column section have been, Presented by Swanson and Leon [3] for a system under monotonic loading and by Hu etal. 45] fora system under cyclic loading, ™ Conesponding author at State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics ané Deep LUnderaund Engineenne China University af Mining and Technology, Xurhow 221346, ching malades hones com tH, Chan nap x do of 10 016 engstact 2017 06.056 (0141-0296) 2017 reser Lee Al righ reverveg. es well with both the FEA and test results 16 2017 Elsevier Lt, Al rights reserved In this research, concrete-iled circular hollow sections (CFCHSs) were used as the columns as they provide superior strength, high ductility, and good energy absorption capacity under seismic action (5). However, using this type of section, there is a lack of access to the inside of the section in which the conventional bolts cannot be used. Therefore, blind bolts (BBs), which can be installed from the outside of the CHS, were used in this research to overcome this problem, ‘A study on AJAX ONESIDE blind bolted (88) connections to unfilled square hollow section (SHS) columns was accomplished by Lee etal |7), Lee etal. (5.9), This work on unfilled tubes is also relevant (0 the construction stage in the case of filled tubes, be. when the concrete infill is not yer effective. In the case of filled tubes, the connection can be anchored into the conerete infill within the tube by making alterations to the blind bolts. Ths idea was frst suggested in the seminal paper presented by Gardner and Goldsworthy [10]. Further to this, various anchors have been experimentally tested including the cogged anchored blind bolt (CAB) (11) and a headed anchored blind bolt (HABB) 12). The research by Ellison and Tizani [13] has also incorporated a headed stud anchor, made by extending the bolt shank of a Hollo-bolt and attaching a nur into one end of the bolt. Pitrakkos and Tizani [14]4, oltvinus eo BxgineeringStrctres 148 (2017) 210-224 am have performed tests to determine the pull-out behaviour of these bolts from a thick-wall tube. Experimental outcomes from pull-out tests om individual BBs, individual and groups of CABBs, individual HABBs in CFCHS and CFSHS have been presented by Yao et al [11.22] and Agheshlui et al. [15] In addition, parametric studies using FEA package for pull-out tests on individual BBs, individual ABBs and individual and group of double headed anchored blind bolts (DHABBS), have been performed by Oktavianus et al. 16-18) ‘Tie application ofthe blind bolts in the double T-stub connections cam be seen in Fig. | [17.1S-21] However, there are no simplified ‘equations available that can be used to predict the pull-out beha- viour of individual BBs and HABBs from CFCHSs. Fi, 2 shows the HABB components. It should be noted that the total effective fembedment depth is the summation of embedment depth and thickness of a collapsible washer. This paper presents a simplified approach to estimate the pull- ‘out behaviour of individual BBs and individual HABBs from CFCHS. The approach was developed based on a component spring model representing the combined effect of the blind bol's components, ie. the bolt’s shank, the embedded head, and the washer bearing ‘on the inside of the tube wall. Extensive finite element analysis (FEA) results reported by Oktavianus et al. [16], which have been verified using experimental work done by Yao et al. 12), were used, to calibrate the nonlinear behaviour of each component. The Through batt aN igh svonghy Sued Ftub sinuctral oH Point af rtation Fons asrx12.7 A rteaded Anchor 22] Bling Bot (HAS) lever arm.” RARE High svengt [tian seen Fig. 1. The aplication ofthe bing bated Fstub connections Colapsible Solid ‘washer washer Bott Bot need yng pea _Slove | Nut Lonitembedment depth a) o Fig. 2. The headed anchor bin bolt HABB) and FEA model a} Components a an HABB: (b) Quarter made in FEA: (Detail he FEA components 6), Stee ube Washer Washer Bolt head HABE. Concrete filled Bolt head ©ae ¥ oftaviams engineering Stace 18 (2017) 210-224 ‘ABAQUS (22) FE package has been used to generate a quarter model as shown in Fig. 2(b). The model has been modified to rep- resent each component in turn, For instance, in order to under- stand the behaviour of an ordinary blind bolt without any headed anchor, the headed anchor was removed from the FE model, Alternatively, to gain an understanding of the behaviour ‘of the headed anchor, the washer inside the tube wall was Femoved from the FE model. To obtain a reasonable estimation, the degradation of the stiffness of each component was taken into account. Moreover, important parameters such as the diameter of the HABB, diameter and thickness of the CHS, embedment depth ‘of the embedded head, and concrete strength have also been incor~ porated in defining the component behaviour. The proposed com- ponent mode! matches well with the previous experimental and FEA results in cerms of the intial and secondary stiffness as well 4s the ultimate strength 2. Components in a connection of HABB in CFCHS For an HABB within CFCHS. the components that dominate the pull-out behaviour of the bolt can be shown in Fig. 2(a), in which the free blind bol's shank, the stee! tube wall, the embedded bolts shank and the embedded head are numbered from 1 to 4. By assuming the tensile behaviour of each component as a spring and ignoring the bond between the bolt shank and the concrete [23]. the component spring model of an HABB connection is shown in Fig, 3(b) It can be seen that spring 3 and 4 are in series and then parallel to spring 2, and finally in series with spring 1. I the load displacement curve of each spring is determined, the pull-out ‘behaviour of HABBs in CFCHS can be modelled by assembling the springs. A typical load-tisplacement model of the component pring is shown in Fig. 5(e) in which the muli-linear model is used to represent the combined tensile behaviour of different compo- nent springs. For example, Py; is defined as the first point of the stifhess degradation for component i, and Py; refers to the yield strength for the blind-bolt and the tube wall, while it refers to the local crushing strength for the concrete around the headed anchor. Pa, is defined as the secondary point ofthe stifness degra- ‘dation for component i, and Py, is defined as the ultimate strength ‘of component i. Similarly, ke kys and represent the initial stiff ness, ftst secant stiffness and second secant stiffness, respectively For each component model, itis assumed that the stifness will @ tr @ Free bing ot, Q stect tube wall, Fig. 3, Components ofa individual HABB within CFCHS (a) Components: (5) Cmmponent spring mode: fe) Mlt-ines bedded bot shank, @emvedded head degrade to zero when the ultimate strength of the component is achieved. ‘The pull-out behaviour of HABBs within CFCHS depends on the concrete strength, blind bolt properties, and steel tube properties [16]. To gain a better understanding of the behaviour of the com- ponent springs, four combinations of the components are consid- ered as shown in Fig. 4, Firstly, the tensile behaviour of the blind-bott is modelled on the basis of the bolt material properties, as shown in Fig. (a). Secondly, the free blind-bolt is comisined with the steel tube wall in Fig. 4(b), and the pull-out behaviour of the tube wall is modelled. Thirdly, the blind-bolt is combined with the embedded head in Fig. 4(c), and the headed anchor beha- viour is described using a multi-linear model. Finally, the blind- bolt, the headed anchor and the steel tube wall are assembled to form an HABB connection as shown in Fig. (@), and the pull-out behaviour ofthe connection is modelled by assembling the compo- nent springs together. It should be noted that the bolt has only been tighten to snug tight and not been fully pre-tensioned 3. Tensile behaviour of the blind bolt shank A grade PCB.8 HABB is used throughout this paper and the stress-strain telationship of the material is shown in ig. (a. ‘The tensile behaviour ofthe blind-bolt follows the material proper- ties and the yield and ultimate strength of the bolt may be calcu- lated by using Eqs. (1) and (2) as follows Pyaw = Aunhya a) Pass = Asha 2 Where Py and Pays ate the yield and ultimate strength of the Dlindsbote. Ay isthe effective tensile stress area of the blnd-bat Fras and fyp athe yield and ultimate tensile strength of the blind-bolt ‘The initial and secondary stifness ofthe bolt shank under ten- sion can be estimated using Eqs. (3) and (4) 3) “ Pyar Fits yield strength of Pyar Second yield strength of i, Par Ultimate strength of i ke Kuo Kar Initial, ist and second secant stiffness off iepacement curve of component¥oltavinus eo Engineering Structres 148 (2017) 210-224 Blind-bolt Free blind-bolt Free af Tube wall of bolt + cFcHS: Fig. 4. Combinations of te cmmponens a} Binet under tension; (b)Pul-out ‘washer: (@ Pull-utbehavout af the HABB in CFCS —Blind-bokt material B8ss838 8 0.0 0 092008 Nominal strain 0.06 m (a snd embedded blind- Free and embedded blind- Embedded head bolt + Embedded head + Tube wall of CFCHS behavout of the tbe wal) Pullout behaviour ofthe HARB without he cllapsibe 140 120 100 Free bolt smembedded bolt Load (ky) ~-Free+embedded bolt Displacement (mmj ig 5, Tensile behaviour of the Blind-b (a) Stressran relationship ofthe blind Sot (b) Laad-splacement mode! ofthe blind where Koss and Kia» are the initial and secondary stifiness of the biind-bolt, Foy» and E139 are the initial and secondary elastic modu- lus of the blind-bolt from the stress-strain relationship, Ly i the Tength of the blind-bolt, (la, equals to the combined thickness of ‘he two washers and the tube wall for the fee bolt, and Ly, equals to the embedment depth for the embedded bol’s shank). By using Eqs. (!)-(4) and based on the stress-strain relationship of Fig. (a), the load-displacement madel ofthe blind-bolt is deter— ‘mined and shown in Fg. 5(b). It should be noted that the bond between the concrete and the threaded rod will enhance the stiff ness of the bolt shank. However, this has been shown in tests by AAgheshlui [23] to have a minimal effect on the combined initial stiffness in series of the head anchorage and the bolt shank. Hence the bolt shank has been conservatively considered to be un-bonded in the estimation of the strength and the stifiness, 4 Pull-out behaviour of the ordinary BB from CFCHS tube wall ‘The pull-out behaviour ofthe ordinary BB from CFCHS tube wall is dominated by the tension of the free blind bolt and the bending. of the CFCHS tube wall. The strength and the stiffness of the free Dlind bolt have been explained in Section 3. In Sections 4.1 and 42, only the strength and the stiffness of the CFCHS tube wall are summarised, 4.1. Strength model of the CFCHS tube wall To predict the pull-out strength of the blind-bolt in the CFCHS tube wall, the design equation of screw connections for cold- formed structures by AISI (24 is introduced for reference. The pull-out behaviour of the blind-bolt in the CHS tube wall is similar to the pull over behaviour of the serew connection, which depends ‘on several parameters such as the thickness of the tube wall (fy) the thickness of the washer (fq), the diameter of the bolt head (eat), and the outer diameter af the washer (ays). Pekoz [25] rec~ ‘ommended that the ultimate tensile strength be used in the strength prediction of a screw connection and enhanced the corre- lation between the calculated strength with the test data, and the design equations of Pekoz [25] were accepted by AISI [24]. How- ‘ever, considering the size effect, i, the thickness ofthe tube walla4 Y oftaviams engineering Stace 18 (2017) 210-224 ratte eta of hte pce fr tbe al pout ee RR A. aa ee wpam eae = RB 5 B on 1a ome mame as 5 Xe cr é FA os toad Rois as : ie es} $ B om oas ss Ramat ds : 2 8 & FA tes on Sos Tapia ae to ® ae 8 & is to om ase $i eeviton anton @ @ @ @ tree bind pot, (e) [= ye.pue.e > 016s P PB 8 @)sterrane wa ww wma @ embedded bolt shank, - @ @cmbedded head. z 0 theca mde rere ef ren G2 o 5 we so Spice) o 1 Te p20. Pay 10 0 P, 2 ys z heortea model Tube wal failure of CFCHS ef tex ana ° Poe onan Perce ee : Sptcement nm) ®) o 1 T8_D16 Nt 350 T10_p70_NL x0 a s0 z z ry Boo theo mde of a rercune 0 a 0 8 aaa tc) clued Fi. 6, Verifiation ofthe adel fo he ‘e_p20 Nis {) T10,P20N1 out behavior af these! ube wall (2 Assembly of the component spring: (0) T6D16 Ni; fe} T6020 NI) T8_DIGNI:(e}¥,oltvionus eo ngineeringStructres 148 (2017) 210-224 a5 and the diameter of the blind-bolt which is larger than that in the screw connection, and the diameter of the hole whichis larger than, that ofthe bolt shank, a coefficient of 1.2 instead of 1.5 is used in this paper. The ultimate pull-out strength of an ordinary BB from ‘he tube wall of a CECHS can thus be calculated using Eq. (5). yon (hat 1 2tos) tow where fay isthe ultimate tensile strength ofthe tube wal steel, dus 4s the outer diameter of the washer, tov i the thickness of the tube Wall dua isthe Giameter ofthe bolt head, tay is the thickness of the washer tis important to note that when the value of Paw i larger than the nominal tensile ultimate capacity ofthe blind bolt (Ps) BB tensile failure will occur instead of pull-out ofthe BB, As to the yield strength of the steel tube wall subject to a ten- sion load on the blind-bolt,the test and FEA results by Oktavianus etal. 15] indicated that the stress concentration around the bolt Faw hole will lead to local yielding before the overall yielding of the tube wal, Therefore, the yield strength of the steel tube wall at the first yield point is defined as being approximately equal to 45% of the ultimate pullout strength as expressed in Eq. (5s) ‘The yield strength at the second yield point is defined to corre spond to the overall yielding of the tube wall as expressed in Fa, (Gb), Assuming the tube wall's nominal yield strength (fy) and nominal ultimate strength (yyy) are taken as 350MPa and 430 MPa for the specimens considered in the experimental work, 4 modification is made to take into account different values of Fyoe and that could be present in actual tests as shown in Ea. (6) Pane = 1B ain 6) aware vn 0a os Pam = 2a (6) where Py isthe frst yield strength of the tube wall and Pyar Is the seconé yield strength of the tube wall 42. Stifness model ‘The intial stiffness ofthe tube wall, specifically due tothe bear ing of the spit washer on the inside of the tube wall, is expressed sn Eq. 7), which is a modification ofthe equation proposed by Yao [26]. The expression of Eq. (7) is also found to be similar to the equation proposed by Liu et al. [27] for the initial stiffness of the channel face, Modifications have been made to additionally con- sider the influence of the ratio of the washer diameter to the hole diameter and of the Doty ratio. Enlarging the diameter of the washer and maintaining the hole size and tube wall thickness will 1rease the stiffness of the tube wall. Moreover, a the thickness of the steel tube increases, or as the diameter of the tude wall decreases, the stifness of the tube wall increases ~aett Gs) where Kon is the initial stiffness of the pull-out behaviour of the steel tube wal, fy is the Young's modulus of the steel tube, vis the Poisson's ratia ofthe steel tube, D, isthe outer diameter of steel tube wall, diye is the diameter of the bolt hole. ‘When considering the stiffness degradation of steel a ratio of 5%-10% has been widely used in the literature when the bilinear model is adopted [25], However, the stiffness was found to ‘undergo only gradual degradation from the first yield point (repre— senting local yielding) and second yield point (representing overall yielding) ofthe tube wall and thus 2 multilinear model is used to Keow represent this degradation. tn this paper, the stifness of the steel tube wall becween the first and second yield points is taken as 20% of the initial stiffness, in order to consider the influence of ‘the infilled concrete and the curved tube wall, as shown in Eq, (Sa). The stffiaess ofthe tube walls found to degrade substantially after the second yield point of the tube wall and thus 6% ofthe ini tial sifiness is used to calculate the stiffness after that point, as shown in Eq. (8b Ky = 20% Koon (6a) Kane ~ 6% Koy (8b) 43, Verification of the medel The load-displacement model for the pull-out behaviour of the ‘tube wall is verified using the test data from Yao [26] and the FEA results from Oktavianus etal. [16]. The dimensions of the spect- mens tested by Yao |26] are listed in Table 1. FE models have been constructed that correspond to these specimens. The notation used is as follows: ‘T6' denotes a specimen with a tube thickness of mm, ‘DIG denotes a specimen with a blind bolt diameter of 16mm, ‘NI’ indicates an ordinary blind bolt (BB). the superscript “TW indicates the theoretical value and ‘FE indicates the finite ele- ‘ment value For an ordinary blind bolt without a headed anchor, the compo- nent spring model degrades to a two-spring model, and the pull: ‘out behaviour of the connection can be obtained by simply adding, up displacements from spring 1 and spring 2 at the same level of load, as shown in Fig. 6(a). The theoretical models are compared ‘with the test results obtained by Yao [26] and FEM results obtained. by Oktavianus et al, 16) as shown in Fig. 6(b}-(0) and a good agree- Fig. 7. Anchr behaviour ofthe embedded biné-bolt hee216 Y obtaviams engineering Stace 18 (2017) 210-224 ment is demonstrated. For example, the initial stifiness (Ke) and ‘ultimate strength (P,) obtained using the theoresical model are, ‘on average, 94% and 98% respectively of the FEM values, with stan- dard deviations of 13% and 4%, The secant stiffness at 0.6P, is, on average 97% that of the FEM values with a standard deviation of 9%, as shown in Table 1 I should be noted that Fig. 6(a) only demonstrates the situation ‘of tube wall failure, since the ultimate strength ofthe blind bolt is ‘usually higher than that of the tube wall for the cases considered here. However, ifthe tube wall was stronger chan the blind bolt, ie. the combination of a thick tube wall with a small diameter of the blind bolt was considered, the fracture of the blind bolt would be likely to determine the ultimate strength of the joint. However, the assembly process is stil the same as in Fig, (a) 5. Behaviour of headed anchors embedded in concrete 5.1. Strength model of the headed anchor ‘The behaviour of headed anchors embedded in unconfined con- crete has been studied extensively and equations in the American conerete structures code [29] are widely accepted as being suitable ‘ones fo use to calculate the pull-out strength of these anchors. The test and FEA results by Pitrakkos and Tizami (1 for the embedded hheaded bolt used in their work indicated that the behaviour of the anchorage due to the head bearing on the concrete is dominated by {wo potential failure modes, namely the local crushing of the con- crete under the head, and the formation of a concrete cone at acer- tain angle emanating from the head, Ta describe the pull-out (b) uo T6.D16_N2.w o-Theaet ose! * displacement (mm) * (od Mo T6.020_N2.nw Concrete cone failure 120 =) aR 100 Zw o- There model © * pistitemendimm) * —* (3) ) 0 so T_DI6.N2 nw two T.020_N2.nw 1, T20_020_N2_nw [Zs Zao ZS ye Te Te 7 ~O= Theoretical model * ‘-o= theoretical model 0 ~0- Theoretical model ispcemer im * 3 cuter? en * Fig. 8, Verification of the model forthe headed anchor (a) Assembly of the component spring: (b) T¢_D16.N2.n0: (€) T_D20.N2nW:(@) T8,D16.N20W: (€} T8_D20_N2_nw THO D20_N20¥%4, oltvionus eo Engineering Structres 148 (2017) 210-224 a7 ‘ante Det of he FE modes fo the headed anchor Species wa ja le aaa) TIMP = e Topi NEw ae © a 100 0m ae ‘op20_N2Law ny 2 sa 100 14 038 TH_Is Naw ae 6 405 100 ose hee THp20_NLw ae 5 » 405 100 tor a4 ‘0.20 Nw ae wo » wa 100 102 os Mean 095 a9 Staneard deviation 09 on behaviour of the headed anchor, provided that the embedded length is sufficient so that the cone forms aftr the crushing around the embedded head, the strength at local crushing and the strength associated with the full development of a concrete cone can be defined as the first yield and ultimate strength of the anchor. The equations used in the ACI standard (25) to estimate the strength. at local crushing and the strength when the concrete failure prism forms are given in Eqs. (9) and (10) respectively. , (10) is derived based on an assumption that there is no crack at service load levels. ‘where Ars isthe net bearing area ofthe head on the concrete, fis the characteristic compressive strength of the concrete, and hey is the effective embedment depth of the anchor head as shown in ig. 7. ‘There is an important assumption made in developing the ACL ‘equations that is not applicable in the case considered here. The ACI code [25] requires that the minimum value of the ratio of AvclAis be 4 to ensure that the bolt fracture occurs prior to the development of the concrete cone, since there is no confinement or head bearing on the confining wall inthis case, This limit cannot Fee Bhd (©) Demet forthe HABB because the diameter ofthe head is restricted by the clearance of the predrilled hole in the tube wall For exam- PET = 13 mie (10) ple, the ratio of Ay /Aw is only 1.1 for the grade D16 and D20 ; Panel) a Free blind-bolt, @ ot ee" P | @stee! tube wall, NM @ Embedded bolt shank, @tmbedded head. Pees PPIS () pa were, (ptt min, Poa) Hi @| ae Local crushing Parad Puce PT Pie Pc -Local crus P..pp-Ultimate strength of blind-bott, ig strength of concrete anchor, P,,Ultimate strength of concrete cone, P.,.w-Ultimate strength of tube wall of CFCHS, P’-Load by embed blind-bolt and head anchor. cone failure Fig. 8. Failure sequence a the individual HABS in a CECHS (a Component springs: (b) Before lca crushing: fc) Ae loa ershing:() Faure by free bot) Flare byas BBs, which is much lower than the value required by the ACT 318M [29), The test results by Pitrakkos and Tizani (14) indicated that this discrepancy leads to an overestimate ofthe local crushing strength by the ACI 318M (29) and a constant reduction factor of 5/6 was proposed. Considering the high stress concentration of the concrete around the embedded head, local crushing of the con- ‘rete is likely to occur at an early stage of loading, and this will lead to the degradation of the stiffness. Thus, a new reduction factor of ‘Ay 4Ay is introduced to modify Eq. (9) and the local crushing ‘strength for the concrete around the headed anchor can be caleu- lated using Eg. (11). Pec = PLE = Wigh ion a The discrepancy ofthe ratio of Aye /Ay also leas to a quite con- servative ultimate breakout strength by ACI 318M [25]. Thus the ‘equation recommencled by Eligehausen et a. [30], as given in Eq, (22), is used to predict che ultimate strength of the headed anchor located in a region of a concrete member where there is no crack- ing at service load levels tis derived for situations in which the value of the Avg/Asy ratio is more similar to the cases considered here and in which the cylinder compressive strength of the con- crete is used rather than the characteristic strength, Poe 68 Feotip (1) where f isthe cylinder compressive strength of the concrete. 52. Initia and secondary stifness model For a headed anchor embedded in concrete, the bearing stress Y obtaviams engineering Stace 18 (2017) 210-224 bolt shank, and initially reduces sharply with distance from the shank but then reduces gradually to zero at the edge ofthe head. In order to predict the initial stifiness of the concrete parallel to the blind bolt (Ko,), the stress distribution may be simplified as a rectangular in which the width is equal to one quarter ofthe length (Lo) as shown in Fig. 7 and summarised in Eq, (13). At the initial stage of loading it was assumed that the steel tube does not pro- vide any confinement to the concrete, because the concrete is very stiff relative to the tube wall. Therefore, the concrete itself is able {0 equilibrate the load by tensile stresses set up in the concrete which are lower than the concrete tensile strength. Furthermore, It is reasonable to assume the value of L, to be very small for the initial stifiness calculation expressed in Eg, (12) because there is a stress concentration around the embedded head as previously ‘mentioned. Thus, the initial stiffness of the headed anchor can be calculated as below. Ect|(dyy + Le/2)? ~ di sls +a? — where Ie isthe length of the concrete that contributes to the initial stiffness of the headed anchor and E. is the Young’s modulus of the conerete. ‘The test results by Pitrakkos and Tizani |/| indicated that the local crushing of the concrete will lea to a significant degradation ofthe stiffness, and the proposed secant stiffness is only 32~7% of ‘he intial stiffness for the case of concrete filled SHS, Considering, the confinement of the CHS utilised in this paper, a ratio of 5% is used to predict the secondary stifness of the headed anchor after the local crushing of the concrete a3) Kee = him: qed distribution in the concrete at the head is illustrated in Fig. 7 Kue = 5%Koe aay [51] The stress is concentrated atthe corner ofthe bolt head and Input @) {Component material and dimensions) T Eq (14)-(14) Eq (1}-(4) Eq (5}-(8) o.., va © tre Pad Pate Fk Peel f hae Ko hee Sf = On 4, ome Yes PurPucwt Pi — be Concrete cone failure Go to Fig. 10 (b) Free bolt failure Go to Fig. 10 (c) Fig 10, Assembly ofthe components fer the ndvial HABE in a CCHS (a) Flaw chart fo the assem (b) Assembly procedure forthe concrete cone fale: (6 Assembly procedure fr the free bole are4 oltvionus eo Engineering Structures 148 (2017) 210-224 Concrete cone failure naam Me Free-bolt failure ne220 Y oftaviams engineering Stace 18 (2017) 210-224 For the headed anchor embedded in concrete without a tube ‘wall, both the strength and the stiffness of the headed anchor will, degrade to zero after the full development of the conerete cone. Although the presence of the tube wall will prevent the concrete cone from splitting off, and may even lead to an increase in slrength, this confinement behaviour is not taken into account to avoid doubling up on the contribution of the tube wall. Therefore, the stiffness of the headed anchor is assumed to be zero after the strength of the concrete cone is achieved. 53. Verification of the model To verify the accuracy of the current trilinear model for the behaviour of the headed anchor, the FEA results from Okcavianus et al, [16) are used for comparison as shown in Fig. 8. In order to confirm the reliability of the FE models using ten pull-out speci- mens with or without a headed anchor, Oktavianus et al. |16) removed the washer to check the contribution of the headed anchor, Some details of the FE models ate listed in Table 2 and more details can be found in Oktavianus et al, (15). The notation "N2' indicates a HABB with an embedment depth of 100 mm, and ‘aw’ indicates an HABB without a washer inside the tube wall the other notations are the same as in Table I ‘As mentioned before, by not taking into account the potential confinement provided by the steel tube wall on the concrete cone, and by neglecting the bond between the bolt shank and the con- rete, the component spring model of the headed anchor will degrade to three springs in series as shown in Fig. 8(3). Thus, the pull-out behaviour of the headed anchor can be modelled by add- ing up the spring curves along the horizontal axis, as shown in Fg. 8(a). The comparisons between the theoretical model and the FEM curves are shown in Fig. 6(b)-(0. It can be seen that the cur- rent model matches well with the FEM results, The initial stifness (Ko) and the ultimate strength (P,) obtained using the theoretical model are, on average, 96% and 98% that of the FEM values with standard deviations of 9% and 12%, as shown in Table 2, 6. Assembly of the component springs 6.1 Load transfer and failure sequences of individual HABBS in a crcHS The assembly of the individual HABB in 2 CECHS is shown in Fig, 9(a). To evaluate the pull-out behaviour ofthe individual HABB connection, two equilibrium equations for the load and the dis- placement can be listed as follows: PHP,=P2+P—Pr+Pa as) 54548 (16) Where P ands are the load and displacement applied atthe free end ‘of the bolt, just outside the washer on the outside of the tube wal P,,P:,Ps and Py are the loads carried by spring 1 to spring 4: 51,53,5) and dy are the displacements of spring 1 to spring 4 respectively Te can be seen from Eq, (15) that the strength of the individual, HABB within a CFCHS is dominated by the strength of the free blind bolt (Ps), as well as the combined strengtn ofthe tube wall (P;) and the headed anchor (P). Considering the fore-mentioned individual behaviour of the components, the failure sequences of the individ- val HABB in a CFCHS are demonstrated in Fig. 9(b)- (e). The dete- Floration of the connection begins with the local crushing of the conerete around the embedded head, and ends up with two typical failure modes, namely the failure of the free blind-bolt or the full development of the concrete cone. Prior to these failure modes, yielding of the tube wall or the blind bolt may occur; this depends ‘om che material properties and the dimensions of each component. Although the ultimate strength of the tube wall and the headed anchor are combined in Fig. 9, if should be noted that the full development of the concrete cone may not occur atthe same time as the ultimate capacity of the tube wall. Generally, the full deve!- ‘opment of the concrete cone occurs prior to the ultimate capacity of the tube wall being reached due to the stifiness of the coneret which is very high compared with that of the tube wall. Once the conerete cone has been fully developed, this conctete cone is con- fined by the tube wall and will stay inside the tube wall. It is assumed that the confinement provided by steel tube will only enhance the displacement capacity of the concrete and will nol increase the capacity of the concrete as mentioned previously Moreover, the head beating inside the tube wall continues to pro- vide more resistance until the ultimate capacity ofthe tube wall is reached. Therefore, the failure mode is the combination of the full development of the concrete cone and the ultimate capacity of the tube wall 62, Procedure used to assemble the component springs ‘The procedure used to assemble the component springs is shown n Fig. 10(a)-Firstly, the material properties and éimensions of the components are input as original data, and Eqs. (1)-(14) are used to calculate the key points of each component. The multi linear model of each component is built individually. Then the ul ‘mate strengths of the blind bolt, the headed anchor and the CECHS tube wall are used to check che failure mode of the individual HABB in a CFCHS, the concrete cone failure controls, the detail ofthe assembly for the component springs is shown in fig. 10{b). Moreover, Fig, 10(€) shows the assembly detail ofthe blind bolt failure mode. Taking Fig, 10(b) for example, the assembly process is described as follows: Firstly, spring 3 and spring 4 are assembled in series to form the red dash line of (3 +4), Secondly, the displacements on line (3 +4) are used as the input displacement of line 2, and the line of component spring 2 is assembled in parallel with the line (+4) to form the red dot-dash line of 2/(3 +4). Finally. line 1 is Table 3 etal fetes pecinens or ind MASS in CFCHS Specimen Dn) tym) d(H) Far A) Dag dm) (im) rows = wp 324 1s 100 as 2 5 a a 07% ast ase mon 34 20 100 as a ‘ 29 a a4 ost os? mipw.n2 324 2 100 nee 5 2 ae O37 tae as? Standard deviation4 oltvinus eo ngineeringStructres 148 (2017) 210-224 an orcs fa) (b) » 160 T6_D16_N2 (aso 76_020_N2 wor 140 : ero 200 120 of am care . nF = 100 vt pepe | z gu0 was 80 3 abn! | Sy ~=Theorte model lessee 5 100 , metre ao —Test curve so —Femeurve track 20 —testcurve 40 ° ° au 200 ° 2 3 4 o 1 2 3 4 fg eee tere Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) (yp T8_DI6_N2 (©),,5 -T8_D20_N2 (9 10_020_N2 300 1020.1 120 oa 250 100 a 200 z g1s0 z $50 i mneornesmodet — Bago ft —=teornesimodat FEM cuve FEM curve 100 J —-theoritieal mode —Testeuve so Test curve sof —FeMcune Test cuve ° ° OR el cane ee open sue aes aoe ga Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Fig. 1. Veutation ofthe madel by test and FEM curve ef invidual ABS in CECH () Test setup by Yao [25 (b) 18_D16,42; () 16.D20_N2: (4) 16 D16,N2. (2) “THE DBG_Na, {790,20 NE Specimen DG) te RD aan RCs Fe MPa) 7 wsasrpaao a7 35 wo 3 w 2 Teslasripancio 37 85 a1 555 So 5 taslasripanceo 457 85 31 555 4 4 Tasasrpnncso 457 85 a1 555 so 5 Tnzaszpn9.00 457 war 36 oo 555 20 5 narasio.ao 487 27 36 2 555 0 7 narasrpnoca 457 07 36 2 555 «0 & Tatasiipnecs0 457 ar 36 a 555, so 9 Tesasrb24.c20 457 85 aM 558 2» to Tescasprcco 457 85 a8) 558 a0 M1 Tastasrpaece 457 85 a8 5 © 12 Tasuasrpaecso 457 85. a1 oe 0 a “37 ar 3s 558 20 Standard deviation assembled in series with line 2)/(3 +4) to form the total load displacement curve of the individual HABB joint shown as a ted bold solid line. The assembly of Fig, lo(c) is similar to that of Fig, Lo(b), although in that case the ultimate strength of the joint {s dominated by the ultimate tensile strength of the blind bolt. (63. Verification of the model with test or FE results Yao 26] has tested the pull-out behaviour of HABBS within CFCHS and the details of the specimens are listed in Table 3. Okta- vians et al. (16) buill finite element models of these specimensa and checked the reliability of the FEM results by comparing them ‘with the test data reported in Yao [26]. By using the parameters described in Table 3 as the input data, and following the assembly Procedure shown in Fig. 10 (using Eqs. (114) as outlined in Sec- tion 6.2), the theoretical curve of each specimen can be obtained ‘and compared to the test or FEM results, as shown in Fig, 11. It ‘can be seen from Fig. 11 that the theoretical curves match well ‘with the test and FEM curves. The strengths estimated by the the- ‘oretical model are controlled by the failure of the blind bolt, and ‘this is consistent with the results from the tests and the FE analy- ses. The initial and secondary stiffness obtained from the fully assembled component spring models are also found to match well (a) (b) = Sy ce in o 250. 1127_457_020_c20 127.457.020.030 rs ~ pi — Too Lo laplcerent (in) 0) Shtacerant (ma) oi oe wsasroman | soo Tas.a87 pico Es in ie Ve 8 chnendonondy —*||_ chad ity —_* (m) {n) yo. Ti27.487.p24,20 | m0 127.457.024.650 Em Eww Yoo Joo © clade indy —*)|__® ccnindy —* ¥ oftariams engineering Stace 18 (2017) 210-224 with the test and FEM results. For example, the initial stiffness (K) and ultimate strength (P,) of the theoretical model are, on average, {86% and 98% that of the FEM ones, with standard deviations of 10% and 2%, The secant stiffness at 0.67, i, on average, 90% that of the FEM ones, with a standard deviation of 11%, as shown in Table 3 However, the ultimate strengths predicted by the theoretical mod- els are lower than those from the tests, which is probably due to the discrepancy between the nominal and actual values of the ‘material properties (5 To further check the reliability ofthe current component spring. ‘model, 2 wider range of FE models has been built; the thickness of the tube wall, the diameter of the blind-bolt, as well as the (c) 195.457_020_c40 (4) 250 T95.457_020.¢50 Frs0 ¥rs0 Yaw Yaw oc thereta mad! retain sof -commeoretea mode so bptacaden i) hptacenene (ml) ®) {h) 280 712.7_457_D20_C40 ae gis Tio cof enero 10 free et © phptcerent imi) * (k) w yo 795.457.024.c40 2s0 195.457_024.650 ie Ein Jas Jos ° _cpeadenndy 2 pwede ind) (0) (p) 29 Ta27_457_024_c40 sso TH27.457_024.<80 Em yo Jas of Rmane |) © chncadeneindy 9 _lpcetantinty—* Fig. 12. Verfieation ofthe model by 2 wider rage of EM curves¥,oltavinus eo ngineeringStrctares 148 (2017) 210-224 om compression strength of the concrete have been varied (16). The comparisons between the theoretical and FEM results are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 12, and this demonstrates a good agreement between the two different approaches. The notation used is as fol- ows: 'T9.5' denotes a specimen with a tube thickness of 95 mm, “457° denotes the outer diameter of the steel tube, ‘D20" denotes a specimen with a blind bolt diameter of 20 mm and ‘C20’ denotes the compressive strength of the concrete cylinder of 20 MPa. All specimens considered in Table utilised HABB. The initial stifness (Ko) and ultimate strength (P,) of the theoretical mode! are, on average, 105% and 102% of the FEM values, with standard devia tions of 6X and 2%, The secant stiffness at O.6P, is, on average, 114% that of the FEM values, with a standard deviation of 12%, as shown in Table 4, 7. Conelusions ‘This paper presents the development of a component spring ‘model that can be used to estimate the pull-out behaviour of BBS and HABBs from a CFCHS, The multi-linear model is developed from the behaviour of the blind bolts components, ie. the bolts shank, the embedded head, and the washer bearing on the inside of the tube wall. The individual spring models are validated by comparison with either existing experimental or FEM results, and then assembled to build the theoretical model for the overall pull-out behaviour of HABBs within a CFCHS. The fellowing conclu- sions can be drawn: ‘The ultimate pull-out strength of the steel tube wall depends on the thickness of the tube wall (tq), the thickness of the washer (Gu) the diameter of the bolt head (de). and the outer diameter of the washer (dy. ). The stress concentration around the bolt hole leads to the initial stifiness degradation and the yielding of the tube wall leads to the subsequent stiffness degradation; thus, a multi-tinear model is developed to represent the pull-out beha- viour of the steel tube wall, and this is shown to match well with the test and FEM results ‘The strengths corresponding to the local crushing of the con- crete under the head and at the formation of the concrete cone can be defined as the apparent yield and ultimate strength of the headed anchor, respectively. Accordingly, similar equations to ‘those in the ACI code can be used to estimate these strengths, However, a consideration of the Ayz/Ayp ratio, which is restricted in this case to a value smaller than that assumed in the ACI, is needed to modify these equations. The inital stiffness of the con- crete parallel to the blind bolt depends on the Young's modulus of the concrete (E,.) and the blind bolt diameter (dj). The stiffness of the headed anchor will degrade greatly after the concrete under the head crushes; it is reasonable to assume that the stiffness is reduced to 5% ofthe initial stiffness, ‘The ultimate pull-out strength of the individual HABB within a CFCHS is either determined by the strength of the free blind bolt or the combined strength ofthe tube wall and the headed anchor, The pull-out behaviour ofthe individual HABB within a CFCHS can be evaluated by assembling the component springs together, and a procedure has been proposed to carry out this assembly. The the- retical model that results from the complete assembly of the com- ponent springs matches well with existing test and FEM results. In tis paper, only the pull-out behaviour of the HABB within a CFCHS is considered. By using the proposed component spring ‘model the sequence ofthe failure mode can be observed, Ths will be very useful in the design process so that the failure mode due to the formation ofa fully developed concrete cone can be avoided. In previous work, it has been suggested that the force transferred to the blind bolt should be limited to 0.6P,. The tools developed in this paper will be useful in refining this approach since the contri bution of each component, ie. the concrete contribution and the steel tube wall contribution. can be measured at any level of oad. The anchored blind bolts will be used in steel beam to CECHS column mament-resisting connections; groups of blind bolts will be used to connect the flanges of two curved T-stubs (one at the bottom ofthe beam and one at the top) to the CFCHS, and the webs ‘of these T-stubs will be connected to the flanges of the steel beam. It also should be noted that the prediction ofthe group behaviour ‘of the HABBs in a CFCHS is much more complex than that of the individual HABB due to the presence of the curved T-stub flange, the possible addition of through bolts, the application of full pre- tension to all of the bolts and the orientation of the HABBs which ‘will not, in genera, be parallel tothe applied force, The component spring method for this group behaviour will be considered in future work, using the research reported in this paper as the foundation. ‘Acknowledgments ‘This research is funded by Linkage grant LP110200511 and sup- ported by Australian Research Council (ARC) and collaborating ‘organisations, such as Orrcon Steel and AJAX Engineered Fasteners, The authors would like to acknowledge all ofthe support and con- tributions provided by these partners. The authors also would like to thank the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarships for the full scholarship provided to Mr. Oktavianus land the support of the National Science Foundation of China (grant ‘number, 51408595), the Jiangsu Province Science Foundation (grant number BK20140195) and the Research Funds of Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Building Energy Saving and Construct Technology (grant number S]XTYI510) provided to Mr. Chang. References [1] FEMa-353. Recommended seismic evaluation and uparae criteria for exiting ‘welded ste nomen tae bling. SAC ot Vente: 2000. pp 2-9. [p| Ison % este piformance af baled and siveted connections Feder Eimergeney Management Agency, Saeramenta, Calor SAC joint Vet, Background Reports Metallurgy. acture Mechanics, Weleig Moen, {Connections and Frame systems Behaviour: 1997 [a] Swansony Leon Sufnersmoceling of bleed Tub 1 Suuet Eng 2001 27,5) 486-505. [4] hie) eon Pack 1 Mechanical madeting of Salted T-stsconnectins under ‘jcc loads part Stinese modeling Cant See! Ree 203167171028 Is] Ho) Leon Park. Mechanical mages for the any of bolted Testud ‘ennecios nder oye loads. | Const Se! Res 2072.78: 43-37 ty Hanh Ui Sst penance Est ete uo wih 17] Lee) Goldsworthy HM, Gad EF Bline-blee Tb connections to vnfleg allow section column i lower structures) Cone Ste! kee 2010665 [8] Lee J. Goldsworthy 104, Gad EF. Blind bolted moment connection 10 sides of fallow secon cans | Canste See Res 2011-6712) 1900-1 Ip] Ise} Gadeworthy HM Gad EF lind oitediement connection te vafles Hollow section column using extended T-stub wit back face Supper. EN 10] Guher AF Cadonarty Ime Moments connection 0 copa 11] Yae Goldswarhy HM Gad Experimental ad Nomenelnvstaton af the tensile benawour of biné-belee stub connecron to concreveAiled ‘eur clu) Struct Eng Am Soe Ci Eg 2008 134/2) 196-208, 12] Yao colswaty HD, CAE, ea april) ob odie Dn 13] Ellsoa 8, Tizant W. Behaviour of blnd bated cor halo sections. strut ng 2008 82(22)167. a) Fas | San W pest behav! foe aac int 15] Aaheshis H. Coldsworty Had feta Tene behaviour af anchored bin Bots in concete led square hollow sections. Mate: Struc 2016.9 6) Sharan Yu canary HM a Pout esos of dba section component nections to concrete fileaa ¥ oftavians engineering Stace 18 (2017) 210-224 117] okawanus ¥, Geldsworehy 1, Gad Cycle behaviour of individual dauble Iesdedsnehore Bin bots within CFS.) Const Stel Res 2017-133522-34, 118] Oxtaants Goldsworthy H, Gad €. Group behavior of éovble heated Snehored lind bolts within concrtefiledczclar hollow section net ‘jl loading ASCE struct Eng 2017 (un pes). [19] Okawanus ¥Coldsworcy 1, Gf ta Che Behaviour of Replaceable Bucking Retained. Fase (RORF) Experimental Work. In 11th Pacie Srucfl Steel Conference. Shanghal Chia, Octobe 29-51, 2016. [20] Okavanus¥- Coldsworty HM, cad Ee (2015) Fite emer analysis fof beat- CEST column connections using replaceable bucling restated ses IRBRES) as enereydispation device. In Proceedings of the Tenth Pcie Conference on sarthquake Engineering” Bulding an Earthquake-esiest Pace, Spene. Ausra, 2013, [au Ottawanus Ye Clusworty H, Gad Fetal The sence of key design parameters onthe eye sl behataur of innavative replaceble boeing Fesrane fses(RKFs} Journal of Earhgtake Engineering 2017. In pes. [22] ASAQUS.ABAQUS 6 12 documestauon Prowcence USA. Dassault Spstmes [aa] Athesis i Anchored bling bolted connection: within canerte ile quate Stee hollow section calurmns [PRD thesis] Meourne. Austral The Universi of Melboune; 2004 [24] Ast Norch American specication for the design of clé-oumed steel Siraearal members: Washington, DC® Arsenean on ahd Stel Insite! dois [25) Pekoz T. Desgn of colésormed steel screw connections. international Specialy Conference on Cold-Formed Stel Stucures, 1990 575-567 [26] Yiott Morseatressing beanies alm eanneton wth ind les nd. extensions [PAD thes) Mebosrne, Auta The Univesty of ielpoene: 209, (27 us Miauqutape © ghazoul A Repose and cnpanert foods Ep Struct 201254131032, [aa] Elamin AMER the face bending Behaviour ef Bind-boted connections to foncteteled halew secons [PAD. thes). Landen, UX Unwerty of Notting 2014 [29] ACL3ISM. ACL 318M: balding cade requirements or srt] enerete (ACI Stant-11) and commentary Uh: American Conctete nse: 201 Iso) genase K, Mallee KSiva JF Anchorage in concrete construction, Joa ‘Wiley Sons 2006. [bn] Testdair KO, Steen MA, Baiotopstos Ct at. Analytical approach of Anchor od sibess and steel Base late clulton under tension Sructes possa0r—is