See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280530124

Design of Connections for Composite Special Moment Frames (C-SMF) with

Concrete-Filled Steel Tube (CFT) Columns

Conference Paper · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 2,278

3 authors:

Erica C. Fischer Zhichao Lai

Oregon State University Fuzhou University
27 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   305 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amit H Varma
Purdue University
295 PUBLICATIONS   2,153 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Steel Beam Columns under Fire Loading View project

Create new project "Fire Performance of Simple Connections" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhichao Lai on 24 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 8th International Conference on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas
Shanghai, China, July 1-3, 2015

DESIGN OF CONNECTIONS FOR COMPOSITE SPECIAL MOMENT

FRAMES (C-SMF) WITH CONCRETE-FILLED STEEL TUBE (CFT)
COLUMNS

Erica C. Fischer, Zhichao Lai and Amit H. Varma

Robert L. and Terry L. Bowen Laboratory, Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University
1040 S. River Road, West Lafayette, IN 47907
e-mails: fischere@purdue.edu, laiz@purdue.edu, ahvarma@purdue.edu

Keywords: Composite special moment frames, concrete-filled tube columns, moment connections.

Abstract: Beam-to-column connections in special composite moment frames of a building structure are
required to meet the requirements specified in the AISC Seismic Provisions. These requirements include
experimental results to provide evidence that the specific beam-to-column connection satisfies the
requirements for strength and story drift angle. This paper focuses on through-beam and split-tee
connections used in C-SMFs with wide-flange beams and CFT columns. The paper provides a general
description of the connections including key features and components. This is followed by a discussion of
the expected behavior of the connections in the elastic and inelastic regions based upon previous
experimental data. This includes limiting failure mechanisms of the connections controlling the strength
and deformation capacities. The paper concludes with a brief overview of the design considerations of
these connections which consider the limiting failure modes in order from most ductile (desirable) to
least ductile. The information presented in this paper will help engineers to create a body of evidence for
through-beam and split-tee connections to apply for prequalification of similar connections in C-SMFs.

1 INTRODUCTION
The AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC 341-10) [1] provides design requirements and performance
criteria for the beam-to-column connections in moment frames that serve as the primary seismic force
resisting systems (SFRS) for steel building structures. The AISC Prequalified Connections (AISC 358-
10) [2], however, do not include examples of beam-to-column connections applicable to composite
moment frame construction. The engineer is required to present experimental results for the desired
beam-to-column connection configuration, and demonstrate conformance to the performance
requirements set forth in the AISC Seismic Provisions. This paper assists the engineer in this effort by
providing an overview of previous research and testing performed on beam-to-column connections for
composite moment frame construction, while focusing mainly on split-tee moment connections (for
rectangular CFT columns) and through beam moment connections (for circular CFT columns), and their
potential failure modes. This paper also includes comprehensive guidance and a complete example for the
design and detailing these two types of connections in composite special moment frames. The connection
details are based on the test results and the components are designed accordingly to provide the strength
and ductility required by the performance criteria set forth in the AISC Seismic Provisions.
This paper along with the results of the test series performed by Peng [3] at Lehigh University,
Schneider and Alostaz [4] at University of at University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign, and Elremaily
[5] at University of Nebraska give structural engineers the tools to create a body of evidence to apply for
prequalification of similar split-tee connections and through beam connections in C-SMF. The testing
requirements outlined in Section K2 of the AISC Seismic Provisions are satisfied by the experimental
testing program completed by Peng [3], Schneider and Alostaz [4], and Elremaily [5] discussed in this
 Erica C. Fischer, Zhichao Lai and Amit H. Varma

paper. This paper provides a comprehensive design procedure that satisfies the requirements of Section
K1.5 of the AISC Seismic Provisions. This paper also outlines many of the necessary sections, listed
below, of the Prequalification Record required by Section K1.6 of the AISC Seismic Provisions:
 General description of the prequalified connection
 Description of expected behavior of the connection in the elastic and inelastic ranges
 Definition of region of the connection that comprises the protected zone
 Detailed description of the design procedure for the connection
 List of references of test reports, research reports, and other publications that provide basis for
prequalification

2 BACKGROUND
Composite construction is used for a variety of applications around the world. Developed in the late
1800’s in Chicago, composite construction has been used for seismic resistance design in buildings such
as Two Union Square in Seattle, Washington and the Jinyuan Building in Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Concrete-filled tube (CFT) columns efficiently use both the steel and concrete materials. The concrete
restrains the steel tube flanges from buckling inward, and the steel tube confines the concrete [6]. The
steel tube also behaves as formwork for the concrete during construction.
The AISC Seismic Provisions Section G3 [1] provides the design basis for C-SMFs. C-SMFs are
expected to develop their seismic performance through inelastic deformations in the C-SMF beams, or
column bases, and limited yielding in the column panel zones. The beam-to-column connections are
required to: (i) satisfy the story drift angle requirement of 0.04 radians, (ii) develop at least 80% of the
expected plastic moment capacity of the beam at 0.04 radians drift, and (iii) develop shear strength
calculated using Equation 1 (AISC-341 Equation G3-3):

1.1M p,exp 
E  2  (1)
 Lh 

where M p, exp is the expected plastic moment capacity of the beam, and Lh is the distance between the
plastic hinge locations in the beam.
The AISC Seismic Provisions require the beam-to-column connection in a composite moment frame
to engage both the steel and concrete portions of the column to transfer the loads effectively during a
seismic event. This can be achieved through direct bearing from internal bearing mechanisms, shear
connections, shear friction, or a combination of these means [3].

3 EXPERIMENTAL DATA
AISC Seismic Provisions requires fully restrained (FR) connections to be used in C-SMF systems. FR
connections have the capacity to deform elastically as the structure deflects and story drift increases. This
deformation allows for redistribution of the moment from the beam to the column as a plastic hinge forms
in the C-SMF beams. The split-tee connection and through beam-connection are example of FR
connections.
The experimental data presented by Peng [3] and summarized by Ricles et al. [7] shows the split-tee
connections exhibit ductile behavior under cyclic loading. Relative rotation between beam and column is
calculated as the sum of: (1) beam rotation, (2) column rotation (3) panel zone shear deformation, and (4)
connection deformation. For all-bolted split-tee beam-to-column connections, the relative rotation is
increased due to slip between the split-tee and WF beam flange and the flexibility of the split-tee itself.
The relative rotation for split-tee connections can be reduced by welding the T-stub to the WF beam,
eliminating the slip between the split-tee connection and WF beam flange. This detail will also eliminate
 Erica C. Fischer, Zhichao Lai and Amit H. Varma

pinching in the hysteresis response behavior observed in all-bolted split-tee beam-to-column connections
due to the elongation of bolt holes during large story drifts [7].
Through bolts and shear studs are used in split-tee connections to engage both steel and concrete
portions of the CFT column in a C-SMF. This allows for a concrete compression strut to form in the
panel zone of the CFT column with minimal yielding of the steel tube. This was observed in the tests
performed by Peng [3].
The experimental data presented by Schneider and Alostaz [4] and further investigated by Elremaily
[5] shows the through-beam connection (as shown in Figure 1) exhibit excellent ductile behavior. The
panel zone shear strength contributed from three parts: shear yielding of the beam web, shear yielding of
the steel tube wall, and compression strut of concrete core within the panel zone.

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Example of the (a) all-bolted split-tee connection and (b) through-beam connection.

3.1 SPLIT-TEE CONNECTIONS

The tests performed by Peng [3] included a number of configurations for WF beam-to-rectangular
CFT column connections. These also included the all-bolted and bolted-welded split-tee connections. The
square CFT columns were 12ft long, 16in×16in steel tube columns with 8ksi concrete infill. The W24x62
beams were 10ft long. The specimens were designed as weak beam, or weak panel zone, or weak
connection specimens. Gravity loading (axial compression) was applied to the column first. It was
followed by cyclic lateral loading in accordance with ATC-24 (ATC, 1992) provisions; consisting of six
elastic loading cycles, followed by inelastic displacement (or drift) cycles with increasing amplitude.
Lateral bracing prevented out-of-plane movement of the connection region during the experiments.
Specimens 1, 2, 3, 3R, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were weak beam tests that formed plastic hinges in the beams
outside of the connection regions. The maximum flexural resistance, Mmax, at the connections for the
weak beam specimens ranged from 1.18Mp,meas for Specimen 2 to 1.56Mp,meas for Specimen 7.
Specimens 4-7 used split-tee moment connections. Specimen 4 had pinched hysteresis loops due to
the slip between the split-tee and the WF beam top flange. Specimens 5, 6 and 7 used a welded washer
detail to prevent this behavior. Specimen 5 was an all-bolted split-tee connection without a shear-tab. It
did not have bolt-hole elongation during cyclic testing, and therefore no pinching of the hysteresis loops.
Specimens 6 and 7, which were bolted-welded split-tee beam-to-column connections also showed the
formation of plastic hinges in the beams. These plastic hinges included inelastic local buckling of the
beam web and flanges with increasing inelastic deformations (story drifts). Flange local buckling
extended into the split-tee stem eventually with increasing story drifts. At story drift angle of 0.05 rad,
two cracks were observed in the specimen: (1) a crack in the beam top flange at approximately 1.5in from
the edge of the split-tee stem, and (2) a crack in the beam bottom flange approximately 2in from the edge
 Erica C. Fischer, Zhichao Lai and Amit H. Varma

of the split-tee stem. Specimens 4 through 7 all showed local yielding at the base of the split-tee stem
during inelastic deformation cycles.
There was limited panel zone shear yielding observed in the split-tee connection specimens
(Specimens 4 through 7). Since the through bolts connecting the split-tee to the CFT column were
pretensioned, limited prying action of the split-tees was observed during the test.
Figure 2 (a) shows the story drift angles corresponding to the maximum load as well as 0.8Mp (post-
peak) for all the tested specimens. As shown, except for Specimens 1, 1R, and 2R, all other specimens
met the AISC Seismic Provisions requirements for composite intermediate moment frames (C-IMFs) by
having story drift angles exceeding 0.02 rad at 0.8Mp. Additionally, Specimens 4, 5, 6, and 7 met the
AISC Seismic Provisions requirements for C-SMFs by having story drift angles exceeding 0.04 rad at
0.8Mp. The full-scale tests demonstrated that split-tee moment connections could develop the expected
plastic moment capacity, Mp,exp, of the beams, and accommodate story drift angles exceeding 0.04 rad
while maintaining (post-peak) flexural resistance at 0.8Mp.
0.2

0.18
Connection story Drift Angle [rad]

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
I IA II III VI VII
Specimen Number

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Summary of Story Drift angle for Connections Tested for (a) split-tee connection [3] and (b) through beam-
connection.

3.2 THROUGH-BEAM CONNECTIONS

Schneider and Alostaz [4] tested a series of six beam-to-column connections for a W14x38 beam to
14in. diameter CFT column with 1/4in. wall thickness. The purpose of these tests was to examine the
behavior of beam-to-column connections when a plastic hinge forms in the girder outside of the
connection region. Failure of the specimen was characterized as the connection’s inability to resist the
imposed girder deformations. Connection Type VII, a beam uninterrupted connection (i.e., through-beam
connection), had a flexural strength exceeding 1.3Mp. The connection strength began to degrade at about
4% rotation of the girder, however maintained at least 1.0Mp until 12% rotation of the girder. The failure
of this connection was controlled by plastic hinging in the girder.
Connection Types I, IA and VI were beam interrupted connections that examined the effect of
continuing either the web or flange of the girder through the column. Flanges in type I were connected
directly to the tube wall using fillet welding. Slots were fabricated in the CFT column to allow for the
web to be continuous in connection Type IA, and the flange in connection Type VI. The strength of
connection Type I deteriorated at 1% connection rotation due to fracture of the flange. The strength of
connection Type IA deteriorated at 1.25% connection rotation due to fracture of the CFT column wall.
Connection Type VI exhibited a pinched hysteretic response behavior also due to damage of the CFT
column wall.
Connection Type II were beam interrupted connection that used exterior diaphragm to connect the
flanges and web of the beam. This type of connection failed at 1% rotation due to the fracture in the
tension diaphragm.
 Erica C. Fischer, Zhichao Lai and Amit H. Varma

Connection Type III used four deformed bars welded to the inside walls of the CFT column. At a
rotation of 5%, the welds for three out of four of the deformed bars ruptured. There was pull-out failure
of the fourth bar from the concrete core of the CFT column.
The beam-to-column tests performed by Schneider and Alostaz [4] for WF beams to circular CFT
columns indicate beam uninterrupted connections (i.e., through-beam connections) had the best inelastic
response. Elremaily [5] further investigated the performance of through-beam connections with different
details. The test results showed that that: (i) specimens with column-to-beam flexural strength ratio
(Mc/Mp) of 1.5 and full penetration welding performed favorably well; (ii) specimens with column-to-
beam flexural strength ratio (Mc/Mp) of 2.0 and fillet welding also performed favorably well; and (iii) the
panel zone shear strength contributed from three parts: shear yielding of the beam web, shear yielding of
the steel tube wall, and compression strut of concrete core within the panel zone.

4 DESIGN OF CONNECTIONS FOR C-SMF SECTIONS

4.1 Split-tee connection

Section G3 of the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2010a) states that the basis of design for C-SMFs
is that the frame will provide significant inelastic deformation capacity through flexural yielding of the C-
SMF beams and limited yielding of the column panel zone. Flexural yielding of the column bases is
permitted. The split-tee design example presented in this section assumes that plastic hinges form in the
WF beams outside of the protected connection zone. The failure modes of split-tee connections are listed
below in order, from most ductile to least ductile.
1. Plastic hinge formation in beam
2. Stem yielding of split-tee
3. Flange yielding of split-tee due to prying action
4. Panel zone failure of column
5. Bolt fracture in split-tee due to prying action of split-tee flange

A comprehensive design example for split-tee connections used in S-CMF construction is presented in
[8]. For brevity, the basic principles of this design example were presented here.
4.2 Through-beam connection
The through-beam design example presented in this section assumes that plastic hinges form in the
WF beams outside of the protected connection zone. The failure modes of through-beam connections are
listed below in order, from most ductile to least ductile.
1. Plastic hinge formation in beam
2. Plastic hinge formation in the column
3. Panel zone failure of column
The through The following example presents the design procedure for through-beam connections as
shown in Figure 1(b). This connection is designed and detailed to resist the expected shear force due to
the expected plastic moment capacity of the beam and the gravity loads. The connection is also designed
and detailed so that the governing failure modes occur in the order 1-3 listed above from most ductile
(desirable) to least ductile. Figures 3 provide a step-by-step approach for designing this connection. In
this example, the beams are W24×192 wide flanged sections that are 30ft in length (Fy = 50ksi, Fu =
65ksi, Ry = 1.1), and the CFT column is made from HSS28×1.5 (Fy = 50ksi, Fu = 65ksi,) and filled with
normal weight 4 ksi concrete (f’c = 4ksi). The ratio (P0/Pn) of the applied axial load (P0) to the nominal
axial compressive strength (Pn) is 0.19. The gravity loads considered on the beam are 0.84kip/ft
distributed dead load (wD) and 0.60kip/ft distributed live load (wL).
 Erica C. Fischer, Zhichao Lai and Amit H. Varma

START

Step1: Calculate Moment Capacity of the Beam(Mp,exp)

ASSUME PLASTIC HINGE IS LOCATED AT END OF
CONNECTION. USE A FACTOR OF 1.1 TO ACCOUNT CHECK PANEL ZONE
FOR STRAIN HARDENING AND AN Ry FACTOR TO STRENGTH
ACCOUNT FOR MATERIAL OVERSTRESSING.
Mp = FyZx = 27960 kips-in SEE Figure 3(b) FOR
= 33169 kips-in PROCEDURE
Mp is plastic moment capacity of beam, and Ry = 1.2 for ASTM
A529 Gr.50 steel.

Step 2: Calculate the Moment Capacity of the

CFT Column(Mc) Step 3: Check Moment Ratio of the
USE STRAIN COMPATIBILITY METHOD OR Column and Beam
PLASTIC STRESS DISTRIBUTION METHOD (per for full penetration welding
AISC 360-10 SectionI3.4b)
(Or for fillet welding)
Mc = 56573 kip-in

(a)

START
CHECK PANEL
ZONE STRENGTH
CALCULATE SHEAR FORCE IN BEAM

= 184.3 kips
where is the distance between the plastic
hinge of the beam
CALCULATE PANEL ZONE SHEAR CAPACITY

= 2516 kips
CALCULATE SHEAR FORCE IN
COLUMN where is the nominal shear strength of the beam web,
steel tube and concrete infill within the panel zone.
+ Vg = 626.7 kips = 680.4 kips
where L and H is the length of the beam and = 1792.2 kips
column, respectively
= 936.6 kips
where:
and is the yield stress of the beam web and steel
CALCULATE REQUIRED PANEL tube, respectively
ZONE SHEAR is the compressive strength of the concrete
and is the thickness of the beam web and steel tube,
= 2272.6 kips respectively
where is the depth of the beam is the diameter of the steel tube

(b)

Figure 3. Step-by-step approach for designing through-beam connection.

5 CONCLUSION
The experimental programs conducted by Schneider and Alostaz (1998), Peng (2001), and Elremaily
(2001) tested beam-to-column connections for C-SMFs. The experiments performed by Schneider and
Alostaz (1998), and by Elremaily (2001) and the tests conducted by Peng (2001) showed through-beam
connections and split-tee connections satisfy the requirements of the AISC Seismic Provisions for beam-
to-column conections in C-SMFs. The AISC Seismic Provisions do not provide examples of moment
connections for C-SMF construction. The engineer of record is required to create a “Prequalified Record”
for the designed connection. This paper highlights many of the required sections for the “Prequalied
Record” outlined in K1.6 of the AISC Seismic Provisions.
The design of through-beam connections should account for the potential failure modes of the
connection and organize them in a hierachal order from most ductile (desirable) to least: (i) plastic hinge
formation in the beam, (ii) plastic hinge formation in the column, and (iii) panel zone failure of column.
A similar hierachal order is outlined for the split-tee connection as: (i) plastic hinge formation in beam,
(ii) stem yielding of split-tee, (iii) flange yielding of split-tee due to prying action, (iv) panel zone failure
of column, and (v) bolt fracture in split-tee due to prying action of split-tee flange. Both connections are
 Erica C. Fischer, Zhichao Lai and Amit H. Varma

designed and detailed such that plastic hinge formation in the beams of the C-SMF frame is the most
desirable failure mechanism.

REFERENCES
[1] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-10. Chicago, IL: 2010.
[2] AISC. Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic
Applications, ANSI/AISC 358-10. Chicago, IL: 2010.
[3] Peng SW. Seismic resistant connection for concrete-filled tube column-to-WF beam moment
resisting frames [Dissertation]. Lehigh University, 2001.
[4] Schneider SP, Alostaz YM. Experimental behavior of connections to concrete-filled steel tubes. J
Constr Steel Res 1998;45:321–52.
[5] Elremaily A, Azizinamini A. Experimental behavior of steel beam to CFT column connections. J
Constr Steel Res 2001;57:1099–119.
[6] Lai Z, Varma AH, Zhang K. Noncompact and slender rectangular CFT members: experimental
database, analysis, and design. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:455–68.
[7] Ricles JM, Peng SW, Lu LW. Seismic behavior of composite concrete filled steel tube Ccolumn-
wide flange beam moment connections. J Struct Eng 2004;130:223–32.
[8] Fischer, E.C., Varma, A.H. Design of split-tee connections for special composite moment frames.
Engineering Journal 2015.

View publication stats