This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Adeeb Rahman1, Mustafa Mahamid2, Al Ghorbanpoor3, and Akef Amro4 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Mechanics College of Engineering and Applied Science, P. O. Box 784. Milwaukee, WI 53201 1 Assistant Professor, adeeb@uwm,edu, 2PhD Candidate, 3Professor, 4Structural Engineer. ABSTRACT This paper introduces the findings of the experimental investigation and presents 3D nonlinear FE mode capable of predicting the behavior and validating the failure modes of an extended shear tab steel connection. Design recommendation of such connections will be made to the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) to be implemented in the design codes. The extended shear tab connection does not require coping of the beam flanges and part of the web, which makes the fabrication of the beams and the erection of the overall connection much easier and more economical. The use of the new connection eliminates the failure limit states such as beam lateral torsional buckling, beam local web buckling, and beam block shear associated with the coping process. Extensive experimental work was conducted to investigate the behavior and document the failure modes of these connections. The FE model presents a viable procedure to effectively account for contact behavior and bolt tensioning mechanism. The models are analyzed through failure for each configuration. The model is capable to predict the failure modes of deeper connections up to 12 bolts, which is beyond the scope of the completed experimental investigation. Evidence from experiments and finite element results of the extended shear tab connection presents new failure limit states such as column web mechanism and plate twist failure that are not recognized as failure limit states in the standard shear tab design procedures. Design equations are developed to predict the failure of the connections due to these failure modes. FE results for deflections, stresses, and strains in the plastic region were within 10% accuracy. More importantly, the failure modes observed in the experiments were accurately predicted in the FE model documenting plate twisting, column web failure and bolt shear for the corresponding geometries and loading. Keywords: Finite Element, Shear tab, Steel Connections, Failure Modes. INTRODUCTION The design and behavior of steel connections is very important in steel design. The current practice uses steel plates and angles to frame beams into columns’ flanges or webs. This practice requires coping of the flanges of beams in the vicinity of the joint to frame the beam close to the web of the column. The extended shear tab concept is designed to transfer the forces to the
The web mechanism failure mode is due to the punching of the shear tab into the web of the column. Strain gauges labeled 101. Surface to surface. well-defined finite element model to evaluate and predict failure modes of the extended shear tab connections. LVDT’s were placed on the top of the beam to measure the deflection. These elements are: 3-D solid elements. The model was build using ANSYS commercial code. separated by a pre-tension section. 102. Connections that are considered include W12x87 beam framed into W8x31 column using unstiffened extended shear tab. Four elements are used in the modeling of beams. the beam’s web is in contact with the shear tab. 103. there is contact also between the bolts and both the shear tab’s holes and the beam’s web holes. The extended shear tab connections are tested and modeled and their failure modes are compared to the limit states provided by the AISC manual. FEA divides the bolt into two parts. 104. Several devices were used to monitor the behavior of the structure. which consists of pre-tensioning elements. columns (or girders). load cells were used for beam loading. Strain gauges labeled 107. The connection failed primarily in web mechanism mode with bolt shear as secondary failure mode. 108. 109 and 110 were placed on the plate with the addition of a mounted rosette to monitor the load transfer from the plate to the column. Several failure modes were observed in the experiment and in the finite element model. Friction plays a main role in transferring forces between the surfaces and only contact can count for friction. This research introduces new limit states that should be considered in the design of extended shear tab connections. contact elements and pre-tensioning elements. plates and bolts. and to develop design procedures for shear tab plate connections that could lead to significant time and cost savings in the construction. 105 and 106 were mounted on the top and bottom flange of the beam in order to calculate the load eccentricity. Many cases of these connections were tested in the laboratory to help find their failure limit states. The dimensions for this experiment are shown in Figure 1.supporting member without the need for coping. A pre-tension force must be applied on this section to create the pre-tensioning force in the bolt. Finally. flexible-to-flexible contact type is used between steel surfaces 2 . EXPERIMENTAL WORK & MODELING Experiment 3U (3-bolted unstiffened). Locations of strain gauges and LVDT’s on the beam and the shear tab are shown in Figures 1. In this structure. 2 and 3. The bolts are fully tightened to a plate with slotted holes. The shear tab is welded to the web of the column and connected to the beam by three A325-X bolts. This research aims to develop an accurate. A mechanism of high plastic strains developed in the web.
with properties shown in Figures 5.30 is used according to the AISC Manual . A coefficient of friction equal to 0. and the beam and the column have a steel grade of 50 Ksi. 3-D FE Model for Model 3U The shear tab has a steel grade of 36 Ksi. Structure Setup and strain gauge locations on the beam for Model 3U Figure 2. bolts and the column’s web. 6. Stress-Strain Curve: Tests were made to obtain the stress-strain curve of the plate.Figure 1. bolts are A325-X. 3 . Several factors and coefficients should be defined in order to analyze this structure: Coefficient of friction: this factor indicates the roughness of the surfaces. LVDT’s Locations Material Properties Figure 4. Structure Setup and strain gauge locations on the shear tab for Model 3U Figure 3. For models 3U three materials are defined. and 7.
000 15.000 25.00600 0.00300 0.00000 0.000 0.000 35.007000 Strain (in/in) Figure 6: Stress-strain curve for the shear 4 .006000 0.00100 0.000 20.000 0.002000 0.000 40.001000 0.00500 0.000000 0.000 0.000 5.000 Stress (ksi) 30.00700 0.000 10.000 45.00800 Strain (in/in) Figure 5: Stress-Strain Curve for Beams web Stress-Strain Curve for Shear Tab 50.005000 0.000 20.004000 0.Stress-Strain Curve for Column Web Stress (ksi) 60.00200 0.000 10.000 40.00400 0.000 50.000 0.003000 0.000 Stress (ksi) 30.
2. 5 . it is modeled as a rigid connection (welded connection) by merging the shared nodes at the boundary between the column and plate. The FEA of model 3U produces results very close to the experimental results for all outputs except the twist in the beam. and the beam edge is restrained in both vertical and lateral directions since beam weight and friction with the roller are acting against any displacement in the lateral direction. Contacts also serve as boundary conditions in the connection vicinity.014 Strain (in/in) Series1 Figure 7: Stress-Strain Curve for Bolts Boundary Conditions and Load In the experiment.012 0. Torque applied to tighten the bolts. Welding between the extended shear tab and the column has to be well defined. RESULTS Comparison between FEA and experimental results shows that the difference is within 15%. An accurate boundary condition is prescribed in the model to represent the experimental setup.01 0. Since the welding in the experiment was not a critical issue.004 0. and the beam is supported on a roller at the far end-point from the connection.002 0. the column is fixed to the wall. The maximum difference is 17% for model 3U.008 0. Comparison between FEA and experiment is shown in Figures 8. The loading in the experiments was applied as follows: 1. Four nodes on the column at the same location as the experiment are restrained in all degrees of freedom. This value is taken from AISC manual .Stress Strain Curve for A325 Bolt 160 140 120 Stress (ksi) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. represented by applying 30 kips pre-tensioning force for each bolt. The beam’s load is applied through load cells placed on the beam as shown in Figure 1.006 0.
which is a device that measures three strains.50E-01 -4. For model 3U.00E-04 9.00E-04 Principal Strain Figure 9: Load-Principle Strain Curve in the shear tab for Model 3U Analyzing the structure shows a behavior similar to that of the experiment.00E+00 Load (kip) Experimental FEM -5. The experiment cannot give good results at this load level because the structure is re-configuring itself to accommodate the initial load applications.00E+00 Experimental FEM 1.00E-04 4. The primary failure modes for the connection are web mechanism and bolt shear.50E-01 -2.4 kip.50E-01 -3.Load Vs Deflection 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00E-04 6.00E-01 -3. Comparison between FEA and experiment 3U is shown in Figures 9.00E-01 -1. with twist being a secondary failure mode.00E-02 -1.00E-01 -2. where the 21% difference is at initial loading of 5.00E-01 -4. Load Vs Principal Strain 80 70 60 Load (kip) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0. the difference is between 2% and 21%.00E-01 Deflection (in) Figure 8: Load-Deflection curve for the beam for model 3U Principal strain in the shear tab was measured using a rosette. These strains are combined together in an equation to find the principal strain.50E-01 -5. The importance of the rosette lies in its ability to show the transfer of forces from the beam to the connection.00E-04 3.00E-04 7.00E-04 5.00E-04 2. The web mechanism failure mode is described by punching of the shear tab into the 6 .00E-04 8.
The FE value agrees with the eccentricity values calculated by the AISC manual. and the experimental setup. many advantages can be achieved such as tremendous savings in time and cost. Sources of errors can be related to both FEA. Experiment Failure CONCLUSION In the elastic and plastic ranges the FE model is well constructed and seems to be very adequate in producing results that are in good agreement with the experimental results. An even stronger correlation is observed when comparing the results in the computation of the rosette principal strains. Clearly this work demonstrates that if a proper FE model is constructed as presented in the research. the comparison between the computational analysis and the experiments is better than expected. Web mechanism and twist failure modes from both experiment and finite element analysis are shown in Figures 10 and 11. Considering the fact that many potential sources of errors are present. Accurate description of the material properties of steel grades is used. The results obtained from the FEA for the load-deflection curves of the beam are within 17%.column web and by developing of high stress at the top and bottom of the shear tab at the points of connectivity to the column web. The attention given to the level and location of mesh refinement is adequate and contributed to the good agreement of the results obtained. FE Failure Figure 11. Figure 10. Special attention is given to the description of the boundary conditions to simulate the experimental setup. Confidence in the FE model is a result of the excellent level of detailing done to accurately reproduce the actual geometry of all the structural components as prescribed by the experimental setup and the AISC specification. The FE model gives flexibility to model different geometries and setups under a variety of loading 7 . compared to the experimental results for the 3U model.
conditions.E.. “Testing and design of extended shear tabs report. 2. 2. Vol. A. version 6. Chicago. ANSYS theory manual. 2002. October 2001 8. 2000.L. American Institute of Steel Construction. version 5.” December 2001. No. REFERENCES 1. 1978. 1998. M. 1965. 1(1-5). 1st Qtr. Dally.” AISC Engineering Journal. Lie and Dai. AISC. 6. 127. “Bending Under Seated Connections. ANSYS user manual.. Sherman and Al Ghorbanpoor. Chiew. Chicago. 7. Second edition. 2001.AISC. “Moment Resistance of Steel I-Beam to CFT Column Connections” Journal of Structural Engineering. ANSYS training manual. IL. 3.1. IL. “Experimental Stress Analysis. James W. 5. and Warner. Abolitz.” Second Edition. 4.6. 8 . Vol. 10. No. The FEA provides a full field of results that enables the investigator to view results at any location with ease. Manual of steel Construction LRFD Vol I & II.