Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Bolted and bonded FRP beam-column joints with semi-rigid end conditions
Jawed Qureshi a,⇑, Yashida Nadir b, Shaise K John b
a
School of Architecture, Computing and Engineering (ACE), University of East London, 4-6 University Way, Beckton London E16 2RD, United Kingdom
b
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram 695016, Kerala, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Presented are test results from eight full‐scale pultruded FRP beam‐to‐column joint subassemblies. Moment‐
Semi‐rigid action rotation behaviour, failure modes, joint classification and load enhancement due to semi‐rigid end conditions
FRP profiles are discussed. Testing is divided in two series: first had FRP beam‐to‐steel column joints and second FRP beam‐
Beam‐to‐column joints to‐FRP column joints. The joints are either flange and web cleated or flange cleated only. The connection
FRP composite structures
method is bolting or ‘hybrid’ combining both bolting and bonding. Test parameters include effects of adhesive
Adhesive bonding
Hybrid joints
bonding, column flexibility, cleat material and joint configuration. Bolted and bonded joints not only increased
moment resistance but stiffness as well. Using steel cleats instead of FRP resulted in a 50% increase in the
moment resistance. Four failure modes, shear‐out failure, adhesive debonding with shear‐out failure, tensile
tearing of the column flanges from the web and delamination cracking of cleats were observed. All joints were
classified as semi‐rigid. This semi‐rigid action was used to increase the beam’s load carrying capacity. For a
span‐to‐depth ratio of 20, the increase in load was 50% for the bolted case and 70% for the bolted and bonded
joints. This increase provides a design flexibility to designers, who are restricted by limited off‐the‐shelf FRP
section sizes.

1. Introduction continuous filament mats and unidirectional fibre rovings. The

Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composite materials have been
used in buildings and bridges for last three decades. They offer various
desirable properties for civil engineering structures. Chemical and cor-
rosion resistance, insulation, lightweight, formability, expected dura-
bility over entire life‐cycle and speed of construction are the main
advantages of FRP. In buildings, FRP profiles are suitable in corrosive
and chemically ingressive environments. The applications include,
wastewater treatment plants, indoor swimming pools, cooling towers,
and food and chemical processing plants. In bridges, pultruded FRP
sections are used for pedestrian bridges and bridge decks [1–6]. Due
to fast deployability, FRP profiles have also been popular for railway
platforms in the UK.
Pultrusion is the cheapest way to produce standard FRP profiles for
structural use [1]. Standard pultruded FRP profiles resemble their steel
counterparts. Complex shapes can be assembled through adhesive
bonding to produce FRP bridge decks [2]. FRP composite materials
consist of high‐strength fibres embedded in a thermoset resin matrix
[7]. Carbon and E‐glass fibres in polyester or vinylester resin‐based
matrix are most commonly used in structural engineering applications.
Typical pultruded FRP profiles consist of two E‐glass reinforcements of
strength and stiffness in longitudinal direction is provided by the uni-
directional rovings and in transverse direction by the continuous fila-
ment mat [8]. Tensile strength of pultruded FRP material in the
longitudinal direction is in the range of 200–300 MPa with modulus
of elasticity of 20–30 GPa. The material properties in the transverse
direction are about one third of its longitudinal value. The mass of
FRP shapes is 25% of steel counterparts [4–6,9–11].
Mechanical fastening or bolting and adhesive bonding are gener-
ally used to connect FRP members. Bolted joints provide the most com-
mon connection method in FRP structures [12]. While bolting provides
a demountable joint for recycling and reuse, stress concentrations can
exist due to discontinuity of fibres at bolt holes leading to moisture
penetration in members [13]. Manufacturers [4–6] suggest using
either bolted or combined bolted and bonded joints for primary
load‐bearing structures. Although less common, adhesively bonded
joints utilise the maximum strength and stiffness of FRP material with-
out disturbing fibres [12]. However, bonded joints fail suddenly and
are adversely affected by environmental factors, such as, humidity
and high temperature. Bonded only joints are usually discouraged by
manufacturers [4–6] in critical structural components. It is possible
to have a “hybrid” joint that combines both bolting and bonding.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: J.Qureshi@uel.ac.uk (J. Qureshi), yashidanadir@cet.ac.in (Y. Nadir).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112500
Received 19 December 2019; Revised 12 May 2020; Accepted 15 May 2020
Available online 20 May 2020
0263-8223/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Qureshi et al.
Combining two joining methods may be unnecessary [14] as the load
is mainly taken by adhesive due to stiff load path. Yet, the hybrid joint
is used as a safeguard against defects in the adhesive layer and sudden
failure of the bonded joint. This provides a fail‐safe mechanism, just in
case if one joining method fails other takes over [15]. There are sce-
narios where combined bolting and bonding can be very useful
[15–17]:
• Hybrid joints are very effective in resisting load from various direc-
tions. Adhesive is good at resisting shear loads, while direct tension
and transverse loads can best be taken by bolts.
• Bolts may enable the joint to resist fire exposure.
• Bolting can help in long‐term performance of bonded joints.
• Use of adhesive in bolted joints can increase fatigue life perfor-
mance of joints.
Moreover, fabrication cost is increased by combining bolting and
bonding. Any benefits of using combined joints must be carefully eval-
uated against extra cost of fabrication. Hybrid joints may not be appro-
priate in following situations:
• In high temperature service environments, the adhesive will soften
leading to reduced joint stiffness.
• In situations where electrical continuity is required, such as process
plants.
Frames are classified into simple and moment frames. Joints in sim-
ple frames are assumed to be nominally pinned and in moment frames
fully rigid. Web‐cleated connections represent simple joints, and flange
and web cleated connections produce moment joints. Stability in sim-
ple frames is achieved via bracing between beams and columns. The
joints only take shear forces from connected members in simple
frames. Simple joints normally allow rotations at the ends. Due to this,
no moment is transferred to the joints from the connected members.
Contrarily, moment frames transfer both shear and moment from the
member to the joint. Stability is derived from fixity by rigid or moment
joints between beams and column. It means, in theory, no rotation
should take place at the joint. However, in practice, all joints exhibit
some form of moment and rotation resulting in a semi‐rigid behaviour.
The aim of this paper is to utilise this semi‐rigidity to offer design flex-
ibility to structural designers.
Despite being identical in shape with steel sections, design of pul-
truded FRP members is controlled by the deflections rather than the
strength. In modern structural design, ultimate and serviceability limit
states should be satisfied for reliable performance of a structure. While
martial strength of FRP is comparable with steel, it does have a draw-
back of low stiffness with elastic modulus (20–30 GPa) 10 times lower
than steel (210 GPa). This means design of FRP sections is often con-
trolled by serviceability or deflection limit instead of ultimate strength
limit. Normally, this is not a big issue in steel design as next larger sec-
tion is chosen when deflection limit is not satisfied. It limits the design
flexibility in FRP structures as the range of FRP beam sizes is currently
very small (100, 150, 200, 250, 300 mm deep beams [4–6]). As FRP
beams are generally designed with simply supported end conditions,
this leads to higher midspan deflections requiring larger sections.
Because the range of FRP sections is limited, the alternative solution
will be to use semi‐rigid end connections. Semi‐rigid action has shown
in the past by Turvey [18] to reduce mid‐span deflections and increase
load carrying capacity. One main objective of this research is to exploit
the semi‐rigid end joint to minimise deflections and enhance loading
capacity.
Previous research on pultruded beam‐to‐column joints [11,19–26]
has mainly focussed on joints with FRP cleats. However, in practice,
many fabricators use steel cleats instead of FRP cleats in bolted joints.
This is due to inability of FRP cleats to resist prying deformation gen-
erated from applied moments. Generally, FRP cleats have fibre
2
Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500
architecture that is prone to delamination cracking which makes them
unsuitable for practical use. Moreover, there is also lack of evidence to
suggest that FRP cleats would not experience any delamination dam-
age during service life [9]. This damage can be detrimental to the
durability of FRP structures, especially in chemically ingressive envi-
ronments. The main reason for use of steel with FRP members is lack
of understanding about durability performance of FRP cleats. Some
researchers [27,28] used multi‐bolted pultruded FRP plates instead
of leg‐angles for beam‐to‐column joints. Joints between tubular FRP
profiles were investigated in papers [29–31]. Recently, the effect of
adhesive bonding is studied by Razaqpur and his associates
[13,32,33]. Limited research exists on pultruded joints with steel
cleats. Only a few research papers have been published on FRP joints
with steel cleats, including research by Mottram and Zheng [23],
Turvey [34], Qureshi and Mottram [9,10]. The current design guideli-
nes in pultruders’ manuals [4–6] and ASCE pre‐standard for pultruded
FRP structures [35] make no distinction between behaviour of FRP
and steel cleated joints. More research is needed to quantify the prop-
erties of FRP joints with steel cleats.
Mottram and Zheng [23] were the first to conduct physical testing
on pultruded FRP joints with steel flange cleats. They used
203 × 203 × 9.53 mm FRP member with top and seat flange cleats
cut from 100 × 100 × 8 mm steel angles. To prevent outward flexural
deformation of column, 20 mm dia. steel rods were used to connect
opposite column flanges with steel cleats. The authors suggested using
either steel cleats or composite cleats with different shape, fibre archi-
tecture and manufacturing process. However, the connection details
were not adopted in practice. Instead of FRP column, Turvey’s [34]
joint consisted of FRP beam connected to stiff steel support with steel
angles. The steel support eliminated the flexibility of the column
flanges. The author used 102 × 102 × 6.4 mm FRP beam with
100 × 100 × 6 mm stainless steel cleats. Three joint details with
web, flange and web, and flange cleats were tested. As much as 80%
increase in the initial rotational stiffness was observed by using steel
cleats in place of FRP cleats. The moment capacity of steel and FRP
cleats was not discussed.
More recently, Qureshi and Mottram [9] tested joints with FRP
members and steel web cleats. Two‐ and three‐bolted joint details with
254 × 254 × 9.53 mm FRP profiles and 100 × 100 × 10 mm steel
web angles were used. Specimen repetition and no clearance hole were
the main contributions of this research. Compared with companion
joints with FRP cleats in Qureshi and Mottram [11], the joints with
steel cleats in [9] showed rotational stiffness and moment capacity
three and two times more, respectively. In another study, Qureshi
and Mottram [10] found the joints with steel cleats to be stiffer and
stronger than FRP cleated joints. Establishing the serviceability deflec-
tion limits for pultruded FRP joints with either steel or FRP cleats was
the primary objective of this research. FRP members consisted of
203 × 203 × 9.53 mm profiles with steel cleats as
75 × 75 × 10 mm and FRP as 75 × 75 × 9.53 mm leg‐angles. The
mid‐span vertical deflection limit with steel cleats was span/650 and
for FRP cleats it was span/300; both limits were far less than the rec-
ommendations by manufacturers [4–6]. The rotational stiffness and
the moment capacity in steel cleated joints were double than the joints
with FRP cleats.
The primary aim of this research is to study the behaviour of pul-
truded FRP beam‐to‐column joints with steel or FRP cleats. Eight
full‐scale physical tests are carried out to investigate the effect of adhe-
sive bonding, column and cleat material, additional stiffener and joint
configuration. Testing includes flange and web cleated, and only
flange cleated joints using either bolting or bolting and adhesive bond-
ing combined. One test also has additional angle stiffeners bolted to
the column. The important joint properties are characterised,
moment‐rotation curves plotted, and failure patterns identified.
Joints are also classified according to their rotational stiffness as
pinned, semi‐rigid or rigid as per Eurocode 3 part 1–8 [36]. The
J. Qureshi et al. Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500

beneficial effect of semi‐rigid action is also quantified in terms of load

performance enhancement index.

2. Test configuration

The test configuration uses the stub column‐single cantilever beam

arrangement shown in Fig. 1(a). This joint sub‐assembly consists of a
vertical column, pinned at its base, and a horizontal beam connected
to the column flange. The pinned support comprises two metal plates
with a steel rod fixed to one of the plates. Two elastomeric pads are
sandwiched between the plates to allow rotation. A schematic diagram
of the pinned support is shown in Fig. 1(b). A photograph of stub
column‐cantilever beam sub‐assembly is given in Fig. 2. The hydraulic
jack is mechanically pinned to the steel holding frame, which is fixed
to the test frame, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The hydraulic jack itself is not
directly connected to the test frame. The piston end of hydraulic jack is
connected to the stiffened steel square hollow section (SHS) with a
bottom steel plate. To accommodate the height of the specimen, there
is another SHS section directly under the first SHS section. Both SHS
sections are welded together. The bottom plate of the SHS section
directly rests on top of the column. The hydraulic jack is used to apply
load to the column via steel SHS sections and plates. The load is mea-
sured via the load gauge in the pumping unit (not visible in Fig. 1 or
Fig. 2).
Testing is divided into two series. Members used in first series had
steel column and pultruded FRP beam. While in second series both col-
umn and beam were made up of pultruded FRP sections. Steel column
consisted of Indian Standard Wide Flange Beam (ISWB) 150@17 kg/
m. The depth (h) of this section was 150 mm and width (b) of the sec-
tion was 100 mm. The thicknesses of flange (tf) and web (tw) were
7 mm and 5.4 mm, respectively. Pultruded FRP beam and column used
the 150 × 100 × 10 mm profile. The column was 1200 mm high; and
the beam was 750 mm long. The height of column from bottom pinned
support to the centreline of beam was 600 mm. Steel and pultruded
FRP web and flange cleats were used to connect the beam section to
the column flange. This represented a major‐axis joint configuration.
The web and flange cleats were cut from an equal leg‐angle of size
50 × 50 × 6 mm. The steel grade for cleats and column was Fe410
with yield stress of 250 MPa and ultimate strength of 410 MPa.

2.1. Joint detailing

Design and detailing of joints conform to IS 800 [37] and

Eurocomp [38]. Table 1 presents the joint details and test parameters
for the first series and Table 2 for the second. Two common joint
details are used, flange angles (top and seat angles) and combination
of flange and web angles. Flange cleated connection contained two
bolts per cleat leg. Web cleated connection had a single row of three
bolts per cleat leg. FRP cleats had their unidirectional roving reinforce-
ment parallel to their length/height. Testing mainly uses bolting, in
some cases, both bolting and bonding is used. High strength steel bolts,
M12 (12 mm dia), grade 8.8 were employed for bolted joints. Bolt
shank was threaded along its length. Standard 25 mm by 3 mm thick
steel washers were used. Bolts were tightened to a torque of 30 Nm to
represent the snug‐tight condition using a formula given in [39]. Snug‐
tight bolts are defined in [40] as, “Bolts tensioned sufficiently to bring
into full contact the mating surfaces of the bolted parts.” There was no
Fig. 1. General test arrangement: (a) Schematic diagram of beam-to-column
clearance between the bolt and its hole.
joint sub-assembly; (b) Details of pinned support at column bottom; (c) Details
Epoxy adhesive was used for adhesive bonding. It consisted of a at top of the column.
standard epoxy resin AW 106 and hardener HV 953 U IN by
Araldite® mixed in 1:0.9 ratio, as recommended by the supplier.
The bonding surface was manually roughened using abrasive paper was then bolted, and the contact surfaces were ensured to have no cav-
(100 grit) and then cleaned using cleaning solvent to remove contam- ities. The epoxy in excess was wiped out. No changes in dimensions
inants resulting from cutting and grinding. The epoxy was applied to were incorporated to accommodate the bond‐line thickness. Testing
the contact surfaces and spread using a metal blade. The connection was carried out after 24 h of curing, as suggested by the supplier.
J. Qureshi et al. Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500

Delamination cracking at root radius of

FRP 50 × 50 × 6 mm
FRP 50 × 50 × 6 mm
SFFc1

cleats
No

No

Adhesive debonding and shear-out failure at

Fig. 2. General arrangement for stub column-cantilever beam sub-assembly.

2.2. Test rig and instrumentation

Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm

The testing rig consists of a steel frame with two hydraulic jacks.
beam’s bolted region
First hydraulic jack had a capacity of 50 tonne with a stroke of
150 mm. It was used to supply moment through vertical load at the
free end of the beam in the stub column‐single cantilever beam test
set up. This arrangement was cost‐effective compared with stub
SFStc1A

column‐double cantilever beam arrangement used in the past, as it

Yes

No
—

only uses a single cantilever beam. Second hydraulic jack with a capac-
ity of 25 tonne and a travel of 150 mm was used to apply axial load to
the column. A constant compressive load of 20% of the column’s axial
Shear-out failure at beam’s bolted

capacity was applied to the column before applying loading to the

beam. It was maintained throughout the testing. The axial capacity
does not include buckling effects. The aim of this compressive load
Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm

was to hold the column in position, ensure it verticality and prevent

column rotation. Columns in real‐life support gravity loads from beams
and slabs. Another reason for applying axial load to the column is to
replicate this real‐life scenario. Lightly compressing the column in this
way will not affect the moment‐rotation behaviour of the joint, as the
SFStc1

region

failure is likely to happen due to delamination cracking of cleats,

No

No
—

shear‐out failure of the beam’s bolted region and tensile tearing of col-
Adhesive debonding and shear-out failure at

umn flanges. These failure modes are unaffected by compressive stres-

ses generated in the column. Various studies in the past [41–44] have
employed similar testing arrangement for steel and reinforced concrete
exterior beam‐to‐column joint subassemblies subjected to monotonic
and cyclic loading. A percentage of compressive force less than 30%
First series joint configuration and detailing using steel column and FRP beam.

of the axial capacity of the column has shown very little effect on
Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm
Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm

the joint’s moment‐rotation behaviour in these papers.

beam’s bolted region

The joints are subjected to a moment by a vertical load applied

through a hanger assembly near the free end of the beam. The hanger
assembly contained a centrally placed ball bearing in a hemi‐spherical
SFSc1A

steel socket for ensuring vertical alignment of the load. The load is
Yes

applied at 700 mm from the centreline of the column leaving an over-

No

hang of 50 mm to the beam. The load cell had a capacity of 50 kN with

a load resolution of ±0.02 kN. The vertical deflection was measured at
the bottom flange of the loading point via a 100 mm displacement
Shear-out failure at beam’s bolted

transducer. It was recorded to a resolution of ±0.01 mm. The joint

rotation was worked out from the measured vertical deflection. The
Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm
Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm

centre of rotation was assumed to be at the column centre (at the cen-
tre of column web between two flanges). Joint rotation is equal to ver-
tical displacement at the load point near the free end divided by a fixed
horizontal distance of 700 mm between the load point and the column
centre. The resulting joint rotation in radians is then multiplied by
region
SFSc1

1000 to convert it into milli‐radians. Using this rotation measurement

No

No

approach may not be as precise as using an inclinometer. The error

percentage between rotations obtained from the inclinometer and
Flange cleat
detailing

bonding

stiffener

using a vertical transducer at the end, in papers by the first author

Additional
Web cleat

Adhesive

mode
Test Ref

Failure
Table 1

[9–11], is within 5% range. Therefore, the rotations worked out in this

Joint

study with a single vertical transducer are reliable enough, with up to

J. Qureshi et al.
Table 2
Second series joint configuration and detailing using FRP column and FRP beam.
Test Ref FFSc1 FFSc1A
Joint detailing
Web cleat Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm
Flange cleat Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm
Adhesive bonding No Yes
Additional stiffener No No
Failure mode Tensile tearing of column flanges from web Tensile tearing of column flanges from web
5% error margin. Any slip rotation due to bolt clearance hole was
neglected. Its effect is minimal as bolts were tight‐fitting. The column
did not rotate due to compressive load applied at its top.
First series used steel column and FRP beam and in second series
both column and beam were of FRP material. The reason for using
steel column in first series was to eliminate outward flexural deforma-
tion in column flange outstands, which happens when FRP column and
steel cleats are used. The joint moment produces this deformation in
column flanges, as the steel cleat material is stiffer than the FRP col-
umn. Companion tests in second series are performed with FRP col-
umn to study the effect of column flexural deformation. This local
deformation in column flange outstands can potentially have serious
consequences in practice, as many fabricators still use steel cleats
instead of FRP cleats in bolted joints. First series consisted of five tests:
steel flange and web angles bolted, steel flange and web angles bolted
and bonded, steel flange angles bolted, steel flange angles bolted and
bonded, and FRP flange and web angles bolted. Second series con-
tained columns and beams made up of FRP profiles. It had three tests:
steel flange and web angles bolted, steel flange and web angles bolted
and bonded, and steel flange and web angles bolted with additional
stiffener cleat bolted on the column side. First two tests in both series
were same except column material was steel in first series and FRP in
the second.
2.3. Joint configuration
In Tables 1 and 2 the test reference (e.g. SFSc1A) follows a four‐
letter format, a number and a letter. First two letters indicate the col-
umn and beam material; “S” for steel and “F” for FRP. Similarly, third
letter shows material for cleat. Fourth small letter denotes joint config-
uration; “c” for bolted joints with flange and web angles and “tc” for
bolted joints with flange angles only. The number indicates type of
loading; “1” for monotonic loading. The last letter “A”, used in some
specimens, shows adhesive bonding together with bolting, whereas
‘S’ in one specimen denotes additional stiffener (additional double
web angle bolted to the column’s web and flange).
3. Results and discussion
Monotonic beam‐to‐column joint tests are conducted with FRP
beam‐to‐steel column and FRP beam‐to‐FRP column joints with either
steel or FRP leg angles. Effects of cleat material, joint configuration,
column flexibility, adhesive and additional stiffener cleat are studied.
The essential joint properties are established from moment‐rotation
curves. Failure modes are identified, and joints are classified.
Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500
FFSc1S
Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm
Steel 50 × 50 × 6 mm
No
Yes
Tensile tearing of column flanges from web
Increase in load carrying capacity due to semi‐rigid end condition is
quantified.
3.1. Joint properties
Measured joint properties for all tests are presented in Table 3. Test
reference is given in column (1). Initial moment (Mi), initial rotation
(ϕi) and initial rotational stiffness (Si = Mi/ϕi) are given in columns
(2), (3) and (4), respectively. Initial joint properties correspond to lin-
ear elastic moment‐rotation response of a joint. Initial rotational stiff-
ness, Si, represents the slope of the linear elastic region of M‐ϕ curve.
Secant joint properties are defined at damage onset. Damage onset or
first failure is defined as a point on moment‐rotation curve when either
audible acoustic emissions were first heard or delamination cracking
in cleats was first seen. Delamination cracking only happened in the
specimen, SFFc1, where cleats were of FRP material. At this point,
the material damage was assumed to be enough to cause fibre expo-
sure. The damage onset/first failure properties are given by Mj, ϕj
and Sj (=Mj/ϕj) in columns (5), (6) and (7). Values of damage onset
are indicated by a solid circle symbol in moment‐rotation plots of
Figs. 7–15. Columns (8) and (9) show maximum moment Mmax and
corresponding rotation, ϕmax. The maximum rotation can also be ter-
med as the maximum rotation capacity of the moment‐rotation curve.
3.2. Failure modes
Four main failure modes were observed. These include shear‐out
failure (SFSc1 and SFStc1), adhesive debonding with shear‐out failure
(SFSc1A and SFStc1A), tensile tearing of the column flanges from the
web (FFSc1, FFSc1A and FFSc1S) and delamination cracking of cleats
(SFFc1). Specimens labels in brackets are used to identify which fail-
ure mode each test had. First failure mode was shear‐out failure of
the FRP beam’s bolted region in specimens, SFSc1 and SFStc1. This
happened in joints, where the steel column was bolted to the FRP
beam with steel leg angles. Second failure was due to adhesive
debonding and shear‐out failure of the beam’s bolted zone in speci-
mens SFSc1A and SFStc1A. This was accompanied by cracking at the
web‐flange junction of the FRP beam. This failure occurred in steel
cleated bonded and bolted joints with steel column and FRP beam.
Third failure mode was tensile tearing of the column flange from its
web in specimens FFSc1, FFSc1A and FFSc1S. It took place within
the web‐flange junction of the FRP column marked by outward flexu-
ral deformation of the flange at top flange cleats’ bolted zone. The fail-
ure happened when both column and beam were of PFRP material,
and steel cleats were used. Fourth failure was delamination cracking
J. Qureshi et al. Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500

Table 3
Joint properties for beam-to-column joint tests.

Test Ref Mi ϕi Si = Mi/ϕi Mj ϕj Sj = Mj/ϕj Mmax ϕmax

(1) (kN m) (mrad) (kN m/rad) (kN m) (mrad) (kN m/rad) (kN m) (mrad)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

SFSc1 2.50 20.0 125 4.60 27.1 170 6.30 47.1

SFSc1A 2.00 8.0 250 7.00 30.0 233 10.50 42.9
SFStc1 1.70 17.0 100 2.80 27.1 103 5.60 64.3
SFStc1A 2.20 22.0 100 6.30 47.1 134 9.10 64.3
SFFc1 0.65 3.8 171 2.80 30.0 93 4.20 42.9
FFSc1 1.72 21.0 82 1.75 21.4 82 3.50 51.4
FFSc1A 1.70 16.0 106 1.75 17.1 102 4.20 47.1
FFSc1S 1.40 17.1 82 1.40 17.1 82 6.30 64.3

Fig. 3. Shear-out failure mode in PFRP beam: (a) specimen SFSc1; (b) specimen SFStc1.

Fig. 4. Adhesive debonding and shear out failure mechanism in SFSc1A: (a) Cracking at the web-flange interface of the PFRP beam; (b) Adhesive debonding at the
flange cleat.

at root radius of FRP flange and web cleats. This happened in specimen
SFFc1, where FRP cleats were used.
The first failure mode in flange and web cleated joint, SFSc1 and
flange cleated joint, SFStc1 was due to shear‐out failure of the bolted
region. This failure usually happens in plate‐to‐plate connections due
to bearing of bolt against FRP plate with short end distance.
Connection detailing and material strength of connected components
control the failure mode of a joint. The compression bearing force at
the beam’s bolted region remains the same regardless of beam mate-
rial. The beam deformation, on the other hand, would be significantly
less if steel beam was used instead of FRP. This is due to higher
stiffness of steel profiles than FRP counterparts. Fig. 3(a) and (b) show
the failure pattern for SFSc1 and SFStc1. The moment applied to the
joint generates out‐of‐plane forces in the connected members. These
forces include prying forces at top and compressive forces at the bot-
tom of the joint. Thus, the bending moment causes top cleat to be
pulled away from the column flange and seat cleat to be compressed
into the column flange. These prying forces at the top portion of the
joint result in shear‐out failure in beam flange and web above its neu-
tral axis, as shown in Fig. 3.
The second failure mode, adhesive debonding with shear‐out, hap-
pened in specimens with adhesive bonding and steel cleats, SFSc1A
J. Qureshi et al.
Fig. 5. Tension tearing failure mode – tearing of FRP column flange from web: (a) Specimen FFSc1A; (b) Specimen FFSc1S.
and SFStc1A. Fig. 4(a) shows cracking at top web‐flange junction of
the FRP beam prior to adhesive failure. Prying forces exerted at the
top joint, due to applied moment, caused shear failure of adhesive
bonding near top steel cleat, as shown in Fig. 4(b). Shear‐out failure
of the PFRP beam was delayed by using adhesive bonding.
The third failure mode was tension tearing mode in specimens
FFSc1, FFSc1A and FFSc1S. The failure happened when PFRP beam
and column, and steel leg angles were used to assemble the joint.
Tensile tearing of the column flange from the web for FFSc1A is shown
in Fig. 5(a). This type of failure has previously been reported by
Turvey and Zhang [45]. Prying action caused significant outward flex-
ural deformation in FRP column near top flange cleats. At ultimate
moment, tensile stresses developed in the web‐flange junction of the
column resulting in tensile tearing of the column flange from its
web. Even the inclusion of additional stiffeners in specimen FFSc1S,
in the form of double web cleats connected on the column side, could
not prevent the tension tearing failure of the web‐flange interface. The
FRP column flange’s outward flexural deformation is shown in Fig. 5
(b) for FFSc1S.
The fourth failure mode – delamination cracking happened when
cleat material was FRP and the connected members were steel column
and FRP beam in specimen SFFc1. The failure initiated at the root
radius of FRP flange angle, as indicated by delamination cracking in
Fig. 6(a). This cracking was a direct result of prying forces at top joint
due to out‐of‐plane bending caused by the applied moment. The FRP
web cleat also experienced delamination cracking at its root radius.
Prying forces caused further delamination cracking in both top flange,
and web cleat. Eventually, the joint failed by excessive cracking in the
top flange, and web cleats, as seen in Fig. 6(b).
3.3. Effect of bonding
Effect of adhesive bonding is assessed by comparing bolted joints
with bolted and bonded joints. Three joint arrangements are presented
for the comparison. These include flange and web cleated joints (SFSc1
versus SFSc1A), flange cleated joints (SFStc1 versus SFStc1A) and
flange and web cleated joint with FRP column (FFSc1 versus
FFSc1A). First two configurations had steel column and PFRP beam
and third set up contained PFRP column and beam.
Moment‐rotation curves for flange and web cleated joints with and
without bonding (SFSc1 versus SFSc1A) are plotted in Fig. 7. Test
Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500
specimen SFSc1is bolted only and uses no bonding, while SFSc1A is
both bolted and bonded. M‐ϕ curves indicate that the specimen with
adhesive bonding and bolting is stiffer than the bolted only specimen.
Initial rotational stiffness, Si, is 125 kNm/rad and 250 kNm/rad for
SFSc1 and SFSc1A, respectively. This shows that a combination of bolt-
ing and bonding increases the joint’s initial stiffness. Rotational stiff-
ness at damage onset also increased in a similar proportion. Moment
at damage onset and maximum moment for bolted and bonded joint
were about 1.5 and 1.6 times higher than the bolted case. The rotation
capacity (ϕmax) was not much different, 47 mrad and 43 mrad for
SFSc1 and SFSc1A.
Second comparison includes specimens SFStc1 and SFStc1A with
top and seat flange cleats with and without bonding. Their moment‐
rotation curves are presented in Fig. 8. As shown in Table 3, the initial
stiffness for both specimens remained the same, 100 kNm/rad. Use of
adhesive could not improve the initial stiffness. Damage failure hap-
pened at a moment level of 2.8 kNm and 6.3 kNm, respectively for
bolted, and bolted and bonded specimen. Rotational stiffness at dam-
age onset for bonded and bolted test was about 30% higher than the
bolted only specimen. The rotation capacity (ϕmax) was about 64 mrad
and it remained the same for both bolted, and bolted and bonded case.
Similar to flange and web cleated joints, using adhesive in flange
cleated joints increased the maximum moment by 60% compared with
bolted only joint. However, the rotation capacity was much higher in
flange cleated joint, about 64 mrad, compared with the maximum
rotation of 45 mrad in flange and web cleated joints.
Third configuration consists of specimens FFSc1 and FFSc1A, with
flange and web cleats, shown in Fig. 9. The column profile was PFRP,
contrary to first and second comparison, where column was of steel
material. The specimen without bonding, FFSc1, had quite extended
linear portion of moment‐rotation graph. Initial rotational stiffness
for both specimens was not much different, with hybrid bolted and
bonded specimen exhibiting slightly higher stiffness. The moment at
damage onset coincided with each other at 1.75 kNm with rotations
of 21 mrad and 17 mrad for FFSc1 and FFSc1A. The M‐ϕ curves fol-
lowed a comparable pattern up to damage onset. The maximum
moment with bolted and bonded joint (4.2 kNm) was only 20% higher
than bolted joint (3.5 kNm). The rotation capacity was about 50 mrad,
not much different from the bolted case, 45 mrad.
Generally, bonded and bolted joints fail in a brittle manner, as
shown in Figs. 7–9. There is a sudden drop in moment‐rotation curves
J. Qureshi et al. Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500

Fig. 6. Delamination cracking in specimen SFFc1: (a) Initiation of delamination cracking in FRP cleats; (b) Final failure of FRP top flange cleat and web cleat.

after peak moment is reached. When adhesive fails in tension and

shear, the moment is suddenly shifted to the bolted region leading
to a brittle failure beyond maximum moment. Although, use of adhe-
sive enhances initial rotational stiffness and moment at damage onset
and maximum moment, it often results in sudden loss of moment car-
rying capacity. The failure in hybrid – bolted and bonded joints was
brittle as well, but the moment capacity reduced gradually as rotations
were increased. While, use of adhesive increases both moment capac-
ity and rotational stiffness, it slightly reduces the maximum rotation
capacity of the joint.

3.4. Effect of column and cleat material

Use of steel cleats in pultruded beam‐to‐column joints is a preferred

option for fabricators as compared to FRP cleats [34]. FRP cleats may
not perform well in moment‐resisting joints. On the other hand, using
steel cleats transfers failure to the connected members. As steel cleats
do not deform under prying force, the failure happens within pul- Fig. 8. Effect of bonding: comparison of flange cleated joints with and
truded FRP column. Failure of principal load carrying member, such without bonding.

Fig. 7. Effect of bonding: comparison of flange and web cleated joints with Fig. 9. Effect of bonding: comparison of flange and web cleated joints (using
and without bonding. FRP column) with and without bonding.
J. Qureshi et al. Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500

Fig. 10. Effect of column flexibility: comparison of flange and web cleated Fig. 13. Effect of additional stiffener: comparison of flange and web cleated
bolted joints with steel and FRP column. bolted joints with and without additional column web stiffener cleat.

Fig. 11. Effect of column flexibility: comparison of flange and web cleated Fig. 14. Effect of joint configuration: comparison of flange cleated joints with
bonded and bolted joints with steel and FRP column. flange and web cleated joints with bolting only.

Fig. 12. Effect of cleat material: comparison of flange and web cleated bolted Fig. 15. Effect of joint configuration: comparison of flange cleated joints with
joints with steel and FRP cleats. flange and web cleated joints with bolting and bonding.
J. Qureshi et al.
as a column, can potentially have serious consequences. Using a steel
column instead of a FRP column helps prevent failure in the column.
The influence of column flexibly is studied by comparing FRP beam‐
to‐steel column joints with FRP beam‐to‐FRP column joints. The bolted
case, with tests SFSc1 versus FFSc1, is presented in Fig. 10. The
bonded and bolted tests SFSc1A versus FFSc1A are compared in
Fig. 11. The joints in both comparisons had steel flange and web
angles.
The rotational stiffness of the bolted joint with steel column at
damage onset is twice as much as the stiffness of the joint with FRP
column, as indicated in Fig. 10. The moment at damage onset and fail-
ure for tests with steel column are 2.5 and 1.8 times the corresponding
values with FRP column. The shape of moment‐rotation curve for both
steel and FRP column tests was almost the same. Fig. 11 shows the
comparison of tests using steel and FRP column with adhesive bonding
in addition to bolting. The stiffness at damage onset in FRP beam‐steel
column joints was about 2.3 times higher than the joints with FRP col-
umn. The maximum moment in steel column tests was about 2.5 times
the moment in FRP column joints. Joints with steel column failed in a
more brittle manner as compared to FRP column. The moment‐
rotation response of steel column joints was nearly linear up to the
ultimate moment followed by a sudden drop in the moment carrying
capacity. Overall, moment and rotational stiffness values were almost
double in case of joints with steel column compared with the same
joints with FRP column. There was not much difference, though, in
maximum rotation capacity of the joint.
Cleat material affects moment and rotation capacity of a joint.
Moment‐rotation behaviour of FRP beam‐to‐steel column joints with
steel and FRP cleats is shown in Fig. 12. Both FRP and steel cleated
joints exhibit same moment‐rotation response up to a moment level
of 1.4 kN and rotation of 12.9 mrad. Beyond this point, the test with
steel cleat shows higher stiffness and moment resistance compared
to the joint with FRP cleats. An average increase of 50% was observed
in damage onset and ultimate moment by using steel cleats in place of
FRP cleats. Failure in FRP cleated joints was due to delamination
cracking of cleats. In steel cleated joints, failure is transferred from
cleats to FRP beam’s bolted region.
3.5. Effect of additional stiffener
The influence of additional stiffener is studied by comparing tests
FFSc1 versus FFSc1S and plotting their M‐ϕ curves in Fig. 13. The con-
nected members in tests were of FRP material; and the joints had steel
web and flange angles. The test FFSc1S had additional steel double
web leg angle attached to the column side. One leg of this angle was
bolted through column web to the angle on other side of the column,
and the other leg was bolted via column flange to the beam’s web
cleat, as seen in Fig. 5(b). The moment‐rotation curve for both tests,
with or without extra stiffener, shows same linear elastic response
up to a moment of 1.4 kNm and rotation of 17 mrad. After this, M‐ϕ
curve for the test with stiffener branches off to gain about 10% higher
stiffness than the control test.
When a moment level of 3.5 kNm is reached, the joint without stiff-
ener starts to fail and the joint with stiffener takes more moment. At a
moment level of 6.3 kNm, there is a sudden drop in moment carrying
capacity characterised by failure within PFRP column flanges. The
joint without stiffener failed in a similar fashion. The rotation at max-
imum moment in unstiffened joint was about 51 mrad compared with
64 mrad in the joint with the stiffener. Although the stiffened joint
resulted in higher rotation capacity than the unstiffened joint, it
showed a brittle failure marked by a sudden drop in the moment in
Fig. 13. Employing an extra steel stiffener with double web cleats on
the column side increased the moment capacity to almost double
(1.8 times the unstiffened joint moment). However, this improvement
Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500
in moment capacity in the stiffened joint was at the expense of brittle
failure.
3.6. Effect of joint configuration
Two joint configurations with flange cleats only and flange and
web cleats are compared here. These configurations include bolting
only and combination of bolting and bonding. For bolted joints,
moment ‐rotation response of flange and web cleated joints (SFSc1)
versus flange cleated joints (SFStc1) is plotted in Fig. 14. Table 3 indi-
cates that the initial rotational stiffness of the joint with flange and
web cleats is 25% more than the joint with flange cleats only. There
is only 10% increase in maximum moment by using flange and web
cleated joints instead of only flange cleated. Failure in flange cleated
joints happened in bolted region of tension flange of FRP beam.
Flange and web cleated joints failed by shear‐out failure in bolt holes
above mid depth of the beam. M‐ϕ curve for flange cleated joint
showed almost a linear trend until failure; and flange and web cleated
joint exhibited nonlinear pattern after initial linear part.
Next comparison relates to the effect of adhesive bonding when all
other parameters are same as described earlier. Tests with flange and
web cleats (SFSc1A) and flange cleats only (SFStc1A) are compared in
Fig. 15 by plotting their M‐ϕ curves. Adhesive bonding enhanced the
maximum moment by 60% in both flange and web cleated, and flange
cleated joints. Due to larger surface area of adhesive bonding in flange
and web cleated joints, the moment rotation response of these joints
was stiffer than bonded flange cleated joints as shown in Fig. 15.
The maximum moment in flange and web cleated joint was only mar-
ginally higher than flange cleated joint. Adhesive bonding in both
cases caused sudden drop in moment carrying capacity leading to a
brittle failure. Failure mode was also similar in both joints with
shear‐out failure of the beam’s bolted zone followed by adhesive
debonding. Beneficial effect on moment capacity was insignificant
due to web cleats. Flange and web cleated joints only increased the
rotational stiffness without proportional increase in the moment when
compared with flange cleated joints.
3.7. Classification of joints
Joints can be classified according to their strength and stiffness.
Based on their initial rotational stiffness, joints can be classified as
rigid, nominally pinned or semi‐rigid. This classification can be
applied to any joint regardless of its material. Hence, Eurocode 3 part
1–8 [36] for steel joints is applicable to FRP joints. The initial rota-
tional stiffness Sj,ini limits in Eurocode 3 [36] are compared with exper-
imental initial rotational stiffness Si (=Mi/ϕi). Fig. 16 presents the
moment‐rotation behaviour with the joints’ classification boundaries
for rigid joints indicted by a dotted line and nominally pinned by a
solid line. The joint classification is divided into zone 1, 2 and 3 for
rigid, semi‐rigid and nominally pinned joints. Zone 1 (rigid) is
between vertical axis and the dotted line, zone 2 (semi‐rigid) between
the dotted and solid lines and zone 3 (nominally pinned) between solid
and horizontal axis. The limit for zone 1 is Sj,ini ≥ kb EIb/Lb and for
zone 3 it is Sj,ini ≤ 0.5EIb/Lb, where kb is 8, based on the assumption
that the frame is braced. Detailed calculations of initial rotational stiff-
ness, Sj,ini for the classification boundaries are given in Appendix A as
per Eurocode 3 part 1–8 [36] provisions. The limit for zone 1 and 3 are
895 and 56 kNm/rad using a span‐to‐depth of 20 with a span (L) of
3000 mm for 150 × 100 × 10 mm FRP beam.
Bolted steel flange and web cleated joints with steel column and
FRP beam, SFSc1 (filled circle marker), are classified as semi‐rigid
joints as shown in Fig. 16. Addition of bonding to this configuration
leads to 50% increase in initial stiffness, as indicated by SFSc1A (solid
triangle marker), and classed as a semi‐rigid joint. Joints with only
J. Qureshi et al.
steel top and seat flange angles, SFStc1 and SFStc1A, and web and
flange cleated joints with FRP column, FFSc1 and FFSc1S are also clas-
sified as semi‐rigid. Similarly, the joints SFFc1 and FFSc1A are cate-
gorised as semi‐rigid too. Generally, use of steel cleats and adhesive
increases the initial rotational stiffness of the joint resulting in semi‐
rigid behaviour. In steel structures, joints with either web or flange
clips, partial depth end plate or fin plate allow enough rotation for
them to classified as nominally pinned joints. Use of steel flange cleats
with FRP beam transfers the failure to FRP beam resulting in lesser
rotations and semi‐rigid response. Adhesive bonding inhibits rotations
too and this often leads to higher initial rotational stiffness in the
joints. All joints in this paper are classified as semi‐rigid joints. This
semi‐rigid action should be exploited to decrease mid‐span deflection,
increase load carrying capacity and increase spanning capability of
beams.
3.8. Load enhancement due to semi-rigid end connection stiffness
Due to low stiffness, controlling design criteria for pultruded FRP
beams is the deflection limit. Their strength is comparable with com-
panion steel profiles. Larger sections are chosen if the deflection limit
is not satisfied. As the section sizes in FRP are very limited, an alterna-
tive solution will be to take advantage of semi‐rigid end conditions.
Turvey [18] proposed close form equations to evaluate a performance
gain due to semi‐rigid end connections. Performance gain can be
achieved through increase in load or span and reduction in deflections,
measured in performance indices. In this paper, the rotational stiffness
at damage onset is used to work out load enhancement index (λQ). A
sample calculation for load enhancement index (λQ) for the test
SFSc1 is presented in Appendix B. The beam is assumed to be shear
rigid with a uniformly distributed load. The load enhancement index
(λQ) versus span‐to‐depth ratio for the beam with semi‐rigid joints is
plotted in Fig. 17. The span‐to‐depth ratio is varied between 5 and
50. The load enhancement index (λQ) of 1 denotes a beam with simply
supported end connections. The design of pultruded FRP beams is
often based on simply supported beam end conditions. The load
enhancement index (λQ) in Fig. 17 measures the increase in load of a
beam with semi‐rigid ends in relation to a similar beam with simply
supported ends.
Fig. 17 indicates that the increase in the load enhancement index
(λQ) is nonlinear for all cases. The load carrying capacity is highest
for joints with steel flange and web cleated joints having steel column
and FRP beam, SFSc1 and SFSc1A, about 53% to 69% at a span‐to‐
depth ratio of 20, compared with beams having simple ends.
Adhesive bonding increases the load capacity by almost 16%. For
the similar setup with flange cleats only, SFStc1 and SFStc1A, the
increase in load is only 34% and 43%, respectively. For tests with
FRP cleats, SFFc1 and specimens with both column and beam made
Fig. 16. Classification of joints as per Eurocode 3 part 1–8 [36].
Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500
Fig. 17. Load enhancement index (λQ) versus span-to-depth ratio for shear
rigid PFRP beams with semi-rigid joints.
up of FRP, and steel cleats, FFSc1, FFSc1A and FFSc1S, the load
increase was roughly 30%. Therefore, a substantial performance gain
in load can be achieved with steel cleated FRP beam‐to‐steel column
joints with about 50% increase in bolted joint and 70% increase in
bolted and bonded case. For steel cleated FRP beam‐to‐FRP column
joints this gain is only 30% regardless of adhesive bonding.
4. Concluding remarks
Eight full‐scale tests are performed to study behaviour of beam‐to‐
column joints with FRP and steel cleats. The testing is divided in two
series using stub column‐single cantilever beam set up. To avoid fail-
ure due to outward flexural deformation of FRP column, first series
used steel column with FRP beam. Second series had both column
and beam made up of FRP material. First series contained five tests:
steel flange and web angles bolted, steel flange and web angles bolted
and bonded, steel flange angles bolted, steel flange angles bolted and
bonded, and FRP flange and web angles bolted. Second series had
three tests; first two tests were identical to the equivalent tests in first
series, except the column material was FRP instead of steel. The third
test used steel flange and web angles bolted with additional stiffener
cleat bolted on the column side. Moment‐rotation behaviour, failure
modes, joint classification and load enhancement due to semi‐rigid
end joints are presented. The influence of adhesive bonding, column
and cleat material, and additional stiffener is investigated.
The following are the main findings from this research:
• Use of adhesive increased both moment capacity and rotational
stiffness, but it reduced the maximum rotation capacity. Bolted
and bonded joints failed in a brittle manner due to adhesive failing
in tension and shear, and the failure transferring to the bolted
region. There was 60% increase in moment capacity for FRP
beam‐to‐steel column joints and 20% for FRP beam‐to‐FRP column
joints. While industry practice of using adhesive alongside bolting
should be continued, any improvement in either moment or rota-
tional stiffness should be used cautiously.
• By using steel cleats instead of FRP, a 50% increase in moment can
be achieved, both at damage onset and failure. This is due to failure
shifting to FRP beam from cleats, resulting in shear‐out failure of
the FRP beam’s bolted region.
• Four failure modes, shear‐out failure (SFSc1 and SFStc1), adhesive
debonding with shear‐out failure (SFSc1A and SFStc1A), tensile
tearing of the column flanges from the web (FFSc1, FFSc1A and
FFSc1S) and delamination cracking of cleats (SFFc1) were
observed.
J. Qureshi et al. Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500

• Adding steel double web angle stiffener on the column side, to steel Joint’s rotational stiffness that lies between the boundaries of zone
flange and web cleated joint, increased the moment capacity by 1 (rigid) and zone 3 (nominally pinned) are categorised to be in zone 2
80%. However, this increase was at the expense of brittle failure. (semi‐rigid). In this case, any initial rotational stiffness lying between
• Effect of joint configuration was studied by adding web cleats to 895 kNm/rad and 56 kNm/rad is classed as semi‐rigid joint.
the flange cleated joint. The resulting configuration only enhanced Zone 3: Nominally pinned joints, if Sj,ini ≤ 0.5EIb/Lb
rotational stiffness without corresponding increase in the moment. 0:5EI b
• Based on rotational stiffness at damage onset, all joints are classi- Sj;ini ≤ A:2
Lb
fied as semi‐rigid as per Eurocode 3 part 1–8 [36]. This semi‐
rigid behaviour can be utilised to increase load carrying capacity 0:5
28
11985980
or spanning capability and reduce mid‐span deflections of beams. Sj;ini ≤
3000
1000
• A significant increase in load carrying capacity was seen in steel
cleated FRP beam‐to‐steel column joints using Turvey’s [18] Sj;ini ≤ 56kNm=rad
expressions. This load enhancement is due to semi‐rigid ends of
the beam compared with otherwise identically loaded beam with
simply supported ends. Corresponding to a practical span‐to‐ Appendix B
depth ratio of 20, this increase was about 50% for the bolted case
and 70% for the bolted and bonded joint. For steel cleated FRP A beam with a uniformly distributed loading is considered to work
beam‐to‐FRP column joints, this gain is only 30% regardless of out load enhancement index (λQ) as per method in Turvey [18]. Only a
adhesive bonding. sample calculation for the test SFSc1 is provided and same procedure
is adopted for the remaining tests. The deflection reduction index (λδ)
CRediT authorship contribution statement must be calculated first from:
 
1 þ k2 β
λδ ¼ B:1
Jawed Qureshi: Data Curation, Formal analysis, Writing ‐ Original k4 þ k2 β
Draft, Writing ‐ Review & Editing. Yashida Nadir: Conceptualization,
where
Supervision, Funding acquisition. Shaise K John: Methodology,
k2 From Table 1 Turvey [18] is 10.
Investigation, Writing ‐ Original Draft.
k4 From Table 1 Turvey [18] is 5.
β Dimensionless rotational flexibility of the beam end connection
Declaration of Competing Interest
given by (EI/KL), where
E Longitudinal modulus of elasticity for pultruded beam, (is 28 kN/
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
mm2 from Fiberline Design Manual [5])
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
I Major‐axis second moment of area of beam cross‐section,
ence the work reported in this paper.
11985980 mm4.
K Rotational stiffness of the beam end connection (is Sj = 170
Acknowledgements
kNm/rad from Table 3 for SFSc1)
L Beam span is 3000 mm (based on a span‐to‐depth ratio of 20 for
The authors wish to thank Centre for Engineering Research and
150 × 100 × 10 profile).
Development (CERD), APJ Kerala Technological University (KTU)
λQ is calculated from the inverse of Equation (B.1):
Trivandrum, Kerala, India (Research grant No: KTU/RESEARCH
3/1459/2017) for funding this research project as a part of Research 1
λQ ¼ ðB:2Þ
Seed Money. λδ
Assuming the pultruded FRP beam is shear‐rigid, β, λδ (B.1) and λQ
Appendix A (B.2) are determined as:
   
A sample calculation of the joint classification boundaries for a EI 28
1000
1:198
107
β¼ ¼ ¼ 0:66
beam span of 3000 mm corresponding to a practical span‐to‐depth KL 170
10
3000
6

ratio of 20 is presented here as per EC3 part 1–8 [36].    

Zone 1: Rigid joints, if Sj,ini ≥ kb EIb/Lb 1 þ k2 β 1 þ 10
0:66
λδ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:65
k4 þ k2 β 5 þ 10
0:66
kb EI b
Sj;ini ≥ A:1
Lb 1 1
λQ ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:53
where λδ 0:65
Sj,ini Initial rotational stiffness, kNm/rad
kb is equal to 8 for frames where the bracing system reduces the Appendix C. Supplementary data
horizontal displacement by at least 80%
E Longitudinal modulus of elasticity for pultruded FRP beam, (is 28 Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
kN/mm2 from Fiberline Design Manual [5]) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112500.
Ib Major‐axis second moment of area of beam cross‐section,
11985980 mm4. References
Lb Beam span is 3000 mm (based on a span‐to‐depth ratio of 20 for
150 × 100 × 10 mm shape). [1] L.C. Bank Composites for construction - Structural design with FRP materials 2006
John Wiley & Sons New Jersey, USA.
8
28
11985980 [2] Correia JR, Bai Y, Keller T. A review of the fire behaviour of pultruded GFRP
Sj;ini ≥
3000
1000 structural profiles for civil engineering applications. Compos Struct
2015;127:267–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.03.006.
Sj;ini ≥ 895kNm=rad [3] J.T. Mottram J. Henderson editors. Fibre-reinforced polymer bridges – guidance
for designers. Composites UK: Construction Sector Group, CIRIA publication C779
Zone 2: Semi‐rigid joints 2018 London.
J. Qureshi et al.
[4] Strongwell. Strongwell design manual. Bristol, Virginia, USA: Strongwell
Corporation; 2010.
[5] Fiberline Composites Fiberline design manual 2002 Fiberline Composites A/S
Kolding, Denmark.
[6] Creative Pultrusions The new and improved Pultex pultrusion design manual 2004
Creative Pultrusions Inc. Alum Bank, PA, USA.
[7] Bank LC. Progressive failure and ductility of FRP composites for construction:
review. J Compos Constr 2013;17:406–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000355.
[8] Girão Coelho AM, Mottram JT. A review of the behaviour and analysis of bolted
connections and joints in pultruded fibre reinforced polymers. Mater Des
2015;74:86–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.02.011.
[9] Qureshi J, Mottram JT. Behaviour of pultruded beam-to-column joints using steel
web cleats. Thin-Walled Struct 2013;73:48–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2013.06.019.
[10] Qureshi J, Mottram JT. Response of beam-to-column web cleated joints for FRP
pultruded members. J Compos Constr 2014;18:04013039. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000392.
[11] Qureshi J, Mottram JT. Moment-rotation response of nominally pinned beam-to-
column joints for frames of pultruded fibre reinforced polymer. Constr Build Mater
2015;77:396–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.057.
[12] Vallée T, Tannert T, Meena R, Hehl S. Dimensioning method for bolted, adhesively
bonded, and hybrid joints involving Fibre-Reinforced-Polymers. Compos Part B
Eng 2013;46:179–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.074.
[13] Ascione F, Lamberti M, Razaqpur AG, Spadea S. Strength and stiffness of
adhesively bonded GFRP beam-column moment resisting connections. Compos
Struct 2017;160:1248–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.
11.021.
[14] Kelly G. Load transfer in hybrid (bonded/bolted) composite single-lap joints.
Compos Struct 2005;69:35–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.
04.016.
[15] Weitzenböck JR, McGeorge D. Science and technology of bolt-adhesive joints. Adv
Struct Mater 2011;6:177–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/8611_2011_54.
[16] Kelly G. Quasi-static strength and fatigue life of hybrid (bonded/bolted) composite
single-lap joints. Compos Struct 2006;72:119–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2004.11.002.
[17] Anonymus. Guide to the structural use of adhesives. London, UK: Institution of
Structural Engineers; 1999.
[18] Turvey GJ. Analysis of pultruded glass reinforced plastic beams with semi-rigid
end connections. Compos Struct 1997;38:3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-
8223(97)00036-6.
[19] Bank LC, Mosallam AS, Gonsior HE. Beam-to-column connections for pultruded
FRP structures. Proc. 1st Mater. Eng. Congr. ASCE, Denver, USA: 1990, p. 804–13.
[20] Bank LC, Mosallam AS, McCoy GT. Design and performance of connections for
pultruded frame structures. J Reinf Plast Compos 1994;13:199–212. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/073168449401300302.
[21] Bank LC, Yin J, Moore L, Evans DJ, Allison RW. Experimental and numerical
evaluation of beam-to-column connections for pultruded structures. J Reinf Plast
Compos 1996;15:1052–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073168449601501005.
[22] Bass AJ, Mottram JT. Behaviour of connections in frames of fibre- reinforced-
polmer section. Struct Eng 1994;72:280–5.
[23] Mottram JT, Zheng Y. Further tests on beam-to-column connections for pultruded
frames: Flange-cleated. J Compos Constr 1999;3:3–11.
[24] Mottram JT, Zheng Y. State-of-the-art review on the design of beam-to-column
connections for pultruded frames. Compos Struct 1996;35:387–401. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0263-8223(96)00052-9.
[25] Turvey GJ, Cooper C. Semi-rigid pultruded GRP frame connections: tests to
determine static moment–rotation characteristics. 7th Eur. Conf. Compos. Mater.
ECCM-7, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.; 1996, p. 295–300.
Composite Structures 247 (2020) 112500
[26] Turvey GJ, Cooper C. Characterisation of the short-term static moment– rotation of
bolted connections between pultruded GRP beam and column WF connections. In:
El-Badry M, editor. Adv. Compos. Mater. Bridg. Struct., Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering; 1996, p. 927–934.
[27] Russo S. On failure modes and design of multi-bolted FRP plate in structural joints.
Compos Struct 2019;218:27–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.
03.048.
[28] Feroldi F, Russo S. Structural behavior of all-FRP beam-column plate-bolted joints.
J Compos Constr 2016;20.
[29] Smith SJ, Parsons ID, Hjelmstad KD. An experimental study of the behavior of
connections for pultruded GFRP I-beams and rectangular tubes. Compos Struct
1998;42:281–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(98)00082-8.
[30] Smith SJ, Parsons ID, Hjelmstad KD. Experimental comparisons of connections for
GFRP pultruded frames. J Compos Constr 1999;3:20–6.
[31] Martins D, Proença M, Correia JR, Gonilha J, Arruda M, Silvestre N. Development
of a novel beam-to-column connection system for pultruded GFRP tubular profiles.
Compos Struct 2017;171:263–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.
03.049.
[32] Ascione F, Lamberti M, Razaqpur AG, Spadea S, Malagic M. Pseudo-ductile failure
of adhesively joined GFRP beam-column connections: an experimental and
numerical investigation. Compos Struct 2018;200:864–73. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.104.
[33] Razaqpur AG, Ascione F, Lamberti M, Spadea S, Malagic M. GFRP hollow column
to built-up beam adhesive connection: mechanical behaviour under quasi-static,
cyclic and fatigue loading. Compos Struct 2019;224:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2019.111069111069.
[34] Turvey GJ. Moment-rotation tests on bolted end connections in pultruded GRP
beams-tests with stainless steel cleats and an assessment of their performance
relative to GRP cleats. ECCM9, Compos. – from Fundam. to Exploit., Brighton:
2000.
[35] ASCE Pre-standard. Pre-standard for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of
pultruded Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) structures (Final). American
Composites Manufacturers Association, American Society of Civil Engineers; 2010.
[36] BS EN 1993-1-8:2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of
joints. London, UK: British Standards Institution; 2005.
[37] IS 800. General Construction in Steel - Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian
Standards; 2007.
[38] Clarke JL. Structural Design of Polymer Composites- EUROCOMP Design Code and
Handbook. 1996.
[39] Smith PA, Ashby MF, Pascoe KJ. Modelling clamp-up effects in composite bolted
joints. J Compos Mater 1987;21:878–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
002199838702101001.
[40] Gorenc BE, Tinyou R, Syam AA. Steel designers’ handbook. Sydney, NSW 2052,
Australia: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.; 2005.
[41] Li B, Leong CL. Experimental and numerical investigations of the seismic behavior
of high-strength concrete beam-column joints with column axial load. J Struct Eng
2015;141:04014220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001191.
[42] Allam SM, Elbakry HMF, Arab ISE. Exterior reinforced concrete beam column joint
subjected to monotonic loading. Alexandria Eng J 2018;57:4133–44. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.10.015.
[43] Li B, Chua HYG. Seismic performance of strengthened reinforced concrete beam-
column joints using FRP composites. J Struct Eng 2009;135:1177–90. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:10(1177).
[44] Mashaly E, El-Heweity M, Abou-Elfath H, Osman M. Finite element analysis of
beam-to-column joints in steel frames under cyclic loading. Alexandria Eng J
2011;50:91–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2011.01.012.
[45] Turvey GJ, Zhang Y. Tearing failure of web-flange junctions in pultruded GRP
profiles. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2005;36:309–17. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.06.009.