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

net/publication/273831295

Panel Zone Shear Behavior of Through-Flange Connections for Steel Beams to

Circular Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Columns

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · September 2015

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001187

CITATIONS READS

2 399

4 authors, including:

Yu-Chen Ou Tran Ngoc Minh

National Taiwan University National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
61 PUBLICATIONS   925 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hung-Jen Lee
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology
24 PUBLICATIONS   653 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Damage modes of precast segmental bridge columns under earthquake loading and direct displacement-based design View project

Behavior and Modeling of Damage and Collapse in Reinforced Concrete Frame Joints Subjected to Near-Fault Earthquakes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yu-Chen Ou on 26 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Manuscript
Click here to download Manuscript: STENG-3415R1_manuscript.doc

1 Panel zone shear behavior of through flange connections for steel beams to
2 circular concrete-filled steel tubular columns
3
4 Yu-Chen Ou1, Ngoc-Minh Tran2, Cheng-Cheng Chen3, and Hung-Jen Lee4
5
6 Abstract
7 This research investigated the panel zone shear behavior of a proposed through flange
8 connection for steel beams to circular concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT) columns. Four exterior
9 beam-column specimens were designed and tested using cyclic loading applied to the beam end.
10 Three design variables were examined, i.e., concrete infill in the column tube, stiffeners to the
11 column tube in the panel zone, and the width of the through flange plates. Test results showed
12 significant panel zone shear yielding for all specimens. Failure of the specimens was caused by
13 fracture of the column tube near the through flange plates and crushing of concrete at the
14 stiffener side in the panel zone if concrete infill was present. The use of concrete infill, stiffeners,
15 and 25% wider through flange plates increased the peak applied load by 156%, 7%, and 14%,
16 respectively. A model that considers crushing of concrete at the stiffener side as failure mode
17 was proposed to calculate the panel zone shear strength contribution from concrete. If confined
18 concrete strength was used, the panel zone shear strengths calculated with concrete contribution
19 based on the proposed model were in average 8% more conservative than the test results. If
20 unconfined concrete strength was used, the calculated panel zone shear strengths were in average
21 63% more conservative than the test results. The panel zone shear strengths calculated with
22 concrete contribution based on the ACI 318 and ACI 352R methods were in average 46% and
23 39% more conservative than the test results, respectively.
24
25 Keywords: Composite structures; circular CFT columns; through flange connection; panel zone;
26 shear.
27
1
Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of
Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
2
Doctoral Student, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of
Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.

1
 3
Professor, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science
and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
4
Associate Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science
and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan.

28
29 Introduction
30 In steel-concrete composite construction, concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT) columns with steel
31 beams have been increasingly used due to the simplicity in construction by eliminating the need
32 for formwork and reinforcing work, and enhanced strength and ductility by confining the entire
33 concrete cross section of a column in a structural steel. CFT columns are typically designed with
34 circular or rectangular steel tubes. CFT columns with circular steel tubes have higher ductility
35 capacity than those with rectangular steel tubes due to better confinement to concrete and higher
36 resistance to tube buckling (Morino and Tsuda 2002). However, circular CFT columns are less
37 frequently used due to the complexity of connection construction.
38
39 A number of connection details for steel beams connected to a circular CFT column have been
40 tested under cyclic loading in the literature. They include welding the beam directly to the
41 column tube (Schneider and Alostaz 1998); using the beam end plate with blind bolts (Wang et
42 al. 2009) or with through column rods (Li et al. 2009, Sheet et al. 2013); using external and/or
43 internal diaphragms (Schneider and Alostaz 1998, Morino and Tsuda 2002, Cheng and Chung
44 2003, Nishyiama et al. 2004, Wang et al. 2008); using deformed steel bars to anchor the beam
45 flanges into the concrete core or to the opposite side of the column tube (Schneider and Alostaz
46 1998, Beutel et al. 2002); and continuing through the column tube the beam flanges only
47 (Schneider and Alostaz 1998, Chen and Lo 2003), the beam web only (Schneider and Alostaz
48 1998), or the entire beam (Azizinamini et al 1995, Schneider and Alostaz 1998, Elremaily and
49 Azizinamini 2001, Azizinamini and Schneider 2004, Sheet et al 2013). Among these connection
50 details, the connection with beam flanges continuous across the column, referred to as through
51 flange connection herein, is a relatively simple connection detail even in the case of a bi-
52 directional connection. In the through flange connection, a pair of steel plates, referred to as
53 through flange plates herein, are inserted through and welded to the column tube in a factory, and
54 are connected to the top and bottom beam flanges in the construction site. Experimental study by
55 Schneider and Alostaz (1998) showed that the through flange connection, with through flange

2
56 plates having the same thickness and width as the beam flanges, showed a pinched hysteretic
57 behavior due to fracture of fillet weld between the through flange plates and the column tube at a
58 low connection rotation. Chen and Lo (2003) applied the concept of the cover plate connection
59 (Engelhardt and Sabol 1998) in the through flange connection. The through flange plates in Chen
60 and Lo’s study had a larger thickness than the flanges of the beam and acted as cover plates to
61 shift beam yielding away from the face of the column. The through flange plates were welded to
62 the column tube by groove weld. Test results showed that the connection with adequate panel
63 zone shear strength exhibited stable, fat hysteretic behavior with a plastic rotation capacity more
64 than 3%.
65
66 Although the connection by Chen and Lo showed a good hysteretic performance, field
67 installation of a beam with such connections is not easy. Since the through flange plates, which
68 act as cover plates, have been welded to the columns in the factory before the field installation,
69 the beam can only be horizontally moved from the side of the cover plates into place in the field
70 installation. This study proposes to connect the end of each beam flange directly to the end of a
71 through flange plate to facilitate the field installation. Reduced beam section (Chen et al. 1996,
72 Uang et al. 2001, Jones et al. 2002, Chi and Uang 2002, Li et al. 2009, Lignos et al. 2010) is
73 applied to shift beam yielding away from the through flange plate. The through flange plate
74 should remain elastic during beam hinging. Figure 1 illustrates a bi-directional beam-column
75 assembly with the proposed through flange connections. Each beam line contains a pair of
76 through flange plates. One pair of through flange plates passes across the other pair right above
77 or below it. Web connection plates (shear tabs) are welded to the column tube and to the through
78 flange plates in the factory and are bolted to the beam webs in the site.
79
80 A key issue for a successful design of the proposed through flange connection is to provide
81 adequate panel zone shear strength to ensure yielding at the reduced beam section. Therefore, as
82 the first step in the development of the proposed connection, the objective of this study was to
83 investigate the panel zone shear behavior of the proposed through flange connection.
84
85
86

3
 87 Specimen design and test setup
88 Specimen design and fabrication
89 Four exterior beam-column specimens with the proposed through flange connection were tested
90 to examine the panel zone shear behavior. Three design variables were examined, i.e., concrete
91 infill inside the column tube, stiffeners to the column tube in the panel zone, and the width of the
92 through flange plate (Table 1). Figure 2 shows the design details of the connections and panel
93 zones of the four specimens. Specimen TFW1S did not have concrete infill in the column tube to
94 examine the panel zone shear strength contribution from the steel tube alone. Specimen
95 TFW1CS had concrete filled in the column tube. Both of these two specimens had stiffeners
96 fillet welded to the through flange plate and plugged welded to the column tube in the panel zone.
97 The objective of the stiffener is to stiffen the column tube to increase the bearing area of the tube
98 on the concrete to enhance shear transfer. The stiffeners were provided only for the side of the
99 column tube not connected to a beam, since the side that is connected to a beam had been
100 stiffened by the web connection plate. Specimen TFW1C did not have the stiffeners to examine
101 the effect of the stiffeners by comparing test results with specimen TFW1CS. Specimen
102 TFW2CS had a wider through flange plate than the other specimens to examine the effect of the
103 through flange plate width. The ratio of the through flange plate width to the column width of
104 specimen TFW2CS was 0.69, 25% increase from that of the other specimens, i.e. 0.55. No
105 longitudinal reinforcing bars were provided inside the column tube of each specimen. The actual
106 yield and ultimate strengths of the column tube were 314 MPa and 458 MPa, respectively. The
107 actual yield and ultimate strengths of the beam flange and the through flange plate were 369 MPa
108 and 532 MPa, respectively, and those of the beam web were 434 MPa and 517 MPa, respectively.
109 The concrete compressive strengths at the test date for specimens TFW1CS, TFW1C, and
110 TFW2CS were 30, 31, and 28 MPa, respectively. The sizes of the beam flange and the through
111 flange plate were selected to ensure panel zone shear failure. Since the specimens were designed
112 to fail in shear in the panel zone, reduced beam section was not used.
113
114 The through flange plate, the web connection plate, and the stiffener were fabricated together
115 with the column tube in a factory. For specimens with the stiffeners, the stiffener was first fillet
116 welded to the through flange plate. Then, the through flange plate was inserted into the column
117 tube through a T-shaped slot cut at one side of the column tube and penetrated out from a

4
118 horizontal slot cut at the opposite side of the column tube. The T-shaped slot allowed the passage
119 of the through flange plate together with the stiffener. The through flange plate and the stiffener
120 were groove welded and plug welded to the column tube, respectively. For the specimen without
121 the stiffeners, horizontal slots were cut at both sides of the column tube. After the installation of
122 the through flange plates, the web connection plate was fillet welded to the column tube and the
123 two through flange plates. After the above fabrication, the column tube and connection assembly
124 was sent to the laboratory. Concrete was pumped into the column tube from the lower part of the
125 tube through a hole with the tube in an upright position. During the pumping, the tube was
126 continuously struck by rubber hammers to compact the concrete. After one day of concrete
127 placement, the beam was connected to the column with the flanges groove welded to the through
128 flange plates and with the web bolted to the web connection plate.
129
130 Test set up and loading protocol
131 The specimens were tested under cyclic loading applied to the beam to simulate an earthquake
132 condition (Fig. 3). An axial load was applied to the column using a hydraulic jack and
133 maintained constant throughout the testing to prevent sliding of the column. Specimen TFW1S
134 was subjected to an axial load of 400 kN, resulting in a stress of 0.1 f yc in the steel tube, while

135 the others were subjected to an axial load of 600 kN, resulting in stresses of 0.05 f yc and 0.07 f c'

136 in the steel tube and concrete, respectively. The resulting stresses were small and do not have
137 significant effect on panel zone shear strength. The cyclic loading is based on AISC K2.4b (2010)
138 and was applied using a hydraulic actuator with displacement control to drift ratios as shown in
139 Fig. 4. The drift ratio is defined as the relative displacement between the center of the panel zone
140 and the loading point divided by the length between the two points (2481 mm as shown in Fig.
141 3a). To monitor the panel zone deformation, infrared optical sensors capable of tracking three-
142 dimensional displacement were placed in the beam, the column and the panel zone (Fig. 5a). To
143 monitor strain responses, uniaxial strain gauges were attached on the beam flanges, the through
144 flange plates and the column tube outside the panel zone (B1 to B4 and C1 to C4 in Fig. 5b).
145 Moreover, strain gauge rosettes were attached to the panel zone (P1 to P4 in Fig. 5b).
146
147 Test results and discussion

5
148 Figure 6 shows the relationships between applied load and drift ratios of all specimens.
149 Important events are indicated in Fig. 6: panel zone shear yielding, fracture of the column tube
150 near the through flange plate (denoted as “tube fracture near TF plate” in Fig. 6), and penetration
151 of the through flange plate into the concrete infill (denoted as “through flange plate into col.” in
152 Fig. 6). The panel zone shear yielding was determined by the strain gauge rosettes (P1 to P4 in
153 Fig. 5b). Figure 7 shows the envelope responses of the specimens. Figure 8 shows the panel zone
154 region (the region indicated by a rectangle in Fig. 3b) at the peak applied load. The panel zone
155 deformation shown in the right of the figure was obtained from the optical displacement tracking
156 sensors (Fig. 5a) and was magnified from the original deformation by three times. Figure 9
157 shows the damage of the panel zone near the end of testing. Table 2 lists the applied loads and
158 drift ratios at the important events, and the loads corresponding to the nominal flexural strength
159 of the beam and that of the column calculated based on actual material strengths. The measured
160 load and drift ratio listed in Table 2 are the average of the values from the positive and negative
161 drift loading. The ultimate point in Table 2 is defined as the point in the envelope of the cyclic
162 response (Fig. 7) at a 20% decrease of the applied load from the peak load. Figure 10 shows the
163 condition inside the column tube by removing a portion of the tube after testing. Figures 11 and
164 12 show the shear strain and hoop strain envelopes of the column tube in the panel zone obtained
165 from the strain gauge rosettes (P1 to P4 in Fig. 5b).
166
167 Specimen TFW1S (without concrete infill) had panel zone shear yielding at 1.2% drift ratio, after
168 which the stiffness of the specimen decreased significantly (Fig. 6a). The applied load reached
169 the peak value when the column tube started to fracture near the weld that connected the tube to
170 the through flange plates (e.g. the region indicated by an ellipse in Fig. 8a) at 2.8% drift ratio.
171 The fracture was due to the pulling force from the through flange plate. Clear shear deformation
172 in the panel zone was observed (Fig. 8a). Figure 9(a) shows the panel zone region at 7% drift
173 ratio. A significant portion of the column tube near the through flange plates fractured (indicated
174 by ellipses with solid lines in Fig. 9a). Moreover, significant indentations on the column tube
175 were observed due to the pushing force from the through flange plates when the plates were
176 loaded towards the column tube (indicated by ellipses with dashed lines in Fig. 9a). After testing,
177 a portion of the column tube was removed (Fig. 10a). The stiffeners and the surrounding weld to
178 the column tube of the stiffeners did not show any fracture.

6
179
180 Specimen TFW1CS (with concrete infill) showed a 150% higher load at the panel zone shear
181 yielding and a 156% higher load at the peak load than the previous specimen (without concrete
182 infill). The concrete contribution to panel zone shear strength was significant. Similar to the
183 previous specimen, this specimen reached the peak load when the column tube fractured near the
184 through flange plates (e.g. the region indicated by an ellipse in Fig. 8b). The peak load was
185 reached at 3.8% drift ratio, 36% higher than that of the previous specimen. Figure 9b shows the
186 panel zone at 8% drift. Portions of the through flange plates were separated from the column
187 tube when loaded away from the column tube (indicated by ellipses in Fig. 9b). Due to the
188 concrete, the indentations on the column tube due to the pushing force of the through flange
189 plates were less severe than the previous specimen. The applied load versus drift relationship of
190 this specimen showed a pinched behavior (Fig. 6b), which was not seen in the previous specimen.
191 The pinched behavior was associated with the gap closing between the tube and concrete around
192 the through flange plates. After testing, a portion of the column tube was removed (Fig. 10b).
193 Crushing of concrete was found in the panel zone beside the through flange plates. Crossed
194 diagonal cracks were observed in concrete. The concrete infill was highly mobilized to resist the
195 applied shear.
196
197 The load and drift at panel zone shear yielding of Specimen TFW1C (without stiffeners) were
198 similar to the previous specimen (with stiffeners). This specimen reached the peak applied load
199 at 3.7% drift ratio due to fracture of the column tube near the through flange plate, similar to the
200 previous two specimens. However, the through flange plates showed a larger relative
201 displacement with the column tube as can be seen by comparing Figs. 8(c) with 8(b). Without the
202 stiffeners, less concrete was involved to provide bearing force to the column tube beside the
203 through flange plates. As a result, the through flange plates were pushed more into the concrete.
204 The previous specimen with stiffeners showed a peak applied load 7% higher than that of this
205 specimen. Figure 9(c) shows the panel zone at 8% drift ratio. The through flange plate at the
206 lower left corner of the panel zone was completely pushed into the concrete (indicated by an
207 ellipse with a dashed line). This resulted in a large fracture of the column tube (indicated by an
208 ellipse with a solid line in Fig. 9c). This specimen showed a faster degradation of the panel zone
209 shear resistance (Fig. 7) and a more pronounced pinching behavior (Fig. 6c) than the previous

7
210 specimen. After the testing, removal of a portion of the column tube (Fig. 10c) revealed that
211 crushing and cracking of concrete infill were much less than the previous specimen. By
212 comparing the damage conditions of this and previous specimens, it is clear that adding stiffeners
213 help mobilize a larger concrete infill to transfer panel zone shear.
214
215 Specimen TFW2CS (wider through flange plates) showed a slightly lower (5% lower) load at
216 panel zone shear yielding but a much higher peak load (14% higher) than specimen TFW1CS
217 (same design except for smaller through flange plates). The peak applied load of specimen
218 TFW2CS was reached at 3.8% drift, same as specimen TFW1CS. However, at the peak applied
219 load, fracture of the column tube of specimen TFW2CS was not observed. It was observed at
220 4.6%, only after which the applied load started to show significant decrease. Figure 8(d) shows
221 the deformation of the panel zone at the peak applied load. Figure 9(d) shows the panel zone
222 region at 8% drift. Similar to specimen TFW1CS, fracture and indentation of the column tube
223 occurred near the through flange plates. However, relative displacements between the column
224 and the through flange plates were smaller than specimen TFW1CS. The wider through flange
225 plates mobilized a larger portion of the concrete to reduce the relative displacement. This
226 reduced the pinching in the applied load versus drift ratio behavior (Fig. 6d). Figure 10(d) shows
227 the concrete infill after testing. A much more extensive crushing and cracking of concrete than
228 the other specimens was observed. Note that this specimen was tested up to 10% drift, 1% more
229 than the other specimens with concrete infill.
230
231 Figure 11 shows the relationships between the panel zone shear strain and the drift ratio of all
232 specimens. Significant panel zone shear yielding was observed for all specimens. Adding
233 concrete infill or stiffeners, or increasing the width of the through flange plates increased the
234 panel zone shear strain and hence the steel tube contribution to panel zone shear strength. Figure
235 12 shows the hoop strain of the column tube in the panel zone. The hoop strain of specimen
236 TFW1S (without concrete infill) was nearly zero or negative (in compression) throughout testing.
237 In the other specimens (with concrete infill), the hoop strain showed positive values (in tension)
238 and increased significantly with the increase of the drift ratio. The tensile hoop strain was
239 evidence that the steel tube provided confinement to restrain the expansion of concrete infill due
240 to diagonal compression from panel zone shear. The average hoop strains of specimens TFW1CS,

8
241 TFW1C, and TFW2CS were 0.32%, 0.35%, and 0.63% at peak applied load, respectively, which
242 are higher than the yield strain but lower than the strain at the onset of strain hardening (1.03%)
243 of the column tube steel. This observation justifies the use of yield stress of the steel tube in the
244 estimation of the confining stress to concrete as will be discussed in the next section.
245 The strain gauges in the through flange plates and beams (gauges B1 to B4 in Fig. 5b) of
246 specimen TFW1S (without concrete infill) showed no yielding. This is expected as the nominal
247 flexural strength of the beam (based on elastic perfectly plastic behavior of steel) is much higher
248 than the moment caused by the peak applied load (Table 2). For the specimens with concrete
249 infill, yielding of the through flange plates occurred but stayed in the yield plateau region. The
250 nominal flexural strength of the beam of these specimens is slightly lower than the corresponding
251 moment caused by the peak applied load (Table 2). The strain gauges in the column tube outside
252 the panel zone (strain gauges C1 to C4) showed yielding at peak applied load. This was due to
253 the local deformation of the column tube caused by pulling force from the through flange plates,
254 which were close to the gauges. Note that the nominal flexural strength of the column is much
255 higher than the moment caused by the peak applied load (Table 2).
256
257 Panel zone shear strength
258 The panel zone shear strength can be calculated as the sum of contributions from steel and
259 concrete (AISC 2010a) (Eq. 1).
Vn  Vs  Vc (1)
260 In the estimation of Vs , the effective shear area was assumed to be equal to half of the cross-
261 sectional area of the steel tube as done in AISC (2010b) for round hollow structural sections
262 (HSS). The critical stress was set to be equal to the stress at shear yielding as evident from
263 significant shear yielding of the panel zones of all specimens at peak applied load (Fig. 11). The
264 outside diameter to the thickness of the steel tube ( Dc / tc ) is 64. Shear buckling was not
265 observed even for specimen TFW1S (without concrete infill). The stress at shear yielding was
266 assumed to be equal to the steel tube yield strength divided by 3 ( f yc / 3 ) based on the Von

267 Mises yield criterion (Von 1913).

f yc As
Vs  (2)
3 2

9
268
269 Three methods to estimate Vc were examined, i.e, the proposed method, the ACI 318 (2011)
270 method, and the ACI 352R (2002) method. The proposed method considered the failure mode of
271 the concrete infill observed from the testing, i.e., crushing of concrete at the stiffener side of the
272 concrete diagonal strut in the panel zone, which is denoted as critical face in Fig. 13(a). Figures
273 13(b) and 13(c) show the assumed, simplified projected shapes of the critical face on the plane
274 perpendicular to the direction of the through flange plate for specimens with and without the
275 stiffener, respectively. The assumed shape depends on the beam width, the stiffener size and the
276 steel tube thickness. The assumed projected area of the critical face can be calculated using the
277 following equations.

A1  bsts   bp  ts  xtc  2  bs  xtc  xtc  ts xtc    xtc 

2
(3)

A1  bp xtc  0.5  xtc 

2
(4)

278
279 To determine x , the crushing region of specimens with concrete infill was examined. Figure 14
280 shows the photos of the panel zones around the critical faces for specimens TFW1CS and
281 TFW2CS. Half of the steel tube was removed for each specimen. The critical faces were
282 indicated with hatched areas. The average projected area (average of areas from the left and right
283 sides) of the critical faces of specimen TFW1CS was 289.5 cm2. The value was 346.7 cm2 for
284 specimen TFW2CS. The crushing area of specimen TFW1C was not clear and hence was not
285 measured. By comparing with the measured average projected area, the values of x were
286 determined to be 7.0 and 7.5 for specimens TFW1CS and TFW2CS, respectively. To be
287 conservative, x equal to 7 was used hereafter. Note that the proposed method is only applicable
288 to exterior beam-column joints. Further study is needed for the proposed method to be applied to
289 interior beam-column joints.
290
291 The Vc in the proposed method is equal to the compressive resistance of the critical face:

 '
0.85 f cc A1 for Evaluation
Vc  f ce A1   (5)

'
0.85 f c A1 for Design

10
292 where f ce is equal to 0.85 concrete compressive strength according to ACI 318 (2011) for the
293 face of a nodal zone bounded by struts and/or bearing areas. Two concrete compressive strengths
294 were considered herein, i.e., confined concrete compressive strength f cc' and unconfined

295 concrete compressive strength f c' for evaluation and design purposes, respectively. The

296 confinement to concrete was provided by the steel tube as stated previously (Fig. 12), and f cc'
297 was determined using the following equations (Mander 1988).
 7.94 fl ' 2 fl ' 
f cc'  f c'  2.254 1   '  1.254  (6)
 fc'
fc 
 
2 f s tc
f l '  ke f l  ke (7)
Dc

298 where f s is set equal to the yield strength of the tube based on experimental observations (Fig.

299 11), and ke is 1.0 for a circular steel tube due to the absence of arching action of concrete.
300
301 The Vc in the AC 318 (2011) and ACI 352R (2002) methods is calculated using the following
302 equation.

Vc   f c' Aj (MPa) (8)

303 where  =1.0 and 1.245 according to ACI-318 and ACI 352R, respectively; and A j in the ACI

304 318 is defined as the gross cross-sectional area of concrete and in ACI 352R is defined as the
305 area based on the effective joint width (panel zone width perpendicular to the direction of the
306 through flange plate), which is equal to the average of the beam width and the column width.
307 Note that the ACI 352R method considers the effect of the beam width on the joint (panel zone)
308 shear strength while the ACI 318 method does not.
309
310 Table 3 lists the comparison between the measured shear ( V j max ) corresponding to the peak

311 applied load ( Pj max in Table 2) and the calculated shear strength. The V j max was obtained by

312 subtracting the column shear just outside the panel zone from the resultant force in the beam
313 flange at the column face, which was obtained by dividing the beam moment at the column face
314 by the beam flange-to-flange (center-to-center) distance. Actual material strengths for the

11
315 column steel tube and concrete were used in the shear strength calculation. The comparison for
316 specimen TFW1S (without concrete infill and hence Vc = 0) showed that Eq. (2) accurately

317 captured shear strength contribution from the steel tube ( Vs ). The Vn1 , Vn 2 , Vn 3 , and Vn 4 of Table

318 2 are shear strengths calculated with Vs by Eq. (2) and with Vc by the proposed method based on

319 f cc' , with Vc by the proposed method based on f c' , with Vc by the ACI 318 method, and with

320 Vc by the ACI 352R method, respectively. The comparison for specimens TFW1CS, TFW1C,

321 and TFW2CS (with concrete infill) showed that the use of the proposed method with f cc' for

322 calculating Vc resulted in close and conservative estimation of panel zone shear strength with an

323 average ratio of the measured to calculated shear strength equal to 1.08. When f c' was used for

324 calculating Vc in the proposed method, the average ratio of the measured to calculated shear
325 strength greatly increased to 1.63. Both the use of ACI 318 and ACI 352R methods for
326 calculating Vc led to conservative estimation of panel zone shear strength with average ratios of
327 the measured to calculated shear strength of 1.46 and 1.39, respectively. The ACI 318 method
328 produced results more conservative than the ACI 352R method.
329
330 Conclusions
331 The panel zone shear behavior of a proposed through flange connection for steel beams to
332 circular concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT) columns was examined in this research by testing
333 four exterior beam-column specimens. Main conclusions are summarized as follows.
334 (1) All specimens reached the peak applied load when the column tubes started to fracture near
335 the through flange plates. The panel zones of all specimens showed significant shear
336 yielding and shear deformation. At the end of testing, after removing a portion of the column
337 tube in the panel zone, significant crushing and cracking of concrete was observed for
338 specimens with concrete infill and stiffeners, suggesting the concrete infill was highly
339 mobilized for shear transfer through diagonal strut mechanism.
340 (2) The concrete infill greatly increased the panel zone shear strength by 156% (TFW1CS
341 compared to TFW1S). Moreover, it helped control the shear distortion of the panel zone.
342 The stiffeners increased the peak applied load by 7% (TFW1CS compared to TFW1C)
343 through stiffening the column tube to mobilize more concrete infill to transfer shear than

12
344 without stiffeners. A wider through flange plate (25% increase from TFW1CS to TFW2CS)
345 increased the peak applied load by 14%. Moreover, it reduced the relative displacement
346 between the through flange plates and the column, decreasing the pinching behavior.
347 (3) A model was proposed to calculate the panel zone shear strength contribution from concrete.
348 The proposed model considered crushing of concrete at the stiffener side of the concrete
349 diagonal strut in the panel zone as the failure mode. If confined concrete strength was used,
350 the panel zone shear strengths calculated with concrete contribution based on the proposed
351 model were in average 8% more conservative than the test results. If unconfined concrete
352 strength was used, the calculated panel zone shear strengths were in average 63% more
353 conservative than the test results.
354 (4) The panel zone shear strengths calculated with concrete contribution based on the ACI 318
355 and ACI 352R methods were in average 46% and 39%, respectively, more conservative than
356 the test results.
357
358 Acknowledgement
359 The authors would like to thank Architecture and Building Research Institute of Taiwan for
360 financially supporting this research under Contract No. 101301070000G0025.
361
362 Notation
363 A1 = projected area of critical face

364 Aj = effective concrete cross-sectional area of panel zone to resist shear

365 As = cross-sectional area of steel tube

366 bp = beam flange width

367 bs = stiffener depth

368 Dc = outside diameter of steel tube

369 f yc = yield strength of steel tube

370 f c' = compressive strength of unconfined concrete

371 f cc' = compressive strength of confined concrete

372 f ce = effective compressive strength of concrete

13
373 fl = confining stress

374 fl ' = effective confining stress

375 fs = hoop stress

376 ke = confinement effectiveness coefficient

377 Pj max = peak load

378 Pjy = load at panel zone shear yielding

379 PMnb = nominal flexural strength of beam

380 PMnc = nominal flexural strength of column

381 tc = thickness of steel tube

382 ts = thickness of stiffener

383 Vc = shear strength provided by concrete

384 Vc1 = shear strength provided by concrete based on proposed method with f cc'

385 Vc 2 = shear strength provided by concrete based on proposed method with f c'

386 Vc 3 = shear strength provided by concrete based on ACI 318

387 Vc 4 = shear strength provided by concrete based on ACI 352R

388 V j max = panel zone shear corresponding to the peak applied load ( Pj max in Table 2)

389 Vn = panel zone shear strength

390 Vn1 = panel zone shear strength calculated based on Vc1

391 Vn 2 = panel zone shear strength calculated based on Vc 2

392 Vn 3 = panel zone shear strength calculated based on Vc 3

393 Vn 4 = panel zone shear strength calculated based on Vc 4

394 Vs = shear strength provided by steel tube

395 x = ratio of steel tube thickness to dimension of crushing region

396  j max = drift ratio at Pj max

397  ju = drift ratio at ultimate point

398  jy = drift ratio at Pjy

14
399 TF = drift ratio at fracture of column tube near through flange plate

400  =factor reflecting confinement of panel zone by lateral members

401
402 References
403 American Concrete Institute Committee 318 (ACI 318). (2011). Building Code Requirements for
404 Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-11), American Concrete
405 Institute, Detroit.
406 American Concrete Institute Committee 352R (ACI 352R-02). (2002). Recommendations for
407 Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,
408 American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
409 AISC 341-10. (2010a). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of
410 Steel Construction, Chicago.
411 AISC 360-10. (2010b). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel
412 Construction, Chicago.
413 Azizinamini, A., Shekar, Y. and Saadeghvaziri, M. A. (1995). “Design of through beam
414 connection detail for circular composite columns.” J. Eng. Struct., 17(3), 209-213.
415 Azizinamini, A. and Schneider, S. P. (2004). “Moment Connections to Circular Concrete-Filled
416 Steel Tube Columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 130(2), 213-222.
417 Beutel, J., Thambiratnam, D. and Perera, N. (2002). “Cyclic behaviour of concrete filled steel
418 tubular column to steel beam connections.” J. Eng. Struct., 24, 29-38.
419 Chen, C. C. and Lo, S. H. (2003). “Behavior of steel beam to circular CFT column connections.”
420 Proc., 7th International Conf. on Steel Concrete Composite Structures, Sydney, Australia,
421 927-933.
422 Chen, S. J., Yeh, C. H. and Chu, J. M. (1996). “Ductile steel beam-to column connections for
423 seismic resistance.” J. Struct. Eng., 122(11), 1292-1299.
424 Cheng, C. T. and Chung, L. L. (2003). “Seismic performance of steel beams to concrete-filled
425 steel tubular column connections.” J. Construct. Steel Res., 59, 405-426.
426 Chi, B. and Uang, C. M. (2002). “Cyclic response and design recommendations of reduced beam
427 section moment connections with deep columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), 464-473.
428 Elremaily, A. and Azizinamini, A. (2001). “Experimental behavior of steel beam to CFT column
429 connections.” J. Construct. Steel Res., 57, 1099-1199.

15
430 Engelhardt, M. D. and Sabol, T. A. (1998). “Reinforcing of steel moment connection with cover
431 plates: benefit and limitations.” J. Eng. Struct., 20(4-6), 510-520.
432 Jones, S. L., Fry, G. T. and Engelhardt, M. D. (2002). “Experimental evaluation of cyclically
433 loaded reduced beam section moment connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), 441-451.
434 Li, F. X., Kanao, I., Li, J. and Morisako, K. (2010). “Local buckling of RBS beams subjected to
435 cyclic loading.” J. Struct. Eng., 135(12), 1491-1498.
436 Li, X., Xiao, Y. and Wu, Y. T. (2009). “Seismic behavior of exterior connections with steel
437 beams bolted to CFT columns.” J. Construct. Steel Res., 65, 1438-1446.
438 Lignos, D. G., Kolios, D. and Miranda, E. (2009). “Fragility assessment of reduced beam section
439 moment connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 136(9), 1140-1150.
440 Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-strain model for
441 confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng.,114(8), 1804-1826.
442 Morino, S. and Tsuda, K. (2002). “Design and construction of concrete-filled steel tube column
443 system in Japan.” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, 4(1), 51-73.
444 Nishiyama, I., Fujimoto, T., Fukumoto, T. and Yoshioka , K. (2004). “Inelastic force-
445 deformation response of joint shear panels in beam-column moment connections to
446 concrete-filled tubes.” J. Struct. Eng., 130(2), 244-252.
447 Schneider, S. P and Alostaz, Y. M. (1998). “Experimental behavior of connections to concrete-
448 filled steel tubes.” J. Construct. Steel Res., 45(3), 321-352.
449 Sheet, I. S., Gunasekaran, U. and MacRae, G. A. (2013). “Experimental investigation of CFT
450 column to steel beam connections under cyclic loading.” J. Construct. Steel Res., 86, 167-
451 182.
452 Uang, C. M. and Fan, C. C. (2001). “Cyclic stability criteria for steel moment connections with
453 reduced beam section.” J. Struct. Eng., 127(9), 1021-1027.
454 Von, M. R. (1913). “Mechanik der festen Körper im plastisch deformablen
455 Zustand.” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,
456 Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 1, 582–592.
457 Wang, J. F., Han, L. H. and Uy, B. (2009). “Hysteretic behaviour of flush end plate joints to
458 concrete-filled steel tubular columns.” J. Construct. Steel Res., 65, 1644-1663.

16
459 Wang, W. D., Han, L. H. and Uy, B. (2008). “Experimental behavior of steel reduced beam
460 section to concrete-filled circular hollow section column connections.” J. Construct. Steel
461 Res., 64, 493-504.

17
Tables
Click here to download Table: Tables.doc

1 Table 1. Experimental parameters

Specimen name TFW1S TFW1CS TFW1C TFW2CS
Concrete infill Not provided Provided Provided Provided
Stiffeners Provided Provided Not provided Provided
Through flange plate width (mm) 280 280 280 350
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

1
42 Table 2. Applied loads and drift ratios at important events
Pjy  jy Pj max  j max TF  ju PMnb PMnc
Specimen
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (%) (%) (kN) (kN)
TFW1S 120 1.2 153 2.8 2.8 6.0 352 498
TFW1CS 300 1.8 391 3.8 3.8 6.7 352 617
TFW1C 294 1.8 364 3.7 3.7 6.0 352 619
TFW2CS 284 1.6 444 3.8 4.6 8.0 439 611
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80

2
 81 Table 3. Measured and calculated shear strengths
V j max Vs Vc1 Vn1 Vc 2 Vn 2 Vc 3 Vn 3 Vc 4 Vn 4 V j max V j max V j max V j max
Specimen
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vn1 Vn 2 Vn 3 Vn 4
TFW1S 1128 1139 0 1139 0 1139 0 1139 0 1139 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
TFW1CS 2885 1139 1673 2812 705 1844 885 2024 974 2113 1.03 1.56 1.43 1.37
TFW1C 2687 1139 1272 2411 543 1682 900 2039 990 2129 1.11 1.60 1.32 1.26
TFW2CS 3280 1139 1830 2969 752 1891 855 1994 996 2135 1.10 1.73 1.64 1.54
82

3
Figure 1
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 1.pdf

Fig. 1. Proposed through flange connections.

1
Figure 2
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 2.pdf

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Connection and panel zone design details for specimens: (a) TFW1S and TFW1CS; (b)
TFW1C; and (c) TFW2CS.

1
Figure 3
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 3.pdf

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (a) Test setup; and (b) photograph of the setup.

1
Figure 4
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 4.pdf

12

10

8

6 
4
Drift ratio (%) 
2  

0
-2  

-4 
-6

-8 3 cycles 4 cycles 
6 cycles per drift 2 cycles per drift
-10 per drift per drift 
-12
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Cycle number

Fig. 4. Loading protocol.

1
Figure 5
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 5.pdf

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. (a) Optical displacement tracking sensors; and (b) strain gauges.

1
Figure 6
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 6.pdf

400 exp 400 exp

300 300

200 200

Applied load (kN)

Applied load (kN)

100 100

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300
:panel zone shear yielding :panel zone shear yielding
-400 :tube fracture near TF plate -400 :tube fracture near TF plate

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(a) (b)
400 exp 400 exp
300 300

200 200
Applied load (kN)

Applied load (kN)

100 100

0 0

-100 -100
-200 -200
:panel zone shear yielding
-300 -300
:through flange plate into col. :panel zone shear yielding
-400 :tube fracture near TF plate -400 :tube fracture near TF plate

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Drift ratio(%) Drift ratio(%)
(c) (d)
Fig. 6. Applied load versus drift ratios for specimens: (a) TFW1S; (b) TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C;
and (d) TFW2CS.

1
Figure 7
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 7.pdf

400

300

200

Applied load (kN)

100

-100
-200 TFW1S
TFW1CS
-300 TFW1C
TFW2CS
-400

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Drift ratio (%)

Fig. 7. Envelope responses.

1
Figure 8
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 8.pdf

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Fig. 8. Panel zone damage and deformation at peak applied load for specimens: (a) TFW1S; (b)
TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.

1
Figure 9
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 9.pdf

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 9. Panel zone damage near the end of testing: (a) specimen TFW1S at 7% drift; (b)
specimen TFW1CS at 8% drift; (c) specimen TFW1C at 8% drift; and (d) specimen TFW2CS at
8% drift.

1
Figure 10
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 10.pdf

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 10. Removing a portion of column tube skin after testing for specimens: (a) TFW1S; (b)
TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.

1
Figure 11
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 11.pdf

50000 50000
P1 P1
40000 P2 40000 P2
30000 P3 30000 P3
P4 P4

Shear strain ()

Shear strain ()

20000 20000

10000 10000
shear yield strain=2280 shear yield strain=2280
0 0

-10000 -10000

-20000 -20000
-30000 -30000

-40000 -40000
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift ratio(%) Drift ratio(%)

(a) (b)
50000 50000
P1 P1
40000 P2 40000 P2
30000 P3 30000 P3
P4 P4

Shear strain ()

Shear strain ()

20000 20000

10000 10000
shear yield strain=2280
0 0
shear yield strain=2280
-10000 -10000

-20000 -20000
-30000 -30000

-40000 -40000
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift ratio(%) Drift ratio(%)

(c) (d)
Fig. 11. Envelopes of shear strains of the column tube in the panel zone for specimens: (a)
TFW1S; (b) TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.

1
Figure 12
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 12.pdf

30000 30000
P1 P1
25000 P2 25000 P2
P3 P3
20000 P4 20000 P4

Hoop strain ()

Hoop strain ()

15000 15000

10000 10000

5000 5000
yield strain=1550
0 0
yield strain=1550
-5000 -5000
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift ratio(%) Drift ratio(%)

(a) (b)
30000 30000
P1 P1
25000 P2 25000 P2
P3 P3
20000 P4 20000 P4

Hoop strain ()

Hoop strain ()

15000 15000

10000 10000

5000 5000

0 0
yield strain=1550 yield strain=1550
-5000 -5000
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift ratio(%) Drift ratio(%)

(c) (d)
Fig. 12. Envelopes of hoop strains of the column tube in the panel zone for specimens: (a)
TFW1S; (b) TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.

1
Figure 13
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 13.pdf

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13. Shear transfer in concrete: (a) the critical face; (b) projected geometry of the critical face
with stiffener; and (c) projected geometry of the critical face without stiffener.

1
Figure 14
Click here to download Figure: Fig. 14.pdf

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 14. Crushing of concrete in the critical faces at the: (a) left side; and (b) right side of Fig. 10b
for specimen TFW1CS; and (c) left side; and (d) right side of Fig. 10d for specimen TFW2CS.

1
Figure Caption List

1 FIGURE CAPTIONS
2
3 Fig. 1. Proposed through flange connections.
4
5 Fig. 2. Connection and panel zone design details for specimens: (a) TFW1S and TFW1CS; (b)
6 TFW1C; and (c) TFW2CS.
7
8 Fig. 3. (a) Test setup; and (b) photograph of the setup.
9
10 Fig. 4. Loading protocol.
11
12 Fig. 5. (a) Optical displacement tracking sensors; and (b) strain gauges.
13
14 Fig. 6. Applied load versus drift ratios for specimens: (a) TFW1S; (b) TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C;
15 and (d) TFW2CS.
16
17 Fig. 7. Envelope responses.
18
19 Fig. 8. Panel zone damage and deformation at peak applied load for specimens: (a) TFW1S; (b)
20 TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.
21
22 Fig. 9. Panel zone damage near the end of testing: (a) specimen TFW1S at 7% drift; (b)
23 specimen TFW1CS at 8% drift; (c) specimen TFW1C at 8% drift; and (d) specimen TFW2CS at
24 8% drift.
25
26 Fig. 10. Removing a portion of column tube skin after testing for specimens: (a) TFW1S; (b)
27 TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.
28
29 Fig. 11. Envelopes of shear strains of the column tube in the panel zone for specimens: (a)
30 TFW1S; (b) TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.
31
32 Fig. 12. Envelopes of hoop strains of the column tube in the panel zone for specimens: (a)
33 TFW1S; (b) TFW1CS; (c) TFW1C; and (d) TFW2CS.
34
35 Fig. 13. Shear transfer in concrete: (a) the critical face; (b) projected geometry of the critical face
36 with stiffener; and (c) projected geometry of the critical face without stiffener.

1
37
38 Fig. 14. Crushing of concrete in the critical faces at the: (a) left side; and (b) right side of Fig. 10b
39 for specimen TFW1CS; and (c) left side; and (d) right side of Fig. 10d for specimen TFW2CS.

2
View publication stats