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

net/publication/318080897

Component model for pull-out behaviour of headed anchored blind bolt

within concrete filled circular hollow section

Article in Engineering Structures · October 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.056

CITATIONS READS

31 1,499

4 authors, including:

Yusak Oktavianus Hongfei Chang

University of Melbourne China University of Mining and Technology
28 PUBLICATIONS 255 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 274 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Emad Gad
Swinburne University of Technology
299 PUBLICATIONS 2,924 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yusak Oktavianus on 10 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Component Model for Pull-out Behaviour of Headed Anchored Blind Bolt
within Concrete Filled Circular Hollow Section

Yusak Oktavianus1, Hongfei Chang1,2*, Helen M. Goldsworthy1, Emad F. Gad3

1
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia; 2State Key
Laboratory of Geomechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining and
Technology, Xuzhou, 221116, China; 3Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University
of Technology, Hawthorn, 3122, Australia
*
(Corresponding author: E-mail: honfee@126.com)

Abstract
This paper presents a simplified approach to estimate the pull-out behaviour of headed anchor
blind bolts (HABB) from concrete filled circular hollow section (CFCHS). The approach was
developed based on a multi-linear component spring model representing the behaviour of the
blind bolt’s components, i.e. the bolt’s shank, the embedded head, and the washer bearing on
the inside of the tube wall. Extensive finite element analyses (FEA) were used to develop and
calibrate the nonlinear behaviour of each component for monotonic loading only, in which
the yield and ultimate strength, as well as the initial and secant stiffness of each component
were taken into account. Important parameters such as the diameter of the HABB, diameter
and thickness of the circular hollow section (CHS), embedment depth of the embedded head,
and concrete strength are also incorporated in defining the component spring behaviour. The
proposed method was able to yield a good match with both the FEA and test results for the
individual component behaviour in terms of the initial and secant stiffness as well as the
ultimate strength. Moreover, the load transfer and failure sequences of the HABB within a
CFCHS are discussed, and the assembly procedures of the component springs are proposed,
by which the combined component behaviour is identified and matches well with both the
FEA and test results.

Keywords: Component spring method, pull-out behaviour, headed anchor blind bolt,
concrete filled circular hollow section

1. Introduction
During the past earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake, it was observed
that a lot of brittle failures occurred at steel beam to column moment-resisting connections.
These failures occurred especially at the complete joint penetration (CJP) welds between the

1
bottom flange of the beam and column flange at very low levels of plastic demand (FEMA-
351 2000) . In order to avoid this brittle failure, researchers have been exploring the
possibility of using bolted connections in preference to welded ones. This renewed interest in
the use of bolted connections in special moment resisting frames has encouraged researchers
to develop new methods of characterising connection behaviour (Leon 1997). The results
from mechanical modelling of bolted T-stub connections used to connect the top and bottom
beam flanges to a universal column section have been presented by Swanson and Leon (2001)
for a system under monotonic loading and by Hu et al. (2011, 2012) for a system under cyclic
loading.

In this research, concrete-filled circular hollow sections (CFCHSs) were used as the columns
as they provide superior strength, high ductility, and good energy absorption capacity under
seismic action (Han and Li 2010). However, using this type of section, there is a lack of
access to the inside of the section in which the conventional bolts cannot be used. Therefore,
blind bolts (BBs), which can be installed from the outside of the CHS, were used in this
research to overcome this problem.

A study on AJAX ONESIDE blind bolted (BB) connections to unfilled square hollow section
(SHS) columns was accomplished by Lee et al. (2010, 2011a, b). This work on unfilled tubes
is also relevant to the construction stage in the case of filled tubes, i.e. when the concrete
infill is not yet effective. In the case of filled tubes, the connection can be anchored into the
concrete infill within the tube by making alterations to the blind bolts. This idea was first
suggested in the seminal paper presented by Gardner and Goldsworthy (1999). Further to this,
various anchors have been experimentally tested including the cogged anchored blind bolt
(CABB) (Yao et al. 2008) and a headed anchored blind bolt (HABB) (Yao et al. 2011). The
research by Ellison and Tizani (2004) has also incorporated a headed stud anchor, made by
extending the bolt shank of a Hollo-bolt and attaching a nut into one end of the bolt.
Pitrakkos and Tizani (2013) have performed tests to determine the pull-out behaviour of these
bolts from a thick-wall tube. Experimental outcomes from pull-out tests on individual BBs,
individual and groups of CABBs, individual HABBs in CFCHS and CFSHS have been
presented by Yao et al. (2008, 2011) and Agheshlui et al. (2016). In addition, parametric
studies using FEA package for pull-out tests on individual BBs, individual HABBs and
individual and group of double headed anchored blind bolts (DHABBs), have been
performed by Oktavianus et al. (2015b) and Oktavianus et al. (2017a, 2017b). The
2
application of the blind bolts in the double T-stub connections can be seen in Fig. 1
(Oktavianus et al. 2017a, Oktavianus et al. 2016, Oktavianus et al. 2015a). However, there
are no simplified equations available that can be used to predict the pull-out behaviour of
individual BBs and HABBs from CFCHSs. Fig. 2 shows the HABB components. It should be
noted that the total effective embedment depth is the summation of embedment depth and
thickness of a collapsible washer.
CFCHS 457X12.7
Through bolt
Headed Anchor
Curved T-stub Blind Bolt (HABB)
High strength
structural bolt Point of rotation

Universal beam
lever arm
Stiffener
RBRF

High strength High strength

Stiffener nut threaded bar

Fig. 1. The application of the blind bolted T-stub connections

(a)

3
 (b) (c)
Fig. 2. The headed anchor blind bolt (HABB) and FEA model. (a) Components of an HABB;
(b) Quarter model in FEA; (c) Detail of the FEA components (Oktavianus et al. 2015b)

This paper presents a simplified approach to estimate the pull-out behaviour of individual
BBs and individual HABBs from CFCHS. The approach was developed based on a
component spring model representing the combined effect of the blind bolt’s components, i.e.
the bolt’s shank, the embedded head, and the washer bearing on the inside of the tube wall.
Extensive finite element analysis (FEA) results reported by Oktavianus et al. (Oktavianus et
al. 2015b), which have been verified using experimental work done by Yao et al. (2011),
were used to calibrate the nonlinear behaviour of each component. The ABAQUS (2012) FE
package has been used to generate a quarter model as shown in Fig. 2(b). The model has been
modified to represent each component in turn. For instance, in order to understand the
behaviour of an ordinary blind bolt without any headed anchor, the headed anchor was
removed from the FE model. Alternatively, to gain an understanding of the behaviour of the
headed anchor, the washer inside the tube wall was removed from the FE model. To obtain a
reasonable estimation, the degradation of the stiffness of each component was taken into
account. Moreover, important parameters such as the diameter of the HABB, diameter and
thickness of the CHS, embedment depth of the embedded head, and concrete strength have
also been incorporated in defining the component behaviour. The proposed component model
matches well with the previous experimental and FEA results in terms of the initial and
secondary stiffness as well as the ultimate strength.

2. Components in a connection of HABB in CFCHS

For an HABB within CFCHS, the components that dominate the pull-out behaviour of
the bolt can be shown in Fig. 3(a), in which the free blind bolt’s shank, the steel tube wall, the
embedded bolt’s shank and the embedded head are numbered from 1 to 4. By assuming the
tensile behaviour of each component as a spring and ignoring the bond between the bolt
shank and the concrete (Agheshlui 2014), the component spring model of an HABB
connection is shown in Fig. 3(b). It can be seen that spring 3 and 4 are in series and then
parallel to spring 2, and finally in series with spring 1. If the load-displacement curve of each
spring is determined, the pull-out behaviour of HABBs in CFCHS can be modelled by
assembling the springs. A typical load-displacement model of the component spring is shown
4
in Fig. 3(c), in which the multi-linear model is used to represent the combined tensile
behaviour of different component springs. For example, 𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦1,𝑖𝑖 is defined as the first point of
the stiffness degradation for component 𝑖𝑖, and 𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦1,𝑖𝑖 refers to the yield strength for the blind-
bolt and the tube wall, while it refers to the local crushing strength of the concrete around the
headed anchor. 𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦2,𝑖𝑖 is defined as the secondary point of the stiffness degradation for
component 𝑖𝑖 , and 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑖𝑖 is defined as the ultimate strength of component 𝑖𝑖 . Similarly, 𝑘𝑘0,𝑖𝑖 ,
𝑘𝑘1,𝑖𝑖 and 𝑘𝑘2,𝑖𝑖 represent the initial stiffness, first secant stiffness and second secant stiffness,
respectively. For each component model, it is assumed that the stiffness will degrade to zero
when the ultimate strength of the component is achieved.

Fig. 3. Components of an individual HABB within CFCHS. (a) Components; (b) Component
spring model; (c) Multi-linear load-displacement curve of component i

The pull-out behaviour of HABBs within CFCHS depends on the concrete strength, blind
bolt properties, and steel tube properties (Oktavianus et al. 2015b). To gain a better
understanding of the behaviour of the component springs, four combinations of the
components are considered as shown in Fig. 4. Firstly, the tensile behaviour of the blind-bolt
is modelled on the basis of the bolt material properties, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Secondly, the
free blind-bolt is combined with the steel tube wall in Fig. 4(b), and the pull-out behaviour of
the tube wall is modelled. Thirdly, the blind-bolt is combined with the embedded head in Fig.
4(c), and the headed anchor behaviour is described using a multi-linear model. Finally, the
blind-bolt, the headed anchor and the steel tube wall are assembled to form an HABB

5
connection as shown in Fig. 4(d), and the pull-out behaviour of the connection is modelled by
assembling the component springs together. It should be noted that the bolt has only been
tighten to snug tight and not been fully pre-tensioned.

Fig. 4. Combinations of the components (a) Blind-bolt under tension; (b) Pull-out behaviour
of the tube wall; (c) Head anchor of the concrete; (d) Pull-out behaviour of the HABB in
CFCHS

3. Tensile behaviour of the blind bolt shank

A grade PC8.8 HABB is used throughout this paper and the stress-strain relationship of the
material is shown in Fig. 5(a). The tensile behaviour of the blind-bolt follows the material
properties and the yield and ultimate strength of the bolt may be calculated by using Equation
(1) and (2) as follows:
𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (1)
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (2)
Where 𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 and 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 are the yield and ultimate strength of the blind-bolt, 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 is the
effective tensile stress area of the blind-bolt, 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 and 𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 are the yield and ultimate tensile
strength of the blind-bolt.

The initial and secondary stiffness of the bolt shank under tension can be estimated using
Equations (3) and (4):
𝐸𝐸0,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝐾𝐾0,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = (3)
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

6
 𝐸𝐸1,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝐾𝐾1,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = (4)
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

Where 𝐾𝐾0,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 and 𝐾𝐾1,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 are the initial and secondary stiffness of the blind-bolt, 𝐸𝐸0,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 and 𝐸𝐸1,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
are the initial and secondary elastic modulus of the blind-bolt from the stress-strain
relationship, 𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 is the length of the blind-bolt, (𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 equals to the combined thickness of the
two washers and the tube wall for the free bolt, and 𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 equals to the embedment depth for
the embedded bolt’s shank).

By using Equation (1) to Equation (4) and based on the stress-strain relationship of Fig. 5(a),
the load-displacement model of the blind-bolt is determined and shown in Fig. 5(b). It should
be noted that the bond between the concrete and the threaded rod will enhance the stiffness of
the bolt shank. However, this has been shown in tests by Agheshlui (2014) to have a minimal
effect on the combined initial stiffness in series of the head anchorage and the bolt shank.
Hence the bolt shank has been conservatively considered to be un-bonded in the estimation of
the strength and the stiffness.

Fig. 5. Tensile behaviour of the blind-bolt (a) Stress-strain relationship of the blind-bolt; (b)
Load-displacement model of the blind-bolt

4. Pull-out behaviour of the ordinary BB from CFCHS tube wall

The pull-out behaviour of the ordinary BB from CFCHS tube wall is dominated by the
tension of the free blind bolt and the bending of the CFCHS tube wall. The strength and the
stiffness of the free blind bolt have been explained in Section 3. In Section 4.1 and 4.2, only
the strength and the stiffness of the CFCHS tube wall are summarised.

7
4.1 Strength model of the CFCHS tube wall

To predict the pull-out strength of the blind-bolt in the CFCHS tube wall, the design equation
of screw connections for cold-formed structures by AISI (AISI 2016) is introduced for
reference. The pull-out behaviour of the blind-bolt in the CHS tube wall is similar to the pull
over behaviour of the screw connection, which depends on several parameters such as the
thickness of the tube wall (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ), the thickness of the washer (𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ), the diameter of the bolt
head (𝑑𝑑ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ), and the outer diameter of the washer (𝑑𝑑𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ). Pekoz (1990) recommended that
the ultimate tensile strength be used in the strength prediction of a screw connection and
enhanced the correlation between the calculated strength with the test data, and the design
equations of Pekoz (1990) were accepted by AISI (2016). However, considering the size
effect, i.e. the thickness of the tube wall and the diameter of the blind-bolt which is larger
than that in the screw connection, and the diameter of the hole which is larger than that of the
bolt shank, a coefficient of 1.2 instead of 1.5 is used in this paper. The ultimate pull-out
strength of an ordinary BB from the tube wall of a CFCHS can thus be calculated using
Equation (5).
𝑑𝑑𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ∙ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 1.2 𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ∙ min � (5)
(𝑑𝑑ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + 2𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ) ∙ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
Where 𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 is the ultimate tensile strength of the tube wall steel, dws is the outer diameter of
the washer, t tw is the thickness of the tube wall, dhead is the diameter of the bolt head, t ws is
the thickness of the washer. It is important to note that when the value of 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 is larger than
the nominal tensile ultimate capacity of the blind bolt (𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ), BB tensile failure will occur
instead of pull-out of the BB.

As to the yield strength of the steel tube wall subject to a tension load on the blind-bolt, the
test and FEA results by Oktavianus et al. (2015b) indicated that the stress concentration
around the bolt hole will lead to local yielding before the overall yielding of the tube wall.
Therefore, the yield strength of the steel tube wall at the first yield point is defined as being
approximately equal to 45% of the ultimate pull-out strength as expressed in Equation 6(a).
The yield strength at the second yield point is defined to correspond to the overall yielding of
the tube wall as expressed in Equation 6(b). Assuming the tube wall’s nominal yield strength
(𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ) and nominal ultimate strength (𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ) are taken as 350 MPa and 430 MPa for the
specimens considered in the experimental work, a modification is made to take into account

8
different values of 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 and 𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 that could be present in actual tests as shown in Equation
(6).
𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 /𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦1,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 0.45 � � 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (6a)
350/430

𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦2,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = �𝑓𝑓 � 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (6b)
𝑢𝑢,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

where 𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦1,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 is the first yield strength of the tube wall and 𝑃𝑃𝑦𝑦2,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 is the second yield strength
of the tube wall.

4.2 Stiffness model

The initial stiffness of the tube wall, specifically due to the bearing of the split washer on the
inside of the tube wall, is expressed in Equation (7), which is a modification of the equation
proposed by Yao (2009). The expression of Equation (7) is also found to be similar to the
equation proposed by Liu et al. (2012) for the initial stiffness of the channel face.
Modifications have been made to additionally consider the influence of the ratio of the
washer diameter to the hole diameter and of the 𝐷𝐷0 /𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ratio. Enlarging the diameter of the
washer and maintaining the hole size and tube wall thickness will increase the stiffness of the
tube wall. Moreover, as the thickness of the steel tube increases, or as the diameter of the tube
wall decreases, the stiffness of the tube wall increases.
𝜋𝜋𝐸𝐸 𝑡𝑡 2 𝑑𝑑 4
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
𝐾𝐾0,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 6(1−𝜈𝜈 2 )∙𝐷𝐷 �𝑑𝑑
� (7)
𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜

where 𝐾𝐾0,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 is the initial stiffness of the pull-out behaviour of the steel tube wall, 𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 is the
Young’s modulus of the steel tube, 𝜈𝜈 is the Poisson’s ratio of the steel tube, 𝐷𝐷𝑜𝑜 is the outer
diameter of steel tube wall, 𝑑𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 is the diameter of the bolt hole.

When considering the stiffness degradation of steel, a ratio of 5%-10% has been widely used
in the literature when the bilinear model is adopted (Elamin 2014). However, the stiffness
was found to undergo only gradual degradation from the first yield point (representing local
yielding) and second yield point (representing overall yielding) of the tube wall and thus a
multi-linear model is used to represent this degradation. In this paper, the stiffness of the steel
tube wall between the first and second yield points is taken as 20% of the initial stiffness, in
order to consider the influence of the infilled concrete and the curved tube wall, as shown in
Equation (8a). The stiffness of the tube wall is found to degrade substantially after the second
yield point of the tube wall and thus 6% of the initial stiffness is used to calculate the stiffness
after that point, as shown in Equation (8b).

9
 𝐾𝐾1,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 20%𝐾𝐾0,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (8a)
𝐾𝐾2,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 6%𝐾𝐾0,𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (8b)

4.3 Verification of the model

The load-displacement model for the pull-out behaviour of the tube wall is verified using the
test data from Yao (2009) and the FEA results from Oktavianus et al. (2015b). The
dimensions of the specimens tested by Yao (2009) are listed in Table 1. FE models have been
constructed that correspond to these specimens. The notation used is as follows: ‘T6’ denotes
a specimen with a tube thickness of 6 mm, ‘D16’ denotes a specimen with a blind bolt
diameter of 16 mm, ‘N1’ indicates an ordinary blind bolt (BB), the superscript ‘TH’ indicates
the theoretical value and ‘FE’ indicates the finite element value.

For an ordinary blind bolt without a headed anchor, the component spring model degrades to
a two-spring model, and the pull-out behaviour of the connection can be obtained by simply
adding up displacements from spring 1 and spring 2 at the same level of load, as shown in Fig.
6(a). The theoretical models are compared with the test results obtained by Yao (2009) and
FEM results obtained by Oktavianus et al. (2015b) as shown in Fig. 6(b) to Fig. 6(f) and a
good agreement is demonstrated. For example, the initial stiffness (𝐾𝐾0 ) and ultimate strength
(𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 ) obtained using the theoretical model are, on average, 94% and 98% respectively of the
FEM values, with standard deviations of 13% and 4%. The secant stiffness at 0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 is, on
average 97% that of the FEM values with a standard deviation of 9%, as shown in Table 1.

It should be noted that Fig. 6(a) only demonstrates the situation of tube wall failure, since the
ultimate strength of the blind bolt is usually higher than that of the tube wall for the cases
considered here. However, if the tube wall was stronger than the blind bolt, i.e. the
combination of a thick tube wall with a small diameter of the blind bolt was considered, the
fracture of the blind bolt would be likely to determine the ultimate strength of the joint.
However, the assembly process is still the same as in Fig. 6(a).
Table 1. Details of the test specimens for tube wall pull-out

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Do t tw d bb d ws t ws d head 𝐾𝐾0𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐾𝐾0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Specimen D o /t tw 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 𝐾𝐾0𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐾𝐾0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

T6_D16_N1 324 6 16 54 32 5 23 0.80 1.02 0.94

T6_D20_N1 324 6 20 54 42 6 29 0.85 1.08 0.94

10
 T8_D16_N1 324 8 16 40.5 32 5 23 0.90 0.89 0.99

T8_D20_N1 324 8 20 40.5 42 6 29 1.05 0.88 1.03

T10_D20_N1 324 10 20 32.4 42 6 29 1.09 0.98 0.98

Mean 0.938 0.97 0.976

Standard deviation 0.13 0.09 0.04

Fig. 6. Verification of the model for the pull-out behaviour of the steel tube wall (a)
Assembly of the component spring; (b) T6_D16-N1; (c) T6_D20-N1; (d) T8_D16-N1; (e)
T8_D20-N1; (f) T10_D20-N1.

11
5. Behaviour of headed anchors embedded in concrete

5.1 Strength model of the headed anchor

The behaviour of headed anchors embedded in unconfined concrete has been studied
extensively and equations in the American concrete structures code (ACI 318M 2011) are
widely accepted as being suitable ones to use to calculate the pull-out strength of these
anchors. The test and FEA results by Pitrakkos and Tizani (2013) for the embedded headed
bolt used in their work indicated that the behaviour of the anchorage due to the head bearing
on the concrete is dominated by two potential failure modes, namely the local crushing of the
concrete under the head, and the formation of a concrete cone at a certain angle emanating
from the head. To describe the pull-out behaviour of the headed anchor, provided that the
embedded length is sufficient so that the cone forms after the crushing around the embedded
head, the strength at local crushing and the strength associated with the full development of a
concrete cone can be defined as the first yield and ultimate strength of the anchor. The
equations used in the ACI standard (ACI 318M 2011) to estimate the strength at local
crushing and the strength when the concrete failure prism forms are given in Equations (9)
and (10) respectively. Equations (10) is derived based on an assumption that there is no crack
at service load levels.
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐 = 8𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ (9)

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑐𝑐 = 13�𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ∙ ℎ1.5
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (10)

Where 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 is the net bearing area of the head on the concrete, 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ is the characteristic
compressive strength of the concrete, and ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 is the effective embedment depth of the
anchor head as shown in Fig. 7.

There is an important assumption made in developing the ACI equations that is not applicable
in the case considered here. The ACI code (ACI 318M 2011) requires that the minimum
value of the ratio of 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 /𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 be 4 to ensure that the bolt fracture occurs prior to the
development of the concrete cone, since there is no confinement or head bearing on the
confining wall in this case. This limit cannot be met for the HABB because the diameter of
the head is restricted by the clearance of the predrilled hole in the tube wall. For example, the
ratio of 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 /𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 is only 1.1 for the grade D16 and D20 HABBs, which is much lower than
the value required by the ACI 318M (2011). The test results by Pitrakkos and Tizani (2013)

12
indicated that this discrepancy leads to an overestimate of the local crushing strength by the
ACI 318M (2011) and a constant reduction factor of 5/6 was proposed. Considering the high
stress concentration of the concrete around the embedded head, local crushing of the concrete
is likely to occur at an early stage of loading, and this will lead to the degradation of the
stiffness. Thus, a new reduction factor of 𝜒𝜒 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 /4𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 is introduced to modify Equation
(9) and the local crushing strength for the concrete around the headed anchor can be
calculated using Equation (11).
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐 = 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐,𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝜒𝜒 = 2𝐴𝐴2𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 /𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (11)

The discrepancy of the ratio of 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 /𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 also leads to a quite conservative ultimate breakout
strength by ACI 318M (2011). Thus the equation recommended by Eligehausen et al. (2006),
as given in Equation (12), is used to predict the ultimate strength of the headed anchor
located in a region of a concrete member where there is no cracking at service load levels. It
is derived for situations in which the value of the 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 /𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ratio is more similar to the cases
considered here and in which the cylinder compressive strength of the concrete is used rather
than the characteristic strength.
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢,𝑐𝑐 = 16.8 ∙ �𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 ∙ ℎ1.5
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (12)

Where 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 is the cylinder compressive strength of the concrete.

Fig. 7. Anchor behaviour of the embedded blind-bolt head

13
5.2 Initial and Secondary Stiffness model

For a headed anchor embedded in concrete, the bearing stress distribution in the concrete at
the head is illustrated in Fig. 7 (Tsavdaridis et al. 2016). The stress is concentrated at the
corner of the bolt head and bolt shank, and initially reduces sharply with distance from the
shank but then reduces gradually to zero at the edge of the head. In order to predict the initial
stiffness of the concrete parallel to the blind bolt �𝐾𝐾0,𝑐𝑐 �, the stress distribution may be
simplified as a rectangular in which the width is equal to one quarter of the length (𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 ) as
shown in Fig. 7 and summarised in Equation (13). At the initial stage of loading it was
assumed that the steel tube does not provide any confinement to the concrete, because the
concrete is very stiff relative to the tube wall. Therefore, the concrete itself is able to
equilibrate the load by tensile stresses set up in the concrete which are lower than the
concrete tensile strength. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume the value of 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 to be very
small for the initial stiffness calculation expressed in Equation (13) because there is a stress
concentration around the embedded head as previously mentioned. Thus, the initial stiffness
of the headed anchor can be calculated as below.
2
𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 𝜋𝜋�(𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 /2)2 −𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � 𝜋𝜋
𝐾𝐾0,𝑐𝑐 = lim𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐→0 4𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐
= 4 𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (13)

where 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 is the length of the concrete that contributes to the initial stiffness of the headed
anchor and 𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 is the Young’s modulus of the concrete.

The test results by Pitrakkos and Tizani (2013) indicated that the local crushing of the
concrete will lead to a significant degradation of the stiffness, and the proposed secant
stiffness is only 3% to 7% of the initial stiffness for the case of concrete filled SHS.
Considering the confinement of the CHS utilised in this paper, a ratio of 5% is used to predict
the secondary stiffness of the headed anchor after the local crushing of the concrete.
𝐾𝐾1,𝑐𝑐 = 5%𝐾𝐾0,𝑐𝑐 (14)
For the headed anchor embedded in concrete without a tube wall, both the strength and the
stiffness of the headed anchor will degrade to zero after the full development of the concrete
cone. Although the presence of the tube wall will prevent the concrete cone from splitting off,
and may even lead to an increase in strength, this confinement behaviour is not taken into
account to avoid doubling up on the contribution of the tube wall. Therefore, the stiffness of
the headed anchor is assumed to be zero after the strength of the concrete cone is achieved.

14
5.3 Verification of the model

To verify the accuracy of the current trilinear model for the behaviour of the headed anchor,
the FEA results from Oktavianus et al. (2015b) are used for comparison as shown in Fig. 8. In
order to confirm the reliability of the FE models using ten pull-out specimens with or without
a headed anchor, Oktavianus et al. (2015b) removed the washer to check the contribution of
the headed anchor. Some details of the FE models are listed in Table 2 and more details can
be found in Oktavianus et al. (2015b). The notation ‘N2’ indicates a HABB with an
embedment depth of 100 mm, and ‘nw’ indicates an HABB without a washer inside the tube
wall; the other notations are the same as in Table 1.

As mentioned before, by not taking into account the potential confinement provided by the
steel tube wall on the concrete cone, and by neglecting the bond between the bolt shank and
the concrete, the component spring model of the headed anchor will degrade to three springs
in series as shown in Fig. 8(a). Thus, the pull-out behaviour of the headed anchor can be
modelled by adding up the spring curves along the horizontal axis, as shown in Fig. 8(a). The
comparisons between the theoretical model and the FEM curves are shown in Fig. 8(b) to Fig.
8(f). It can be seen that the current model matches well with the FEM results. The initial
stiffness (K 0 ) and the ultimate strength (P u ) obtained using the theoretical model are, on
average, 96% and 98% that of the FEM values with standard deviations of 9% and 12%, as
shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Details of the FE models for the headed anchor

t tw d bb L emb 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 𝐾𝐾0𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

Specimen D o (mm) D o /t tw
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) 𝐾𝐾0𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
T6_D16_N2_F_nw 324 6 16 54 100 48 0.87 1.13

T6_D20_N2_F_nw 324 6 20 54 100 48 1.04 0.98

T8_D16_N2_F_nw 324 8 16 40.5 100 48 0.84 1.02

T8_D20_N2_F_nw 324 8 20 40.5 100 48 1.01 0.94

T10_D20_N2_F_nw 324 10 20 32.4 100 48 1.02 0.81
Mean 0.96 0.98

Standard deviation 0.09 0.12

15
Fig. 8. Verification of the model for the headed anchor (a) Assembly of the component spring;
(b) T6_D16_N2_nw; (c) T6_D20_N2_nw; (d) T8_D16_N2_nw; (e) T8_D20_N2_nw; (f)
T10_D20_N2_nw.

6. Assembly of the component springs

6.1 Load transfer and failure sequences of individual HABBs in a CFCHS

The assembly of the individual HABB in a CFCHS is shown in Fig. 9(a). To evaluate the
pull-out behaviour of the individual HABB connection, two equilibrium equations for the
load and the displacement can be listed as follows:
𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃1 = 𝑃𝑃2 + 𝑃𝑃3 = 𝑃𝑃2 + 𝑃𝑃4 (15)

16
 𝛿𝛿 = 𝛿𝛿1 + 𝛿𝛿2 = 𝛿𝛿1 + 𝛿𝛿3 + 𝛿𝛿4 (16)
Where 𝑃𝑃 and 𝛿𝛿 are the load and displacement applied at the free end of the bolt, just outside
the washer on the outside of the tube wall; 𝑃𝑃1 , 𝑃𝑃2 , 𝑃𝑃3 and 𝑃𝑃4 are the loads carried by spring 1
to spring 4; 𝛿𝛿1 , 𝛿𝛿2 , 𝛿𝛿3 and 𝛿𝛿4 are the displacements of spring 1 to spring 4, respectively.

It can be seen from Equation (15) that the strength of the individual HABB within a CFCHS
is dominated by the strength of the free blind bolt (𝑃𝑃1 ), as well as the combined strength of
the tube wall (𝑃𝑃2 ) and the headed anchor (𝑃𝑃4 ). Considering the fore-mentioned individual
behaviour of the components, the failure sequences of the individual HABB in a CFCHS are
demonstrated in Fig. 9(b) to (e). The deterioration of the connection begins with the local
crushing of the concrete around the embedded head, and ends up with two typical failure
modes, namely the failure of the free blind-bolt or the full development of the concrete cone.
Prior to these failure modes, yielding of the tube wall or the blind bolt may occur; this
depends on the material properties and the dimensions of each component.

Although the ultimate strength of the tube wall and the headed anchor are combined in Fig. 9,
it should be noted that the full development of the concrete cone may not occur at the same
time as the ultimate capacity of the tube wall. Generally, the full development of the concrete
cone occurs prior to the ultimate capacity of the tube wall being reached due to the stiffness
of the concrete which is very high compared with that of the tube wall. Once the concrete
cone has been fully developed, this concrete cone is confined by the tube wall and will stay
inside the tube wall. It is assumed that the confinement provided by steel tube will only
enhance the displacement capacity of the concrete and will not increase the capacity of the
concrete as mentioned previously. Moreover, the head bearing inside the tube wall continues
to provide more resistance until the ultimate capacity of the tube wall is reached. Therefore,
the failure mode is the combination of the full development of the concrete cone and the
ultimate capacity of the tube wall.

17
 Fig. 9. Failure sequence of the individual HABB in a CFCHS (a) Component springs; (b)
Before local crushing; (c) After local crushing; (d) Failure by free bolt; (e) Failure by
concrete cone

6.2 Procedure used to assemble the component springs

The procedure used to assemble the component springs is shown in Fig. 10(a). Firstly, the
material properties and dimensions of the components are input as original data, and Equation
(1) to (14) are used to calculate the key points of each component. The multi-linear model of
each component is built individually. Then the ultimate strengths of the blind bolt, the
headed anchor and the CFCHS tube wall are used to check the failure mode of the individual
HABB in a CFCHS.

If the concrete cone failure controls, the detail of the assembly for the component springs is
shown in Fig. 10(b), and Fig. 10(c) shows the assembly detail of the blind bolt failure mode.
Taking Fig. 10(b) for example, the assembly process is described as follows: Firstly, spring 3
and spring 4 are assembled in series to form the red dash line of (3+4). Secondly, the
displacements on line (3+4) are used as the input displacement of line 2, and the line of
component spring 2 is assembled in parallel with the line (3+4) to form the red dot-dash line

18
of 2//(3+4). Finally, line 1 is assembled in series with line 2// (3+4) to form the total load-
displacement curve of the individual HABB joint shown as a red bold solid line. The
assembly of Fig. 10(c) is similar to that of Fig. 10(b), although in that case the ultimate
strength of the joint is dominated by the ultimate tensile strength of the blind bolt.

19
20
 Fig. 10. Assembly of the components for the individual HABB in a CFCHS (a) Flow chart
for the assembly; (b) Assembly procedure for the concrete cone failure; (c) Assembly
procedure for the free bolt failure.

6.3 Verification of the model with test or FE results

Yao (2009) has tested the pull-out behaviour of HABBs within CFCHS and the details of the
specimens are listed in Table 3. Oktavianus et al. (2015b) built finite element models of
these specimens and checked the reliability of the FEM results by comparing them with the
test data reported in Yao (2009). By using the parameters described in Table 3 as the input
data, and following the assembly procedure shown in Fig. 10 (using Equations (1) to (14) as
outlined in Section 6.2), the theoretical curve of each specimen can be obtained and
compared to the test or FEM results, as shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the
theoretical curves match well with the test and FEM curves. The strengths estimated by the
theoretical model are controlled by the failure of the blind bolt, and this is consistent with the
results from the tests and the FE analyses. The initial and secondary stiffness obtained from
the fully assembled component spring models are also found to match well with the test and
FEM results. For example, the initial stiffness (K 0 ) and ultimate strength (P u ) of the
theoretical model are, on average, 86% and 98% that of the FEM ones, with standard
deviations of 10% and 2%. The secant stiffness at 0.6P u is, on average, 90% that of the FEM
ones, with a standard deviation of 11%, as shown in Table 3. However, the ultimate strengths
predicted by the theoretical models are lower than those from the tests, which is probably due
to the discrepancy between the nominal and actual values of the material properties
(Oktavianus et al. 2015b).
Table 3. Details of the test specimens for individual HABB in CFCHS
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Do t tw d bb L embd d ws t ws d head 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝐾𝐾0𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐾𝐾0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Specimen D o /t tw 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) 𝐾𝐾0𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐾𝐾0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

T6_D16_N2 324 6 16 100 54 32 5 23 48 0.77 0.86 0.97

T6_D20_N2 324 6 20 100 54 42 6 29 48 0.88 0.75 1.01
T8_D16_N2 324 8 16 100 40.5 32 5 23 48 0.76 0.91 0.99
T8_D20_N2 324 8 20 100 40.5 42 6 29 48 0.94 0.91 0.97
T10_D20_N2 324 10 20 100 32.4 42 6 29 48 0.97 1.06 0.97
Mean 0.86 0.90 0.98
Standard deviation 0.1 0.02 0.11

21
Fig. 11. Verification of the model by test and FEM curve of individual HABB in CFCHS (a)
Test setup by Yao (Yao 2009); (b) T6_D16_N2; (c) T6_D20_N2; (d) T8_D16_N2; (e)
T8_D20_N2; (f) T10_D20_N2.

To further check the reliability of the current component spring model, a wider range of FE
models has been built; the thickness of the tube wall, the diameter of the blind-bolt, as well as
the compression strength of the concrete have been varied (Oktavianus et al. 2015b). The
comparisons between the theoretical and FEM results are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 12, and
this demonstrates a good agreement between the two different approaches. The notation used
is as follows: ‘T9.5’ denotes a specimen with a tube thickness of 9.5 mm, ‘457’ denotes the
outer diameter of the steel tube, ‘D20’ denotes a specimen with a blind bolt diameter of 20
mm and ‘C20’ denotes the compressive strength of the concrete cylinder of 20 MPa. All
specimens considered in Table 4 utilised HABB. The initial stiffness (K 0 ) and ultimate
strength (P u ) of the theoretical model are, on average, 105% and 102% of the FEM values,
with standard deviations of 6% and 2%. The secant stiffness at 0.6P u is, on average, 114%
that of the FEM values, with a standard deviation of 12%, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Details of additional FE models for individual HABB in CFCHS

22
 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Do t tw d bb 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝐾𝐾0𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐾𝐾0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Specimen D o /t tw L embd /d bb 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) 𝐾𝐾0𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐾𝐾0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢
𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
1 T9.5_457_D20_C20 457 9.5 48.1 20 5.55 20 1.042 1.023 1.015
2 T9.5_457_D20_C30 457 9.5 48.1 20 5.55 30 1.011 1.078 1.014
3 T9.5_457_D20_C40 457 9.5 48.1 20 5.55 40 1.016 1.191 1.013
4 T9.5_457_D20_C50 457 9.5 48.1 20 5.55 50 1.157 1.221 1.014
5 T12.7_457_D20_C20 457 12.7 36 20 5.55 20 1.042 1.012 1.013
6 T12.7_457_D20_C30 457 12.7 36 20 5.55 30 1.076 1.008 1.005
7 T12.7_457_D20_C40 457 12.7 36 20 5.55 40 0.921 1.147 1.019
8 T12.7_457_D20_C50 457 12.7 36 20 5.55 50 1.070 1.278 1.014
9 T9.5_457_D24_C20 457 9.5 48.1 24 5.54 20 1.082 0.941 1.077
10 T9.5_457_D24_C30 457 9.5 48.1 24 5.54 30 1.064 1.104 1.012
11 T9.5_457_D24_C40 457 9.5 48.1 24 5.54 40 1.121 1.196 1.014
12 T9.5_457_D24_C50 457 9.5 48.1 24 5.54 50 1.094 1.340 1.014
13 T12.7_457_D24_C20 457 12.7 36 24 5.54 20 1.125 1.032 1.004
14 T12.7_457_D24_C30 457 12.7 36 24 5.54 30 1.034 1.066 1.026
15 T12.7_457_D24_C40 457 12.7 36 24 5.54 40 1.037 1.164 1.006
16 T12.7_457_D24_C50 457 12.7 36 24 5.54 50 0.945 1.281 1.023
Mean 1.052 1.137 1.018
Standard deviation 0.06 0.12 0.02

23
 Fig. 12. Verification of the model by a wider range of FEM curves

7. Conclusions
This paper presents the development of a component spring model that can be used to
estimate the pull-out behaviour of BBs and HABBs from a CFCHS. The multi-linear model
is developed from the behaviour of the blind bolt’s components, i.e. the bolt’s shank, the
embedded head, and the washer bearing on the inside of the tube wall. The individual spring
models are validated by comparison with either existing experimental or FEM results, and
then assembled to build the theoretical model for the overall pull-out behaviour of HABBs
within a CFCHS. The following conclusions can be drawn:

The ultimate pull-out strength of the steel tube wall depends on the thickness of the tube wall
(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ), the thickness of the washer (𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ), the diameter of the bolt head (𝑑𝑑ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ), and the outer
diameter of the washer (𝑑𝑑𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ). The stress concentration around the bolt hole leads to the initial
stiffness degradation and the yielding of the tube wall leads to the subsequent stiffness
degradation; thus, a multi-linear model is developed to represent the pull-out behaviour of the
steel tube wall, and this is shown to match well with the test and FEM results.

The strengths corresponding to the local crushing of the concrete under the head and at the
formation of the concrete cone can be defined as the apparent yield and ultimate strength of
the headed anchor, respectively. Accordingly, similar equations to those in the ACI code can

24
be used to estimate these strengths. However, a consideration of the 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 /𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ratio, which is
restricted in this case to a value smaller than that assumed in the ACI, is needed to modify
these equations. The initial stiffness of the concrete parallel to the blind bolt depends on the
Young’s modulus of the concrete (𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ) and the blind bolt diameter (𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ). The stiffness of the
headed anchor will degrade greatly after the concrete under the head crushes; it is reasonable
to assume that the stiffness is reduced to 5% of the initial stiffness.

The ultimate pull-out strength of the individual HABB within a CFCHS is either determined
by the strength of the free blind bolt or the combined strength of the tube wall and the headed
anchor. The pull-out behaviour of the individual HABB within a CFCHS can be evaluated by
assembling the component springs together, and a procedure has been proposed to carry out
this assembly. The theoretical model that results from the complete assembly of the
component springs matches well with existing test and FEM results.

In this paper, only the pull-out behaviour of the HABB within a CFCHS is considered. By
using the proposed component spring model, the sequence of the failure mode can be
observed. This will be very useful in the design process so that the failure mode due to the
formation of a fully developed concrete cone can be avoided. In previous work, it has been
suggested that the force transferred to the blind bolt should be limited to 0.6𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 . The tools
developed in this paper will be useful in refining this approach since the contribution of each
component, i.e. the concrete contribution and the steel tube wall contribution, can be
measured at any level of load.

The anchored blind bolts will be used in steel beam to CFCHS column moment-resisting
connections; groups of blind bolts will be used to connect the flanges of two curved T-stubs
(one at the bottom of the beam and one at the top) to the CFCHS, and the webs of these T-
stubs will be connected to the flanges of the steel beam. It also should be noted that the
prediction of the group behaviour of the HABBs in a CFCHS is much more complex than
that of the individual HABB due to the presence of the curved T-stub flange, the possible
addition of through bolts, the application of full pre-tension to all of the bolts and the
orientation of the HABBs which will not, in general, be parallel to the applied force. The
component spring method for this group behaviour will be considered in future work, using
the research reported in this paper as the foundation.

25
References
ABAQUS (2012) ABAQUS 6.12 documentation. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp,
Providence, USA.

ACI 318M (2011) ACI 318M: Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318M-11) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, USA.

Agheshlui H (2014) Anchored blind bolted connections within concrete filled square steel
hollow section columns, PhD thesis The Universiy of Melbourne, Melbourne,
Australia.

Agheshlui H, Goldsworthy H, Gad E, et al. (2016) Tensile behaviour of anchored blind bolts
in concrete filled square hollow sections. Materials and Structures 49(4): 1511-1525.

AISI (2016) North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.

Elamin AMEA (2014) The face bending behaviour of blind-bolted connections to concrete-
filled hollow sections, PhD thesis University of Nottingham, London, UK,

Eligehausen R, Mallée R and Silva JF (2006) Anchorage in concrete construction. John

Wiley & Sons,

Ellison S and Tizani W (2004) Behaviour of blind bolted connections to concrete filled
hollow sections. The Structural Engineer 82(22): 16-17.

FEMA-351 (2000) Recommended seismic evaluation and upgrade criteria for existing
welded steel moment-frame buildings. SAC joint venture, pp 2-9.

Gardner AP and Goldsworthy HM (1999) Moment-resisting connections for composite

frames, Bridge and Foster ed., Balkema, Rotterdam: 309-314.

Han LH and Li W (2010) Seismic performance of CFST column to steel beam joint with RC
slab: Experiments. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66: 1374-1386.

Hu J, Leon R and Park T (2011) Mechanical modeling of bolted T-stub connections under
cyclic loads part 1: Stiffness modeling. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67:
1710-1718.

26
Hu J, Leon R and Park T (2012) Mechanical models for the analysis of bolted T-stub
connections under cyclic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78: 45-57.

Lee J, Goldsworthy HM and Gad EF (2010) Blind-bolted T-stub connections to unfilled

hollow section columns in low-rise structures. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 66(8-9): 981-992.

Lee J, Goldsworthy HM and Gad EF (2011a) Blind bolted moment connection to sides of
hollow section columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67(12): 1900-1911.

Lee J, Goldsworthy HM and Gad EF (2011b) Blind bolted moment connection to unfilled
hollow section column using extended T-stub with back face support. Engineering
Structures 33(5): 1710-1722.

Leon R (1997) Seismic performance of bolted and riveted connections. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Sacramento, California: SAC Joint Venture, Background
Reports: Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame
Systems Behaviour.

Liu Y, Málaga-Chuquitaype C and Elghazouli A (2012) Response and component

characterisation of semi-rigid connections to tubular columns under axial loads.
Engineering Structures 41: 510-532.

Oktavianus Y, Goldsworthy H and Gad E (2017a) Cyclic behaviour of individual double

headed anchored blind bolts within CFST. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
133: 522-534.

Oktavianus Y, Goldsworthy H and Gad E (2017b) Group behaviour of double headed

anchored blind bolts within concrete-filled circular hollow section under cyclic
loading. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.

Oktavianus Y, Goldsworthy H, Gad E, et al. (2016) Cyclic Behaviour of Replaceable

Buckling Restrained Fuse (RBRF): Experimental Work. In 11th Pacific Structural
Steel Conference, Shanghai, China, October 29-31.

Oktavianus Y, Goldsworthy HM, Gad EF, et al. (2015a) Finite element analysis of beam-
CFST column connections using replaceable buckling restrained fuses (RBRFs) as
energy dissipation device. In Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on
Earthquake Engineering: Building an Earthquake-Resilient Pacific, Sydney,
Australia, 2015.

27
 Oktavianus Y, Yao H, Goldsworthy HM, et al. (2015b) Pull-out behaviour of blind bolts from
concrete-filled tubes. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and
Buildings 168(10): 747-759.

Pekoz T (1990) Design of cold-formed steel screw connections. International Specialty

Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures: 575-587.

Pitrakkos T and Tizani W (2013) Experimental behaviour of a novel anchored blind-bolt in

tension. Engineering Structures 49: 905-919.

Swanson J and Leon R (2001) Stiffness modeling of bolted T-stub connection components.
Journal of Structural Engineering 127(5): 498-505.

Tsavdaridis KD, Shaheen MA, Baniotopoulos C, et al. (2016) Analytical approach of anchor
rod stiffness and steel base plate calculation under tension. Structures 5: 207-218.

Yao H (2009) Moment-resisting beam-to-circular column connection with blind bolts and
extensions, PhD thesis The Universiy of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Yao H, Goldsworthy HM and Gad EF (2008) Experimental and Numerical investigation of

the tensile behaviour of blind-bolted T-stub connections to concrete-filled circular
column. Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers
134(2): 198-208.

Yao H, Goldsworthy HM, Gad EF, et al. (2011) Experimental Study on Modified Blind Bolts
Anchored in Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Columns, Novotel Barossa Valley Resort,
South Australia.

28

View publication stats