The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of
Nottingham available open access under the following conditions.
This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may
be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see:
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf
IV ERsl
9id.', a .*
Z: F4
SEMIRIGID
BEHAVIOUR OF CONNECTIONS
IN
PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURES
by
assumed to be pin jointed. This current research work focuses on the flexural
global precastconcreteframe.
tests and smaller isolated joint tests. This has been done using the so called
connection tests. The effects of stress redistribution, shear interaction etc. are taken of
by linear transformationin the results from the full scale tests, enabling parametric
connections.Two of the most common types of connection were used, the welded
plate and the billet type. Proprietaryhollow core slabswere tied to the beamsby tensile
reinforcing bars, which also provide the inplane continuity across the joint. The
strength of the connectionsin the double sided tests was at least 0.84 times the
single sided connectionswas limited by the strengthof the connectionitself, and was
I
approximately half of that for the double sided connection, even though the connection
was identical. The secantstiffnessof the connectionsrangedfrom 0.7 to 3.9 times the
concrete does not occur at a single nodal position. In general the double sided
single sidedones.
and the relative linear rotational stiffness K. of the connectionto that of an encastre
beam.
is
responseof a structure greatestwhen 0< KS 0
:51.5 where is found to be more
small that they may be ignored within the usual levels of accuracy associatedwith
ii
determine 5 factors for situations currently not catered for in design codes of
proposed to extend the concrete column design approach in BS 8110 and EC2,
III 
PUBLICATIONS
concrete sway frame, Dept. of Civil Eng. Nottingham University & Dept. of Civil
Nottingham,February1996,344 pp.
IV
7) Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and GOrgiin, H. Effective length factors in precast
concrete frames. Report to EPSRC. Grand No. GR/K17286. Dept. of Civil Eng.
NottinghamUniversity, October1996.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT I
PUBLICATIONS IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xvi
DECLARATION xvi 1
NOTATION xviii
CHAPTER1
INTRODUCTION
vi
1.7 Objectivesof the work
CHAPTER2
SEMIRIGID CONNECTIONS
CHAPTER3
ANALYTICAL STUDY
vii
CHAPTER4
connections 41
CHAPTER5
CONNECTION TESTS
Vill
5.9 Material testing 516
CHAPTER 6
ix
6.5.2 Test TB I (B) 612
CHAPTER 7
x
CHAPTER 8
8.1 interfacestests
Objectiveof the precastinsituprecast 81
CHAPTER 9
xi
9.1.2 Calculationof effectiveYoung's modulus 94
CHAPTER10
method 107
xii
CHAPTER11
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
stiffness 113
xiii
11 Part I resultsusinglinear connections 1116
moments 1125
xiv
CHAPTER12
APPENDICES
connections A511
REFERENCES R1
BIBLIOGRAPHY B1
xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
profound thanks for acting as supervisorsto this work, their constant guidance,
generoushelp, continuedencouragement
and unfailingenthusiasmthroughoutthe
Melvyn Ridal and Brian Whitehouse,of the Civil EngineeringLaboratory, and the
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRQ, and the
The staff at the ScienceLibrary for their efficient and speedyway in ordering
for references.
brother in Turkey for their support during the length of the present study and the
previousstudies(English Courses).
xvi
DECLARATION
I declarethat this thesisis the result of my own work. No part of this thesishas been
(Halil GORGON)
xvil
NOTATION
cIclEIc
d effective depth
E modulus of elasticity
e connection eccentricity
xvill
Fwt tensile force in fillet weld
f second order elastic lateral displacement under service load in the case of an
frame
fc concrete stress
fS steel stress
xix
JUS secantflexuralstiffnessat Mu
Ke bars
effectivestiffnessof embedded
attachedJ114EcI
attachedc11EI
Lb length of connectedbeam
I spanlength
M bendingmoment
Mb momentin beamend
MC momentin columnend
eccentricitymoment
Mh hoggingmoment
xx
M! initial bendingmomentof connection
MS saggingmoment
MP plasticmoment
n numberof interfaces
in joint
no numberof storeys
P load
bendingload,collapseload,shearload,uniaxialcompressive
PCr bucklingload
qk characteristicimposedload (distributed)
R reaction force at free end of beam due to shear load P, reduction factor
Rb beam rigidity
xxi
Rc columnrigidity
Si secantrotationalstiffnessof connection
t infill thickness
V shearresistanceof connection,pulsevelocity
z lever arm
a2 to
relative stiffnesseof column upperbeam
columneffectivelengthfactor, bondcoefficient
Of deformationcriterion
A lateraldeflection
8B compressivedeformation
xxii
8T crack width opening
bending specimens
xxiii
CHAPTER1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
makesthebuildingmarketa competitiveone.
select from a rangeof finishesand be able to inspectand accept the units before they
leave the factory. Schools, universitiesand buildings such as hospitals, offices, car
parks, hotels are widely being built using precastconcrete components.The current
for is
market share precastconcrete about 10%in the UK, 85% in Scandinavia,
70% in
the Baltic countries and more than 60% in Northern Continental Europe (Elliott,
1997a).
and reduced delays causedby bad weather and seasonalconditions. Precast allows
11
more accurateprogrammingof the processesof construction and sites using precast
concrete structures are typically cleaner.Plate 1.1 shows a typical precast concrete
building underconstruction.
structuralframesare:
columnsandfloor slabs
In both situations the behaviourof the frarne in resistinggravity and horizontal load
as pinned. In reality these connectionsdo not behave as pins and therefore the
effect they haveon the overall structure.This thesismainly concentrateson the flexural
12
connectionsFigures I. I(a) and (c)) and external (single sided three way connections
Figures 1.1(b) and (d)) beamtocolumnjoints with and without precast concrete
hollow core floor slabs and tie steel. Theoretical work has been supported by
experimentaltesting.
in this programme).
connection tests, Southampton as the preferred research contractor for the detailed
13
1.3 Precast concrete beamtocolumn connections
In the UK the most popular type of precast concrete connection is known as the
protecting all structural steel and rebarsin the concretedor grouted joint. The two
using either concrete containing small sized (610 mm) aggregates,or sandcement
the infill. dependson the type and the shearcapacityof the particular connection,but in
the main is 100 to 150 mm x 100to 200 mm deep.The breadthof the infill may either
be equal to the breadthof the beam,or in the caseof very wide beamsmay be equal to
the breadthof a pocket.In either casethe breadthof the infill will be about300 mm.
14
1.4 Properties of beamtocolumn connections
stiffnessanddeformationcapacity(ductility).Thebehaviourmaybedescribedin terms
the joint. Previous and new work has shown that this is approximatelyequal to the
In this context it is very important that the Mý characteristicsof die connectionare
It is thought that the initial rotational stiffness Jis in Figure 1.2(d) of the
connectionis due mainly to the geometryof the joint, in particular in the mannerin
which it is constructedand the tolerancesmade for lack of fit etc. onsite. This is
particularly relevantin grouted and boltedjoints where slippagemay take place at low
loads and give an artificially low stiffness.On the other hand the ultimate strength of
the connection Mu in Figure 1.2(d) is due mainly to the strength of the critical
materialsin the joints, i.e. the crushingand shearstrengthof the concreteand the yield
15
and tensile strengthsof the reinforcements.Finally the ductility of the connection is
separatedand accountedfor in any single M0 plot, where the general rotational
stiffnessJ of the connectionis given by the gradientof the M0 curve as shown in
Figure 1.2(d).
Ks =j Eq.1.1
4Ecl1l
i. e. the ratio of the stiffnessof the connectionto the flexural stiffnessof the beamto
Dependingon which criterion for frame analysisis used, i.e. sway stiffness, column
0 Class3. pinned
16
It is well known that the actual response of almost all beamtocolumn
connection is a purely theoretical one but useful to the designer to simplify the
calculationof framedstructures.
be considered as pinned or perfectly rigid if their behaviour is such that the bending
moment they can carry over is so low, and the relative rotation between the connected
beam and column is not large enough, respectively, to significantly influence the overall
flexibility has to be taken into account)or rigid in the frame design stage. Details of
The definitions used in this work are that the connection moment Mcon is measured in
the joint at the face of the column, and 0 is the relative rotation of the beam to the
column at the samepoint. Thus assumingthat the end of the beamof overall depth h
acts as a rigid body, beamend rotations may also be expressedas foRows. Refer to
Figure 1.2(c):
o=5T+8B Eq.1.2
h
17
where 8T is the crack openingplus other linear displacementsin the concrete at the
top of the joint, and 8B is the compressivedeformationin the concrete at the bottom
of the joint. nUS if 5T and 8B can be computed separatelyfor given loading and
determined from the appropriate state of stress. Similarly, in the tension zone an
to the applied tension forces. Experimentaltesting has been carried out to measure
these values, which may then be validated against the results of full connection
Obviously, the flexural stiffness, bending moment and the deformation capacity
rigid connections.
18
simply supported beam, with a uniformly distributed load, the maximum design
bending moment takes place at midspanof the beam. In Figure 1.3(b) the simple
supports have been replacedby fixed supports. Now, the maximum elastic bending
moment takes place at the fixed supports,and is twothirds of the maximum elastic
flexural stiffness capacity), but will always be less than that for a simply supported
connectionswould be those which would allow just enough end rotation to balance
there may well be practical difficulties however in providing such a precise flexural
stiffness value. Such a solution may not be the optimum. This is becauseof the
shows that the design moment is significantly reduced even if the stiffness of the
connectionis only modest.This also meansthat a small reduction in the stiffnessof the
19
A similar pattern occurs when the elastic midspandeflection of the bewn is
considered.The variation in the elastic midspan deflection of the beam with end
obtainedby either:
One of the objectivesof this study has beento recognisethe inherentflexural stiffness
in the UK and to incorporate this into design proceduresrather than to modify the
connections.
characterisation.
of connectionresponse,analysisof internal moments,and evaluation
Chapter 11.
110
1.7 Objectives of the work
smallerisolatedjoint componentstests
structures
These objectives have been realised practically on the basis of the following
experimentalwork:
11(a) with andwithout hollow core floor slabsand floor tie steel
0 boltedbillet bearntocolumnconnection
111
(b) Singlesidedbeamtocolumnconnection(three way connection)Figure
2) Interfacetestson:
112
0
cz
u
"a
LL.
113
oor
me
Section AA
/ cc
U C/) u
cz
u m
vi
rn 213
r"
x0 Z)
V')
cz
0
(2)
e
I2
ý
ý: 0000 ýc \ 44
u LL
>
Cq
01)
D
E (:X
V cq
0
()
z;J
o 0
E *,
0
IZ.
1
UZ b
C.
)
C
u
LL.
115
SectionAA
116
ing
ýInlt
sagging
moment
e momentsarereversible
Figure1.2(a):Swayloading
hoggingmoments
ý  rz'
117
PI.
Zcm
ccast
bm
ým
Joint (coversconnection)
Precastcolumn
Rotationalspring
ST +8B
h
M
MU
mcr
Ocr Ou Of 0
ý =relative joint rotation (rad)
J,f,= initial secantrotational stiffness(kNnVrad)
Figure 1.2(d):Momentrotationcharacteristic
118
1.4 & Ow
(b) Fixed
(c) Semirigid
119
m
/8
q12
M=Mh+Ms 2 /8
=q,
1
S 2
q1
 Mh =
Mh = Ms 12
I
Iq
12
M
S 24
, Ideal connection
M,
I stiffness
8
5qi74384EI
1.0
0.8ý \ 
0.6 
0.4
0.2 j
S=q, 4 /384EI
120'
(a) Simply supported
(b) Fixed
(c) Semirigid
121
q
Beamline
124EIMI12EI
ý=q 13
q12 /12
Momentrotationcharacteristic
of connection
beamline
q13124EI 0
122
77tesimplicityofthepwzzt concreteframes
( British CementAssociation,1992)
123
CHAPTER 2
SEMIRIGID CONNECTIONS
2.1 Introduction
energy and redistribution of loads as the structure is loaded. Ibis literature review
especiallyin theUSA.
The first studies on this subject were conducted at the Portland Cement
21
also beenstudiedby other investigatorsin the USA (Lee, 1977), in Canada(Uzumeri
examined the slippage of beam and column bars through the joint. Three interior
beamtocolumnsubassemblages
as shownin Fig. 2.1 were designedand tested under
reversecyclic loading.
large ductility levels. The joint hoop reinforcementwas more effective for lower
Ehsani and Wight (1985) investigatedthe effect of the flexural strength ratio
(x , defined asthe sum of the flexural capacitiesof the columnsto that of the beam,the
22
Six exterior insitu reinforced concrete beamtocolumnconnections were
constructed as shown in Fig. 2.2 and tested. The results were compared with the
apportionment of total joint shear to concrete and joint hoops similar to the shear
design of flexural members. It is concluded that in some caseswhere either the flexural
strength ratio, the joint shear stress, or the anchorage requirements are significantly
could be safelyrelaxed.
recommendations
reinforcedconcreteconstruction.
23
Tbe test results have indicated that the proposed method of connection
connection
momentresistant in the context of seismicdesign.
joining precast beam to columns into three categories and carried out tests on the third
failures took placedue to the failure of the weld betweenthe bars and the plate in the
column. They improved this position of the joint by increasingthe length over which
Uy Funded Researchand
Stanton et al (1986). In the USA, the PCI Specia.
maximum effort to the physical testing of connections in common use. PCI 1/4
ResearchReport along with related publications (Pillai and Kirk, 1981; Bhatt and
24
to addressa void in the technicalliterature.Currently, there is a shortageof extensive
test data describing the behaviour of precast connections. The lack of information is
due, in part, to the effort and cost of preparingtests.The PCI report allows the model
alternative for obtaining basic information about the behaviour of precast concrete
Connections and Simple Connections" (Stanton et al, 1986) was selected for the
model study for three reasons.SeeFig. 2.4. First, it is a commonly used connection,
Good agreementhas been found betweenthe strength and the normalized moment
rotation responseof the model and full scaletests. Ibe agreementhas demonstrated
25
that modelscan be used to study this type of precastconcreteconnectionbehaviour.
two tasks:
Initial studies recognised that there were many connection systems available. A
selection of those with the most promise was identified. for further development,
detailedanalysisand testing.
momentresistingframe.
The experimentalresults verified the ductile failure mode of connectionBCI.
Table 2.1.
26
The moment rotation behaviourof this connectionis shown in Fig. 2.5. This
has been obtained by deducting from the measuredcantilever deflection values the
calculateddisplacement
of a beam to
assuming be fully fixed at its end.
Based on test data, it has been decided that the elastic moment is roughly
curvatureof the cantilevers.Thus Fig. 2.5 doesnot show the actual relative rotation of
the connection.
two baybuilding.
Five tests were carried out on intermediateand upper level beam column
bc5 do not include soft elements. The momentrotation curves are bilinear.
Connectionsbc3 and bc4 include soft elements.As before, the rotation includes the
27
into account the second moment of area, I, of the "T' beam. However, it is not clear
Ultimate momentsoccurredfor rotations higher than 0.06 rad, and they have
been compared with the ultimate design moments in the beams. The ratio
According to the test results, it has been concluded that the continuity moment
the U.K. These were the billet, welded plate, corbel and cleat connections,two of
Resultsgiven in Fig. 2.8. (a) and (b) are for the double sidedtest shown in Fig.
data given in the figures show that relative rotations are in excess of 0.02 radians when
A secantstiffness value Jes (see Chapter 11) obtained using the beamline
method, as shown in Fig. 1.7, was used in the stability analysisto determinecolumn
was used becausethe local tangent stiffness J given by the gradient of the M0
It has been reported that connection momentsin the order of 125 kNm to
28
frame to resistsway forcesand reduce0 factors to valueswhich are only 10% greater
than for the fully rigid condition. It has been suggestedthat a partial safety factor
determinationof the Jes using the beamlinemethod, and no visual cracking was
but the capacitiesvaried over a wide range,Le Mcon from 5 to 2 10 kNm, and stiffness
obtain buckling capacitieswhich differ from fully rigid situation by about 5% is only
marginallygreater than the flexural stiffnessof the beam,i. e. 4EI / 1. Combining the
it
experimental and analytical results was clear that the welded plate and billet
serviceabilityand ultimate limit state criteria, and would lead to a more economical
aspinned.
well asallowing variation of crosssectionalong the length of the column. The method
29
The above method of analysis of isolated columns of all types has been
sway (Virdi and Ragupathy, 1992a). The analysis also applies to nosway frames and
to continuous columns. The analysis takes proper account of the behaviour of flexible
based on the calculation of the equilibrium deflected shape of the frame and its
members for an initially low level of applied external loading. Iterations for obtaining a
curvature relations, along the length of the member to determine the member deflected
shape, and at nodal points to ensure equilibrium and compatibility through any flexible
or rigid joints. The external forces are increased in steps until, for a given load factor,
an equilibrium deflected shape cannot be found. Such a load is taken as the ultimate
load of the frame. The theoretical basis of the new technique is described in detail by
was developed based on the above method. It has the following options:
3. The output includes deflections, moments, shear forces, axial forces, strains,
210
Virdi and Ragupathy (1992b). They conducted eight tests on precast
concrete subframesas shown in Fig. 2.9 to provide data for the validation of
together with a stub length (2 m) of the beam.The dimensionsof the test specimens
were essentially predetermined in terms of height and overall cross section dimension
the computedresults in Table 2.3, which gives the failure axial load for sevenof the
subframestested,and in Table 2.4, which gives the failure moment for Test 7. It can
be seen that the correlation for axial loads is within 7%. The correlation for Test 7, in
reported that results for other tests show similarly good correlation. The connection
detail at the beamcolumnjunction for this test is shown in Fig. 2.10. By comparing
deduce the moment rotation characteristic of the particular connection. The hogging
The Test Program of the Finnish Connections (Tampere, 1995). The main
The Fmnish test program is divided in two phases.In the first phase the
be carried out. The tested beam cross section is not rectangularbut has flanges to
211
support slabs.It was selectedas being the most common one in Finland. The same
kind of structurewill be usedin both test seriesto make the comparisonof the results
asshown in Fig. 2.13.In this testseriestwo similar testswill be carried out to examine
behaves rather like a hinge when the joint concrete is not used. The effect of the joint
bolt density on overall joint behaviour, e.g. failure mode, ultimate strength and
moment M has beencreatedat the concreteface due to the eccentricity of the load
from the column. This moment,which tendsto extendthe top boltsýinducesthe plate
curves show that the numberof bolts per joint has an effect on the joint's rotational
rigidity.
212
reinforcedconcretebuilding frames.A total of 18 halfscaleinterior connectionmodels
were designed,built, and tested to failure to evaluate their strength and ductility
properties under static and unidirectional repeated loading. They include four
They found that the two types of precast concrete connections performed
The load deflection curves for some of the specimensare presentedin Fig.
2.17. From the results,it was concludedthat all the precastmodelspossessednot only
Euler buckling load at k> 25 deviatesby lessthan 10% from the Euler buckling load
213
the value of k exceeds25. It has also been concluded that a connection can be
consideredto be a hinge when the valueof k is lessthan 0.5. The Euler buckling load
at k=0.5 deviatesby less than 85% of the Euler buckling load at k When the
k value lies between0.5 and 25, the connectionis to be classifiedas semi  rigid, and
flexibility is to be taken into account in calculating the force distribution and the
is flilly satisfactory,it was decidedto dedicatea part of the COST Cl Project to find
rotation stiffness (rigid, semirigid and pinned) and moment capacity (fuR strength,
Partial strength and pinned). Tberefore as a further step, it should also be tried to
determinant ones. They are based on classification criteria defined as ratios 0, either
F,,(F)
 Ultimate load criterion PU = ý
Fu(F = co)
of an unbracedstructureas:
214
Fcr =1)
(ýPj
FE)
f(F = 00)
 Deformationcriterion Of
f (F)
caseof an unbracedframe:
The joints have been consideredas rigid if their influence on the structural
criterion is the one concerning the lateral displacementeven if the 0 values for
0.95).
performed by meansof the non linear FEM software called FINELG on realistic
reported that the problem can be solved, in the case of onestorey muldbays
215
onestorey twobays frames with rigid column bases have been investigated with
FMLG and it appeared, as shown in Fig. 2.19, from the study that the same
frame.
foRowingwork hasbeenprogrammed:
unbracedstructures;
boundarybetweensemirigidand pinnedfields.
 problem of
It has been reported that work on these different topics is in progress, but
Beam reference length method (BJorhovde et al, 1990) has been used to
classify connections in tenns of strength, stiffness, and ductility, using tests and
theoreticaldata.
be
can associatedwith a certainreferencelength for the beamcomponent.It has been
the angular displacement, i. e. the rotation, of the connection that is needed, rather than
the curvature.
216
The rotation is the essential measure of deformability in the evaluation of the
that plays the similar role. This was shown as one of the reasonswhy it has been
the beamslopein the developmentof the classificationcriteria. The length of the beam
column connectionsas presentedby Kishi and Chen (1986) it has been found that a
value of the referencelength of five times the depth of the beam, that is part of the
middle of the semirigid range. The data confirm that the stiffer the connection, the
respectively, for the flexible to semirigid and the semirigid to rigid connection
moment boundaryhigher than 0.7Mp, or perhapseven larger than the full Mp has
The nondimensional.
ductility requirementhas beenrelated to the ratio of the
ultimate momentcapacityof the connectionto the fully plastic momentof the beam.It
217
is found to be approximately inversely proportional to the initial stiffness of the
connection. In the other words, the more flexible the connection, the larger the
ductility.
necessary The ductility region boundaryhas been simplified on the basis of
endpoint moment ratios of 0.2 and 0.7, and the initial stiffnessconnection valuesof
EI110h and EI12h, respectively. This gives the nondimensional ductility requirement
assumedto be perfectly rigid, when its flexibility causesa reduction in the axial load
carrying capacityof the frameof not more than 5%. Fig. 2.20, (Bijaard and Steenhuis,
the Euler buckling loads of a frame with semirigid connections and rigid ones
PEW)
0.95 To be ableto classifya connectionaccordingto this diagram,the
the beam (cross sectionsand lengths) are required to obtain p. Eurocode 3 uses a
by
simplification choosinga constantboundaryvalue for the parameter U (F =8 for
Bearntocolumnconnectionsmay be classifiedby :
rotationalstiffness
218
momentresistance
The rotationalstiffnessof a beamtocolumnconnectionjnay be classifiedas:
nominallypinned
semirigid
rigid
actualanticipatedbehaviour)satisfiesthe condition:
Sj: 5 0.5EIb I Lb
If the rising portion of its moment rotation characteristic lies below the
may be classifiedas
nominallypinned
partialstrength
fuHstrength
219
A bearntocolumnconnection may be classified as nominally pinned if its
design moment resistance MRd is not greater than 0.25 times the design plastic
moment resistanceof the connectedbeam MpRd provided that it also has sufficient
rotation capacity.
design moment resistance MRd is less than MpIRd (see Fig. 2.2 1).
Euler Instability criterion (Bijaard. and Steenhuis, 1991): For the purposes
satisfying this aim. By assuminga specific ratio betweenthe beam length and the
further step, it should also be tried to eliminate the distinction between braced and
but is only valid for a specificratio of beamlength to height (11h = 12 for bracedand
220
11h = 37.5 for unbracedframes)up to the elasticbehaviourwhich is presentup to at
least 2/3 Mpl,beam The assumptionof Bijaard with constant 11h is also an estimation

frames.
Similarly, the flexural rigidity of the beam depends on whether the cracked or
uncrackedsectionis considered.
the approachused in global analysis.As the cracked value is lower, it is more likely
221
is the more accuratemodel of beambehaviourand therefore greater approximation
No detailedrules are given for the calculationof the three main propertiesof a
rotation capacity. Methods to predict these properties are not yet sufficiently well
slabreinforcemenL
2.3 Summary
This literature survey contributesa first step dealing with the knowledge of flexural
concretestructuresin particular.
experimentally. This will allow the test results of the experimental work to be
system used in Eurocode 3 as being the only standard one and yet there is no
the Hterature.survey.
222
Connection Calculations Measurements
Designation Failure Failureload Failure Failureload
momentkNm kN momentkNm kN
1  F
BC1 145 96 153 102
Table 2.1: Experimentalandcalculatedvaluesof momentsandfailure loads
223
Test No Experiment SWANSA % Error
Ragupathy,1992)
Ragupathy,1992)
224
LOAD POINT
CL
m (A 
cr. cr.
ix 9) w 
CO ot
140 3 STIRRUPS
1403 STIRRUPSdP3.5
V 3.5
IE,
42 IN 42 N
1
zi
(D
47,; 7
81*8
1*3
GR So
406 04
lk
II IN IN
8EAM N
SPECIMENS
X 1. X2
307
:
z
407
034
406 6
LL GR 6G
306 04
14.25
BEAM COLUMN
SPECIMENX3
225
7 r,
d2b
d1b
Lc hb
AS1b
bb
in 4
SECTIONAA
BEAMS SYMMETRICAL
ABOUT xx AXIS
AA MSIC
sic s2c
aI
hc
d2C
dic
hc
SECTION BB
by EhsaniandWight (1985)
226
*I
__ '
Th! _I_E]TT1
11i I
__

BEAM ANGLE SWED
COLUMN T
BOTTOM FIBER
ANCHORING
! 410#3
[3 @9CC Four 1/2' dia
270 k strand
ELEVATION
V,
ýý, PL 1/2x7x6
PL 1/2x6xll7/8
227
140
120
I'VIO
80
4'
E
6O
40
20
. 1 1
0.004 0.006
0 0.002
Rotation (rad)
250
bc2
200
bcl
bc5
ISO e
.00:
bcl
bc2
bc3
100 vww bc4
bc3
so
41
0 0.001 d.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Rotation (rad) 0
de Chefdebienand Dardare(1994)
228
precastbearn
precastcolumn
::
229
250 Moment (KNm)
200
150
100
100
U."Bir
.ISO
a) Beam 1
ISO
100
so
Relative rotation (rad. ) * E04
100
. 150
b) Beam 2
I Mahdi (1992)
230
A l=
mm
DETAIL A
100 mm
CASE 1 CASE 2
SEE
DETAIL A
KýO
LOCATING CLEAT
LOAD BEARINGBILLET
DETAIL A
E
E
z
Z 30,000
ui
m
0
m
20,000
10,000
ROTATION (RAD.)
Virdi andRagupathy(1992b)
232
RCE
R
150 280 150
580
FORC
ko
233
steel pipe, fil
with concrett
steelpart of
column
234
z
E
0
0246a 10 12
Rotation: mrad
Deflection(in.)
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.4
I f I 19.0
ou  
60 13.5
40 9.0
SM I is monolithicjoint
20 30 40
10
Deflection(mm)
235
E
so defform
C3 1 ""ation criterion
'Jjoaaddýcrriterion
j' ""
uitimatee
40
1
FINELG LG
30
20
10A
 P
02468 10 12
a
5(
3(
2C
V
PP
02468 10 12
0. ý
0.
d
0.:
eq
10 20 30 40
framesBriquet et al (1994)
236
IC
I :
aF = 0,95. FE(;
E(c) . 00)
\ unbracedframe
304
20
10
braced 7Weýý
fra,
0 12 '4 '6 10
p
237
M Full strength
1.0 vRi
Rigid
gid
Rigid
0.8
0.4
I
0.2 I ..... j wego
*: to#
Pinned
Frexible
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5
a)Unbraced frames
Ib
MA FuR strength
1.0
Rigid
0.8
0.4
Seniiýigid
L
 
0.2
Pinned
Flexible
0.0. Il........
0.0 0.1 0.2 0 0.4 0.5
.3
b)Bracedframes
EIbo
m
M Mpl. Rd LbMpl. Rd
connections
238
CHAPTER 3
ANALYTICAL STUDY
by the
Undercertainconditionsthe maximumloada structurecancarryis determined
calledelasticstabilityanalysisandresultingloadsarecalledcritical or bucklingloads.
of themembers
characteristics arerecognised.
connections between beams, columns and floor slabs. The stability of unbraced
rigid framework but with ot = 10, where ot = ratio of the stiffnessof the columnsto
the beamsat eachconnection.Clearly, with the wide rangeof different types of beam
31
column connectionsused in precastframes,this arbitrary approachis neither rational
4Eblb
ýH = Eq. 3.1
0 Lb
MLb M
0 :ob
4EbIb ' J
4EbIb
m4 Eq. 32
This rotationalstiffness
0 1
1+
Ks
where K. = JLbl4Eblb
is reduced from that given in Eq. 3.1 becauseof the presenceof the semirigid
connection. This modified relation can be used to representa beam with semirigid
(M) EcIc
Lc ý,
= TbIb + Eq. 3.3
(M )Eq Ks
0 3.2 Lb
32
By combining the stiffnessesof the beamAND the connection in one equation, the
(1
ajp=a + 71) Eq. 3.4
S,;
stiffnessis Ks = 0.6 (say), then the effect of the semirigid connectionis to increase
length factor 0 (see Eq. 3.6 later). Adopting a value of 10 for this function for every
Extending this simple analysisto full 2d, and even 3d frames, computer
programs (G(Jrgiin, 1992; SWANSA) are used to determine maximum column loads,
bending moments and sway deflections. In these programs the beam and column
33
This is because second order P A effects are built into the program, and Madd is
givenimplicitly.
determines P A effects but also checks for the finite strength of the connection
Madd, the PA moments may be distributed into the beam, and need not be
connectionsare used.
frame may be designedto allow for the effectsof nonlinearityin the componentsand
buckling load is reachedin a column, immediatecollapseof the frame will take place.
This also means that the columns will not buckle independently.It is therefore
necessaryto investigatethe stability of the frame as a whole and to take into account
the beam column effect. This effect is incorporatedinto the analysisby using stability
It is therefore possible to study the elastic stability of frames and obtain the
34
lengths)of simplesub  framesin which the stiffnessof the beams,columnsandjoints
Le = OL Eq. 3.5
Eq. 3.6
F fc
r
PcEr
2
Here Pcr is the buckling load and PE is the Euler load (n EIILý ) of the column.
35
using the limited framemethodappliedonly to rigid joints for the bracedand unbraced
situations.
for
simplified recommendations the P
calculationof dependingon the relative stiffness
valuesof effectivelength factor between1.2 and 2.2 for the caseof unbracedcolumns
and between0.75 and 1.0 for the bracedcolumn, dependingupon the efficiency of the
directionalrestraints.
(Gfttin, 1992) (mountedon a 486 seriesPC) with the rotational and axial stiffnessof
the beams and columns calculated for the uncracked section. The linear  elastic
linear solution at the first step load increment.71ben,at each new load step the axial
forces and frame deflectionsfound in the previousstep are used in the stiffnessmatrix
36
and the final displacements and rotations, member end forces, and bending moment
distributionsare determined.
and rotations. These data may be used to design the components.Alternatively the
maximum frame loads may be determined given the axial and moment capacities of the
sway.
only axial deformationof columnsif the frameis perfectly symmetric.To allow a large
deflection problem, a non vertical frame is considered.In this case a small lateral
3.3.
iv)  The present work assumesthat at failure the stressesin the structure
remainelasticandthat the effect of changesin the geometryof the frame on the failure
37
3.5 Parametric study
10
In order to study both the effect of the ratio^Ks of the stiffnessof the connectionto
the flexural stiffness of the beam, and the ratio (x of the stiffness of the columns to the
which would representthe common situation shown in Figure 3.2. The subframes
wereasfoRows:
Fl representsan upperfloor unbracedsubframe.
5.0, and for consistencythe same range of values of a was adopted here. The
computer programused (G6rgfin, 1992)requiresa value for (x greater than 0 for the
joints the subframeF1 was comparedwith solutions given by Mahdi (1992) and
38
Cranston (1972). The subframe F2 was compared with a solution given by Mahdi
the ends of the beams(not in the columns)in order to observethe effects of semi
in Table 3.1. As it can be noted that the minimun values of K. used 0.1 for Fl,
4.1 to 4.9. Curvesdrawn for the column effective length equationsgiven in BS 8110,
Fl F2 F3
Ks Ks Ks
0.1 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.001
0.2 0.005 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5
1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
le9 1.0 4.0 2.0 10 2.0
2.0 le9 5.0 le9 5.0
5.0 10.0 10.0
10.0
39
mB Ic
'I
Beam
Mb
mc
0
M :Mb + Mc
30
(a)
0 2Ob+e
(b)
ri
j
B C
Beam
0
r
(c)
310
Figure 3.2: Types of precastframes(a) unbraced(left) and partially braced.
P PP PP P
Ks rigid Beaml
BearnI
311
4,ä.L
(a)
Pcr
50 = initial disturbance
(b)
312
CHAPTER 4
4.1 Results
Part 2 equations5 and 6. Figures4.1,4.4 and 4.9 presentthe results for the variation
and 4.4 show that the code equationsare in good agreementwith analyticalresults for
F3 may be taken as the meanof the equationsfor F1 and F2. The results suggestthat
and Figure 4.3 with Ks for selectedvaluesof a in the upper storey subframeFl.
41
Although a mappingfunction is requiredto demonstratethe full parametricvariations,
the five selectedvaluesfor Ks and a show the trendsclearly. The results in Figure
4.3(a) show that for valuesof K. >2 or 3 the changein 0 is no more than about 5
per cent of its fully rigid value. For this reasonFigure 43(b) is an enlargementof
Figures4.5 and 4.6, and Figures4.7 and 4.8 show similar sets of results for
differencebetweenthe upper floor (M) the ground floor (F2) subframesis the more
column foundation) whereasF2 contains only two. Also, F3 has eight degreesof
containing a small number of bays in the plane of bending, say 2 or 3, where the
columns. The variation in a does not appear to have any major influence on the
removed.
Subtractingthe value of 1.0 from all the data and normalisingthe results with respect
42
simple analysisof a right angledkneejoint (comprising one beam and one column
connected by a semirigid rotational spring) will show that the effect of the semirigid
Eq.3.4).
For exampleif a=0.5 and Ks = 0.6 (say), then the effect of incorporating a
thus increasing 0 according to the results in Figure 4.1. 'Ibus, the influence of the
for values of Ks <2 than when Ks > 2, and therefore separateequations are
Referring to Figures4.2 and 4.3, the data for the upper storey subframeFl
be by
may approximated using the following empiricalrelationship(derived in GbrgUn
(1996)and subsequentlymodified) :
Thus, a=0.5 and Ks = 0.6 for example,equation[ Eq.4.1(a)] gives 0=1.50. If the
value for the equivalentstiffnessfrom Eq. 3.4. (a' = 1.33) is used in the BS 8110
43
equation, then 0=1.40. This shows that equating a semirigid connection to a rigid
Referring to Figures4.5 and 4.6, the data for the ground floor subframeF2
Referring to Figures4.7 and 4.8, the data for the upper storey subframeF3 may be
givenas:
12 a
0=1+ + for 0.15 Ks :52 Eq. 4.3(a)
1.25+ 2.5Ks + 2.5Ks 2.5 + 0.5Ks
1a
0=1+ 2.7 0.3Ks for 2< Ks: 5 10 Eq. 43(b)
6.5+ 5.6KS 03K +
s2+
trendsclearly. The dashedlinesin Figures4.10 to 4.12 show the plots of the proposed
44
4.3 Discussion
influence of the linear rotational stiffnessesof joints and flexural stiffnessesof the
linear elastic memberson buckling loads and henceon the effective length factors of
the sub  frames presented in Figure 3.2. In the analysis cc was calculated by keeping
the cross sectional area and the second moment of area of the beams constant. The
second moment of area of the beamsand columns were based on the uncracked
section.
determined within a structural framework, the nature of that framework and its
boundary conditions will influencethe results. All the results show an increasein 0
widi:
i) an increasingnumberof degreesof freedom,and an increasingnumber
of connectionsper subframe
in a
anincrease
iii) a decreasein Ks .
results indicate valuesof Ks between0.1 and 3.35 [Chapter 11] it is significant that
one rigid foundation (i.e. F2 and F3) the variation in 0 with Ks and a is about equal
for K. < 1, and more dependenton a for K. > 1. It is therefore concluded that
45
maximum benefit in obtaining reductionsin 0 with greater connection stiffness wiU
accruein upper storey subframeswhere Ks < 1, and in the ground floor subframe
are of particular interest to designers because the boundary conditions for the column
is
which not adjacentto a shear is
wall unspecifiedin codes of practice. Treating the
column alone would lead to very high 0 factors and an impossibledesign situation
and 6). A pinnedjointed frame can be idealisedas shown in Figure 4.13. In Figure
4.13(a) the deflectedprofile of a column held in position but not in direction at level
N, and a free cantileverabovethis level will havea0 factor of at least 3.0 (assuming
be
would as shown in Figure 4.13(b) where the effective length of all columns is 2.7.
The restoring force in the beamis smallbut very significantin terms of frame stability.
Bending momentsresulting from sway in the unbracedpart are carried over into the
braced part of the frame, diminishingto zero with distanceto the level of the floor
below, suchthat 0 for the columnsin the lower bracedregionsmay be taken as 1.0.
46
pp
FKs ýLl
C12
3 a%Beam 2
ra Subframe
Fl
1+0.15
« cl + a2) K. Beam 1 xs
C',
Bs8110 simple support
2
0 Present
 BS8110]
2 3
(X
a,.,: al, =a2
P P
Kg
02
15
ni 2
)rame m
E
Ni al
10
support
C:L
0iII,
05
10
a
(X ý OC Cc2
47
p p
Is a2
6 411
2
ame
iupport
CO.
0iiiII
012
a
C4 ý_a2
P p
c92
10
12
rame r_
1Z
ci
m2 01
support
0 24 68 10
Ks
Figure 4.3 (a): Variation in P factor with 0.1 :5 KS :5 10 for upper floor subframe Fl
48
p p
Fics
02
10
12
0
rame
C',
support
cm5
0iii
012
Ks
Figure 4.3 (b): Variation in 0 factor with 0.1:5 Ks !ý2 for upper floor subframeFl
PP
a2
1.8 Beam 2
1+0.15 E Subframe
1 0 F2
BS8110 U
1.6 rigid
***ý
al
ýý 1.4
1.2
BS8110
Present
1.01
0 234
Cc
Figure 4.4: Comparisonwith BS8110 using F2 with fully rigid joints, where al =0
49
p P
2.0 a2
Beam 2
Subframe E
F2
1.8 C.?
rigid
cli
1.6
Ks=O
0 KS=O.
l
1.4
40 KS0.5
13 Ks. 1
1.2
A Ks4
+ Ks1E9
1.04
0 5 10
Figure 4.5 (a): Variation in 0 factor with 0.001 :!ý cc :r. 10 for subframeF2
P P
2.0 a2
Beam 2
Subframe
E
F2
1.8
rigid
1.6
a K$=O
C,:L
40 KS=O.
l
1.4
40 Ks0.5
13 KsI
1.2
A Ks=4
+ Ks=lE9
1.0 1
0 1 2
(X
Figure 4.5 (b): Variation in P factor with 0.001 :5a 2 for subframeF2
_ý
410
pp
10  a2
Beam 2
Subframe r=
F2
1.8
rigid
1.6
en
wlo
CC75
1.4
a=2
13 w I
1.2
*
a;=0.5
*
1.01 m=0.2
0 246 10
Ks * CC=0.001
p P
02
2.0 Beam 2
Subframe
F2
rigid
1.6
10
cc
cm
1.4
m=2
13 a= I
1.2
" a;=0.5
" a;=0.2
1.0t
012a; I
=0.00
Ks
411
p
ICS
3 a2
Beam 2
Subframe
F3 E
=
A. S Beam 1
'al
m KS=O
CM
0 Ks=O.
l
0 KsI
KS=2
KS10
m MAO
0 10
Figure 4.7 (a): Variation in 0 factor with 0.001 :5cc:5 10 for subfiameF3
p p
s ic'I F
 401 111
2
3
Beam 2
Subframe
F3
Beam I
ca.
02
cc
a ý_ccI ý CC2
Figure 4.7 (b): Variation in P factor with 0.00 1 :5a :52 for subframe F3
412
P
, iýB
(12
3 Beam 2
Subframe
F3 E
Beam I
IctI
a,=5

m=1
a=03
a;=Ol
a; =0.001
0 4 Ks 6 10
p p
Fics
U2
3 BeaM2
Subframe
ri F3
Beam 1
al
4 a5

x ct;2
0 ov1
U=02
0 1
Ks
413
2.5  P
00 w*
Fl
001
BS 8110EqforF1
2 + a,)
1+0.15(Ott
,0, F3
CL
F2
BS81JA4 forF2
i+0.15
0234 5
rigid joints
77
5 Analysis
,
Equation
a=2
LAAA.
a=l
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ks
414
2.5
Analysis
2 Equation
eln
1.5
0.5
+
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ks
3
2.8
2.6
2.4 Analysis
2.2 Equation
ca 2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ks
415
Deflected column profile
1. Small restoring
.
Level N x
cq
11
416
CHAPTER5
CONNECTION TESTS
5.1 Introducdon
The main aim in the full scale precast concrete frame connection tests is the
shown in Figure 1.1. From these characteristicsit will be possible to abstract the
and hence their effects on the stability of these frames. Becausecurrently, beam
was carried out after the bendingtest TW I (A) was completedto ensurethat the shear
ductility.
studied in braced (nonsway) precast concrete frames where the precast concrete
51
connectionsare subjectedto hoggingbendingmoments.For this reasonbracedframes
those required to connect beams to external columns, subframe SF2. Tberefore two
5.5. The length of the beams,and hence the position of the bending load P was
the shear span/ beam effective depth ratio for the load is 2365 / 400 = 5.91. The
simulatedin test I
series and 3, and SF2 in test series2 and 4, with and without the
precast concrete proprietary slip fonned hollow core floor slabs (supplied by Bison
Floors, UK). This was done in order to investigatethe influenceof incorporating the
floor slabson the main propertiesof the connectionsin a doublesided and single sided
precast concrete connections shown in Figure 11. As can be seen the overall
have full scaletest data for eachof the connectionsshown in Figure 1.1 to compare
with those derived from the isolatedjoint tests,and to be ableto predict the behaviour
52
of a number of full scale frame connectionsfrom the isolatedjoint tests reported in
Chapter8.
Eight tests were carried out according to Table 5.1 in four test series. The
acting at the beamconnectionwere all identical,except for the case of tests TB I (B)
and TB 1(C) where smaller length beamswere tested in an attempt to simplify even
* Test series1 includedthree testsCIW I (A), TW I (B) and TW 1(Q) on double sided
floor slabs and (TWl(Q) without floor slabs as shown in Figures 5.2 to 5.4 and
* Test series3 included three tests (TB I (A), TB I (B) and TB 1(Q) on double sided
full
slabbeamcolumn scale(internal) subframeSFI (TB
assemblage I (A)) as shown in
and 5.7 incorporating two way billet connection(Figure 1.1(c)). In the test TI31(C)
the RHS billet in the column and beamend plate (Figure 5.9) were not incorporated.
e Test series4 included one test (TB2) on single sided slabbeamcolumnfull scale
53
Test series Test reference Connection type Subframe type Floor slab
Test 1 [IWI(A)] Welded plate Double sided Hollow core
1 Test 2 [TWl(B)]* Welded plate Double sided Hollow core
Test 3 [TW I (Q] Welded plate Double sided None
2 Test 4 [TW21 Welded plate Single sided Hollow core
Test 5 [TB 1(A)] Billet Double sided Hollow core
3 Test 6 [TB I (B)]+ Billet Double sided Insitu infill only
Test 7 [TB I (C)I' Billet Double sided Insitu infill only
4 Test 8 [TB2] Billet, Single sided Hollow core
TW = Welded plate.TB = billet.
the free end of the precast concrete cantilever beamsin an attempt to simulate the
pattern of gravity loading shownin Figure 5.1. A sheartest TWl(B) was also carried
out as shown in Figure 5.3. The frames consistedof continuous 300 x 300 mm
the top of the beams gives a composite floor beam section 500 mm deep. The
2, 2,
concreteand grout is specifiedas 40 N/mm for the slabas 60 N/mm and for insitu
54
5.2 Details of bearntocolumn connections
Ibe beamtocolumnconnectionsthat use steel inserts at the beam end and at the
0 asa columninsertalone,transferring
loadto theconcreteof thecolumn
joint completed
welded plate connection)usedin this project study (seeFigures 1.1(a) and (b)) usesa
25 mm thick, cast in mild steel, narrow beamconnectionplate (see Figure 5.8 and
Plate 5.2) (the ISE, 1978: Narrow beamplatesType III) projecting from the end of
of the beamso that the insert is well containedby links. The links project above the
precastsection, and the precastbeamis proppeduntil its insitu topping has reached
55
of the beam and adequatelyconnectedto the plate anchor bars by special links (see
Figure 5.12(b)). The beamend plate bearson the projectingwide section solid billet in
filled up to the top level of the beamwith nominal fcu = 40 N/mm2 strength insitu
and 5.7).
which a castin bearing plate (Figure 5.9) in the beamend (Figure 5.13(a) and (b))
bearson a projecting structural hollow sectionin the column (Plates5.15 and 5.17). A
fie rod passesthrough bolt plate and billet,and is connectedat the top of the beamto
The design of the column RHS billet is based on the method outlined in
bearing from the beam to the column. The I Struct E recommendationsignore the
influence of the reinforcementin the column near the column billet. Clarke (1978)
cast into the columns with different reinforcement details wag studied. It was
56
concludedthat the designmethodbasedsolely on the bearingstrength allowed by the
code was satisfactory.It was also concludedthat in order to control splitting of the
column below the billet sufficient links should be provided within a distanceequal to
the column breadthto preventa prematurefailure. The billet width should not exceed
Figures 5.10 and 5.11 (seealso Plate 5.1 for reinforcementaround the solid billet for
double sided test and Plate 5.15 the RHS billet for single sided test). The column size
300 x 300 mm was usedthroughout the experimentalwork. This is the minimum size
Only the height of the column was reducedfrom 2000 mm.to 800 mrn in the tests
TB I (B) and TB 1(C) in test series3. Other provisionsin the column were sleevesto
two M16 dia, castin sockets to facilitate fixing the instrumentation.The column
reinforcementcontained4T25 main bars and T12 links @ 185 mm.c/c. The design
ultimate axial capacity of a short column with zero moment was 2085 kN for
2
fcu = 40 N/mm and fy = 460 N/mm2.
57
K/278/ Figure 5.8 and Plates 5.2 and 5.3) and 260 kN (Crendon literature reference,
beam end plate BA Figure 5.9 and Plate 5.16) design ultimate shear capacity,
respectively for welded plate and billet connections. The beams are considered as
acting compositely with the floor slabs and contained 4T20 bars, top and bottom, and
T10 shear links @ 100 mm c/c. Design ultimate moment of resistance of the composite
22
beams were 241.10 kNm (fy = 460 N/mm fcu = 40 N/mm , partial safety factors
,
for strength ym: ultimate limit state taken as 1.15 and 1.50 for reinforcementand
kN, respectively
slab units were 1200 mrn nominalwidth by 200 mm depth and 1000 mm long precast
hollow
prestressed core units (Roth type), eachof which containedcut outs (seePlate
The thickness 200 mm. of the slabs representsthe most widely used thickness in
prestressedwires. 'ne ultimate design sagging moment and shear resistanceof the
The specific requirements relating to ties in precast concrete structures are given in BS
58
see Plate 5.8) are fed through oversized sleeves (usually two to three times the
diameterof the tie bars) (Elliott, 1996a)andlater concretedin. In the single sidedtests
the tie steel passesoutside the face of the column, rather than through it due to
over which the tie bars are placed, must be greater than the width of the column
around which they will pass.Otherwise,part of the floor slab has to be broken out to
allow the ties to be bent and crankedaround the comers of the column. In the tests
carried out, the width of the beam is equal to the width of the column. The only
remaining option was to break out the top comer of the floor slabs to place the
cranked 45" tie bars (see Plate 5.13). The tie steel is implicitly provided for precast
assumingthat the structure was 5 storeysin height, and the floor dead (9k ) and live
2
(qk) loads were each 5.0 kN/m respectively. The spans for the bewn and slabs were
,
both taken as 6 m.
where no is the numberof storeysin the structure,and the modified tie force Fl' (to
59
Slab tie steel A. requiredby the larger requirementFj' is :
As = 139 2/m
= mm
460
2)
Use T12 @ 600 ck (188mm shownin Figure5.15.
.*.
If the beamis supporting6m long slabson eachside, then the collective tie force at
the beamis .
(2ý+ 6=
Ft'per beam= 64 384 kN
2)
384 X 103
As = 834.8mm
460 
in Table 3 of BS 882: 1992 were used in all the test carried out. The fine aggregate
Table 4. The grading of the coarseandfine usedin all testscarried out are presentedin
Tables A5.1.1 and A5.1.2, respectivelyin Appendix 5.1. Ordinary Portland cement
complied with the standardrequirementsspecifiedin BS 12: 1983 was used in all the
tests.
510
The correct quantities of cement, aggregatesand water were batched and
mixed using a 0.1 m3 capacitylaboratorymixer. It was not big enoughto cast a beam
or column at once. Totally 13 mixes were cast for the full scale subframeshown in
Figure 5.2. All mix proportions used in the tests are presentedin Tables A5.2.1 to
A test rig (Figure 5.16 and Plate 5.11) was designedaccordingto BS 5950: 1985 to
accommodatethe test subframes.The rig consistsof two paralleltie back steel frames
carrying 600 kN working load at the centre of the horizontal 250xl5Oxl6 RHS cross
beambetweentwo 152x76xlOchannelstanchions.
This was calculatedon the basisof
the availablenumberof the holding down bolts. Vertical bendingloads at the free ends
resistanceload cells. The jacks were clampedto the cross beamsas shown in Plate
Two 100 kN capacity load cells were also positioned beneath the end of the
beamsas shown in Figure 5.16(c) and used to measurethe self weight of the test
511
components in order to find out the initial bending moment of the connections due to
self weighL
For single sided tests the test rig was modified by using two 120 x 120 x 10
anglesfor diagonalbracingas shownin Plate 5.14 for the horizontal column reaction
The column was lifted vertically usinga craneand a pin passingthrough the top sleeve
It was decided to cast the bottom face of the column as smooth as possiblebefore
casting. The length of the mould available in the laboratory was longer than the
required overall height of the column by 400 mm. A 25 mm thick timber plate was
used between the free end of the mould and the top of the column. This end could be
move during casting and vibrating the fresh concrete. Thus, one of the ends of the
mould was chosenas referencefor the bottom face of the column to make sure that
this face is smoothenoughto keepthe column in its vertical position after erecting.
ensurestability during the replacementof the beamsand slab units as shown in Plate
5.4. The bracing used two 630 mm long l2Oxl2Oxl6 angles, four 690 mm long
The beamswere placedat one end on the column connection.and at the other
were seatedon to a timber plate supportwere placedon to the load cell. The load cell
was supported by a large travel hydraulic jack to lift the free end of the bearn into the
512
correct horizontal position (see Plate 5.12) before welding the ends of the beam
beam connections were welded to the column connections using the fillet weld
639 and steel complyingwith BS 4360 obtainedfrom Table 36 for mild steel. (It was
welding. After eachlayer of weld it was left to cool before for the next run. Plate 5.5
showsthe welding region of the connectionsin test series1. Beam 2 had a5 mm initial
beams1 and 2, respectivelyin test series1. The throat thicknessesand the leg lengths
During joint concreting or grouting, the ends of the be=s seatedon to the
billets projecting from the column face were held providing timber formwork for both
sides of the column (for double sided connections)and were clampedusing large G
clarnps, as shown in Plates 5.6 and 5.18, respectivelyfor welded plate and billet
connecdons.
The bearntocolumnjoints were concretedusing mix proportions presentedin
Table A5.2.1. Plate 5.7 shows the joints after completion. They were concreted
513
open sleevesand were placedover the bearns.The bars were tied to the shear links
i. e. centre distanceof the bars from the top of the beams.It was not possible to
slab units and the beamsfrom 75 mm to 50 mm. The bottom edgesof the beamswere
Trestles, timber shims and a RHS cross beamwere provided to support the
slab units temporarily.Theseunits were then seatedat one end on to the beamswith a
bearingdistanceof 50 mrn and the remoteend on to the timber shimsthat were placed
on the top of the RHS cross beam seatedon to the trestles (see Plate 5.9). The
horizontal position of the slab units was adjustedusing small timber packs.The endsof
the slabtoslabjoints and sides of the column at the bottom level of the slabswere
The construction was completedfilling the gaps betweenthe slabs, over the
to the mix proportions presentedin Table A5.2.1. The entire subframe was then
coated with a brittle white wash coat to detect the formatting cracks (Plate 5.11).
514
5.8 Instrumentation and measurement
The importantmeasurements
were:
For one of the main tests e.g. test TWI(A) twenty deflection transducers
gauge factor: 2.12) and ten 10 mm steel strain gauges(type: FLA  1011, gauge
resist: 120 ±3 fl, gaugefactor: 2.13) as shown in Figures5.17(b) and (c) were used
calibrationfactors (the load cells were calibratedbeforecarrying out the tests) for the
varioussensorsinto the data logger and the resultswere displayeddirectly in the units
515
of millimetre for POTs and kN for the load cells. ne data logger was linked to an PC
allowed the live plotting of the data during eachtest. Subsequently,the logged data in
the hard disk was transferredinto a floppy disk and the data was processedusing the
5.9.1 Reinforcement
For the stability tie bars for eachtest, two T25 x 1000 mm.long hotrolled deformed
high tensile bars were cut at random from the lengths used in the tests. They were
Tensile tests were carried out on M16 diametergrade 8.8 tie rods used in the bolted
billet connections.Two M16 x 400 mm long tie rods were cut at the random from the
lengths used in the tests and were testedin accordancewith the requirementsof BS
18: 1987 to estimatethe shearcapacity Ps from the tensile load. Testing was carried
516
5.9.3 Concrete
Slump testing (to BS 1881, Part 102) was carried out to ensure unifonnity of
and 100 mm. Actual results are given in Tables A5.2.1 to A5.2.4 in Appendix 5.2.
the infill concrete.The strengthof the latter were usedto dictate the testing date. AJI
BS 8110 : 1985with safetyfactor y,, taken as 1.0 using the internal forces inducedin
x 10,
0.67fcub
517
x is the depth of the stressblock (mm), from the condition of internal forces
1ý
where
Ft' is the total tensileyield load (kN) in the 2n5 longitudinal tie bars tested
Fwt is the total Met weld tensileyield load (kN). The weld length and throat
Mpred = Ft' 400  L x 103 + Fwl 200 1 x), 03 in (kNm) Eq.5.2
2)2
Ft
X=
0.67fcub
X=0.67fcub X10
518
(300
Mpred = Ft(400  1 x 101 + P, 1 X)IO3 Eq.5.4
2)2
where
day (N/mm 2)
test
corresponding Ft, Fwt and Ps values in the relevant equation above for each test
Mpred
P=ý.  (ignoring self weight of test specimens) Eq 5.5
365
365 .
.
where 2.365 (0.765 in tests TB I (B) and TB I (Q) is the lever arm distance from the
The internal forces have been simplified by ignoring criteria such as shear
friction and tension stiffening. The strain in the tie bars and that in the adjacent
519
strains.The performanceof the connectionwas viewed on a PC monitor using the live
force on a precast concrete skeletal frame. Ibis action causes hogging bending
At the beginningof the tests,the first recordingscanwas taken soon after the
slab units' temporary supports were removed. The aim of this scan was mainly to
record the initial bendingload at the free end of the beamsdue to the self weight of the
test specimens.The second scan was taken as soon as the load cells used at the
The bending load was applied in four reversible cycles prior to loading
stiffnesswith increasing damage.The first three cycles (three cycles were chosen as
predicted failure load (see later Figure 6.1). The fourth cycle was applied to 50%
Group WGI Meeting, Graz, Austria, 15 December1995) of the load with 10 kN load
increment(seelater Figure 6.1). At the end of the eachcycle, at load zero level (load
off), a scan was taken to calculate permanent deflections. When the monitored
check was carriedout on cracksin the critical zonesof the subframe,and the stroke of
520
the POTs andjacks. Where thesewere exceededa scanwas taken and the appropriate
bendingmoment in the connectionsat the face of the column Mcon ranging from 30
the moment at which the stiffness has been determined should always be stated.
slabswhere cracks occur at low loads and give an artificially low stiffnessso that the
%. curvature.
The test procedure was to apply load incrementsuntil the joints were not
Load cells were calibratedin the DennisonM/C testing machinewhich was in turn
annuaUyby an independentTestingOrganisation.
5P21
Specifiedcube Actual cubestrength(N/mm2
(28 day) (at testing)
TW 1(A) TW 1(B) TW I (C)
strength(N/mm2)
Column 40 56.3 56.3 56.3
Beam 1 40 54.9 54.9 54.9
Beam2 40 50.4 50.4 50.4
Beam/columnjoint 40 45.4 45.4 45.0
Slab/beam/column
in situ 30 33.8 33.8 N/A
522
Specified cube (N/mm 2
Actual cube strength
(28 day) (at testing)
2 TB 1(A) TB 1(B) TB I (C)
strength (N/mm
Specified cube 2
Actual cube strengt1i (N/mm
(28 day) (at testing)
2 TB2
strength (N/mm
Column 40 45.4
L beams 40 34.2
Upstand 40 34.2
523
Mpred Ft' Fwt fcu
(N/mm 2
(kN m) (kM (kN)
1
TW1(A) 309.842599.59  526.91 495.36 45.4
fcu
stress block in BS 8110 and forces, Ft' and Fwt, given in the table
(N/mm 2
(kNm) (kN)
(294.002402.09
TW2 I 487.31 495.36 45.0
fcu
524
Mpred Ft' PS fcu
525
q
526
oooz
aw
Gn
"a
CZ:)
CZ)
CD
CZ:)
C: 3
CD tn
0
.0 e)
2= c3
cn 8
00
.0
a
rn
CZ) 8
0
.0
m1
ý; 4
0
1.
C4 y
g
22
.
W)
mw t tn
:2 !
ý: r
= cq
0 r.
. _. o
8" C=)
C'4 C=)
C
0
a=.0 tc
10
ID'o
0 =0
;5 0
0
...
1.1...
42 40.
al l C)

527
f
C)
C)
0 W) rA
iD
CD cq
0001
JE3
vi CD
*m
11
Ci
C14
kk1.
9Z6 I 00C"MI
528
10
oooz
01
rA
40.
rn
.0as
0
CA 0
0
0
LTý
a
rn
0
cz
00
kli
ti)
C14
tz
kkkk
A 059 100f, oos 1 098
ON
529
OOOZ
C
C
>
LLI
CD
Q
CA
u
E
N
_Z
L"
kkL.
M OOfX
oof
530
C)
kil)
Ic
ri
©
©©
CC
(N
oc
'1515
lIV) 17,71N C
77
531
th
r_
0
# 0 0 0 0 t
001 001 001 00CY00C ON
0
U. 0
ýN
Z
Z
en
CA
C5.
Uw o
s.c.
In
2
tz
U
_E
532
im
4 + 0 0 0 #
001 001 001 OOCXOOC ON
"i
Z I,
m
en
t V
= cm
j4
0
Q U
E
r
V)
tz
U cl
533
iz
ce ICD
im u
Im
r
C14
ci
r_
0
0 cu
"0
03
c
cu
4
vi
W
Im
Cl)
&.
0
:0
cu
E ei to
LL,
3
IM
u
"li
in
(14

 1 1
091
ON 051
534
c
>
CH
rn
"a
4.)a
u
0
4.
.0
1.
ýc ý,c Q.
C
0
rn
0
0
41 10
cý«
tu
uj
iz
CDu
LL.
L0,8
41.
Jr
5E
zi
117cl
#
ozi
535
95
Sleeve
D50
PmE)
150
150
I
AA Test series I TWI
lOOxlOOx480
Solid billet
2 Sleeves
ID50
F
cl .
&.
0
> C)
0 W) (14
80
21
B9 .3V,  .
2MI6  B 0
Castinsockets
AA Test series3 TB I
10OX10OXIO
500 long RHS billet
r
0
it L
ýi.911F
1 1
0 f1
L101'
1 70 long
/
IOOXIOOXIO 10OX10OX 200 long
AA Test series4 TB2
.3r
CD
e
BB
536
1204U
'S
IT1202 link
C&40 01 01
130 04
" q 04
AL 02
rSleeve 03
ID 50 5T1202 links
0 50 c/c 04 04
200 01 ot
5T1203 links
@ 50 c/c
AA
185
II . C 05
2T1202 links
185 @ 185 c/c I
01 0,
01
100 2 Sleeves
ID 50
3 r
S
75 NF Ol
01 O,
01
B
75
BB
I 100
1=11 11 lOOxlOOx480
olid billet
75
_ _4T1605.,
links r (A
01 p 01
75
02 I
2 no cast 02
100 I
inSOCKCES
kets
I
C ý6 M16
01 1 I 01
'

185
CC
130
537
1 10
100 C' , 12 Sleeves
75
.3 C,
kn,
c
1 OH ID50
75 J
lOOxlOOx480
100 100
'I Solid billet
75
.3Ir kn r, I 4T1605
links
75;
f0
I r
loo
Plan on billet
castin
socket
M16
Front elevation
538
100
75 )OXIOOX190 05
Aid billet r
75
L01
100
1
[fl
11
1
I LLjr
1
1
W
75" 1
[605 01 01
75 Is
100
lOOxlOOx340
Solid billet Plan on billet
Front elevation
in test series2TW2
539
4T2501 1I
_
Sleeve
1 D50
0
a 1
I "M16
50 3 tn

cast in socket
 on  .,
50 rN 1 11 N
50 r 10OX10OX10
100
500lon g
RHS billet
50 .3Ir
j
50 r M05
go li nks
50 .3Ir
J
50 r
50
Plan on billet
cast
in soc
M16
Front elevation
in test series3TB I
540
3 ni 10OX10OXIO
Ca.; 70 long
RHS billet
soc
(10OXIO
501 long 05
billet
11+
50
50
100 0 0
50 01
50
50 01
50
50
TO,
10OX10OXIO
I nc 200 long Plan on billet
Casi RHS billet
Sod
Front elevation
in test series4TB2
541
0
0
('1
eq
lw
C.)
U .M
C
C EE
E
0 Ici
0 0 0
E
71 w
9Ld
7 C)
C) B
C C 9
C
C
 ('1 lz
ON ON
542
tn
cj
C)
2
rn
rý
ý2 w
Z; 0
CD
ON
543
if)
"I
10
r_
cu
roll
(A
.0
)
c..
(U
,cm
en
7
CQ
4)
C)
C
I tz
0 til
C14
E
.0
4
10 C  Gn
F
D CD
%,
C: ) 0 E 4.) rA
> . 14
N r rý C14 vi 0 E3
cc cc ri Q
L"
4) C)
545
09 ozi
f+
iz(M
C14
cn
cn
"0
m
C14
Z.
C
C)
0
4ý
Ei 0
2 qu) c
ý,
C14
0
u
1.4
cl
4.
liz W)
4ý
0
'a 0
C+ D

00
051 q
oz 00
546
I.M.,
en
C)
e e
Oz OST 0£ 1 ri
u
ri
Z
m
r,4)
.0Cl
CA
(b"
0
8
8
C14
x
S
S
Itt
Te*2,
li Ar
09
96 ,/i.
r tlz r oc
547
40.
r
. ..
ri
c
C
C
10
,2 40.
0
Foolý cn
7N I

i
2 vi
0 2
U
Is 0 "4
U
11
ON ON
548
4
LTý
C/)
4.
cis
cz
W;
oz
.0
iz
549
++
++
cl
+ f
E:
P
4C.!
I+ f
4
4.
0
4
'0
.0
+ 4
rn
e4
C lz
cz cl +
ý
.0
N +
+1
E
+ + + +
5LOI 9LOT
550
0
.0
'U

.L.
.im
,Z
00
"0
009Z
tz:
551
CA
Cl)
10
CA
ce 0
tz
ce U
552
4. t
CD
1U
91
4
"0 ý
10
(U
lu
40.
iz
V1
vý
ýc
co
Cf)
CD CD
c1t, v)
C14 M
14
.L
Cf) N
0
rA Ln
C14
5
2
ýL4
%.wo
m
.0
4 44
01
553
moor '4M
um
"o
42'
E
u
Cd
Qý
554
Plate 5.2: Standard beam connection plate
555
II
Plate 5.3: Beam reinforcement with standard beam connection plate and special links
556
,x:
IVON''
fl
Plate 5.4: Column with bracingsagainstsideswaymovements
Ii
557
01()
ffiq
Fkl
558
Plate 5.8: Location of stability tie bars with steel strain gauges for subframe SF I
Iw.
V.'
li
559
Plate 5.10: Subframereadyto castslabbeam in
column situ concrete
560
Plate 5.12: Mechanisims at the free ends of the beams
561
Plate 5.13: Location of stability tie barswith steelstrain gaugesfor subframeSF2
562
do
'Ai
Ti
563
Plate 5.17: Constructionof bolted billet connnectionin test series3
564
Plate 5.19: General assembly in Structures Laboratory for test series 3
565
Plate 5.21: Connectionsreadyfor grouting in testsseries4
566
CHAPTER 6
The applied hogging bending moment in the connection Mcon at the face of the
column, where the most critical zoneof the connectionis located due to the maximum
P, recordedby the load cells 1 and 2 for the bearns1 and 2 respectively(Figure 5.1),
by the lever ann in the beam.This was consideredconstantat 2.365 m between the
line of action of the appliedloadsat the endsof the beamsand the facesof the column.
load cells 3 and 4 (Figure 5.17(a)) after removing the wedgesof the slab units. Mi
valueswere 6.80 and 6.45 kNm.for beams1 and2, respectivelyin test TWI. (A). These
valuesof thejoint Mcon or Mu and not measuredin the rest of the tests.
61
6.1.2 Calculation of relative rotations
The relative rotations ý between beam and column were calculated using two
methodsasfollows:
Method 1 (M I): Using vertical POTs mountedon two steel rods bolted to the
"POT14" meansthe deflection measuredby POT no 14) of the beams and joints
(POT14
Ml BI Vl: e= ý Eq. 6.l(a)
90
(POT16
Ml Bl V2: 0=
ý,
, 0) Eq.6.l(b)
(POT18
MI Bl V3: ý =ý Eq.6.1(c)
300
POTI 8 POTI 6)
MI BI V4: Eq.6.1(d)
300110 )
Method 2 (M2): Using the horizontal POTs clampedto the top of the slab in
situ concrete and near to the top and bottom of the beams.They were clamped by
drilling the slab insitu, beamsand column.They measuredthe crack openings8T and
62
compressivedeformations8B in thejoints relativeto the column (seeFigure 5.17(a)).
This method assumesfull shearinteractionbetweenthe floor slab and the beam. The
(POT2+POT10)(ST+8B)
M2Sl: ý= ) Eq.6.2(a)
500 )ý 500
where 8T (mm) is the crack openingat the top of the slab I recordedby POT2
where 8T (mm) is the crack opening at the top of the beam I recorded by POT6
rotation (Mcon 0) graphs.The sideswayof the column in and out of the plane of
63
6.1.3 Calculation of stiffnesses
The rotational stiffnesses, J (general), were calculated from the slope of the
chord of the curve. Each loading and unloadingcurve was analysedusing regression
Figure 6.1(a)):
a) Before cracking
curve from the beginningof the test to the first crack momentof the connection Mcr
(2) The initial secantflexural stiffness Jis, which is the slope of the chord of
b) After cracking
(3) The tangentflexural stiffnessJc which is the slope of the Mcon0 curve
,
(5) The secantflexural stiffness J., which is the slope of the chord of the
For the second,third and fourth cycles Jc and Js were calculatedfrom the
cycle Mpeak. For the last cycle, C5, Jc was calculated up to a moment value at
64
6.2 Presentation of results
The results are presented from derived calculations. These include hogging bending
moment in the connection Mcon at the facesof the column versuscrack opening 8
and column only in the case of the test TWI(Q. Moment versus compressive
the corresponding results to failure (as Figure (b)). The latter do not show the
6.3 TestseriesI
Figures 6.2 to 6.3 represent the moment Mcon versus crack opening 8 T, at
boundaries of slabs and column, and beams and column, and Mcon versus
the relative rotations betweenthe slabsand column, and the beamsand the column.
65
increasessteel strains at the cracked section, the compressivestrain generally, and
beams, and steel strains in bars A and B are presentedin Figures 6.4 to 6.6,
in 5
selectedvaluesof moment cycle only. The gradientsof these plots enablebeam
tocolumn rotation to be derived using the Method 1. POTs 12 and 14 were used to
record the vertical deflection of the joint that would give relative rotation of the joint
to the column face, the POTs 16 and 18 recordedthe vertical deflectionsof the beam
1. The rotation obtainedfrom the gradient of these two POTs (not effected by the
50 nim from the face of the column for welded and 60 mm for the billet connection.
The total relative rotation doesnot include the curvatureof the beam,the location of
POTs 17 and 18 were 200 mm from the endof the beamswhich is lessthan the overall
The derived moment versus relative rotation graphs obtained from the two
66
Method 2 for both slabsand beams.The solid lines and dashedlines are used for the
Typical damaged zones for this test are presented in Plates 6.1 to 6.4. (The
important to note that (a) the recordedP valuesare slightly different from the marked
and 15 kN for bearn2, (b) the actual P valuesat which the cracks appearedare in
between two recorded increments.This meansthat the marked values are the upper
limits for the cracks). The first crack appearedat the column face and spreadto the
outer edge of the hollow core slab. Plates6.3 and 6.4 show the damagedarea of the
joints. A circle hasbeendrawn aroundthe bottom right handcomer of the joint (Plate
6.4) to indicate the extent of the concretecompressionzone and the fmal position of
the neutral axis, i.e. about 100 mm.from the bottom of the beam.Horizontal bursting
concrete infill. A secondhorizontal crack occurs at the level of the top surfaceof the
solid steel billet, and is possibly indicative of local stress concentrations there. A
summaryof the test resultsis presentedin Table 6.1. The actual (test) crackedmoment
Mcr, the peak momentsof each cycle Mpeak and ultimate moment capacity of the
connection Mu, the actual (predicted) ultimate moment capacity of the connection
Mpred and beam Mbeam, the ratio of the actual cracked moment to the actual
ultimate moment of the connectionand ratio of the actual moment of the connection
67
the connectionsfor each cycle in TWI(A) from the Methods 1&2 are presentedin
This test was carried out after the bending test, TWI(A), to ensure that the shear
load P and end reaction V from the centre of the column (see Figure 5.3 and Plate
6.5), ratios of PN were found analyticaUyas 1.113 and 1.374, assumingrigid and
connection was achieved.The reasonfor stopping the test was to prevent damageto
Test results are presentedin Figure 6.12 together with analyticalvalues. The
test set up, and the damagedregion around the column after test was completed are
68
6.3.3 Test TWI(C)
This test is a continuation of test TWl(A) in which 200 mm deep hollow core slabs
and tie bars were removed in order to evaluate the reductions in the main
The reasons for the apparent reversals in deflections within the joint zone are
beamsare plotted in Figures6.16 to 6.18 and the stiffnessesin Figure 6.19 for both
beams.
Typical damagedzonesfor this test are presentedin Plates 6.11 and 6.12. A
summaryof the test results is presentedin Table 6.1. The rotational stiffnessesvalues
crack opening 8 T, at boundaryof the slabsand column only (at the boundary of the
beam and column is not available due to a fault in POT6) and Mcon versus
plate connection.
69
The momentversusconcretestrainsin compression,and steel strainsin bars A
and SGIc were usedin the compressionzoneat interfacebetweenthe end of the beam
Figure 6.25 shows vertical displacementproffles along the beam for selected
The derived moment versusrelative rotation graphs obtained from the two
methods are presentedin Figures 6.26 to 6.27. Figure 6.28 presents the tangent
6.14 and 6.17 show the damagedareaof the joints and precastconcretemembers.A
tape measurementhas beenusedat the top of the edge beamand around the bottom
and compression zones. The zone of influence in the beam in compression was
measuredat 300 mm from the face of the column. A summaryof the test results is
for eachcycle in TW2 from the Methods 1&2 are presentedin Table A6.1.9 and the
610
6.5 Test series3
boundaries of slabs and column, and beams and column, and Mcon versus
compressive deformations 8B in the beamtocolumn joints for the double sided billet
and joint, and steel strains in bars A and B are presentedin Figures 6.31 to 6.33,
respectively.An addition to the strain gauge SGI in test TWI(A), two extra strain
gaugesSGld and SGle, 60 mm from the column face (ditto for beam 2 side), were
usedat the bottom of the beamand at the joint centre,respectively.The numberof the
steel strain gaugeswere reducedfrom 5 to 3 for eachbar in this test series(TB 1(A),
TB 1(B) and TB I (Q). There was no needto usesteelstrain gaugesSGI and SG5,200
Figure 6.34 shows vertical displacementprofiles along each of the beam for
Ile derived moment versus relative rotation graphs obtained from the two
methods are presentedin Figures 6.35 and 6.36. Figure 6.37(a) presentsthe tangent
(not available for beam 1 due to a fault in POT18). Figure 6.37(b) presents the
stiffnessescalculatedfrom the Method 2 for both slab 1 and beam 1 (not availablefor
611
Typical damagedzonesfor this test are presentedin Plates6.18 to 6.20. Plates
6.19 and 6.20 show the damaged area of the beams and joints. Flexural cracks have
been marked on the top of the beamsand in the joints to indicate the extent of the
from the bottom of the beamin the beamand 100 mm from the bottom of the beamin
the joint. Horizontal bursting cracks (see Plate 6.20) are a clear indication of
unconfinedgrout compressivefailure in the joint and concretein the part of the beam
that covers the joint which is also unconfinedabout 125 mm from the end of the beam
(see Figure 5.13(a)). A summaryof the test results is presentedin Tables 6.1. The
Methods 1&2 are presentedin Tables A6.1.11 to A6.1.12 and the secant flexural
in cycle 5.
connection.
beams, and steel strains in bars A and B are presentedin Figures 6.40 to 6.42,
respectively.The strain gaugeSGIe was not usedin this test (ditto for beam2 side).
612
The derived momentversusrelativerotation curvesobtainedfrom the Method
2 (the Method 1 was not usedin this test) are presentedin Figure 6.43. The stiffnesses
calculatedfrom the Method 2 arepresentedin Figure 6.44 for both slabsand beams.
Plates6.21 and 6.22 show the damagedareaof the beams,insitu infffl topping
to indicate the extent of the concretecompressionzone and the final position of the
neutralaxis in the beams.A summaryof the test resultsis presentedin Tables6.1. The
tangent and unloading flexural stiffnessesof connectionsfor each cycle from the
Method 2 are presentedin Table A6.1.15 and the secant flexural stiffnessesare
Figures 6.45 to 6.46 represent the moment Mcon versus crack opening 8 T, at
boundariesof slabs (insitu) and column, and beamsand column, and Mcon versus
Method I was not used in this test) are presentedin Figure 6.50. The stiffnesses
calculatedfrom the Method 2 are presentedin Figure 6.51 for both slabsand beams.
Typical dwnagedzonesfor this test are presentedin Plates 6.23 to 6.24. The
damagedareas,cracked pattern, are similar to that of the test TBl(B). Most of the
613
situ infiH concreteand the beams.Ilese crackswere extendedhorizontaUythen down
to beamsas the load was increased.A summaryof the test results is presentedin
Tables 6.1. The tangent and unloading flexural stiffnessesof connections for each
cycle from the Method 2 are presentedin Table A6.1.17 and the secant flexural
boundariesof slab and column, and beamand column, and Mcon versuscompressive
8B in thebearntocolumn
defonnations, joint for thesinglesidedbilletconnection.
and joint, and steel strains in bars A and B are presentedin Figures 6.54 to 6.56,
respectively.
Figure 6.57 shows vertical displacementprofiles along each of the beam for
The derived moment versus relative rotation graphs obtained from the two
methods are presentedin Figures 6.58 to 6.59. Figure 6.60(a) presentsthe tangent
side. Figure 6.60(b) presentsthe stiffnessescalculatedfrom the Method 2 for both slab
1 and beam 1.
614
Typical damagedzonesfor this test are presentedin Plates 6.25 to 6.32. The
zone of influencein the beamin compressionwas measuredat 120 mm from the face
of the column being the end of the joint hidden in the beam. A horizontal bursting
beamcovering the joint grout (seePlate 6.30 right). A summaryof the test results is
for each cycle from the Methods l&2 are presentedin Table A6.1.19 and the secant
615
Eý
0 0 < 110 00 CS C*% 00 IRt let W) W) 00
r  r  IRt NT Nt V ,) W) W) t t) tn W ) 
d ý 5 5 5 d d d d d
C: C C C C3 C3
r a', tri tn en t ýt %o g 0ý
Oý 00 'ýc ON CN 00 00 00 00 C'4
d d d d d d d d
0 C3
C C cq cq cq cq V) cn cn CN
 t  : 4 * cq '. 4 .4 4 .4 Itt
  
(0 C C 5 d d d d d d d d d
Z ý 00 1 CN 0 Cý S W)   00 00 00
4 c7A Cý ýo '.c "T
C'i
0 00 4 q cl OR eli
(=
cli efi
3 it
en
en
cf)
Ic ýo eq
elf)
eq
Clf)
cq
Cle)
cr)
Cf)
en
Cf)
C14 C14 
Cf) en C#)
t3 00 00
it;w
loI C14 Cý C, ON
E wl 'IR 09 09 00
C'! cl c! cl 09
(14 Iti 00 W'a tt)
( 14 ( 14 00 00 C14 ( 14 ( 14 C14 C 4 ( 14 C*4
I
00 Cn Rt C) C) 00 00
4 00 C4
Itt
(14 00 VI) a% 00
0 0 CD 0 C)
cl C'! (14
3N Z W' l  tn IRt C
00 00 W, 6 .
tr; 't
06
Rt Z:
't W)
W
C14 53
. ý e%0
E
n IT
N <
;2 0 Cý
CýWi W)
W i
ef)
V i s 8 .
rr
ý 00
ID 4
10
1 o
I%.
RT
W,
tr) c C'4  00 c 06 t: ý6
, r r C14 cli t t r W) W) W) W) W)
01
W en 00 0 C ON  NO 8 00 8 C oc
C,4 ýc
%  0 0 % tn
9
:z Q. Ci N6 %fi 6 (i d 06 116
r tl  C14 N r r  r " W) tn tn tn 4.4
u
ON VI) qt N 0 en N C4 tý
(7N r C l% Cl i 00
00 en 0 V)
W) c
:i vi C', 4 efi
At Rt
C.6
C14 (14 (::K en
Cfi
CNI N
'i
C'4 (14
ei
C4
E5

k E E
616 
Ee
Relativerotations0 (rad)
I
I Olud Oend Ou Of
Relativerotationsý (rad)
stiffnessesweredefinedfor cycle 5
617
80
70
60
50
ý
40
30 Sl
20 S2
10 oBl
o B2
ý=ý I
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
250
200
Ei
150
100 0 Sl
o S2
50 oBI
0 B2
0.
468 10 12 14
Cmckopening&r (mm)
boundariesin TW I (A)
618
250
200 øB2
150
loo
50
0
1.5 1 0.5 0
Compressivedeformation8B(mm)
250
wBl SG1
200
a B2 SG3
150
100
50
04
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Concretestrains(gp)
619
250
200
150
oA SG1
100
o A SG2
A SG3
50
A SG4
A SG5
0"i
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Steelstrains(ge)
250
200
150
oB SG1
100 B SG2
o
B SG3
50 B
B SG51
620
0
0.1
0.2 Jointiocolumn:
Lengthof thebeam(mm)
momentlevel
0.1
0.2 Jointt6colunm:
0.3 rotationgradient:
Beamtocolurnn
0.4
rotation MI
gradient B2 V4
0.5 endof :
bearn xM= 25.16kNm
0.6 face of M= 47.06 kNm
A
0.7 ýcolurnn kNm
0 M= 71.48
> 0.8 M= 94.37 kNm
Joint ri
0.9 M= 118.32kNm
1
100 200 300 400
Lengthof the beam(mm)
momentlevel
621
80
70
60
50
40
30 MI BI Vl
20 MI Bl V2
MI Bl V3
10
MI BI V4
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Relative rotations0 (rad)
for cycles13
250
200
150
loo
*M1B1V1
xM1B1V2
50
* Ml Bl V3
s Ml Bl V41
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Relative rotations0 (rad)
622
250
200
150
100
MI B2 VI
MI B2 V2
50
MI B2 V3
Ml B2 V4.
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Reladverotadons0 (rad)
80
70
60
so
40
30 M2S1
20 M2 B1
M2S2
10
[ 0 M2 B2,
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015
Relative rotations0 (rad)
cycles 13
623
250
200
Ei
150
loo
M2 Sl
:P. M2 B1
50
M2 S2
M2 B2
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Relative rotations0 (rad)
624
500
TW I (A) Method I
TANGENT VALUES
USING V4 only
450
400
350
300
10
Le
250
Ici
200
150
B2 unload
r 
B2 load
100
"13,
BI unload
50 BI load
Cycle no
625
500
TWI(A) Method 2
TANGENT VALUES
450
400
350
300
l=
LIJ
250
mi
P2 unload
2 load
150
100
unload
Sf týfl&F
:BI load S1load
50
Cycleno
626
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
PIN P=1.374V
Bl P=1.163V
loo
B2 P=1.138V
RIGID P=l.
50
Ol
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
V (kN)
627
80
70
60
50
40
,'E 30
20
B1
10
B2
0
2 4
Crack opening 8T (MM)
80
70
60
50 I
40
30
: 20
10
0
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25
Compressivedeformadonh (mm.)
628
0
0.01 I
0.02
0.03 r
Lo
2 0.04
L
end of
0.05 beam xM= 11.913kNm
0.06 face of AM= 23.738kNm
0.07 colunm M= 35.638kNm
0.08 Joint M= 46.926kNm
0.09 M= 56.296kNm
0.1
0 100 200 300 400
Lengthof thebeam(mm)
momentlevel
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
end of
0.05 beam
e M= 11.267kNm
x
:
0.06 face of & M= 23.068kNm
0.07 Zolumn o M= 35.688kNm
0.08 Joint n M= 46.661kNm
0.09 o = 56.081kNm
0.1
0 100 200 300 400
momentlevel
629
80
70
60
50
40
30 x Ml BI Vl
: x Ml BI V2
20
AL MI Bl V3
10
w MI BI V4
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Relativerotations0 (rad)
80
70
60
50
40
30 MI B2 Vl
20 Ml B2 V2
10
Ml B2 V3
MI B2 V4
0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008
Relative rotations0 (rad)
630
30
25
20
15
lo
5 e M2 BI
o M2 B2
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
M2 B1
10
M2 B2
0
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
Reladverotafions0 (rad)
Figure 6.18(b): Moment versusrelative rotationsin TWI(C) using method2 for both
beams
631
50
IW I (C) Method 2
TANGENT VALUES
40
BI unload
B1 load
30
v
B2 unload
'A
B2 load
20
10
2,
Cycleno
TW I (C) usingmethod2
632
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 s Slll
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
Crack operängÖT(MM)
cycles 13
160
140
120
100
80
60
U 40
20 I
0
2468 10 12 14 16
ST (mm)
Crack operäng
633
160
140
120
100 m B11
80
60
:5ý 40
20
0
0.65 0.55 0.45 0.35 0.25 0.15 0.05
Compressivedeformation8B(mm)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 III SG1
20 Ill SGlb (Interface)
x BI SGIc (Joint)
0
634
160
140
'rR 120
loo
80
60
El
40
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Steelstrains(p)
160
140
120
100
80
60 B SG3
40 B SG4
B SG5
20
B SG6
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Steelstrains(ge)
635
0
0.5
end of
beam
2
face of
x M=5.15 kNm
10 2.5 column
AM=9.29 kNm
3
e M= 14.90kNm
3.5
Joint mM= 18.58kNm
4 oM= 34.84kNm
4.5
0 100 200 300 400
Length of the beam (mm)
momentlevel
80
70
60
50
40
30 Ml Bl VI
:ý 20 Ml Bl V2
MI Bl V3
10
Ml Bl V4,
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
cycles 13
636
160
140
120
100
80
60 xMI Bl VI
:ý 40 MI Bl V2
Ml Bl V3
20
Ml Bl V4,
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relative rotationý (rad)
80
70
60
50
1
40
30
2 20
10
* M2Sll
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Reladverotaflons0 (rad)
cycles 13
637
160
140
120
100
80
60
: 40
ý
20 M2 S11
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relafive rotafion0 (rad)
638
150
TW2
TANGENT VALUES
125
100
Ici
75
10
50 Sl
M2 unload
M2 SI load
býl B1 V4 unload
25
MI BI V4 load
10
Cycle no
methods1 and 2
639
80
70
60
50
40
30 0 Sl
20 o S2
o Bl
10
o B2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Crack opening&r (mm)
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
*Sl
60
o S2
40
0BI
20 B2
0
0
234 7
Crackopening&r (mm)
boundariesin TB 1(A)
640
200
180
160
140
120
100
electricalfault
80
60
40
20
0
0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0.6 0.5 0.4
813 (mm)
deformation
Compressive
2uu
180
160
140
120
100
80
Ei
60
40
20
0
641
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60 A SG2
o
40 A SG3
20 A SG4
0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000
Steelstrains(ge)
200
180
160
140
120
WO
80
60 B SG2
40 B SG3
20 B SG4
0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000
Steelstrains(ge)
642
0
0.1
0.2
A
co
5 0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
> 0.8
0.9
1
0 100 200 300 400
momentlevel
0.1
0.2
0.3 3tationgradient :
0.4 Beamtocolumý.
.
rotation gradient.
0.5 MI B2 V4 25.51kNm
xM=
Zý 0.6 face of end of 49.42kNm
,äM=
0.7 Tolumn beam10, M= 73.68kNm
<>
0.8 Joint o M= 95.17kNm
0.9 oM= 115.38kNm
.1
0 100 200 300 400
momentlevel
643
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
* MI BI Vl
60
* MI Bl V2
40
* M2SI
20
*M2Bl
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Relativerotationsý (rad)
and 2
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
* Ml B2 Vl
60
* MI B2 V2
40
* MI B2 V3
20 Ml B2 V4
a
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Relativerotationsý (rad)
644
200
TB 1(A) Method 1
TANGENT VALUES
USING V4 only
180
160
140
120
100
80
B2 unload
60 B2 load
13
tw
40
2C
C r%
%?
A
%j
L; I LIZ _j
Cycleno
645
200
TB l(A) Method 2
TANGENT VALUES
180
160
140
DI unload
B1 load
120
*0
S1 unload
100
S1 load
,Im
80
60
40
20
Cycleno
646
180
160
140
120
100
80
60 0 Sl
o S2
40
B1
20
B21
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
Crack opening&r (mm)
180
160
140
I
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
CompressivedeformationSB(mm)
647
180
160
140
120
100
80
aBI SG1
60
BI SGId
40
B2 SG3
20 B2 SG3d
I &
0
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Concretestrains(ge)
iso
160
140
120
100
80
60
> o A SG2
40
A SG3
20 A SG4
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Steelstrains(ge)
648
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
o B SG2
40
B SG3
20
B SG4
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Steelstrains(ge)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60 M2 Sl
40 M2 B1
M2 S2
20
M2 B21
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Relativerotationsý (rad)
649
100
TB 1(B) Method 2
TANGENT VALUES
90 B2 unload
S2 unload
S2 load
80
:B2 load
70 S1 unload
B1 unload
60
10
SI loa
50
B1 load
Ici
40
30
I
I0
20
10
i2%M,
32%M, 32%Mu 53%Mu : Failure
0 ui U4
ul U2
Cycleno
650
180
Sl
160
S2
140
BI
120 B2,
o
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Crack opening&r (mm)
180
160
140
120
I
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
CompressivedeformationSB(mm)
651
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 BI SGI
20 B2 SG3
0
1000 500 0
3000 2500 2000 1500
Concretestrains(ge)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
> A SG2
40
A SG3
20
A SG41
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Steelstrains(p)
652
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
B SG2
40
B SG3
20
B SG4
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Steelstrains(ge)
180
160
140
120
100
so
M2 Sl
60 M2 BI
>
40 M2 S2
20 M2 B2
0
0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012
Relativerotations0 (rad)
653
120
TB l(C) Method 2
TANGENT VALUES
110
B1 ýijoaa
100
S1 unload
90
ýý2 unload
80 S2 unload
B1 load
70 SI load
12
S2 load
60
B2 load
10
50
40
30
20
10
i2%M. 54%Mu
33%M, 33%M. Failure
0
ul Uz w %i.
+ tZ)
Cýcleno
654
60
50
40
1
30
20
10
0 23456
Crack opening&r (mm)
cycles 13
60
50
40
1
30
20
I
10
04
0 10 15 20
Crackopening&r (mm)
655
60
so
I
40
30
20
10
04
0.1 0.05 0
0.25 0.2 0.15
Compressive deformation 5B (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
04
12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0
Concretestrains(p)
656
60
50
40
30
A SG3
20
:5 A SG4
10 A SG5
A G6
00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Steelstrains(pe)
60
50
40
30
El 20
0
>l:
10
00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Steelstrains(ge)
657
0
Beamtocolumn
0.1 rotation gradient
0.2
0.3
CM Joi tocolum
0.4 rotation gradient
0.5 end of 7.64 kNm
xM=
beam
0.6 face of
AM=
10.66kNm
0.7 column M= 18.15kNm
0.8 Joint M= 23.54kNm
0.9 M= 28.21kNm
1
0 100 200 300 400
momentlevel
60
50
40
1
30 Ml BI VI
Ml Bl V2
20
Ml Bl V3
10
MI BI V4
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Relativerotation ý (rad)
cycles 13
658
60
50
40
30 MI BI Vl
MI Bl V2
20
Ml Bl V3
10
Ml Bl V4
OF
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relativerotation ý (rad)
60
50
40
30
20
10
cycles 13
659
60
50
40
1
30
20
:P.
10
M2 Sl
M2 BI
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relativerotation 0 (rad)
660
30
TB2 Method I
TANGENT VALUES
USING V4 only
25
20
10
15
10
BI unload
10
BI load
IN
cj.
5
Cycleno
method I
661
140
TB2 Method 2
TANGENT VALUES
120
100
l=
80
10
!
60
40
B1 unload BI load
0
ý2 . 0
20
....................
' "Roa
SIu n 
SI load
96%M. Mý:., 97%M. Failure 95%M,
0 P
ul %_;
J %.'+ ua
U2
Cycleno
method 2
662
rl, ýý', fokl
co
Plate 6.2: First cracks opening at jointscolumn boundaries from West in TW I (A)
663
0
I ?;,
Plate 6.3: Failure region of beam 2column joint from East in TW I (A)
P4
70
Plate 6.4: Failure region of beam 2column joint from West in TW I (A)
664
i1ii I
PFFJ
ldk
k
51
. 00
ý, /i
1
30
t"
r
30
$
;
Plate 6.6: Damaged region around the column after shear test from West in TW 1(B)
665
r ...
4F
*, .I V'
1, j. II At"
.00"
to
Plate 6.7: Weld region of beam I from East after testing TWl(B)
* 0
ob
Plate 6.8: Completely broken weld in beam 2 from East after testing TW I (B)
666
00
Plate 6.10: Damaged regions in the precast members from West after testing TW I (B)
667
I L'Lr,
2(CS
4C:S
32
26
668
/
Plate 6.13: First cracks at top of slab from East in TW2
I %,% p
PLATI,
7 ;,ýý
.Cl
41
Plate 6.14: Failure regionsat top of slab and aroundcolumn from North in TW2
669
H
.
C/l,
ft
Vý
"1
Io
7: 5
03
coi
Cl.
if
i I.
tb
LL.
1.:
670
Z
;2
7r,
671
2 /:
7
hhýý
9.1
r_
CD
CA
r.
0
.
4
71,
CIS
lop
672
t A.
K)
I
A A04 p I I . ý
14
4ý rI "
1 dowo.  t
2
:
(
Air
Plate 6.18: Failure region at top of slab from North and South in TBI(A)
673
Plate 6.19: Flexural cracksin beam I from Eastin TB I (A)
I 1.
674
T7
R fq llý
r Tof (a) ý
_  /, 0, .
14
t. t)
I '
I 'l(¼;
I ttc
I'C
c. %75 I
fr.
_____
c3,
/
L LO
675
" "".... "
I "
T8110 NE
(.
T
VOW
TIMM
Vb
r2 i
4,
cl, I
C6
676
Plate 6.25: First cracksat top of slab from Eastin TB2
1ý
Coi, aj
,
677
TEST
TB2
BILLET
CONNECTOR
I\ 'Cll
ý111
<7

lei
Coll
678
T: 3
al
I=
aý
679
CIA
CZ
680

1111111
II.

%LC
Plate 6.3 1: Damaged profile of the precast members from East in TB2
681
CHAPTER7
7.1 Introduction
Tle main aim of the experimentalwork on full scaleframe connectiontests has been
bars in the tension zone and strain in the concretesin the compressionzone. The
mentioned is
behavioural. given. Figures 7.1 to 7.6 present moment versus crack
opening. In the following figures the moment is plotted with respect to: Figure 7.7
compressivedeformationin Figure
beams; 7.8 steel strainson stability fie bars; Figure
Ile results indicatemajor differencesin the responseof the single sided test to
steel in the floor slab is fully effective,whilst single sided connectionsare limited by
71
the strengthof the connectionitself and lesscontribution from the slab as the tie steel
is not fully effective. An important feature in the single sided tests results from the
around a 9W bend. Forces in the tie bars are activated in two stages; firstly in the
crankedpart of the bars, and secondlyin the part of the bars nearestto the main and
edge beams. That the strains did not, in general, reach their uniaxial yield value
indicatesthat the full plastic momentfor the connectionswas not attained.'Ibis may be
explainedby the fact that the tie bars are cranked45* to the direction of the tensile
force. When the first cracks appearedin the insitu concrete infill the bars are
to
subjected an eccentric tie force, thereby reducing their axW stiffness. Maximum
strains were about 0.35 CIW2) to 0.50 (TB2) x yield strain, defined as 0.43% strain
(BS 4461), when failure of the connectionoccurreddue to bond slip in the tie bars and
The zone of influence is deflned as that region where the effects of the
connection influence the Mcon0 behaviourboth in the beam and column. It was
found that the column contributes only to the flexibility of the single sided
The
connections. zoneof influencein the beamdepends
on the type of connection.For
the welded plate type, changesin rotation were measuredat 450 mrn from the centre
line of the column, whereasin the billet type this distancewas 300 mm.
72
7.2 Overview on the experimental work
applied loads and must havesufficient stiffnessto limit the sideswaymovementof the
structure.
In this thesis, connections were examined for structural performance, as
observetheir behaviourunderreversedloading.
The action of the gravity and wind load on a building affectsjoint behaviour.
The flexural strengthand stiffnessof thejoint both affect sway of the columnsand the
a measureof the moment transfer capacityof the joints. Consequentlythe load path
which has been employedin the experimentalwork may be traced in three parts as
fonows :
73
0 beamto joint by shearandbending
Tle free endsof all beamsand slabsin the experimentalwork were temporarily simply
supported. Therefore, the shear forces at these locations in the beams,which were
recorded by the load cells, are the actual applied bending forces from which the
This load path has been defined as the global load path (Mahdi, 1992). It
indicates that the joint constitutesan integral member(with zero length in analytical
plate or billet) affects the size of the damagedzonesin the joint and precastconcrete
members.
In addition to the global load path,thereis a local load path associatedwith the
joint being tested.This dependson how the connectionwas detailed. Figures A5.4.1
and A5.4.2 show the internal forces inducedin the connectionsat the sectionsin the
vicinity of the column faces, respectivelyfor the welded plate and billet beamto
columnconnections.
Using the local force path conceptit was possibleto formulate expressionsfor
74
The membersizesand reinforcementof the precastconcretecolumn and beam
and their strength were chosen such as to simulate an actual building frame
eength
environment. The only exception was the of the column and beams in tests
TBl(B) and TBl(Q, which were shorteneddue to mould restriction (casting two
identical beamsin the samemould) and location of holding down bolt holes in the
concrete and steel strains, vertical deflectionsand, most importantly moment versus
relative rotations are assembledfor tests carried out involving the welded plate and
billet connectionsin order to facilitate comparisonof the responseof the joints to the
appliedbendingmomem
to be small.
of beamsin the double sided, and at top of slabsin the double and single sided tests
respectively,using weldedplateconnection.
75
In all the testscarriedout flexural crackswere, asexpected,first initiated at the
column to joint interfaceat the top of the slab and the beam.This plane is therefore a
A lower cover to the stability tie bars, longer span slabs and higher bond
stiffness between the plate and the surrounding concrete could have reduced the value
of the initial crack opening.The latter, without floor slabs,may be basedon a pull out
force calculatedfrom the applied moment divided by a lever arm in the connection.
plate. It is the deteriorationin the bond strengthwhich causedthe crack opening in the
tests (seelater test TW 1(Q). The variation in the magnitudeof crack openingcan be
attributed to the quality of the concrete and the method of placing the concrete as
It can be seen (see Figures 7.1 and 7.2) that the crack opening varies
substantiallyin the region wherethe first flexural crack was inducedin the connection.
In the caseof the doublesidedtest TW I (A) the crack openingsare much smallerthan
7.4.3
b) the slab in contact with the column was to lock the systemdue to bearing
76
Despite these effects, a transverseflexural crack (Plate 6.1) was first observedat an
less than the 47.3 kNm observedin the single sided test TW2. The increasein the
cracked momentin the test TW2 is due to the contribution of the bendingflexibility of
the column. The recorded crack widths at this point were 0.131 and 0.085 mm on
either side of the column (Figure 6.2(a)). The largestcracks are, as expected,at the
be interpreted as the point at which the sectionis cracked flexurally. With increasing
tensile stresseswhich the joint was not able to withstand led the crack to spreadto
larger areas around the joint, including the precast concrete beams.71besecracks
intensified in the zone, in the beam,at the soffit of the joint where they propagated
capacity of the joint. The column showedno sign of cracking. Apart from one or two
180 mm, i.e. 100 mm joint plus 40 mm precast beam and column. Tle maximum
ultimate strain at which concreteis normally assumedto crush explains the onset of
77
surface strain gaugesin the beamsnear to the joint zone at failure (Figure 6.4). One
might say that 0.00347 = 0.0037 when measuringconcrete strains. It is true, but it
expandedon in Chapter 8. After the concretein the tension zone failed to take any
more tensile force, thesewere then taken by the fie bars which increasedsteel strains
to more than 7000 ge (A SG2 in Figure 6.5) and 5400 ge (B SGI in Figure 6.6),
indicating significant yielding of the bars. Ultimate failure was due to significant
Mcon = 50 kNm, i.e. approximately 115 ultimate. The figures show the gradual
in the joint which resulted in cracking and spalling in the concrete and therefore a
reduction in both the effective crosssectionareaand the lever arm. The increasein the
size of the is
cracked zone an indication of the area of the plastification. A stage is
reachedwhere the joints are not able to withstand any more applied moment. At this
stagethe joint may be consideredat its plastic momentof resistanceMu . Figure 7.10
deviation from linearity is dependenton both the details of the connection and
subframe.To this end, the scale of the momentrotationcurves reveal a great deal
about the initial responseof the joints, since the rotation is very small and therefore
undetectablein the early stageof the loading history. Where necessarythe behaviour
78
each of the corresponding results to failure (as Figure (b)) to evaluate the initial
carefully interpreted.
This is because
in the mf4jorityof the momentrotationgraphsthe
50% of the crackedmoment Mcr This could be attributedto the insitu infill concrete

test TWl(Q is mainly due to the presenceof the slab continuity longitudinal bars.
These not only satisfied the stability requirementsof the BS 8110 but also increased
the main characteristics,moment (by 215%), rotation (by 46%) and stiffness (by
floor strength and stiffness to the flexural capacity of the joint is neglectedin the
that the flexural continuity of the connectionwas beingmaintainedto the extent that it
weakened the bars and joint concrete. Thus flexural behaviour of test TWI(A)
suggeststhat the slab could be idealisedas a 200 mrn deep beamacting compositely
with the main 300 mm deepbeam.It hasbeenfound by Mahdi (1992) that the out of
79
At no point do the rotations obtainedusing Eq.6.1(d) and Eq.6.2(b) differ by
more than 8% and 13% of one anotherfor beams1 and 2, respectively.This will give
greater confidence when using the "component method" based on the horizontal
The horizontal deformationsat the top of the beam(Figure 7.11) were in linear
relationshipwith 5T and 8B, showingthat the beamand slab were rotating as a rigid
block. These data also showedthat the neutral axis for the flexurally cracked section
between the rotations derived using M2 Sl and M2 Bl (see Figure 6.10(b)). This
shows that, within the normal scatter experimentalwork of this type, either method
may be used to generateMconý data,and is the first step towards the validation of
SI) and Jc = 49,500 kNm/rad. (M2 B I) usingMethod 2. It is for this reasonthat all
Beam 1 side (see Plate 6.1). The tangentstiffnessesdecreasevery rapidly due to the
710
change in stiffnessesin cycle 3. The stiffnessdecreasedin beam 2 side in cycle 4,
becausethe stiffnessdecreases
with an increasein momentand damagein the previous
cycles and camecloseto the stiffnessin beamI side.This is an indication of the failure
the stiffnessesobtainedfrom the slab rotations are less than those obtained from the
beamrotations in the cycles 13, unlike in the cycles45 as a result of more cracks far
from the column faces giving less crack openingat column/slab(insitu) boundaries.
By comparing the results of the two Methods it is found that the Method I gives a
10.3 and 9.5 mrad and secantstiffnessJs = 25450 and 27100kNm/rad were achieved
in this test using Methods I and 2, respectively.The value 0.70 x the actual ultimate
frames.
The shear resistanceof the entire connectionwas found to be satisfactory after the
711
the connectionsmay be identified not only by their shearcapacity but also by their
Although it was not intendedto studythe semi rigidity of the connectionin this
and 1.138 for the beams 1 and 2, respectively.These were closer to the rigidly
This test was a continuationof test IW I (A) in which 200 mm deephollow core slabs
and tie bars were removed in order to evaluate the reductions in the main
used in test TWI. (A) for the beamsto comparethe results with those obtainedin test
TW1(A).
the test TWl(A) as the cracksare greaterand more in linear registration with moment
than in the test TW I (A) due to the absenceof the slabs(seeFigure 7.1). The variation
in the magnitudeof the crack openingcan be attributedonly to the quality of the weld.
the momentvs crack openingcurve is too smallto be consideredafter the first cracks.
712
The cracks spreadrapidly and vertically down to the compressionzone (see Plates
6.11 and 6.12). The total crack widths (Figure 6.13) reachedto 0.39 and 0.46 mm at
the peak value of the cycle I loadedup to 30% of the anticipatedmoment.At the end
of unloading in cycle 1, the total crack widths were partly recoveredelasticallyand the
crack widths increasedto 1.83and2.02 mrn for the beamsI and 2, respectively,at the
ultimate moment capacity of the connection.Both crack widths nearly attained the
same value of 1.83 mm at the samemomentas shown in Figure 6.13. This moment
the anticipated ultimate moment. The initial stiffness of the fourth cycle was similar to
the previous two cycles,but it reducedafter the peak values of the first three cycles
was exceeded.Finally the fifth cycle was applied to failure to obtain the ultimate
after the first flexural cracks. Greater crack widths of the beam resulted in greater
movement of the end of the beam as in test TWI(A). The maximum compressive
deformations 5B at failure were 0.25 and 0.21 mm.for beams1 and 2, respectively,
measured over the same distance of 180 mm in the test TWI(A). The maximum
concrete strain calculatedfrom thesevaluesare 0.0014 and 0.0012, and being smaller
than 0.0035 ultimate strain at which concreteis normally assumedto fail explainsthe
713
onset of unfailure at Mu (seePlates6.11 and 6.12). After the concrete in the tension
zone failed to take any more tensileforces,all forces inducedin this zone were taken
by the weld. The failure was due to weld breakingfailure in the joint in beam 1. This
indicates that the flexural continuity of the connectionwas being maintainedto the
extent that it weakenedthe weld. This provided important information on the pure
in Section7.4.1.
and their distancefrom the face of the columnwas observed(Figure 6.15). The beam
tocolumn joints give more deflectionsin POTs 11 and 12 due to the splitting of the
joints concrete.The gradientsof the beamdeflectionsin Figures 6.15(a) and (b), and
Plates6.11 and 6.12 clearly indicatethat joint hastwo rotations at its ends,namely(a)
this test due to the absenceof the removeditems giving a freedom to the beam end
plate to rotate at the face of the solid billet projectingfrom the column face as if it was
the centre of the joint. This does not enable the use of Method 1 to derive the
rotations asit gives very small rotations(as shownin Figures6.16 and 6.17) and hence
similar behaviourto the momentcrack width curves in Figure 6.13. The rotations at
the ultimate momentsreachedto the valuesof 6 and 7 mrads.for beam I and beam2,
714
respectively,which is less (32%) than correspondingmeanrotation about 9.5 mrad in
the test TW1 (A). This indicates that the ductility of the connection is a function of the
The values0.32 x ultimate moment Mu, 0.68 x ultimate rotation Ou and 0.49
x stiffness J. in test TW1(A) were achievedin this test using Method 2. These
the weld.
In the caseof single sided test TW2 the cracks are more diagonal than in the double
A
sided tests. transverseflexural crack was first markedat an applied moment of 47.3
kNrn being greaterthan 35.5 kNm in test TW I (A). 71bemeasuredcrack widths (using
at
crack width measurement) this point were 0.04 and 0.06 mm on either side of the
column (seePlate 6.13). The recordedcrack width at this momentin Figure 6.20(a)) is
0.26 rnm being greater than the above values, because it includes the tensile
deformation of the insitu infill concreteover a distanceof 100 mm from the column
face. The largest cracks are, as expected,at the column to insitu interface (Plate
6.14). These initiated at the sameload, which coincideswith the large reduction in
stiffness seenin Figures 6.26(a) to 6.28. Unlike in the double sided test IWI(A) the
magnitude of crack opening has increasedafter the first flexural cracks due to the
715
column, henceincreasingthe cracks.The column in this test was heavily cracked by
the level of the top surfaceof the solid steel billet, and is possibly indicative of local
are not only limited in the beamsandjoint but also big damageoccuffed in the column
tension up to about 220 mm above slab insitu Will (Plate 6.14) and compression
zones 160 mm from the top level of the edgebeamto downward (Plate 6.17 left) and
or deformation in the joint zone in this test. Also, it should be noticed that the SGI
156.43 kNrn due to the extent of the damagedzone in the beam. The compressive
concrete strain obtainedfrom the strain gaugein the beam near to the joint zone at
failure was 0.00328. After the concretein the tension zone failed to take any more
tensileforce, thesewere then taken by the tie barsin two stages;firstly in the cranked
part of the bars, and secondlyin the part of the bars nearestto the main and edge
beams. That the strains did not, in general, reach their uniaxial yield value which
indicates that the full plastic moment for the connectionwas not attained. Although
the full plastic moment of the connectionwas not attained,it was mentionedearlier
that the column in this testwas heavily crackedby comparisonwith all the testscarried
was being maintainedto the extentthat it weakenedthe column. This requiresa strong
716
column to be used at the connectionbetween the beam and external column. Tle
no rotation obtainedusing the Method 2 up to the Mcr = 34.84 kNm (which is about
key parameterin using Method 2, up to this value.It seemsthat the Method I is more
which is 3.75 x ýu in the test TWI(A). This large difference is due mainly to the
In the test TW I (A) there was no momentin the column being symmetricallyloaded.
However, in this single sided test K was distributed into the column at the top and
bottom level of the joint producinga doublecurvaturein the column as in a real frame
environmenL
It was found that no matter the type of the subframe.(double sided or single
and 0.18 x stiffness J. in testTW I (A) were achievedin this test using Method 1
717
7.6 Test series 3
This test series 3 included three tests on double sided slabbeamcolumnfull scale
subframesTBI(B) and T'B1(Q incorporating two way billet connection. In the test
TBIP the RHS billet in the column and beam end plate (Figure 5.9) were not
incorporated. The aim of the tests TB I (B) and TB I (C) where smaller length beams
subframesincorporating billet
on double and single sidedslabinsitu/beamtocolumn
connection. Thesefigures show that tests TB I (B) and TB I (C), which were basedon
smaller length beamsand insitu infill concreteonly, were terminateddue to the bond
failure of the joint. They exhibitedmuch lessductile failure than the tests TB 1(A) and
TB2 which were basedon the double and single sided long span beamswith floor
Examination of the joint after the test ended revealed that failure in test
TB 1(A) was due to the significanttensileyield failure of the longitudinal 2725 tie bars
rather than the fracture of the fie rod at the top level of the beam.The strength of the
718
Also, in this full scaletest a transverseflexural crack was first observedat an
applied bendingmomentof 35.5 kNrn (seePlate 6.18), at the sameload and location
as in the test TWI(A). The measuredcrack widths at this point were 0.01 mm on
either comer of the column on one side, and 0.4 mm (being the largestcrack) and 0.2
mm,at slab to slabjoints, respectivelyon beamsI and 2 sidesand 0.05 at the column
to joint interface. These initiated at the sameload, which coincides with the large
reduction in stiffnessseenin Figure 6.37 and wereinterpretedas the point at which the
sectionis crackedflexurally.
beam I (not availablefor beam2) measuredover the samedistanceof 180 rnm in the
test TWl(A). The concrete+ grout strain calculatedfrom thesevalue is 0.0032, and
being less than 0.0035 ultimate strain at which concreteis normally assumedto fail.
the joint zone at failure were 0.0018 and 0.0011, respectivelyfor bearns 1 and 2
(Figure 6.31) < 0.0032 (includestwo interfaces).It onceagaintells us the affect of the
is hard to find a reasonto explain that the maximumconcrete strain (should not be
confused with strain at Mu) in beam 2, measuredat the same distance from the
column face as the strain in the grout reacheda value of 8080 ge. This was not the
beamsin the four main testsis presentedin Figure 7.9. Steel strainsincreasedto more
than 18600 gc (A SG2 in Figure 6.32) and 20500 gc in Figure 6.33, indicating
significant yielding of the bars. Ultimate failure was due to significant yielding of the
719
bars,and crushing failure of the grout andconcretein thejoints and beams,althoughit
Figure 6.37 shows the tangent and unloading stiffnessesof the connections.
cycles 4 and 5 because of the repeated loading and unloading damaging the
the cycles 14, unlike in the cycles 5 as a result of more cracks far from the column
results of the two Methods it is once againfound that the Method 1 gives the lower
The meanvaluesof 189.78kNrn ultimate moment Mu, 15.36 and 7.66 mrad
Comparing the two tests TWI(A) and TBI(A) the values 0.80 x ultimate
moment Mu, 1.5 and 0.81 x ultimate rotation Ou and 0.50 and 1.0 x stiffness J. in
kNm at the locations in Plates6.21 and 6.22. This is sameas in the test TI3 I (A) and
720
when the sectionis uncrackedflexurally. The measuredcrack widths at this point were
not more than 0.15 mrn on either of the column then increasedto 0.2 mm at 75 kN in
cycle 3.
Large flexural cracksinitiated at 76.5 kNm in cycle 4 at the top middle of the
insitu infiR concrete are extendeddown to and stoppedby the top of the projecting
right locations (column to joint interface)if the slabswere used,even the absenceof
The compressive deformations 8B (Figure 6.39) at failure were 0.3 mm. for
both beamsmeasuredover the same distanceof 180 nim in the test M(A). The
(Figure 6.40) < 0.00167 (includes two interfaces).It is once again found that the
maximum concrete strain in beam 2 at the same distancefor joint centre from the
column face (60 mm) reacheda value of 1800 [te. Steel strains in Figures 6.41 and
6.42 increasedto more than 2560 ge and 2435 4e, being much less when compared
with 18600 ge and 20500 ge, in TBI(A), indicating possible yielding of the bars.
Ultimate failure was due to the insitu infill concreteflexural (bond) failure above the
721
obtained using M2 BI&B2 come close as Mcon approachesto ultimate value. The
results also show that the relativerotation 0u=6 mrad for M2 B1 and 0u=7 mrad
for M2 B2. They are quite small but needto be comparedthe valuesin test TB l(A)
obtained using the Method 2. This has beendone and it was found that the ratio of
0.92. It indicatesthat the use of this test arrangementto replacefull tests with slabs
would not make differencemore than 24% as far as the ductility of the connectionis
concerned.This also indicatesthat it would be possibleto obtain the full strength and
Figure 6.44 shows the tangent and unloading stiffnessesof the connections.
There is an increasein slab I stiffnessin cycle 3 as a result of more cracksfar from the
0.84 x ultimate rotation Ou and 1.07 x stiffness Js in test TBl(A) were achievedin
this test.
In this test the RHS billet in the column and beamend plate (Figure 5.9) were not
moment of 15 kNm, beinglessthan the appliedmomentat which the first cracks were
markedin TB I (B) by 7.7 kNm, at the locationsin Plates6.23 and 6.24. This reduction
in momentis due possiblyto the absenceof the aboveitems (RHS billet and beamend
722
plate), and may be acceptedas the secondfinding that the items have influence on
concrete strains (0.000873 and 0.000697) in Figure 6.47 measurednear to the joint
zone at failure were greaterthan the valuesin the test TB I (B), respectivelyfor beams
I and 2. Steel strains in Figures 6.48 and 6.49 increased to more than 2900 pe and
2830 ge being also greater than the values in the test TB1(B). This does not
this test were weaker than the bars usedin the test TBI(B). (FuH information about
the stability tie bars used in all the test carried out is presentedin Table A5.4.1 in
Appendix 5.4.) Ultimate failure was due to the insitu infill concrete flexural failure
above the midspanof the beamssimilar to the test TBl(B). The ratio of the ultimate
cause less slab (insitu) rotations than the beams thereafter. At Mu the relative
rotation ý, = 6.2 mrad for M2 BI and ý, = 7.4 mrad for M2 B2. Theseare close to
in test TB I (A) is 0.81 and 0.97. This shows that the use of this test arrangementto
replacefull testswith slabsis evenbetter than the test TB I (B) by improving the above
concerned.This improvementin the ductility was not the casefor the strength of the
connection where a value of 0.93 x the ultimate strength of the test TB I (A) was
723
achievedin this test. This test gives approximatelythe samesecantflexural stiffnessas
in test TB I (A).
Figure 6.51 shows the tangent and unloading stiffnessesof the connections.
The increasein slabs stiffnessin cycle 5 is also due to the horizontal cracks being
Comparison of the two tests TB I (A) and TB I (C) indicated that the values
0.93 x ultimate moment Mu, 0.89 x ultimate rotation ýu and 1.02 x stiffness Js in
The joints in test TB2 showed different patternsof cracking from those of the test
TB I (A) as the first cracksare more diagonalstarting from the comers of the column
and spreadinginto the slabswith 45". In this single sided fun scale test, cracks were
first marked at an applied bendingmomentof 29.6 kNm being the lowest value test
series(IV 1(A), TW2, TB 1(A)). The measuredcrack widths at this moment were 0.1
mm on either internal comer of the column (see Plates 6.25 to 6.27). The recorded
crack openingat this momentwas0.18 mm, eventhere was no crack at the face of the
column where crack opening was recorded. This explains that the recorded crack
opening should not be interpreted as the surface cracks. They are only the tensile
deformation of the insitu infill concrete,over the top of the beams,up to where the
724
deformation to derive the relative rotation of the beamto column using Method 2. The
cracks are also, unlike the test TW2, observedat the column to edge beams(Plate
6.28) and at the column to insitu interfaces(Plate6.29). This may be attributed to the
rotation of the edge bearnsdue to the dowel action of the tie rods. These cracks
observedfrom the joint grout to the main beamat the midheight of the billet due to
the overstressingof the concretein compressionin the beamthat cover the billet. This
becamea point from which the behaviourof all curves in each graph entered into a
near to the joint zone at failure was 0.0015. The grout strain (0.0051) in the joint was
at the samedistancefrom the column face as the grout strain reacheda value of 10100
ge (Figure 6.54). Minimum and maximum steel strains were about 670 and 2600
(Figures 6.55 and 6.56) when failure of the connectionoccurred due to bond slip in
the tie bars and extensivecrackingin the tops of the floor slab and concrete crushing
failure in the beam surroundingthe billet. This large difference is due mainly to the
geometry of the barsand location of the strain gaugesin single sided tests.The failure
momentin this test relied on the shearcapacityof the tie rod. This test was terminated
due to the suddenfailure of thejoint indicating that the de rod is the key parameterfor
ensuring continuity of load transfer to the column and therefore it is the controlling
parameterin the designof the singlesidedconnectionas the floor slab and stability tie
bars are not fully effective. in a real frame environment this would give rise to a
725
dangerousfailure, thereforeit must not be employedat the beam to external column
ultimate shear capacity of the tie rod of 89.07 kN that inducesa predicted moment
value of 26.25 kNm in the joint without slabs. The test results without slabs and tie
bars are not available for the billet connections. The contribution of the less effective
slabs and tie bars, basedon the measuredstrength,increasedthe strength of the joint
agreementusing Method 1 up to about Mcon = 40 kNrn and this limit falls to about
seen that the Method 1 gives greaterrelative rotation. 'ne largest rotation was once
x0u in the test TB I (A). This large differenceis due mainly to the contribution of the
test TB2.
is the Method I V4 which gives the lowest stiffnessand largest rotation. The validity
of the above observation can clearly be seen in Figure 6.60 for the tangent and
Comparingthe two tests TB I (A) and TB2 the values0.31 x ultimate moment
Mu, 2.16 and 2.45 x ultimate rotation Ou and 0.30 and 0.38 x stiffness J. in test
726
7.8 Summing up
In this section, the performance of the connections have been compared based on their
subjected to the same beam end vertical bending load distance to the face of the
moments of the connectionsare listed in Table 6.1. It is clear that the predicted
due to the variable strength of contiguous materialsbeing much greater than each
of the predicted MulMpred varied from 0.84 to 0.95 in the double sided subframes
Comparingthe ultimate strengthof the connectionsin the four main full scale
tests in Figures 7.10 to 7.13, it is clear that the flexural strengthsof the welded plate
This wasmainlydue
connectionsweregreaterthanthoseof their billet counterparts.
to the ultimate tensile resistance Fw, in the weld being much greater than the
horizontal shearresistancePs in the M16 tie rods usedin the bolted billet connection
double sided welded plate connectionTWI(A) is greater than the billet connection
727
mainly to the type of the connection.The reduction from 238.78 kNrn to 76.34 kNm
in TWl(Q by 68% is due to removalof the contribution of the fully effective stability
itselL Finally, the large differencefrom 238.78kNm to 156.43kNm in single sided test
the ratio of the ultimate momentsTB2fIW2 = 58.02/156.43= 0.37 is less than this
is very interesting to note that this ratio of the predicted ultimate moment values is
ultimate strengthof the connectionswith fie bars and slabsin double sided subframes.
much Iessthan the ratio TW2[IWI(A) = 156.43/238.78= 0.66. Ibis indicatesthat the
the tie steel is not fully effective.The incorporationof the slabsand especiallythe tie
double sided tests, but on the other hand it must be consideredthat the connections
alone are not used in a real frame environment.They are always accompaniedby the
tie bars, slabs and insitu infill concrete or grout to fulfil their function in the
The values 0.97 and 0.93 x the ultimate strength of the test TB I (A) were
achieved in the further simplified short beam length tests TBl(B) and TBl(Q,
728
connection is concerned.This shows that, within the normal scatter in experimental
work of this type, either test, TB I (B) or TB I (C), may be used to generatestrength
data, and is the first step towards the validation of the further simplified short beam
length tests.
A
the literature yet). However the resulting Mu co. ecdon beamof 0.18 in the single
sided test TB2 is unlikely to give sufficient connectionstrength to resist the applied
loads for use in a typical semirigid frame design and must therefore continue to be
729
250
200
150
(L) loo
50
o
0 2468 10 12 14 16
Crack opening&r (mm)
connection
250
200
150
100
s TWI(A) Sl
TWI(A) S2
50
TW2 S1
u
2468 10 12 14 16
Crackopening&r (mm)
Figure 7.2: Moment versuscrack openingat top of slabsin testsusing welded plate
connection
730
200
180 * TB1(A)Sl
o TB 1(A) S2
160
eTBI(B) Sl
140
o TB 1(B) S2
120
TB 1(C) S1
100
TB l(C) S2
80
ATI32Sl
60
40
20
0
05 10 15 20
connection
200
s TB1(A)BI
180
o TBl(A) B2
160
o TB I (B) B1
140
oTBI(B)B2
120
oTB1(C)Bl
100 TB 1(C) B2
a
80 A TB2Bl
60
40
20
0
0234 5
Crack openingSr (mm)
connection
731
250
* TWI(A) Sl
o TW I (A) S2
200 TW2 SI
TBI(A)SI
150 aT]31(A)S2
A
T132Sl
100
50
03
2468 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Crack opening&r (mm)
250
200
150
s TWI(A) DI
100
o IWI(A) B2
9 TW2 BI N/A
T13I (A) B1
50 T13I (A) B2
T132BI
0 4 6 8
Crack opening&r (mm)
732
250
200 s "nVl(A)Bl
TW1(A) B2
150 TW2 BI
TBI(A)Bl
100
TB 1(A) B2
E TB2Bl
0
50
1.5 1 0.5 0
2
Compressive deformation 8B (mm)
250
200
150
oTW I (A) A SG2
TW2 A SG5
100
TB1(A) ASG2
mTB2 A SG4
50
OB
tests
733
250
200
150
6 IWI(A)BISGI
100
S 0 TWI(A) B2 SG3
0'IW2 BI SGI
m TBI(A)BISGI
50
C3TBI(A)B2SG3
A TB2 Bl SGI
04
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Concretestrains(ge)
250
s TW1(A)BI o TWI(A)B2
4o TW2 BIM TBI(A) BI
200 A TB2BI
aTB1(A)B2
150
100
Q
0
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relativerotations0 (rad)
Method I (seeFigure 6.7(a) for derivation of the relative rotation M1B1 V4)
734
250
200
E
8T+Sn )
150 M2Sl
500
8T +8B)
M2 Bl: )
100 260
Ei
s TW1(A) Sl
50
o TWI(A) Bl
* TW I (A) B1
0
8B 012 &r 345
250
o TWI(A) Sl
0 TWI(A) S2
200
0 TW2 S1
150 aTBI(A)Sl
tiTBI(A)S2
N/A
100 1 8T+5B 1 TB2 Sl
M2 Sl:
500
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relativerotations0 (rad)
Method 2
735
250
s IWI(A)Bl
200 o TWI(A) B2
TW2 BI N/A
150 TB I (A) B1
PT +813 (A) B2 N/A
100
M2 BI: , c3T]31
A
TB2Bl
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relativerotations0 (rad)
Method 2
736
CHAPTER 8
they are usually associatedwith the joints and their influenceon the overall and local
action of the structures, both during and after construction. Becausejoints tend to
to it
relate small areasof structuralmembers, is important to appreciatethat the design
materially different from the stressesthat are usedin designingthe memberas a whole.
stressesin the member;usually they can be treated separately.The local and overall
Where a local load representsa small part of the total loading its influence can be
neglected.It is difficult to provide clear guidanceto cover all casesbut local effects
can be evaluatedexperimentally.
81
14,
programs such as SWANSA) and assist in the prediction of joints stiffness and
strength. The results for all of the isolated tests are reported on and discussedin
Chapter9.
(a)frameconnectiontests
The data collected from (b) will be used to assist in the separationof the various
and shears,the extreme fibres in the soffit of the joint are subjectedto compression.
stress.The situation is complicatedby the fact that the site concretedor grouted infill
is bound on two faces by smooth (ex  mould) precast faces. Ile precastinsitu
Thus, the total deformation 8B in the concreteis the sum of the elastic deformationin
the precast Scp and insitu 8ci concretes,plus the two precastinsituinterfaces2%,
82
where X is the normal deformationof eachinterfaceacrossa concretejoint subjected
If the depth of the section (i. e. beam only or beam plus floor slab) is large in
comparisonto the depth of the infffl, say 2 to 3 times the inflU depth, the stressacross
small, say 1.5 times the infill, bendingstresseswill predominateacrossthe section and
the responsemay be different to the axial case,and this has beenstudied in test series
to
small prismatic specimens representthe precast and insitu concretes or grout,
column to slab or beam interface will cause the transfer of tensile force from the
bar is axial. This situation, which is representedby position "2" in Figure 8.1, hasbeen
studiedin series7.
is usually C40. However lateral splitting in the insitu concretein the joint can only be
83
restrained by frictional contact acrossthe interfaces.Insitu infiR is C20. These tests
different strength.It was not possibleto include the steelbillet (showndotted in Figure
as further research.
Cubes and prisms were madeusing mix proportions for each test. They were
stored in a water tank until one day before fiffing the insitu infilI concrete. Mix
proportions(seeSection5.5 ConcreteMixes)and,specifiedandaveragecompressive
cube strength of tests seriesI to 7 at the test daysare presentedin Tables 8.1 and 8.2,
respectively.
The cubes and prisms were taken out from the water tank one day before
filling the specimensand were dried using a towel. Two cubesor prisms were placed
in the end of a mould shown in Figure 8.2, with exsteelmould surfacestowards the
water tank.
Figure 8.4. Plate 8.1 shows typical test assemblyof test series 1,2 and 3. Plates 8.2
and 8.3 show typical test assemblyof test series4 and5, respectively.
i) ultimateloadcapacities
of thespecimens
ii) defonnability in thejoint betweenconcreteshaving different strength
The loading was appliedincrementallyuntil failure. The failure was defined by sudden
84
machine.Certificate for calibrationwascheckedbeforeusing the machinefor eachtest
series.
Test series 1:
The purposeof the testswas to find out the compressivestrengthof the specimensand
concrete as shown in Figure 8.3. The main geometric variable consideredwas the
thicknessof the insitu infill (t) which asshownin Figure 8.3 varied from t= 50 to 100
mm. The strength of the precast concrete = insitu inflU. Fifteen cubes were made
purposes.
infill gap, 4 inchesgauge length and for t =100 mm infill gap 8 inches gauge length
were used.
Test series 2:
These tests were carried out to evaluate the defonnability in the joint between
In this test the thicknessof the insitu infill was variedfrom 25 mm, 50 mm and
100 mm, and the testswere carried out when the compressivecube strength of the in
22
situ infiH concrete reached 21.5 N/mm . The precast concrete = 40.9 N/mm dry
.A
jointed precastprism 200 mm (using2 no 100xlO()xIOOmm cubes)long was testedto
give the value for t=0. A solid 200 mm.long prism was also tested to give a datum
85
strength for the precast concrete. In one additional experiment a thin sheet of
effect.
Test series 3:
This test seriesis similar to test series2 with the following differences:
of thejoinL
samedistance.
In this test seriessix specimenswere testedas shown in Figure 8.6. The height
of the specimensis 300 mm. The distancebetweendernecpips is 200 mm, and t was
varied from 0,25,50 to 100mm. Two solid prism 300 mrn long x 100 x 100 mm were
cast in gradeC40 and C20 concreteto provide datum strengthsfor the precastand in
in testseries1.
Test series 4:
This test seriesis similar to test series2 and 3 with the following differences:
86
1. To use nominal grade C50 and C25 for the precast and insitu concrete,
respectively. (Although the mix designs were the same as in the C40 and C20
find out the effect of the bending moment due, possibly, to the eccentricity of the
applied uniaxial compressiveload. This might, due to a small imperfection, affect the
results.
In this test series deformationswere recorded using linear potentiometers
of the specimenswas varied from 225 rnm to 300 mm, and t was varied from 25,50,
to 100 mm. Two referenceprismswere also cast using wholly precastand wholly in
Test series 5:
Figure 5.6) having different joint grout thicknesst= 10 mm at the outer sectionsand
found in real full scaleframe connectiontest. It was felt that the introduction of these
87
grout usedin the column, beam1 andjoint grout in full scaletestsT13I (A). As before,
datum points.
deformation in the joint with grout thicknesst= 10 mm.and 110 mm. The strength of
Test series 6:
These tests were used to study joint deformationin flexure, as shown in Figure 8.9.
test series6.
88
F= (0.67X20)(IOOXO.
603X80)= 64.642kNm
cc
F, 64.642 x 103 2
As= L. = = 141 mm
460
fy
Use 2 no T 10 bars (157
.,. MM2) shownin Figure 8.12.
were tested. Before carrying out any of the flexural tests, ultrasonic pulse velocity
UPV test gives the dynamic modulus Ecq from which the static modulus may be
E (kN/MM2) 1.25Ecq(kNIMM2) _ 19
c =
where
V= pulsevelocity (mls)
p =density (kgIM3)
89
71bepredictedcollapseload was calculatedasin Section5.10 in Chapter5. The
F 79.6 3=
st x10 = 10 60 mm
0.67fcub 0.67x19.8x100
x is the depth of the stressblock (mm), from the condition of internal forces
to bein equilibrium.
where
tested
2
day (N/mm ). SeeTable 8.2
160
Mpred = FS, 85 1x 103 = 79.6 85  103 = 4.38 kNm
2)2)
where 85 is the measuredeffective depth from the top of the specimensto the centre
of the bars.
810
The predictedcollapseload was found as:
Mpred 4.38
W= 103 = 103 = 87.6 kN (see Figure 8.13) for wholly infill
0.5h 05xlOO
specimen
2
Similarly, by replacing fcu =39.4 N/mm in the above equation the moment
and applied load were found as Mpred = 5.57 kNm and W= 111.3 kN for wholly
precast specimen.The MPed will be between the range 4.38  5.57 kNm for the
The loading was appliedin one stepto the tensionand incrementally(5 kN) to
Test series 7:
The test was carried to evaluate crack width opening and the compression
deformability in the joint at the top and bottom of the specimen,and strains in 2T25
gaugeswere attachedto the 2T25 bars 100 mm c/c as shown in Fig 8.15. (Two of
811
them can be seenin this figure, the other two were attachedto the other bar.) The
Section B was then cast using mix I concrete.The polystyreneplate was removedand
at the bottom of the joint to act as a load spreaderin order to distribute the point
reaction.
A test rig was designedas in fuHscaleframe connectiontests in Chapter 5 to
accommodate the test specimen. The rig consists of two parallel steel frames
to
used apply a vertical bendingload, and 600 kN (left), usedto clamp the Section A,
as shown in Plate 8.5 at the centre of the horizontal 250xl5Oxl6 RHS cross beam
availablenumber of the holding down bolts. The vertical bendingload at the free end
(right) of the cantilever beamof the test specimenwas applied incrementally(5 kN)
electrical resistanceload cell. The jack was clampedto the cross beam as shown in
Plate 8.5. The beamis loadedso as to bendin planeonly and to keep the Section A in
joint by keepingtheleverarmconstant.
812
Using 4MI6 bolts, two lifting channelswere bolted to the section A and B at
the bottom of the joint to act as a load spreaderin order to distribute the point,
reaction. The specimenwas lifted using the lifting channelsand carried by crane from
Trestles and timber shims were provided to support the test specimen
support at the free (right) end on to the timber shimsthat were placed on the top of
smaUtimber packs.
The entire concrete units were then painted white to detect the cracks. The
Theimportantmeasurements
were:
(a) crack width 8T at boundaryof the column and insitu concrete
of them can be seenin this figure, the other two were attachedto other side of the
) Plate 8.5 shows test assemblyfor test series7. All of the offsets were
specimens.
measuredat the beginningof test after the attachmentsof the POTswere completed.
813
Four 10 mm steel strain gauges(type: FLA  1011, gauge resist: 120 ±3 fl,
gauge factor: 2.11) as shown in Figures8.15 were used to record the strains on the
bars.
All signals from the sensors were autornatically recorded using a AXIS
SOFrWARE 3465 data logger. The signals were than linearized by inputting the
respectivecalibration factors (the load cells were calibratedbefore carrying out the
tests) for the various sensorsinto the data logger and the results were displayed
directly in the units of millimetre for POTs and kN for the load cells. The data logger
was linked to an PC and operatedusing the proprietary software. The logged data in
the hard disk was transferredinto a floppy disk and the data was processedas in fuU
Tx 502
103 = 103 = 123.6mm
0.67fcub 0.67x20.2x300
x is the depth of the stressblock (mm), from the condition of interrial forces
to be in equilibrium.
where
T= 502 kN is the total tensileyield load in the 2T25 longitudinal tie bars
tested
814
fcu =20.2 is the actual compressivecube strength of insitu concrete at test
42)2
Mpred «= 321.5 1x 103 = 502 321.51 123.6 103 = 130.37 kNm
where 321.5 is the measuredeffective depth from the bottom of the joint to the centre,
of the bars.
Mpred 13037
P== ý*ýo = 182.3kN (ignoring self weight of test specimens)
0.715 0.715
where 0.715 is the lever arm distancefrom the face of the column to the centre of the
appliedload.
The loading schemewas aimed at simulating the action of the axial tensile
force in bars in a precast concrete skeletal frame connection. 'Mis action causes
joint.
hoggingbendingmomentto thebearntocolumn
Between any two successiveincrementsa visible check was carried out on cracks in
815
The test procedure was to apply load incrementsuntil the joints were not
816
C4
r r
C 0 vi C 0 C'4
u fiRt N r: 110 . 1
CA eflý  . C , zi
des.
... A . Ci 10
C; f
YD
Ge
ei N
r_ vi
vi vi
W.) 0 Cl%
WO
C4
Gn
4 . N V) In
. 't I cf) 1: 3
2
v' 0 en
a 0
V') 1 m1
.
ci
N ?
4
1
vý

.
co)
44
tn CA
CA
CA V4
CA
vli
CA 00
CA 9 1 I
Wt Cf)
4ý
C) IT
C,1 C14 N
(A
cn r4 V) 00
CAý_u
W4
2 en 00
C14
C'4
C CD(Z cn
d)
ý0
C14 4
C1
6 C5
CA 0%
10
0 %C
6
C'I
cl
GO
2 . CD
C,4 kn Z It
c4
o 10
C)
4
o 8 6 C4
25
C/)
10
4ý4
06
E3 0
1x = .0
9
< c02 u
CA
817
Insitu 2 No 25 mm dia bars
\2

4
C,
r31.
ý en OT
40 P
M=P. z = T. z
Precastcolumn Precastbeam
B measured
over this distance
Position I in compression
H,4&pMH
8B measuredover this distance = 100 mm
Position I in bending
8T measuredat interface
Position2 in bending,
818
Infill concretetxlOOxIOO
cubesIOOxIOOxIOO
01
Oj
steelmould
100 100
+
b
100 square
t09AMP1
(0
Al A2 A3
t= 50 t= 75 = 100
Mix I and2
1,14 I
I
819
Compression load
100cubeaboveand below
2 setsof Aoý
dernec pips
Precast grade C40 nom.
50 c/c
steel plattens
820
Compression load
2 sets of
demec pips
50c/c
steel plattens
100 square
II
A3 A4 A5
821
100 ',qllýllc
.44 MPH
00
Al A2 A3 A4 A5
100 square t)
.444 MPH
'S
C
00
x
column column
Al A2 A3 A5
10 t=l 10
822
Figure 8.9 Joint deformation in flexure
zn
823
B5
C40
500
wl
i 49
test series
,cast 40 N/nim
h
25,50 nim
SK
500
924
IN
2 no T25 rebars
R
linear potentiometer (bottom shown thus)
C 
14 C20
C40
strain (D
gauges C40
I nim c,c ,a 10 [11111
"ap
00
r1l
X.r
Roller support 250x3(X)x25 thick plate
1400
825
2T25+2TB 9T9t;
600 800
1ý
1OOC/C
CD
C%j
=20
300 780
1ý
300
826
Plate 8.1: Generalarrangementof compressionspecimenstype A
8? 7
Plate 8.3: General arrangementof compression specimens type A
Plate 8.4: General arrangement of flexural specimens type B for test series 6
929
Plate 8.5: General arrangement for bond
slip test for test series 7
829
CHAPTER9
9.1 Results
Excel in PC.
AXIS SOFIWARE 3465 was usedto processand presentthe test results for
series 47 in three stages.The first stagewas to transfer data from magnetictape to
In test series 13 the axial strain was calculatedby using Dernecextensometersand 2
sets of Dernec pips which were attached to one cast side of the specimensand
gauge, and I. OxIO'5 for 8 inches length gauge. In test series 4 and 5 linear
the possibility of nonaxial loading. The strain was calculated by dividing the
91
stressc; was calculatedby dividing the appliedcompressionload by the crosssection
uniaxialstrain.
Figures 9.1(a) and 9.1(b) show the uniaxial compressive stress versus
secantmodulii are presentedin Table 9.1. Typical damagedzonesfor test series I are
2 2
concrete from 40 N/mm to 20 N/mm and to vary the thicknessof the insitu inffll
Figures 9.2(a) and 9.2(b) show the uniaxial compressive stress versus
modulii are presentedin Table 9.2. Typical damagedzones for test series 2 are
presentedin Plate9.2.
It was also necessaryto keepthe height of all the specimensthe sameto obtain
possibleto observethe real effect of the insitu infill concretet which was varied from
92
Figures 9.3(a) and 9.3(b) show the uniaxial compressive stress versus
modulii are presented in Table 9.3. Typical damagedzones for test series 3 are
presentedin Plate9.3
uniaxial strain in the joint for each of the specimenstested in test series 4. Each
specimenhas four stressversus strain curves giving different Ece values. It can be
seen from these figures the effect of any unintendedeccentricity of the applied load
the uniaxial compressivestress versus average uniaxial strain obtained from four
9.4(f) is not great and at variancewith the minimumand maximumvaluesby 14.9 and
"effective" modulii are presentedin Table 9.4. Typical damagedzones for this test
the meanvalue of the "effective" modulii Ece. It was found that it is better to use the
meanvalue of the "effective" modulii rather than the averagevalue obtained from the
opposite faces. The failure loads, maximum uniaxial compressive stresses and
93
"effective" modulii are presentedin Table 9.5. Typical damagedzones for this test
equivalent modulus Ece, and the strainsin the equivalentmaterial are the sameas in
the composite one. The deformability of a joint(s) reduces the stiffness of the
connectionsuch that the net value for Young's moduluscan be derived as follows: 
where
Cr (x 8
2 x cp = Ecp  t) and ci =aEci
Ece
X= defonnability of eachinterface
where
P
uniaxial compressivestressfor compressionspecimens
A
M
flexural stressfor bendingspecimens(seeFigure 9.17)
z
Thus
Ece=1 Eq.9.2
n%
Tcp Ecp . Xcr
x(Eci
94
where Ecp = Young's modulusfor the precastconcrete, Eci = Young's modulus for
thickness t, and x= is the gauge length over which the interface defonnation is
measured.
9.10.
Test series 6:
The deformation was calculated by using two linear potentiometers which were
mounted on a steel rod and this clampedto the top of the specimen.The deflection of
the two linear potentiometersmultiplied by 7.5 (1 division = 7.5 mra deflection). The
average deflection was then used in the final presentationof the moment deflection
graphs.
M=0.5M Eq.9.3
95
and Zuncr= Iulxu
Zcr Icrlxcr
=
m
Hence Eq.9.4
z
and the cracked Icr the static modulii given in Table 9.6 were used for the modular
2.
ratio Oce= EslEce . Es is the modulus of elasticity of the steel taken as 200 kN/mm
deformation in the joint in test series6, for t=0,25 and 50 mm, respectively.Two
uncracked (Zuncr) concrete beam, are also plotted in these figures. The failure
series. The zone of interface deformability for the flexural specimensis defined in
kNm for C40 and C40/t = 50 mm, respectively.This was an unintendedfailure and so
for C20 and C40/t = 25 mm four plates were used at the bottom and top of the
96
specimenon the supportsand in the bottom of the applied load points to reduce the
Typical damagedzonesfor this test series6 are presentedin Plates9.6(a) and (b).
Test series 7:
Figures 9.20 to 9.26 show the resultsfrom the bendingtest in test series7.
The strain in the 2T25 high tensile reinforcementbars was calculated using
four strain gauges which were attached on the bars (two for each), the distance
between the strain gaugeswas 100 mm c/c. The averagestrain was used to calculate
by the lever arm of 715 mm. Crack width and compressive deformations were
In the tension zone an "effective tensile stiffness Ke" is found which relates
fsAs
Eq.9.5
00 ýKcu
97
where 0 is the effective bar size which, for a single bar is equal to the bar size and, for
a group of bars in contact is equal to the diameterof a bar of equal total area As and
0 is a bond coefficient dependenton the bar type. Values of 0 are given by BS 8110
(Clause 3.12.8.4). For defonnedbars 0=0.5 (BS 8110: Table 3.28). The P values
8T
Le = Eq.9.6
Cav
where;
specimen.
98
9.2 Discussion of isolated tests results
t= 100 mm for mixes I and 2, but it was found not be the case.One of the reasonsfor
this is probably that the compressivestrength of the precastand infill concrete were
2.
similar, i.e. 40.7 to 46.6 N/mm For this reasonthe effect of the insitu infill concrete
of the specimenscannot be observed,as shown in Figures 9.6(a) and 9.6(b), but the
The ratio of the failure stressof the specimento that of the precastconcrete
Values for Ece are lower than would be expectedfrom the well established
2
which would indicate Ec in the range28 to 33 kN/mm for the maximum stressesin
of monolithic values.
In test series 2 both the compressivestrength of the inflU and the joint
thickness were varied to observe the real effect of the thickness t on the uniaxial
thicknessfailed at lower loads,as shown in Figures9.7(a) and 9.7(b). The most likely
99
reason for this is the large differencein compressivecube strength of the infill and
2 2,
precastconcretes(21.4 N/mm and40.9 N/mm respectivelyat the test day).
elastic modulus by between 6% and 21%. The large change in elastic modulus is
probably due to the sudden increase in strain (see Figure 9.2(a)) just prior to the point
was also as expected.From these curves shown in Figures 9.3(a) and (b) it can be
concluded that:
i)  solid specimenAl, C40 long prism, andsolid specimenA6, C20 long prism
specimens, but both can be compared to each other to see the effect of the
the C40 and C20 concretes.This has beendone and presentedin Figures 9.8(a) and
9.8(b)
and 9.8(b), with each other to see the real effect of the thickness and compressive
strength of the insitu infiU concreteon the evaluationof the defonnability in the joint
between concrete having different strength. C40/t = 50 curve was expected to lic
between C40/t = 25 and C40/t = 100 curves as for maximum stress,but it was not.
The reasonfor this is that the specimenseparateddue to sensitivityof the joint in one
910
interface during removal from the mould. This and previous flexure tension crack test
results show that this kind of joints is very weak in tension and flexure. 'Me broken
lateral splitting.
probably due to the suddenincreasein strain (seeFigure 9.3(a)) just prior to the point
susceptibleto having a lower stiffnessthan in the monolithic case as in the test series
2.
shown in Figure 9.4. It is now obvious that the thicknessof the insitu infIll concrete
as shown in Figures 9.9(a) and 9.9(b). It has been reported by B1juger (1988) that
these compressiontests, not to be the case.This might be the case if the strength of
the insitu inffll concrete is the same as the strength of the precast members as
to 9.4(e), this does not significantly effect the deformability of the joint. The most
911
damagedsurface,includesthe effect of the bendingmoment,of eachspecimenmust be
used to obtain the deformability of the joint. This surface may be simulated to the
Figures 9.5(a) and (f) show the uniaxial compressivestress versus strain for
specimensin test series5. T'he ratio of the failure stressto the cube strength of the
precast and grout varied from 0.88 to 0.97, which is to be expected for specimen
height to breadthratios of 3.0. The failure was due to specimencrushing failure in the
weakest part. This indicates that the compressivecontinuity of the joint was being
maintainedto the lowest strengthof the concrete.The main aim of this test was to find
out the variation in the behaviourof the specimensA2 and A3 incorporating 10 and
2
thickness, A3, failed at test stressof 35.0 N/mm being lower than the value 37.3
2
N/mm. of the specimenA2 Figure 9.10(a)it attainedapproximatelythe samemodulus
2,
grout, fcu = 46.4 N/mm in the specimenA3. The whoHygrouted specimenA5 gave
the lowest modulus in this test series.In a real joint construction as seenin full scale
tests in Chapter 5, the specimenA3 incorporatesa RHS billet projecting from the
column face. This would give a rise to the strengthof the specimenbring in line with
912
9.2.2 Effect of lnflll on Young's modulus of concrete
Figures 9.11 and 9.12(a) show EcelEcp ratio versus th for series 3 and 4 for
for series 1 and 2. Figure 9.12(b) shows Ece/ Ecpversust/x at various stresslevels for
Figure 9.13. Figures9.14 and9.15 show a versusX for series3 and 4 for experimental
and analyticalequation.
%Ep
n.
curves is thought to be due to the term ,
This tenn was taken as zero to plot
X0
analytically. It is derived after obtaining Ece from the tests. From equation 9.2 the
(X  t)
x=(  x
Fce  Ecp t Eci Eq.9.7
n
and give larger X values, initially, as shown in Figure 9.13. At this stage it is not
913
possible to find variation in X with t. In the above equation as t increases,
the term
decreases X I increases X
L the values,and the term : the values.
Eci Ece
Two reduction factors causing a decrease in the EcelEcp ratio were found
as:
1) Reductionfactor due to t:
t Ecp
the term (would be zero if t=0, hence there would be no
x( Eci
the tenn
X0
With t=0, then X=0 for wholly precastand infill specimens,and equation9.7
becomes:

(Tce
Cyx  Ecp for a single dry interfacejoint Eq.9.8
are the same,but for the specimenhaving a single dry interfacejoint the reduction
914
factor as shown in Figure 9.11, only due to the interface defonnability (the term
n%Ecp
due to the tenn
xa
decreases.Figure 9.12(b) shows the variation in the EcelEcp ratio between the
analytical and the experimentalcurves with various stress levels at which the Ece
values were obtainedand usedin the curves.The samestresslevels were usedfor each
lines.
wholly precast and infill specimens(no interfaces). The data for the curves were
2
N/mm stress levels where the regular data were available for the specimens,
respectivelyfor the test series3 and 4. It was done by obtaining the gradient of the
where a
915
Experimentalcurveswere plottedusingthe dataobtainedfrom:
At each stresslevel 8,8cp and 8ci were found from the correspondingspecimens,
and substitutedin aboveequationto find X. This causeda "zigzag" pattern to the test
curves in Figure 9.14 and 9.15 due to the fact that X is derived from the algebraic
50 and 0 (dry joint). Initially the specimenwith t= 50 mrn infiH shows similar
giving larger X values at lower stresses.After gaining full contact interfaces, the
voids in a precastinfillinterfaceare lessthan in the dry joint one. Most of the voids in
mm) is about 0.51, and 0.78 for the singledry joint one at 14 N/mM2 stresslevel. This
916
was the maximumstressat which the deformationsof the wholly infill specimenwere
recorded.
infiR (the 8 was measuredover a distancex= 180 mm). This effect might be ignored
Test series 6:
failed at the sameload of 0.4 M. The thicknessof the infill concretehad no effect on
the tension cracking in flexure. Also, theseresults show that thesekind of joints are
very weak in tensionand thereis no needto carry out further experimentaltests in this
area.
curves are 43.5 and 27.75 kNnVmm for C40 specimenbased on the transformed
section properties derived from the flexurally cracked and uncrackedconcrete beam.
917
First flexural crack occurred at 1.88 kNm. Up to the first crack the compressive
between M=1.0  2.75 kNm (close to the flexurally cracked curve), and 18.18
from the bottom supportstowards the bottom of the applied load points. At 3.5 kNm
another flexural crack appearedin the middle of the tension zone extending to the
From Figure 9.16(b) the gradient of the theoretical curves is 42.5 and 27.75
curves. Because this specimen has two interfaces. Their effect increases the
The specimensfailed at 5.5 kNm in bending. The trend was as expected. The
at test day were in the range of 4.38 and 5.57 kNm for wholly infill and precast
specimens,respectively.It seemsthat the joint and its interfacesdo not reduce the
strength of the specimenin flexure. (It does reduce the uniaxial strength of the
918
betweenthe compressivecubestrengthsof the infiH and the precastconcretes.Seetest
series 2,3 and 4 in compression).The ratio of the test failure load to the calculated
maximum failure load was 0.99. This was the most successfulresult within the
specimenstested in this test series.First flexural crack occurred at 1.63 kNm. The
gradient of the moment deflection M5 curve is 19.36 kNnVmm between 1.03.25
possibleto record the strain at failure load. ne ratio of the recorded maximumstrain
to the ultimate strain, ccu, of 0.0035 was 1.48.This large differenceis due to the two
interfacesof thejoint.
From Figure 9.16(c) the gradient of the two theoretical curves is 42.65 and
specimenfailed at 3.75 kNm in shear.The expectedrange was 4.38 to 5.57 kNm and
the ratio of the test failure momentto the calculatedfailure momentswas in the range
of 0.67 to 0.86.
same stresslevel, the strain in the specimenshaving insitu infill concrete is greater
than the wholly precast one. Unfortunately, linear potentiometers attached to the
But this specimenfailed at 4.5 kNm in bending.First shear crack occurred at 1.88
testfailuremomentwasgreaterthanthecalculatedvalueby 2.7%.
interface deformability X of the joint in the extreme stress zone as shown in Figure
919
no data for the wholly infill specimenup to 1.75 kNm, it was not possible to find
interface deformability X of the joint initially which is very important to evaluate the
variation in X. The data for the curves were calculated on basis of the relative
2
deflection of eachspecimenbetween12.9 21.5 N/mM stresslevels where the regular
data were availablefor the specimens.It was done by obtaining the gradient of the
Analytical curveswereplottedusingequation9.7.
m
where cr
Zuncr
is becausethe derived values for Ece were larger than was expected. Figure 9.19
shows that there is a limiting value for the ratio Ece/ Ecp which gives a value of X=0.
2,
Taking Ecp = 30 kN/mm x.= 118mm (to be consistentwith experiments)and t= 25
50
mm and mm, if Ece/ Ecp Hesabovethe lines drawn on Figure 9.19 then X will be
negative. If EceI Ecp falls below the lines then X will be positive. In the case of test
series6 the ratio of EceI Ecp was 0.98, indicating that,%wW be negativein speciment
Experimentalcurves were plotted using the data obtained from equation 9.9
each flexural stress level 8, Scp and Sci were found from the corresponding
pattern to the test curves in Figure 9.18 due to the fact that X is derived from the
920
each load incrementwill have drastic effects on the final output value. In this test it
2
X/a = +0.0002 to 0.0003mm /N/ mm for t.= 25 mm
and
2
X/a = +0.00005to 0.0001mm /N/ mm for t= 50 mm.
The values for t= 25 mm are similar to theseobtainedfor the axial load tests (see
Figure 9.15).
Test series 7:
the axial stiffnessof the bars themselves,and the lever arm to the compressivezone.
Becausethe latter may changeduring the onset of concretecrushing and may not be
and the crack width 8T is approximatelylinear up to a crack width of 0.5 mm. Where
to 0.82x, 0,3 nun'. Factors which help to prevent the longitudinal splitting of the
concrete along the bars could be expected to increase the usable bond capacity:
921
reinforcementbars. In this test concretecover was large enough (60 mm to links) but
concretestrengthof the insitu infill wasnot greatenoughto extend the linear curve to
a larger crack width level, i. e. 1.7 mm where the steel strain is lower than the design
yield strain, the strain at 0.87fy and are hencecalculatedas 0.87fy / Es = 0.002 for
2 2
fy = 460 N/mm (Note: Es = 200 kN/mm ).
From Figure 9.21 the anchoragebond stress fb = 1.60N/ mm2 is lower than
2
the ultimate anchoragebond stress fbu = 2.25 N/ mm (BS 8110). The calculated
2)
anchoragebond length (869 mm) requiredto developthe stress fs (437.20 N/mm is
1.56was obtained
approximately 180 kN/mm up to a crack width of 0.5 mm, and 100kN/mm thereafter.
precastconcreteconnectionstests.(SeeChapter7).
The test procedure was to apply load incrementsuntil the joints were not
bars.Ultimate failure was due to the insitu infill concreteflexural (bond) failure above
the midspan of the beam as in the tests TB1(B) and TBI(Q. The ratio of the
922
measured experimental flexural strength of the joint to that of the predicted
MUIMpred = 0.93.
9.3 Summing up
uniaxial strength for compressionand flexural strength for bending tests only as the
comparisonof test results.The actualcubestrengthsat test days are listed in Table 8.1
and test strengths in Tables 9.1 to 9.5. It is clear that the test strengths of the
specimens are less than those the actual strengths of the weakest cubes in the
3.0. This was mainly due to the strengthof the different cubes, representingprecast
and insitu concretes, being much greater than each other, uncertainties of the
concrete or grout. For the specified grade C40 precast and insitu concretes, the
variations in the test strengthsare ignorableand for the specifiedgrade C40 precast
indicating the importance of the strength of the insitu infiH concrete. Cunrntly, in
corrosion. It was felt that the joint concrete strength that greater than the precast
923
k
concrete may cause failure to occur in the member themselvesnear to the joint
The small bending specimenswere subjectedto the same beam end vertical
The joint in the tention test, test series 7, was subjected to the beam end
vertical bending load to induce Mcon at the face of the column to facilitate
cover to the stability tie bars and meassuringthe crack width at the same distamce
from the bars. This enablesthe derivation of the momentrotation data from the
isolatedjoint test to comparewith thoseof the full scaletests.This has beendone and
924
Test Infill depth Failure Ultimate 2/3x Ultimate Effective
Ref t loads strength strength modulus Ece
mm kN N/mM2 N/mm2
I , kNImM2
Al 50 300 30.0 20.0 22.8
Nfix 1 A2 75 325 32.5 21.7 22.3
A3 100 325 32.5 21.7 20.0
Al 50 359 35.9 23.9 19.1
N1ix2 A2 75 369 36.9 24.6 19.9
A3 100 357 35.7 23.8 19.8
925
Test Inf ill depth Failure Ultimate 2/3x Ultimate Effective
Ref t loads strength strength modulus Ece
mm kN N/MM2 N/mm 2
I kN/mm2
Al 320 32.0 21.3 31.8
A2 0 295 29.5 19.7 17.9
A3 25 260 26.0 17.3 17.5
A4 50 220 22.0 14.7 15.5
A5 100 180 18.0 12.0 15.5
A6 160 16.0 10.7 15.3
_j
Note * Solid precastspecimen,i.e. no inf ill used
926
Test Infill depth Failure Ultimate 2/3x Ultimate Effective
Ref t loads strength strength modulus Ece
min kN N/mm 2 N/mm 2
kN/mm"
Al 338 33.8 22.5 26.7
A2 10 373 37.3 24.9 27.3
A3 110 350 35.0 23.3 26.9
A4 453 45.3 30.2 30.4
A5 450 1 45.0 30.0 23.5
Note Solid precastspecimenrepresentingcolumn, i.e. no infill used
Solid precastspecimenrepresentingbeam,i.e. no inflU used
Solid infill specimen,i.e. no precastused
927
30
25
20
Nfix 1 fcu = 42.4 N/ MM2
4 15
Infill fcu = 40.7 N/ mm2
lo
0 C40/t=50
o C40/t=75
5
. 13 C40/t= 100
00
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
30
25
20
Mx 2 fcu = 46.6 N/ MM2
15
Infill fcu = 40.7 N/ MM2
lo
0 C40/t=50
5 0 C40/t=75
oC40/t=100
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
928
30
15
C40
lo C40/t=O
C40/t=25
5 C40/t=
C40/t= 100
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
30
ý2 15
o C40
79 lo o C40/t=O
C40/t=25
5 C40/t=50
*C40/t=100
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Axial deformation(mm)
929
35 1
Nfix 1 fcu = 41.2 N1 mm
30
Infill f, = 19.0N1 mm'
25 Dry joint
20 C40
15 C40/t=O
C40/t=25
10 C40/t=50
5 C40/t=100
C20
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain(mm)
35
Nfix 1 fcu = 41.2 N mm
30 19.0 N
Infill f, = mm:
Dry joint
25
20 C40
0
15 o C40/t=O
C40/t=25
10 C40/t=50
5 mC40/t=100
* C20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Axial deformation(mm)
930
45
C40
40
35
30 jMx 1 fu
= 52.7 N/ mm'I
25
20 face I
15 face 2
10 0 face 3
0 face4
5 CVO!b
a vora
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
45
C40/t=25
40
35
Nfix 1 fcu = 52.7 N mm"
E 30
Infill fcu = 26.7 N mm 2
25
20 face1
15 face2
face3
10
0 face4
5
 nu,rna,
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
931
45
C40/t=50 Nfix 1 fcu = 52.7 N/ MM2
40
35 Infill fc, = 26.7 N/ mm2
1
Ei 30
zýz
25
20 face1
15 face2
10 face3
face4
5
averace
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
specimentypeA in testseries4
Figure9.4(c):Axial stressstraindatafor compressive
45
C40/t=100 Mx 1 fcu = 52.7 N/ MM2
40
Infill fcu = 26.7 N/ mm2
35
E 30
25
20 o face1
15 face2
10
face3
5 0 face4
 averal
0 ==C
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
932
45
C20
40
35
30
lInfill fu=26.7N/mml
25
20 face1
15 face2
10 0 face3
0 face4
5
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial saain
45
40
35 2
1 fcu = 52.7 N/ mm
30
fcu = 26.7 N1 MM2
25
20 C40
15 C401t=25
10 * C40/t=50
(> C4O/t=1 1
5
, 96 C20
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
933
50
45
40 Al
E 35
E
30 jMx I fcu 38.3N
4 25
20
o faceI
m face2
15
face 3
10 face 4
5
ave
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
for specimen
AI
50
45
40
A2
5 35
30
25
face1
20
face2
15 x2 fcu = 50.3N/ MM2
face3
10 out fcu = 46.4N/ MM2 w face4
5 xl fcu=38.3NIMM2 IN average
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial suain
934
50
45
40 A3
E235
30
2 25
s face1
20
 face 2
15 Mx 2 fcu = 50.3N/ MM2
A face 3
10 Grout fcu = 46.4 N/ mm2
m face 4
5 I
Nfix 1 fcu = 3&3 N/ mm2 * averal
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial smain
for specimen
A3
50
45
40 A4
S 35
30 INfix 2 f,,, 50.3
=
ý2 25
faceI
20
face2
15
face3
10
face4
5
average
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
935
50
45
40 A5
S 35
P
30 lGrout fc,, 46.4 N/ 2
= mm
25
face I
20
74 face 2
15
face 3
10 face4
5
M averape
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial strain
for specimenA5
50
45
40
rr,"
E 35
E
30
25
*Al
20
A2
15 Mx 2 fcu = 50.3 N/ MM2
A3
10 Grout fc 46.4 N/ mm2
u= A4
5 Mx 1 f, = 38.3N/ MM2 A5
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Axial swain
series5
936
40
I ll
C; 35
30
tD
5
Nfix 1 fcu = 42.4 N/ mm'
20
Nfix 2 fcu = 46.6 N1 MM 2
15
Infill fcu = 40.7 N/ mm 2
lo
0 Test 1 Mix 1
5
*Test I Mix 2
n
wi
50 60 70 80 90 100
(MM)
stressfor compressive
Figure9.6(a):Variationin maximumaxialcompressive
25
20
15
Mix 1 fcu = 42.4 N/ mm'
78 lo Mix 2 fcu = 46.6 N/ MM2
a
Inflll fcu = 40.7 N/ MM2
5
*Test I Mix I
*Test 1 Mix 2
0L
50 60 70 80 90 100
t (mm)
937
35 t.
417, No interface
30
25
dry interface
20
15
1 fcu = 40.9 N/ mm"
10
fcu = 21.4 N/ MM2
5
n
%i
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
t (MM)
30
No interface
er" 25
20
ýSingle dry interface
CA 15
938
35
er" No interface
5
30
25
20
ý Single dry interface
15
Nfix 1 fcu = 41.2 N/ mm 2
10
Infill fct, = 19.0N/ mm 2
5
I Lest 3ý
*
n
%i 1
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
t (mm)
35
interface
30
25
20
15
ý Single dry interface
NX I fcu = 41.2 N/ MM2
10
Infill fcu = 19.0N/ MM2
5
+Test 31
A
%i
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
t (mm)
939
45
40
E
35
tD 30
25
20
15 Nfix 1 fcu = 52.7 N/ mm 2
E 10 Infill fcu=26.7N/mm2
5
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
t (mm)
35
30
25
20
15
Mx I fcu = 52.7 N/ MM2
10
Infill fcu=26.7N/MM2
5
Test 41
0"
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t (MM)
940
50
A4, Mix 2 only A5, Grout only
45 No interfacC
No interface
40
A3
35
30 Al, Mix 1 only
No interface
25
Mx 2 fcu = 50.3 N/ MM2
g zu
15 Grout fcu = 46.4 N/ mm2
10 Mxl fcu=38.3N/mm 2
,
5 Test 51
n
m
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t (mm)
35
A1
A4, Mix 2 only
30 No interface A5, Grout only
A2 A3 No interface
25
Al, Mix 1 only
20 No interface
941
1
Reductiondue to
0.9
, (;
0.8 'Pi 1)
x
0.7
nXEcp
0.6 due to
xa
0.5
0.4 Nfix I fcu = 41.2 N/ MM2
0.3 Ece
=1 Infill fcu=19. ONIMM2
Ecp cp
0.2 1+1+ Analytical
0.1 x( Eci xa
Test
n
NJ
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
YX
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
E=I
0.6 E Ecp
cp +t +
0.5
x( Eci Xcr Mx I fcu = 52.7 N/ mm"
0.4
0.3 Infill fcu = 26.7 N/ MM2
0.2 Analyfical
0.1 Test
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
th
942
1
0.95 Analytical  s Test
Analytical * Test
0.9 Analytical * Test
0.85
0.8
0.75 ..................
0.7 a=16N/mm
0.65 ...................
0.6 **A.. c;=20N/mrP
Nfix 1 fcu = 52.7 N/ mm21
0.55
Infill fcu = 26.7 N/ mm
0.5 i#i
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
YX
8 8c;t 8ci+ 2%
Lxt
X Zone of joint deformability Joint "zone"
with uniform
defomation
ýement rich zone
characteristics
give greater deformation
C) cm
OZ500
Initially stresscon(
leadsto greater
local deformations
943
14
12
111lo
C4
13 Test t=25
6 Test t=50
8
0 Dry joint 0 Test t=100
6 Analytical t=25
20 J,.
or a Test t=25
15 Test t=50
6
0 Test t= 100
10 Analytical t=25
...... Analytical t=50
Analytical t= 100
944
6
INfix I fc,, 39.4 N/
C40/t=O
C Oft = MmIll
5
Euc,
4 ncrackedconcretebeam
Unr,
ncr,
EcpZuncr
Grad 103
x
f Crackedconcretebeam
I Ecp
Grad = CpZcr103
0
deformation8 (mm)
series6
6
C40/t=25
5
Mx 1 fcu = 39.4 N/ MM2
//
Infill feu = 19.8N/ mm2
Uncrackedconcretebeam
EceZuncr
Grad = 103
x
Crackedconcretebeam
EceZcr
Grad = 103
x
series6
945
6
C40/t=50 Nfix I fcu = 39.4 N/ MM2
5 Infill fcu = 19.8 N/ mm 2
[Uncrackedconcrete bearn
EceZuncr
Grad = 103
Crackedconcretebeam
EceZcr
Grad = 103
deformation8 (mm)
series6
30
25 
20
COO
15
lo
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Compressiveflexural strainin top of specimen
Figure 9.16(d): Flexural stressvs strain datafor flexural specimenstype B in test series
946
' Figure 9.17: Zone of interfacedeformability for flexural specimensrype B in
21 
20
41%
E 19.
E
18.
17 
Precastfcu 39.4
16 .......... Infill fcu 19.8
15 0 Testt=25
11 Testt_rIn
5.
14 Analyticalt=25

..... Analyticalt=50.1
134
0.004 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Interface deformability %(mm)
947
1
In this region
X wiU be  ve
0.95
o Analytical t=25
0.75
o Analytical t=50
0.7
15 20 25 30
2)
Eci(kN/mm
Figure 9.19: Variation in Ece/Ecpratio with Eci for flexural specimenstype B in test
0.0025
Nfix 1 fcu = 40.6 N/ mm
0.002  Nfix 2 fcu = 39.1N/ MM2
0.001
V 0.0005
of
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Averagecrackwidth opening&r (mm)
Figure 9.20: Crack width openingvs axial strain in barsin bond slip test in test series7
948
450
400 . Nfix 1 fcu = 40.6 N1 MM2
350 . Nfix 2 fcu 39.1N1 MM2
300 TI Infill fcu 20.2 N/ MM2
250
200
150
100
'o
50
'>
F'.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Effective anchoragelength L, (mm)
in testseries7
450
400
350 Mx 1 fcu = 40.6 N mm"
ö 300
Mx 2 fcu = 39.1N MM2
250
Infill fcjj = 20.2 N MM2
200
20
150
loo
50
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Compressivedeformation8B(MM)
949
450
Nfix 1 fcu = 40.6 N mm 2
400
Nfix 2 fcu = 39.1N mm 2
350
L' 300 Inrill fcu = 20.2 N mm2
402
250
200
150
100
,5
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Crack width &r (mm)
140
Nfix 1 fcu = 40.6 N/ mm2
, 120
Nfix 2 fcu = 39.1N1 MM2
100
lInfill fc=20.2N/MM2
80
60
40
ýo 20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Crack width &r (mm)
Figure 9.24: Bendingmomentvs crack width openingat top of specimenin bond slip
950
140
Mx I fcu = 40.6 N MM2
120
Nfix 2 fcu = 39.1 N MM2
100
Infill fcu = 20.2 N MM2
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Compressive deformation 813(mm)
140
Nfix 1 fcu = 40.6 N1 mm 2
120
, Nfix 2 fcu = 39.1N1 MM2
loo 
Infill fcu = 20.2 N1 mm2
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Rotafion (rad)
Figure 9.26: Bending moment rotation behaviourof specimenin bond slip test in test
series7
951
plate 9.1(a) : Failure regionsof testseriesI for mix I specimens
Plate 9.1 (b) : Failure regions of test series I for mix 2 specimens
952
Plate 9.2 : Failure regions of test series 2
953
Plate 6.4(a): Failure regions of test series 4 (front face)
954
Plate 9.5(a) 1:Failure regions of test series 5 (front face)
Plate 9.5(b) : Failure regions of test series 5 (the most damaged faces)
955
Plate 9.6(a) : Failure region of test series 6 for tension cracking
956
Plate 9.7 : Failure regions of test series 7
957
CHAPTER10
Values of strength, stiffness and (Mcon 0) data have been given previously
this information justifies a semirigid frame design. However, the need to provide
further Mcon ý data, without incurring the additional expenseof testing, has led to
scale subframe tests, from smaller isolated joint components tests. This has been
achieved by studying the influence of the strength and thickness t of insitu infill
101
If the crack openingplus other linear displacementsin the top of the slab or
beam 8T and the compressivedeformationin the concreteat the bottom of the joint
concrete, and that it was experimentallyfound that it is always greater than the infdl
andshearforces,by threemethods:
1. Direct measurementusing vertical deflectionsfrom full scaletesting
above.
102
10.2 Calculation of momentrotation in the component method
The elastic theory for reinforcedconcretefor two types of joint sections,the cracked
section (Case 1) and the uncrackedsection (Case 2) was used to obtain moment
rotation Mcon 0 behaviour of the connection from the component method for
isolated joint tests. Case I is the classicalelastic theory for reinforced concrete. It is
Figure 10.1(a) shows the crosssectionof the joint at the column face,
the concreteaboveit.
section bh, as shown in Figure 10.1(b) and the equivalent section is as in Figure
10.1
103
where Ac is the entire concretearea bh and As is the areaof the tensionsteel (2T25
stability tie bars) and ae is the modularratio EslEce , Es is the modulus of elasticity
2
of the steel taken as 200 kN/mm and Ece is the effectivemodulusof elasticity of the
pamllelaxisdicoremasfollows:
bh3 h)2
IU = +bh xu  +aeAs(dxuf Eq.10.2
12 2
At any distance xi from the neutral axis, the concretestress fci and the steel stress
Mcon Mcon
f 4 X,; fsi = ýx Xi Eq.10.3
C, lu e lu
The section properties of the joints at the column face change as the joint cracks.
Cracking begins in the region where tensile stressesare greatest, and as shown in
Figure 6.2(a) and (b) for full scalefrarne connectiontest TWI(A), this will occur at
104
After cracking the crosssectionalpropertiesof the sectionwill changeand it is
first necessaryto determinethe depth to the neutral axis, xcr, using first momentsof
bxcr2+a
(bxcr +aeAs)xcr = Ad Eq.10.4
2
bxcr3 2
icr = +aeAs Xcr Eq.10.5
3
Mcon
Ad ý Xcr Eq.10.6
Icr
For each value of moment Mcon at the section, the concrete stress fc on the
theuniaxialcompressive
stresscr of the specimens
compression C401t=100
(specimen
mm infill in test series4 for weldedplate and C40/t=l 10 mm grout in test series5 for
105
compressionspecimenwas calculatedfrom the stressversuscompressivedeformation
Mcon
T= Eq.10.7
z
from the tensile force in bars versus crack width opening at top of specimen in bond
slip test in test series7 as for exampleshownin Figure 10.3.Finally, Mcon0 data is
Figures9.9(b) and9.1O(b).Compressivedeformation 8B is
3. The tie force in the top steelis equatedto the total compressionforce
106
8T+8B
Rotation Eq.10.8
h
10.3 Comparison of Mcon0 derived from full tests and the component
method
Figure 10.4 shows a comparisonof the results obtained from the above work with
shows the two methodsare in exceRentagreementfor Mcon < 75 kNm, and within 14
This shows that, within the normal scatter in experimentalwork of this type, either
method may be used to generate Mcon0 data, and is the first step towards the
The agreementwith the full scaleresultsvaries between12 and +14 per cent
of the rotation. However, the maximummoment M. achievedis onlY 160 kNm, i.e.
twothirds of the full scale double sided test TWI(A) result being greater than the
ultimate moment achieved in single sided test TW2 (see Figure 10.5), and the
maximum rotation is 4.5 mrad, (less than half of that achieved)in the full scale test.
107
test varies from 29.7 to 35.7 kNm/mrad, whereasin the component method it is
approximately29.0 kNnVmrad.
The connection initial tangent flexural stiffnessin the simplified test may be
Ju = 485.0kNm/mrad
This value was calculatedat the first crack level (Mcr = 30 kNm) as shown in Figure
Table A6.1.1 for eachcycle for testTW I (A) for Beam 1 side.
Figure 10.5 shows a comparisonof the results of the component and the
which incorporated 300 x 300 nim beamsand columns and a 200 mm deep hollow
cored floor slab. In Mahdi's test 2T25 high tensilebars were positionedin the narrow
(up to Mcon = 75 kNm) carriedout by Mahdi (1992) as shownin Figure 10.5, may be
approximatedasfollows:
Jc = 20.3 kNm/mrad.
Neither the ultimate strengths (as far as double sided connections are
in the simple tests due the suddenfailure of the compressionspecimensand test series
7. It has beenreported (Mahdi, 1992) and it was also observedin this study that this
did not occur in the full scaletest due to the underreinforcednature of the connection
108
noted that the contribution to the strengthof connectionof the 100 x 100 mm section
solid steel billet in the column which was welded to a steel bearingplate in the beam
was not included in the simplified models. 'Me contribution of the welded plate
connection would provide additionalhorizontal tensile force at the level of the weld
and this would bring the Mconý curve of the simplified component method into
The results of the above exercisefor billet connection are shown in Figure
10.6. The agreementwith the full scaleresultsis very good up to McO,,= 100 kNm.
test TBI(A) result being much greater than the ultimate moment achievedin single
sided test TB2 (seeFigure 10.6), and the maximumrotation is 4.2 mrad, less than 1/3
1) of the connectionin the ffill scaletest variesfrom 48.0 kNm/mrad, whereasin the
componentmethodit is approximately30.7kNm/mrad.
Ju = 456.0kNm/mrad
10.4 Summing up
methodsthere are a numberof important featuresin the behaviourof the full scaletest
109
worthy of further discussion.Thesepoints were/arediscussedin the context of gaining
strains are transferred to the steel tie bars in the isolated joint test in the same
nmnner as in thefull scale tests,even though the presenceof the hollow core slabs
In the isolated tests it is impossiblefor strains to exceed the uniaxial limit and
that full horizontal interface shear interaction between the beam and slabs is
steel billet and narrow plate as thispoint coincideswith the neutral axis.
The comparisons between full scale tests and the component method for the
uncracked and cracked regions of the connection.No attempt has been made in this
estimatefailuremoments.
1010
U 22
9)
42 *0
=
cu
Gn
,a
I
rn
ri ',
U=
Im 0
0
=
iau
&l. IM
iz 0
:71
u ý,
ZJ '
IN
JD
2 4
(D 4.a
.!
10 bd U=
j2 ZA 4)
(A 4
ci 92.
1011
I
35
Nfix 2 fcu = 50.3N/ mm
30 2
Grout fcu = 46.4 N/ mm
25 Nfixl fcu=38.3N/mm 2
1E
20
to
cn
cn
B 15
rn
74 10
1 fcu = 52.7 N/ mm' 4 C40/t=loo
5 *Test
fcu 26.7 N/ MM2 *Test 5 C40/t=l 10
0 ii
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Axial deformation8B(mm)
4
series and 5 for C401t=100
mm infill and C40/t=110 mm grout (Section 8.3)
450
400 Nfix 1 fcu = 40.6 N mm
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Crack width &r (mm)
Figure 10.3: Tensileforce in barsvs crack width openingat top of specimenin bond
1012
250
200
150
100
Ml BI V4
M2SI
50
*M2Bl
. 0 Component
10 co method
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Relativerotations0 (rad)
250
s TW1(A) Sl
200 o TW1(A) S2
o TW2 SI
150
o Component
Method
Mahdi
100
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relativerotations0 (rad)
plateconnections
1013
250 f I 11
0TBI(A)SI
200 TB I (A) S2
N/A
Z
150 TB2 Sl
Component11
100 Method 11
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relativerotationsý (rad)
connections
1014
CHAPTER11
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Objectives
structures, in which the columns are continuous at the floor level. The majority of
111
connections are either single sided (at the edges of buildings) or double sided (at
interior columns), and thesehaveformed the basisof all the experimentaltests carried
floor slabs(usually hollow cored units) and thosewhich do not. In the former, the tie
steel positioned over the top of the beamsat the ends of the floor slabs form an
integral part of the stability ties requiredby most Codesof Practice,and act as a vital
that continuity between beamsat internal connectionsis not allowed, and column
(1992), Lindberg et al (1992) and Comair et al (1992) have establishedthat the most
112
to the design of a multistorey precastframe is proposedand a worked example is
for cycle 5, and Jus and Jes in Figure 11.1(d) for the correspondingresultsto failure,
of the joints at the ultimate moment Mu, and moment Me at intersection of the
presented in Tables 11.1 to 11.7, and for the rotations and measuredstiffnessesin
stiffness
its
momentsat ends,a formula can be derivedfor the rotation of the endsof the bearn
(see Figure 1.7 in Chapter 1). This formula is a linear relationship between the
moments and the rotation at the ends of the beam, and this relationship has been
plotted in Figures 11.1 to 11.8 for a uniformly distributedload (but can be done in the
same way for any type of loading). The beam  fine intersectsthe vertical axis at a
moment value equal to the end momentof a fully fixed beam,and the horizontal axis
at a rotation value equal to the rotation at the end of a simply supported beam. The
point of intersection between the beam  line and the actual moment  rotation
113
When the actualmoment rotationcharacteristicof the connectionis known, it
is possible to investigatethe moment and rotation of the connection for the various
loading conditions on the beam. This has been done for the moment  rotation
to  height ratio l1h . The moment rotation characteristichas to intersect the beam
71besolid beam  lines in Figures 11.1 to 11.8 give the hogging bending
concrete and yield strength of rebar. The rotation capacity Obo is calculated for a
floor slab, and 6000/300 = 20 without slabs) using the flexurally cracked second
moment area of the compositesection Ic and a Young's Modulus for the concrete
EC = 32 kN/mm 2. The solid bearn  lines do not intersect (see detail in Figure
11.1(a)) some of the Mcon0 plots in Figures 11.2 to 11.8 or intersectsat critical
points (seedetail in Figure 11.1(b)). The fact that the beamlinedid not intersectis not
a convincing argument for use of other more favourable beam lines. This can be
avoided by choosinga lower load level or a shorter bearnspan.For this reasonit was
moment capacitiesof the connections(Mbean = Mu, see Figures 11.1(c) and (d)) to
114
It is desirable for the intersectionpoint to be within the linear elastic part of the
of the connection is used in calculating the Euler buckling load of the frame.
due to the non  linear natureof moment rotation curvesan incorrect factor of safety
P A effects.
115
11.4 Test series 1
Beamlines are drawn in Figures 11.2(a) and (b). Although the solid beamline in
Figure 11.2(a) does not intersect the Mcon0 plots for beam 1, it intersects the
value of 12 mrad, which is greaterthan the Ou due to the ductility of the connection.
4EcIc
the flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 rn) is 17.4 kNm/mrad,
I
stiffness defined in Figures 11.1(c) and (d) are given in Table 11.1. It was found that
Jes is about 81%Je, whilst Js = 41%Je and Jus = 38%Je. This indicates the
reduction in the stiffness of the joints at the ultimate moment Mu. Due to the four
reversed cycles prior to the fifth cycle, Js and Je are greater than Jus and Jes.
116
cycle to failure. A check is requiredto ensurethat the strengthof the connectiondoes
The intersections of the dashed beamfine with the Mcon 0 plots in Figure 11.3 give
Me = 64.00 kNm and 62.50 kNm respectively,for bearns I and 2 (see Table
All. 1.3). Both values were obtainedfrom the intersectionof the Mcon0 plot of
4ECIC
alone (for 1=6 m) is 6.1 kNm/mrad. The corresponding values of K.
I
79% Je, and J. = 62% Je and Jus = 54%Je. In comparisonwith test TW1(A) the
greater at Mu, becausethe failure was due to weld breaking failure in the joint,
whereas ultimate failure was due to significant yielding of the bars and concrete
Jes to correspondingKs in test TW I (A) are 1.01 and 0.97, respectively,whilst these
ratios increaseto 1.39 and 1.32 for J. and Jus. It is important not to confuse the
input data in a frame analysiswill approximatelygive the same strength for the
connection.This is becausethe input data is not only limited to the K. value, but also
117
11.5 Test series 2
slab are presentedin Figure 11.4. T'he solid beam line does intersect the Mcon 0
plots obtained using the Methods I and 2, it intersectsthe Mcon0 plots before
plots with the dashedbeamlinegive the samelowest value of Me as 91.75 kNm for
beam 1 for VI, V2, V3 and V4 (see Table All. 1.4). The lowest secant flexural
4EcIc
the flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 m) is 17.2 kNm/mrad.
I
The valuesof Ks are given in Table 11.3. Jes = 68% Je, and Js = 26% Je and Jus =
23% Je being much less than to the coffespondingvaluesin test TWl(A). Ratios of
K., determinedfrom Je and Jes to correspondingK. in test TWI(A) are 0.33 and
0.29, respectively,whilst theseratios decreaseto 0.22 and 0.20 for Js and Jus due to
Similarly, in Figures 11.5(a)and (b) the intersectionsof the Mconý plots with the
dashed beamlinesgive the lowest Me values as 162.20 kNm and 149.75 kNm
118
respectively,for beamsI and 2 (seeTable A 11.1.5 & 6). The lowest secantflexural
4Ec1c
(for 1=6 m) is 17.35kNm/mrad.The valuesof Ks are given in Table 11.4. In
I
this test Jes > 75% Je , whilst Js =31% Je and Jus = 29% Je This indicates the
.
the joints.
In Figure 11.6 the intersectionsof the Mconý plots with the dashedbeamlinesgive
the lowest Me values as 148.5 kNrn and 150 kNrn respectively,for beams 1 and 2
4EcIc
flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 m) is 17.5 kNm/mrad. The
I
values of Ks are given in Table 11.5.In this test Jes = 90% Je, whilst Js = 68% Je
and Jus = 64% Je indicating that the Mu is not attainedin this test comparedto the
In Figure 11.7 the intersectionsof the Mconý plots with the dashedbeamlinesgive
the lowest Me values as 142 kNm and 139.5 kNm respectively,for bcams I and 2
119
(seeTable A 1.1.1.8).Ibe lowest secantflexural stiffnessesJ., at thesemomentswere
4ECIC
flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 m) is 17.4 kNm/mrad. The
I
TB 1(B) varies from 0.89 to 0.96. Thesemay be regardedas good correlation between
The intersectionsof the Mcon0 plots with the dashedbeamlinein Figure 11.8 give
the lowest Me valuesas 37.75 kNm for MIBI V4, and 40 kNm for M2 SI and 42.0
kNm for M2 BI (see Table All. 1.9). The lowest secantflexural stiffnessesJes at
4EcIc
the flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 m) is 17.4 kNm/mrad.
I
summedat the foundation over the full height of the structure. Secondly,columns in
1110
unbraced,frames must be consideredas full height cantileverswhere P=2.3 (BS
columns may be designedfor eachstoreyheight providing that the total moment in the
curve gives the secant stiffnesses defined by Je and Jes, the connection design
determine column load, Madd and sway deflections. Column 0 factors may be
determined from equation 4.3(a) for example,which may then replace those in BS
1111
11.9 Design example
concrete skeletal sway frame using both linearelastic and nonlinear analytical
1) frameanalysisusinglinearelasticsemirigidconnectionswith non
University.
In part Ia single load combinationof dead, imposed and wind loading was used.
Member momentsand forces were found for pinned, semirigid and fuUy rigid joints
those currently used in DS 8110. For the semirigid connectiona value of K. = 0.6
1112
was used.TTdswas determinedfrom the initial stiffnessmeasuredin previous full scale
is also given.
mentioned above. Four different loading combinationswere used. Beam and column
(1992a) (seeSection2.2.2).
150 mm deep hollow core roof slabs spanningat right angles to the beams. The
The compressivecube strengthfor the precastbeamand the insitu infiH was taken as
2, 2.
40 N/mm and for the precastcolumn as 50 N/mm. See Figure 11.11. (It was not
1113
possible to separatethe insitu infill from the precastbeammaterial in the analysis.)
connectionin bendingandshear.
Dead
1114
Wind loads Basicwind speed= 40 m/s Building height = 12 m
S2 = 0.83 (groundroughness= 3)
Secondfloor 17.75
'Me loading case that produced maximum bending moments in the columns was
was specifiedasfollows
Ks = 0; to simulatea pinnedjoint.
1115
(C) Ks =Ix 109;to simulatea fully rigid joint, and to serveasa
comparisonfor case(b).
rotation data used in the analysis is based on tests carried out at Nottingham
The point of action of the momentand shearforce from the beamthrough the
is
connection assumedto be at a distanceof 50 mm from the face of the column, as
all EcIu values are equal). The resulting bending moment diagram for each column
and beam is shown in Figure 11.14. The beams, being simply supported, have a
1) Column design
deflections and iterates towards the maximumcolumn load, at which point the sway
11.14(a), are clearly due to the flexibility of a 3storey pinjointed frame. The size of
1116
column required to cope with this behaviouris approximately450 x 450 mm requiring
4 T32 bars.
assessedfor each floor level in turn, using effective length factors of 2.3. This is
values for Madd are summedover the full height of the frame becauseno moment
External column
foundation is due to (a) frame action in resisting wind loads, Mw, (b) connection
(300 / 2) + 50 = 200 mm
1117
This moment is distributed in the column according to the flexibility of the
column above and below eachfloor level. SeeFigure 11.15.The flexibility coefficient
for the first floor to ground column is 0.49. Thus M=0.49 x 55.5 = 27.3 kNm, and
the moment at the foundation (using 50% carry over) is Me = 50% x 27.3 = 13.7
kNm
notation):
Le = 2.3LO
2
au = Lelb Kh / 2000
Madd = Na.
N 687AO3
if N= 687 kN, then Th = ý00 7.63
x3OO
X300
2!
and M= 406.4 kNm, then  = 15.05
bh2
1118
. The column may NOT be designed
using b=h= 300 mm
.
Redesigningthe column usingb=h= 350 mm gives
N m=8.44 Asc
Now 5.7.. K=1.0 for which = 5.5 clo
ýh bh2 bh
i.
column centres, e. axis In
distances. reality the beam is simply supported between
pinned connectionsat e= 200 mm. Tbus, the effective spanof the beams= 6000 (2
 x
Ks = 0.6, but with a limiting strength of Mcon = +125 kNm in the sagging mode
1119
(bottom of connectionin tension)and 210 kNm in the hogging mode. These values
Chapter 2.
for the effects of deflection,i.e. contain Madd implicitly. The bendingmomentsin the
external columns (ref. I and5) andinternal columns(ref. 2,3 and 4), and in the beams
place. The maximummomentof 170 kNrn at the floor beamconnectionsis less than
hogging connectionmoment Mcon = 210 kNm (from Figure 2.8 and Table 11.10).
The moment at the foundation = Mw + Me, where Mw = 47.4 kNm from frame
The moment at the lst floor Mw = 71.7 kNm plus Me = 28.5 kNm = 100.2kNm
The moment at the 2nd floor is either Mw = 59.1 kNrn plus Me = 26.2 kNm = 85.3
1120
The column may be designedusingb=h= 300 mm with 4T 25 bars
basedon a6m effective spanrather than a 5.6 m centre to centre span in the pinned
The maximumbendingmomentsare:
Mhog = 170.3 kNm < 2 10 kNm (Figure 2.8 and Table 11.10)
determinedfrom equationsEq. 4.1(a) and Eq. 4.2(a) for the upper and ground floor
subframesusing K. = 0.6.
1121
Floor cc 0 0
Level
from analysis from equations
3 0.405 1.44 1.49 (Eq. 4.1(a))
the pinnedjointed situation. This is the crux of this design exercise. The frame
moments for the columns and beamsare shown in Figure 11.18. Ile connection
External column
In all casesthe design moment Mdesignis less than the smaller connection
moment of resistance Mcon = 125 kNm, and therefore may be distributed in the
beams.The table shows that the column moment is maximumat the Ist floor level,
where M= 117.9 kNm and N= 395 kN. At the 2nd floor level where M= 89.9
1122
11.11.3 Fully rigid connections
The 2d frame was analysedusing rigid connectionsof stiffness Ks =1x 109. Tbe
strength of the connectionwas equal to that of the column. Using nonlinear frame
(GbrgUn, 1992) componentsthe bending moments in the columns and beams are
occur (as expected)at the endsof the beams,where due to its increasedstiffnessthe
analysed for the Ultimate Limit State conditions for all four of the above load
Figure 11.10. With this reinforcement,the structurewas able to support all the above
The results are presentedas tabulatedvaluesof the axial loads, mid span and
1123
column momentsare taken as beamend momentsplus a correction for the eccentricity
of the beam and shear force. The maximum beam and connection moment at the
FACE of the column is = Beam End Moment + End Shearx 50 mm. A summaryof
The mwdmummomentat the foundation= 81 kNm (Bottom of column C13 for Load
Case 3) and N= 681 kN. The moment at the Ist floor Mw = 101 kNrn (Top of
column CI for Load Case2) and N= 683 kN. The worst condition at the 2nd floor is
As an indication of the joint rotations obtainedat the Ultimate Limit State, the values
are given in Table 11.14. It will be noted that the maximum relative rotation in the
1124
frame is 0.014.2mradian,andthat this valueis well within the failure rotation obtained
11.14 Discussion
These are shown in Figures 11.21to 11.23for the beamend and midspanmoments,
place over the range 0< Ks < 1.5. The large differencesin the momentsin columns
loads. A reversal in the moment in the edge column I takes place (coincidentally)
when K. = 0.6, and showsthat the column is in single curvature with the foundation
effectively "pinned". The first  second floor column is in double curvature and
Large changesin momentsat the first floor also take place when Ks < 1, for
The hogging moment capacity of the connection (210 kNm) would have been
exceededwhen Ks > 2. Therefore, for this particular frame geometry and loading,
strengthin order for the connectionto behavesemirigidly at the ultimate limit state.
the bottom of the beamand the tensionin the stability tie steel placedalong the top of
the beam in the insitu infill at the ends of the slabs. In many cases no extra
reinforcement will need to be provided. The only danger here is in the use of
1125
prestressedbeamswhere the combinedstressesdue to pretensionand frame moments
needto be checked.
analysis
Roof 81 81 82
2nd  Roof 90 85 71
lst  Foundation 86 87 86
Foundation 82 61 81
Thus, using the SWANSA results as the basis for comparison, the linear elastic
solution with addition Madd momentsappearsto over predict momentsat the bottom
ends of the columns at the 2nd and Ist floors. The nonlinearmemberanalysisis in
11.15 Conclusions
1126
main objective of the exercisewas to show that when the connectionsbetween the
For the semirigid connectiona value of Ks = 0.6 was used. This was determined
size and specificationto thoseusedin the frame analysis.Variation in the column and
beammomentswith K. hasalsobeengiven.
The main conclusionis that it is not possibleto designthis frame for 300 mrn x
to cope with secondorder bending moments of more than 1000 kNm. at the
foundation momentreducesto 61 kNm, and the momentat the first floor to 100 kNm.
In both casesit is possibleto design the column 300 mm square using 4 T25 bars.
Fully rigid connections have a minimal effect in changing the semirigid values,
Reductions in beam moments at mid span for the pinned and semirigid
conditions were in the order of 80 kNm, whilst the negativemoment at the end of the
1127
Method of Ks determinedfrom stiffness:
in test TW I (A)
in test TW I (C)
1128
Method of Ks determinedfrom stiffness:
in testTW2
1129
Method of K. determinedfrom stiffness:
M1 B V4 Beam I    
Beam2 2.41 1.94 0.75 0.70
Mean=Beam. 2 2.41 1.94 0.75 0.70
Proportion of
maximum 100% 80% 31% 29%
value
M2 S Slab 1 4.29 3.28 1.86 1.67
Slab2  w 
Mean=Slab1 4.29 3.28 1.86 1.67
Proportion of
maximum 100% 76% 43% 39%
value
M2 B Beam 1 3.67 2.78 1.58 1.44
Beam2    
Mean=Beam1 3.67 2.78 1.58 1.44
Proportion of
maximum 100% 76% 43% 39%
1value I I I II
Table 11A The valuesof K. determinedfrom the variousmeasurements
of stiffness
in test TB I (A)
in test TB I (B)
1130
Method of K. determinedfrom stiffness:
in test TB 1(C)
in test TB2
1131
r W) 1.0 0tn
Cý (14 * (14 1 0 00 .ýý14 e4l)
tý
cl CQ W') W) cn
=
W11 C4 cod
(14 C14
ýo V)
Rt 't .!
ý
'4 V4 4 1
< z
cl Ci in Cý 00 ..4 ON
En W) 110 ýý ýý . en
4t%4 cli cli
C14 eq C14 en
tn
> 09 Cl% 00 tt')
V) 00 CA) tr; C'4
V)
1
21 1MT 1wl 1(N 0
VII
wl,
d
00
cli
en
ON
ýd
oc cn oN
en 
C14 cn
00 W) r t 00 t
0 << '0 00 cn 0 %0
Cri 1 00 i i
N en C'i C' v en
(14
4 en en
wl W)
> 09 C14 r: 09
C14
$ 4 %0 r * ýo 1 4 en 4 0 00
IRt 4!
Cý Cý Cý ýq 00 C (14 It r
CIA
od
eq 1i
;E
W) r 00 W1
00 en 0 10
cn Ci C4 A
C , Ci CO)
C14 CN 0ý cn
0
> W)
ON
tl:
CD C
t": Wi
00
Ci
W) en
m en . q CO)
rA
eq 00
C4 " en rý c o (M
%o %.
C14 66 C CC
I
ýo m t4 V) t ýq
00 1 Cý4 41 11 E!
00
E5 1.4 4
aa 8g aa
ei
IC
rq
00
M
(N
en
(4
Z.,
* r
Cl%
't
c4
=
m
4
rq
(DN le
r m
r4 r, 4
00
CN
< a C1 cr (Z a CD
< qý rq rq 00
cn V)
110 V)
ý
ýe C
cý
en
r
r
O\
\o
ý
v,
m
ý,0
vi
e
<
> vi
C,4 e4 (Z CD
0
8a < CD a * c=  0 (2 CD CD (D ý
ýý
= oo
00
e
vl
ON
ci
v.. 1
C,4
4
r
r
(4
%C
V)
1,0
CD

V)
8:
0
CN c4 ei en (11 en (1q
> r r4
CD
r en ON
CD V) CD (Z
10 1, 0
c4
CN CD c cý
Wt
"0 wý 00 00 wý rý C1
m en c4) rý
cq cn
< << CD CD CD
.. 4 a
rn e
cn le C,4
00 00 c4 r CN
r V) vi V) vli vi 
4
1.0
e 8 a 08 0 1t 11 0
> vl cý ' rn
r r
(14
en 00 rq (Z r4 en
VI o rq c4 IC
1 1 1
< <<
cn
en
V)
1 l 1
r
m (: ýQ
rn Int 2
; . 4
00 Ilý cn
4.)
e
1133
Rotation(Rad) Moment (kNm)
0.0220 140.0
0.0150 130.0
0.0001 20.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0020 50.0
0.0220 210.0
0.0230 220.0
Table 11.10:Moment rotation datafor thejoint (Mahdi, 1992)
Floor LO Le Le au Madd Mw me
b
_Level
23 10.95 25.18 83.95 1.057 K 136.3 K
12 7.75 17.83 59.42 0.530 K 147.8 K
G1 3.95 9.09 30.28 0.138 K 38.5 K
1134
Item Load CaseI Load Case2 Load Case3 Load Case4
mm mm n1m mm
Maximum Beam 17.0 17.5 16.9 9.5
Deflection
Roof Level 2.7 2.2 20.3 17.0
Sway
SecondFloor 2.7 2.1 17.1 14.2
Level Sway
First Floor 2.7 2.1 9.5 7.6
Level Sway I
Table 11.13:Deflection of beamsandstoreylevel sway (SWANSA)
B3 3.50 7.33
B4 12.57 12.22
B5 3009 12.22
B6 7.16 7.16
B7 12.22 0.72
B8 12.22 12.57
B9 4.54 4.36
B 12 7.33 3.50
Table 11.14:Rotationin thejoint (mrads)(SWANSA)
1135
350 Actual beammomentMb. (ultimatehogging)
300
E
100
50 Actual momeýt*
0
rotation curve of connectioh'
i. 2. Ii....
Relativerotations0 (rad)
350
Actual moment
300 rotation curve of connection
in beam2 side in the sametest
250
200
150
100
50
0T
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Relativerotations0 (rad)
1136
Mu ...
Me 
E
is
Junl ::
Relativerotations0 (rad)
mu
me
lo.,
E
0 46""
unl
00 Ou 0. = Mu I /2EcIc
Of
Relativerotations0 (rad)
1137
350
x MI BI VI Ml Bl V2
300 MI BI V3 Ml Bl V4
M2 Sl M2Bl
Ei 250 Beamno PSF  Con no PSF
t"..
200 .
4b
150
El
loo
0.
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Relafive rotafions0 (rad)
350
x Ml B2 Vl x MI B2 V2
300 a MI B2 V3 a Ml B2 V4
M2 S2 o M2 B2
250 Beamno PSF ..... Con no PSF
200
44"
4)
150
loo
50 bI
II
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Relative rotations0 (rad)
1138
180
160 o M2BI
140 o M2 B2
0 1.
> I
40
20
0
/
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Reladverotaflons0 (rad)
350
x MIBVI a MIBV2
300 MI B V3 MlBV4
M2 Sl Beam no PSF
E 250 Con no PSF
 .....
200 
150
loo 
50 44
ON i
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Reladverotadon0 (rad)
Methods 1 and 2 with beamlines (no slab 2 and beam2, single sided test)
1139
350
x MI BI VI a MI BI V2
300 M2 Sl 9 M2BI
Beamno PSF ...... Con no PSF
250
200
h* %.
II
150
100
50
II II II
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Relativerotation0 (rad)
350
MI B2 Vl w MI B2 V2
300 MI B2 V3 a MI B2 V4
Bearn no PSF ...... Con no PSF
250
200
150
loo
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Relativerotation 0 (rad)
1140
350
M2 Sl
300 M2Bl
250 o M2 S2
o M2 B2
200
Bearn no PSF
150 ...... Con no PSF
loo
I...
50 II..
"I"I""
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Relativerotationsý (rad)
350
s M2 Sl
300
* M2Bl
250 o M2 S2
o M2 B2
200 Beam no PSF
S
/ 1...
10
I
50
IIIIIII
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Relativerotations0 (rad)
1141
350
x Ml Bl VI MI BI V2
300 Ml Bl V3 Ml BI V4
M2 Sl M2BI
r= 250
Z Beamno PSF Con no PSF
200
150
9.)
loo
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Relatiýerotation 0 (rad)
Methods 1 and 2 with beamlines (no slab2 and beam2, single sidedtest)
E
U,
N
r=
1142
0aaa
00
0C
COLUMN 300000
4T25
BEAM 1 300400
7T25
BEAM 2 3OOx5OO
AT25
I 400 N/rn M2
SWANSA
1143
Beams
CoIunr
ref.
E
Cs1
mi
Beam
ret.
E
6m 6m 6m 6m
ii+
Roof slab
E
C14
rn
Eco
teal Co
PM
E
Ln
C%
rn
7.5 rn 7.5 m
300 rnm
200 mm
TSEAM
COLUMN JOINT
1144
25.8
Moment distribu
4q kNrr
28.6 ki 28.5 7.3
42
Figure 11.14: Bending moments for pin jointed frame column due to connector eccentricity
132.8 123.6
N
a
ell,
66.2 280.9
5 5.4
266.3
72.2
13 1.5ý 143.1
143.13 161.4
283.2 266
\
131.8
13,9.7 135 170.3
11 1 1
49 7 16 5 "11 72.2
weýý
7 1.7 60.1
21
2M27 ZJ
1145
2nClfI oor E
frl
I st floor m
r
E
Grounafloa Lr)
Gý
6m
Figure 11.17:Subframes
consideredfor 2nd, Ist and ground floor
1146
48.7 5.3 55.3
50 14.7
18.9
4.
132.8 123.5
5.3 2ý
2
66.3 ý81 266.3
130.7 143.7
1445 160.7
266
'33
1147
66.1 4A
7
70 3.2 13.6
2 1.8
3.7/ 1
columnn ref. I 5
89.8 63
(
173.8ý 265.6 300 3
01 .
187.8 134.7
ýOO.
166.5) 317.4)
ý 251.6
E33 86 89 B12
C3 C6 C9 C12 C15
B2 B5 88 Bil
C2 C5 ca Cil C14
Bi 84 B7 Blo
cl C4 C7 clo C13
1148
400
300
r_
200
m MHo96
DUU
400
MSag6
E MSag7
300
4 msags
Msagg
200
100
02468 10
Ks
80
60
E 40
zIijII
a Column
I
20 Column2
0
0 Column3
0 Column4
Column5
20
0 10
.468
Ks
1149
CHAPTER12
12.1 Introduction
strength, stiffness and ductility existing in the connectionsbetween the beams and
The effect of this on the designof sway frame columns results in impracticableand
assumedto behaveas a vertical cantilever from the foundation transferring all the
without involving frame action. For larger columns the additional moments due to
protect the mechanicalconnection from corrosion and fire danger. Similarly the
level for frame integrity purposes is not utilised in other ways in current design
with that of the mechanicalconnection,must provide the joint with existing residual
121
The work developedin this thesisbuilds on the previouspromising work in the
field at Nottingham University which indicated the positive design and behavioural
1. Full scale of testing of two types of joint, the welded plate and the billet
independentways. This has been done for the beam/columnalone, beam and floor
slab/column composite behaviour for both double sided and single sided bewn
arrangements.This has given a more complete data base of the semirigid joint
approach to assesconcrete crack widths for concrete unformed with frame integrity
bars. The results of thesetests have beenused to form the basis of the "component
3. The effect of joint stiffnessin the presenceof beamsand columns has been
sway frames and partially bracedsway frames.Column effective length factors have
been derived to allow for instability effects, and presentedin the form of curves and
122
4. A semirigid designapproachhas beenpreparedfor precast concrete frames,
frames (BS 8110) with limited modifications and safeguards,but providing designers
It has been tested carefully for a three storey three bay structures against an
analysisprogramme,andfound to performwell.
The frame connection test showed that damageto the precast subframe occurred
mainly at the bottom of the connectionsin the compressionzone whilst the members
the welded plate connectiontest where the floor slabs and tie bars were omitted so
that the failure was due to exceedingthe strengthof the weld, and in the single sided
connectionswhere the failure was due to exceedingthe strength of the column. The
up to 0.10 to 0.13 of
initial tangentflexuralstiffnessof theconnectionwasmaintained
the ultimate moment capacityof the connection Mu in the double sided connections
and the tie bars was to increasethe ultimate moment (by 215%), rotation (by 46%)
123
remarkablecontribution of the floor strengthand stiffnessto the flexural capacity of
of the connection for use in design. The beam  line is drawn corresponding to a
loading and a certain beam span  to  height ratio. The moment  rotation
characteristic has to intersect the beam  line, otherwise there wi.U be insufficient
the face of the column then 0 may be computedfrom the rigid body displacementsat
of analysis.
124
77
tensionjoint tests.
In comparing the results obtained in one of the full scale tests and the component
method, it is noted that both concreteand tie steeluniaxial yield strainsare exceeded
in the former, whereasthis is not possiblein the isolatedtests.For this reasonthe full
scale ultimate test moment of 238.78 kNm and rotation capacity of 10 mrad are not
achieved; the values being 160 kNm and 4.4 mrad, respectively.This is becauseno
presenceof floor slabsin the full scaletests.However, the points where the stiffness
of the full scale connection changes,i.e. after the first flexural crack at 30 kNm
moment, and the magnitude of the stiffness are both faithfully reproduced in the
componentmethod.
developedfurther.
The variation in the effective length factors 0 with joint and member stiffness
equationssimilar to thesecurrently usedin BS8 110. It is found that the changein the
125
an increase in a, the relative stiffness of the columns to the beam
members;
encastrebeammember.
catered for in in
codes of practice, particular the upper storey in a partially braced
frame.
12.4 Summing up
full capacity becausethe tie steel embeddedwithin insitu concrete in the precast
the strengthof the connectionitself asthe tie steelis not fully effective.
* The secantstiffnessof the connectionsin aUthe tests varies from 0.7 to 3.9 times
the flexural stiffness (4Eclc / 1) of the beam to which it is attached. Thus some
126
9A simplified method to generatemomentrotationdata is presentedand validated
9 Design equationsfor column effective length factors are given in terms of frame
andconnectionstiffness.
and EC2 for concrete column design, whereby the strength and stiffness of the
concreteframes.
Cyclic loading frame connection tests (including floor slabs) and several
a) Frame connectiontests
corbel and test as nonsway structures in order to realise the true responseof the
connections.
127
In plane tests on single sided connections.These tests may be used to
analysisprograms.
b) Interfacetests
membersand/orreinforcedinsitu concrete.
Carry out frame stability analysesusing available programs to develop the design
connectionstiffness.
128
Appendix 5.1
Grading of aggregate
A51
Gradinglimits
Sievesize Retained % % BS 882/1992
(mm) Retained Passing Table 3
.(gms)
14 NU NIL 100 100
10 374 9.4 90.6 85100
6.3 3416 85.9 4.7 
1 1
5 155 3.9 0.8 025
,
1 1 1
2.36 18 0.5 0.3 051
Gradinglimits
Sievesize Retained % % BS 882/1992
Table 4
(MM) (gms) Retained Passing Overall Grade
m
10 NIL NIL 100 100
5 10 0.4 99.6 89100
2.36 389 14.1 85.5 60100 65100
1.18 227 8.3 77.2 30100 45100
A52
Appendix 5.2
Design mixes
A53
vi (= 8 en C
Iti rlý Ilý In
. CD
CD M CD
wl,
c4
vi
(In
r:
c4
%cl vi
en
Wi
co) r4
C,
8 Wi 00
V) (D vi W) en
Gn a VII 1411 00
Vi rý 110 Cq cli cli
C.D
W) 8
W) r w!
C,; Ci
29
W)
(4) vi
.0
Wb
1.4
W)
W)
CD
N w!
en V) cli 4
c4 W)
cx,
i
rA en (,
C4 en Ci
12D
a vi tn
m Cq 01
en
2 a vý c
C4
rý 4 coi Cý
(14 V)
. "
(l .
keý
CD
0 ý20
"0
V5
Ow
(1q vi 2 4
(1q kn \Q
Cýq
Vi
ei ci M 2 en C14 . \0 cli
Z
vi
)
c',
I
vi C14 kn
6
00
v) C'i
1
.0
wl, C14 W)
3 vi
(14 let
V)
e i CD
M cq c4i
C14
Ci
t
ri en
(i 4 ,
2
VI 8 W) W)
efi C4
cli
0 %ý a
.0
d *> < ý:
cn C c2 E2 IC cn
 
A54
a
. T3
C's
111
Ici
C4
u V)
vi vi
v,
m CN  (=
Ici
78
Ei
W) tt) ci
C14 44
C'i C'i d 0
V) m . , . . .
C4
C14 ce. a
< 8
W,<
Z
g e
21
E 21
Iri
Ei
10
9 Cli
CN vi
8
Pq cý i rA
pq
Old
4
a 41
en (M
78 .0
CV3e vi ýo
E
C'i
> M. eq 0 m e4 ci

o .0
vi
vi 00 Je
q
0 CL
ci r w
E ,
A 0 d 2 § E
m A 22 g F4
ti 2
CD
. t1 Cd
<<l
A55
Appendix 5.3
AS6
POTs Function
11 records vertical deflectionof the joint at the column face on the beam2
side
12 records vertical deflectionof the joint at the column face on the beam I
side
A57
16 recordsvertical deflectionof the beamI at thejoint face
" SGI records strain in bar A at 200 mm distance from face of the