Görgün, Halil (1997) Semi-rigid behaviour of

connections in precast concrete structures. PhD thesis,

University of Nottingham.

Access from the University of Nottingham repository:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11294/1/362894.pdf

Copyright and reuse:

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

For more information, please contact eprints@nottingham.ac.uk

 UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

IV ERsl
9id.', a .*

Z: -F4

SEMI-RIGID
BEHAVIOUR OF CONNECTIONS
IN
PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURES

by

Halil Gftfinq B. Sc., M. Sc.

Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

August 1997
 This thesisis dedicatedto:

My parents, sistersand brother

 ABSTRACT

Multi-storey precast concrete skeletal structures are assembledfrom individual

prefabricated components which are erected on-site using various types of

connections.In the currentdesignof thesestructures,beam-to-columnconnectionsare

assumed to be pin jointed. This current research work focuses on the flexural

behaviourof the bearn-to-columnconnectionsand their effect on the behaviourof the

global precastconcreteframe.

The experimentalwork has involved the determination of moment-rotation

relationshipsfor semi-rigid precastconcreteconnectionsboth in full scale connection

tests and smaller isolated joint tests. This has been done using the so called

"componentmethod" in which the deformationof various parts of the connectionand

their interfacesare summated,and comparedwith results from full scale sub-frame

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

equationsto be formulated empiricallyin order to describethe semi-rigid behaviour.

Eight full scalecolumn-bearn-slab were testedto determinethe (hogging)

assemblages

moment-rotation behaviour of double (balancedloading) and single sided in-plane

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 in-plane continuity across the joint. The

strength of the connectionsin the double sided tests was at least 0.84 times the

predicted moment of resistanceof the compositebeamand slab. The strength of 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

flexural stiffnessof the attachedbeam.When the connectionswere tested without the

floor slabsand tie steel,the reducedstrengthand stiffnesswere approximatelya third

and half respectively.This remarkablecontributionof the floor strengthand stiffnessto

the flexural capacityof thejoint is currently neglectedin the designprocessfor precast

concreteframes.Measurementsof the extent of damagedzonesnearto the connection

in full scaletests showedthat, unlike steelconnections,semi-rigidbehaviourin precast

concrete does not occur at a single nodal position. In general the double sided

connectionswere found to be more suited to a semi-rigid design approachthan the

single sidedones.

Analytical studieswere carried out to determineempiricaldesignequationsfor

column effective length factors 0 in unbracedand partially braced precast concrete

frames.The main variableswere therelativeflexural stiffnessa of the frame members,

and the relative linear rotational stiffness K. of the connectionto that of an encastre

beam.

The variation of 0 factors with K. and a are presentedgraphicay and in the

form of designequationssimilar to thosecurrently usedin BS 8 110.The changein the

is
responseof a structure greatestwhen 0< KS 0
:51.5 where is found to be more

sensitiveto changesin K. than a. When K. >2 the changesin the behaviourare so

small that they may be ignored within the usual levels of accuracy associatedwith

stability analysis.This is an important finding becausethe experimentshave found K.

to be generallyless than 2 for typical sizes of beam.The results enabledesignersto

ii
determine 5 factors for situations currently not catered for in design codes of

practice, in particular the upper storey of a partially bracedframe. A designmethod is

proposed to extend the concrete column design approach in BS 8110 and EC2,

wherebythe strengthand semi-rigidstiffnessof the connectionenablescolumn bending

momentsto be distributed to the connectedbeams.However, the suitability of each

type of connection towards a semi-rigid design approach must be related to the

stiffnessand strengthof the framefor which it is a part.

III -
 PUBLICATIONS

Part of the resultsfrom this studyhasbeenpublished:-

1) Elliott, K. S., Gdrgiin, H., Virdi, K. S. and Ragupathyg P. Report to the

PrecastConcreteFramesAssociation,on analysisand design of a-3 storey precast

concrete sway frame, Dept. of Civil Eng. Nottingham University & Dept. of Civil

Eng. City University, August 1994.

2) Gftfin, H., Elliott, K. S. and Davies, G. Semi-rigid behaviour of

connectionsin precastconcretestructures.ProgressReport 1, No. SR 95 029. Dept.

of Civil Eng. NottinghamUniversity, September1994,82 pp.

3) Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Gdrgiin, H. Determinationof moment-rotation

in semi-rigid precast concrete connectionsusing the componentmethod, COST Cl

Proceedings of the 2nd. Workshop, Semi-rigid Behaviour of Civil Engineering

StructuralConnections,Prague,26-28 October 1994,pp. 31-40.

4) Gdrgiin, H., Elliott, K. S. and Davies, G. Semi-rigid behaviour of

connectionsin precastconcretestructures.ProgressReport 2, No. SR 95 030. Dept.

of Civil Eng. NottinghamUniversity, April 1995,102pp.

5) GOrgiin, H. Semi-rigid behaviour of connections in precast concrete

structures. Dept. of Civil Engineering Report No. SR 96-001, University of

Nottingham,February1996,344 pp.

6) Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Gdrgiin, H. Componentmethodvalidation tests

in precast concrete semi-rigid connections,Semi-rigid Structural Connections,Proc.

IABSE Colloquium,Vol. 75, Istanbul,September1996,pp. 299-308.

IV
7) Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and GOrgiin, H. Effective length factors in precast

concrete frames, Semi-rigid Structural Connections,Proc. IABSE Colloquium, Vol.

75, Istanbul, September1996,pp. 349-358.

8) Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Gftfin, H. Semi-rigid connectionsin precast

concrete frames. Report to EPSRC. Grand No. GR/K17286. Dept. of Civil Eng.

NottinghamUniversity, October1996.

9) Gdrgfin, H. An experimentalstudy of the behaviourof double sided welded

plate connectionin precastconcreteframes.Dept. of Civil EngineeringReport No SR

97-001,University of Nottingham,January1997,160 pp.

10) Effloft, K. S., Davies, G. and Gftfln, H. Semi-rigid connectionsin precast

concreteframes.FIP Symposium,Johannesburg,10-12March 1997.

V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SectionNo andTitle PageNo

TITLE PAGE

ABSTRACT I

PUBLICATIONS IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xvi

DECLARATION xvi 1

NOTATION xviii

CHAPTER1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1-1

1.2 Strategyof the work 1-2

1.3 Precastconcretebeam-to-columnconnections 1-4

1.4 Propertiesof beam-to-columnconnections 1-5

1.4.1 Fundamentalresponse 1-5

1.4.2 Classificationof beam-to-columnconnections 1-6

1.4.3 Simplified componentmethod 1-7

1.5 Generaladvantagesof using semi-rigidconnections 1-8

1.6 Evaluationof semi-rigidconnectionsusingbeam-linemethod 1-10

vi
1.7 Objectivesof the work

CHAPTER2

LITERATURE SURVEY ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF

SEMI-RIGID CONNECTIONS

2.1 Introduction 2-1

2.2 Previouswork 2-1

2.2.1 Reinforcedconcretebeam-to-columnconnections 2-1

2.2.2 Precastandprestressedconcretebeam-to-columnconnections 2-3

2.2.3 Classificationof steelbeam-to-columnconnections 2-13

2.3 Summary 2-22

CHAPTER3

ANALYTICAL STUDY

3.1 Stability analysisof precaststructures 3-1

3.2 The definition of effectivelength 3-5

3.3 Method of analysis 3-6

3.4 Assumptionsof parametricstudy 3-7

3.5 Parametricstudy 3-8

vii
 CHAPTER4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR

EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTOR FOR SWAY FRAMES

4.1 Results 4-1

4.1.1 Variationsin column effectivelengthfactorsfor rigid connections 4-1

4.1.2 Variationsin columneffectivelengthfactorsfor semi-rigid

connections 4-1

4.2 Parametricequations 4-2

4.3 Discussion 4-5

CHAPTER5

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME FOR FULL SCALE FRAME

CONNECTION TESTS

5.1 Introduction 5-1

5.2 Details of beam-to-columnconnections 5-5

5.3 Design and manufactureof precastconcretetest components 5-7

5.4 Horizontal ties for building integrity 5-8

5.5 Concretemixes 5-10

5.6 Test rig 5-11

5.7 Test procedure 5-12

5.8 Instrumentationand measurement 5-15

Vill
5.9 Material testing 5-16

5.9.1 Reinforcement 5-16

5.9.2 Tie rods 5-16

5.9.3 Concrete 5-17

5.10 Predictionof collapseload 5-17

5.11 Test monitoring andloading history 5-19

5.12 Calibrationof load measuringequipment 5-21

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS OF FULL SCALE FRAME CONNECTION TESTS

6.1 Calculationof moment-relativerotationandstiffness 6-1

6.1.1 Calculationof moments 6-1

6.1.2 Calculationof relativerotations 6-2

6.1.3 Calculationof stiffnesses 6-4

6.2 Presentationof results 6-5

6.3 Test series1 6-5

6.3.1 Test TW I (A) 6-5

6.3.2 Test TW 1(B) 6-8

6.3.3 Test TWI(C) 6-9

6.4 Test series2 6-9

6.4.1 Test TW2 6-9

6.5 Test series3 6-11

6.5.1 TestTBI(A) 6-11

ix
 6.5.2 Test TB I (B) 6-12

6.5.3 TestTBI(C) 6-13

6.6 Test series 4 6-14

6.6.1 Test TB2 6-14

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION OF FULL SCALE FRAME CONNECTION TESTS

7.1 Introduction 7-1

7.2 Overview on the experimentalwork 7-3

7.3 Overview on the presentationof the test results 7-5

7.4 Test series1 7-5

7.4.1 Test TW 1(A) 7-5

7.4.2 TestTWI(B) 7-11

7.4.3 Test 71WI (C) 7-12

7.5 Test series2 7-15

7.5.1 Test TW2 7-15

7.6 Test series3 7-18

7.6.1 TestTBl(A) 7-18

7.6.2 Test TB 1(B) 7-20

7.6.3 Test TB 1(C) 7-22

7.7 Test series4 7-24

7.7.1 Test T132 7-24

7.8 Summingup 7-27

x
 CHAPTER 8

ISOLATED JOINT TESTS

8.1 interfacestests
Objectiveof the precast-in-situ-precast 8-1

8.2 Identification of isolated joint tests 8-2

8.3 Compression tests 8-3

Test series 1 8-5

Test series 2 8-5

Test series 3 8-6

Test series 4 8-6

Test series 5 8-7

8.4 Bending tests 8-8

8.4.1 Small scale bending tests 8-8

Test series 6 8-8

8.4.2 Isolated tension test 8-11

Test series 7 8-11

CHAPTER 9

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF COMPONENT METHOD FOR

ISOLATED JOINT TESTS

9.1 Results 9-1

9.1.1 Compressiontests 9-1

xi
 9.1.2 Calculationof effectiveYoung's modulus 9-4

9.1.3 Bending tests 9-5

9.1.3.1 Small scale bending tests 9-5

Test series 6 9-5

9.1.3.2 Isolated tension test 9-7

Test series 7 9-7

9.2 Discussion of isolated tests results 9-9

9.2.1 Compression tests 9-9

9.2.2 Effect of infill on Young's modulus of concrete 9-13

9.2.3 Bending tests 9-17

9.2.3.1 Small scale bending tests 9-17

Test series 6 9-17

9.2.3.2 Isolated tension test 9-21

Test series 7 9-21

9.3 Summing up 9-23

CHAPTER10

VALIDITY OF COMPONENT METHOD

10.1 Simulatingjoint behaviourfrom sub-sectiontests 10-1

10.2 Calculationof moment-rotationin the componentmethod 10-3

10.3 Comparisonof Mcon-0 derivedfrom full testsand the component

method 10-7

10.4 Summingup 10-9

xii
 CHAPTER11

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

11.1 Introduction 11-1

11.2 Objectives 11-1

11.3 Beam-lineconceptandexperimentalteststo determineconnection

stiffness 11-3

11.4 Test series1 11-6

11.4.1 TestTW1(A) 11-6

11.4.2 Test TWI(C) 11-7

11.5 Test series2 11-8

11.5.1 Test TW2 11-8

11.6 Test series3 11-8

11.6.1 TestTBI(A) 11-8

11.6.2 TestTB1(B) 11-9

11.6.3 TestTB1(C) 11-9

11.7 Test series4 11-10

11.7.1 TestTB2 11-10

11.8 Significanceto designers 11-10

11.9 Designexample 11-12

11.10 FrameDesignExercise 11-13

10.10.1 Geometryandloading 11-13

11.10.2 Method of analysis 11-15

xiii
 11 Part I resultsusinglinear connections 11-16

11.11.1 Pin-jointed connections 11-16

i) Column design 11-16

ii) Beam design 11-19

11.11.2 Semi-rigid connections 11-19

i) Column design using non-linear analysis 11-20

ii) Beam design 11-21

iii) Column design using linear-elastic analysis 11-21

11.11.3 Fully rigid connections 11-23

11.12 Part III results using non-linear connections (SWANSA) 11-23

11.12.1 Summary of results 11-23

i) Column design using SWANSA output 11-24

ii) Beam design 11-24

11.13 Jointbehaviour 11-24

11.14 Discussion 11-25

11.14.1 Effect of connection stiffness on column and beam frame

moments 11-25

11.14.2 Comparisonof columnbendingmomentsfor

the semi-rigidanalysis 11-25

11.15 Conclusions 11-26

xiv
 CHAPTER12

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

12.1 Introduction 12-1

12.2 Experimental work 12-3

12.2.1 Frame connection tests 12-3

12.2.2 Interface tests 12-4

12.3 Analytical parametric studies 12-5

12.4 Summing up 12-6

12.5 Recommendations for future work 12-7

12.5.1 Experimental work 12-7

12.5.2 Analytical work 12-8

APPENDICES

Appendix 5.1: Grading of aggregate A5-1

Appendix 5.2: Designmixes A5-3

Appendix 5.3: Functionsof sensorsin the experimentalwork A5-6

Appendix 5.4: Predictedultimate hoggingbendingmomentcapacityof the

connections A5-11

Appendix 6.1: Flexuralstiffnesses A6-1

Appendix 11.1:Secantflexural stiffnesses All-I

REFERENCES R-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY B-1

xv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishesto acknowledgehis sinceregratitudeto the following :-

Professor D. A. Nethercot, the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering,

the University of Nottingham,for makingavailabledepartmentfacilities.

Dr. K. S. Elliott and Dr. G. Davies, to whom I would like to express my

profound thanks for acting as supervisorsto this work, their constant guidance,

generoushelp, continuedencouragement
and unfailingenthusiasmthroughoutthe

processof completingthis thesis.

The techniciansMichael Bettison,CharlesLambert,Bal Loyla, Geoff Mitchell,

Melvyn Ridal and Brian Whitehouse,of the Civil EngineeringLaboratory, and the

technical staff at the Engineering Faculty Workshop at the University of Nottingham

for their skill and technicalsupportwith the experimentalwork.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRQ, and the

Turkish Governrnentfor financial assistance.

Cripps Computing Centre and the Department of Civil Engineering at the

University of Nottinghamfor the local computingfacilities.

The staff at the ScienceLibrary for their efficient and speedyway in ordering

for references.

My colleaguesand friendsin Nottinghamfor the good time and moral support.

Finally there are no words to expressmy love to my parents, sisters and

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

submitted to any other University or other educationalestablishmentfor a Degree,

Diploma or otherqualification (exceptfor publication).

(Halil GORGON)

xvil
 NOTATION

A cross-sectional area of compression specimens

Ac entire concrete area bh

As area of tension reinforcement

b breath of section of beam or column

C flexural stiffness of connection

U ratio of stiffness of connection to stiffness of column to which it is attached

cIclEIc

d effective depth

E modulus of elasticity

Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete

Ece effective modulus of elasticity of concrete

Eci modulus of elasticity of infill concrete

Ecp modulus of elasticity of precast concrete

Ecq dynamic modulus of concrete

Es modulus of elasticity of steel

e connection eccentricity

Fcc force in concrete in compression

Fst total tensile yield load in 2TIO reinforcement bars tested

Ft basic tie force

Ft' modified tie force

xvill
Fwt tensile force in fillet weld

f second order elastic lateral displacement under service load in the case of an

unbraced frame, elastic mid-span beam displacement in the case of a braced

frame

fc concrete stress

fCU characteristic cube strength of concrete

fS steel stress

f characteristic strength of reinforcement

.V

A characteristic dead load (distributed)

h overall depth of beam or column section

I second moment of area

Ib second moment of area of connected beam

IC second moment of area of connected column

Icr second moment of area of cracked section

IU second moment of area of uncracked section

i flexural stiffness of connection (general)

JC tangent flexural stifness of connection (cracked)

Je tangent or secant flexural stiffness at intersection with beam-line in final cycle

Jes secant flexural stiffness at intersection with beam-line in full cycle

Jis initial secantflexural stiffness of connection at Mcr

JS secant flexural stiffness of connection at peak value of each cycle

JU initial tangent flexural stifness of connection at Mcr

xix
JUS secantflexuralstiffnessat Mu

Juni tangentor secantunloadingflexuralstiffnessof connection

Ke bars
effectivestiffnessof embedded

Ks to flexuralstiffnessof beamto whichit is

ratioof stiffnessof connection

attachedJ114EcI

k ratio of stiffnessof connectionto flexural stiffnessof beamto which it is

attachedc11EI

L heightof column, anchoragebondlength

Lb length of connectedbeam

Le effectivelengthof column,effectiveanchomgelength of bars

I spanlength

Ir greaterof distancesbetweencentresof columns

M bendingmoment

Madd bendingmomentdueto sway deflections

Mb momentin beamend

Mbeampredictedultimate momentcapacityof beam

MC momentin columnend

Mcon strengthof connectionat face of column

Mcr crackedmomentof connection

Me bendingmomentof connectionat intersectionwith beam-line,connection

eccentricitymoment

Mh hoggingmoment

xx
M! initial bendingmomentof connection

Mpeak momentat peakvalue of eachcycle

Mpred predictedultimate momentcapacityof connection

MS saggingmoment

MP plasticmoment

MpIRd design plastic moment resistance

MRd design moment resistance

MU ultimate strength of connection at face of column

MW bending moment due to frame action in resisting wind loads

n numberof interfaces
in joint

no numberof storeys

P load
bendingload,collapseload,shearload,uniaxialcompressive

PCr bucklingload

PE Euler load (7r 2E, /g

PS shear force in tie rod

Py yield load in stability tie bars

Pw design strength of fillet weld

q uniformly distributed load

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 total tensileyield load in 2T25 longitudinaltie barstested

t infill thickness

X gaugelength, depthof stressblock

Xcr depthto neutralaxis (crackedsection)

XU depthto neutralaxis (uncrackedsection)

V shearresistanceof connection,pulsevelocity

W predictedcollapseload for small bendingtests

z lever arm

a sumof flexural capacitiesof columnsto beams

ad. modified framestiffnessfunction

(XJ relative stiffnessesof columnto lower beam

a2 to
relative stiffnesseof column upperbeam

(Xe modular ratio

columneffectivelengthfactor, bondcoefficient

U ultimate load criterion

Of deformationcriterion

A lateraldeflection

8 total deformationin joint, beammid-spandeflection

8B compressivedeformation

5 elasticdeformationin in-situ concrete

Ci

8 elastic deformationin precastconcrete

CP

xxii
8T crack width opening

Cav averageaxial tensilestrainin bars

(D rotation in end of beamfor semi-rigidjoint

0 relative rotation betweenbeamend and adjacentcolumn, effectivebar size

Obo simple beamrotation

Ocr relative rotation at crackedmomentof connection

Oe relative rotation at intersectionwith beam-line

Oend relative rotation at end of test

Of relativerotation at final failure

Opeak relative rotation at peakvalueof eachcycle

OU relative rotation at ultimatestrengthof connection

Oun, relative rotation at unloading

Yf partial safetyfactor for loads

7M partial safetyfactor for materials

X normal deformationof precast-in-situinterfaceacrossa concretejoint

subjectedto uniaxial compressionor flexure, or both

9 dynamic value for Poisson's ratio 0.25 (assumed)

P percentage of transversereinforcement used within joint, ratio between

flexural stiffnesses of beam and column, density

(I uniaxial compressive stressfor compression specimens, flexural stress for

bending specimens

0 rotation in end of beam or column for rigid joints

xxiii
 CHAPTER1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

During the past three decadesthe multi-storeyprecastconcretestructure has

developedinto an alternativeto that of castin-situ andsteelstructures.This clearly

makesthebuildingmarketa competitiveone.

The presentresearchwork focuseson precastconcretestructures,wherethe

superstructureis erectedfrom the individualprefabricatedcomponentswhich are made

in a factory in a favourableenvironmentand with tight production and quality control.

This producesunits with high quality performanceand appearance.The designercan

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).

Precast concrete offers opportunities for speedingthe on-site processesof

construction,the maximum re-useof mould work and equipment,and for continuity of

the processes.There is a reduction in the amount of in-situ concrete required on-site

and reduced delays causedby bad weather and seasonalconditions. Precast allows

1-1
more accurateprogrammingof the processesof construction and sites using precast

concrete structures are typically cleaner.Plate 1.1 shows a typical precast concrete

building underconstruction.

With aH the above advantages,the most economic feature in the precast

concreteindustry is the standardisationof the products.This has a great influence on

the cost effectivenessof the industry. In a typical skeletalprecastconcreteframe, the

different precastconcretecomponentsare assembledand interconnectedusing various

types of joints. Connectionsmay have to transferforces such as shear,axial, flexure

and torsion betweenthe precastcomponents.71betwo main types of precastconcrete

structuralframesare:

0 unbraced,wherethe stability is providedby frameaction of the beams,

columnsandfloor slabs

0 braced,wherestability is providedby shearwalls, or columns

In both situations the behaviourof the frarne in resistinggravity and horizontal load

(wind) is influencedgreatly by the strength,stiffnessand ductility of the connections.

The stability of an unbraced.structure relies entirely on the foundation moment and

shearconnectionbecausethe frame connectionsat floor levels are currently designed

as pinned. In reality these connectionsdo not behave as pins and therefore the

distribution of momentsandforcesin the frameis not accuratelyrepresentedin design.

1.2 Strategy of the work

It is thereforeimportant to study the behaviourof theseconnectionstogether with the

effect they haveon the overall structure.This thesismainly concentrateson the flexural

behaviour of beam-to-columnconnectionsin the internal (double sided two way

1-2
connectionsFigures I. I(a) and (c)) and external (single sided three way connections

Figures 1.1(b) and (d)) beam-to-columnjoints with and without precast concrete

hollow core floor slabs and tie steel. Theoretical work has been supported by

experimentaltesting.

The term "connectiorf' refers to major structural connectionsbetweenprecast

components,e.g. welded plate connection.The "joinf' includes the connection and

where appropriatein-situ concrete,e.g. beam-to-columnjoint. It is the zone between

different adjacentunits of a structure.

The purpose of the investigation is to fulfd part of the United Kingdom's

obligation as signatory to the COST Cl researchinitiative. The European Union is

sponsoring the co-ordination of the COST Cl research programme, "Semi-Rigid

Behaviour of Civil Engineering Structural ConnectionsP,whilst leaving individual

governments to fund their own national contributions (City, Nottingham and

SouthamptonUniversitiesare the three UK participantsin the precastconcrete group

in this programme).

The statedobjectivesof the COST precastconcreteprogrammeare to extend

the test data available,to usecomputationaltechniquesto extrapolatethe data to a full

range of geometriesand loading conditions,and to standardisethe resulting stiffness

measurementsin the form of moment-rotation curves for inclusion by design

consultants in general frame analysis programmes.(The COST Committee have

identified Nottingham University as the preferred research contractor for further

connection tests, Southampton as the preferred research contractor for the detailed

finite elementanalysisof the connections,andCity (London) as the researchcontractor

for testingthe generalframe analysis).

1-3
1.3 Precast concrete beam-to-column connections

In the UK the most popular type of precast concrete connection is known as the

"hidden corber' because the main structural components cannot be seen on

?
completion. This has the advantageof minimising the depth of the connection and

protecting all structural steel and rebarsin the concretedor grouted joint. The two

main variationsof the hiddencorbelare:

weldedplate andbillet beain-to-columnconnection,Figures 1.1(a) and N

bolted billet beam-to-columnconnection,Figure 1.1(c) and (d)

A billet is the namegiven to any projectingsteel member,such as solid section, rolled

hollow section(RHS) etc. Gradeof steel43 and 50 is used.The spacereservedfor the

site operations immediatelybeneaththe billet is concreted or grouted solid on-site

using either concrete containing small sized (6-10 mm) aggregates,or sand-cement

grout Expandingagents(or expansivecements)are used to ensurethat no shrinkage

cracks allow ingressof reactive substancesalong the constructionjoints. The size of

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.

1-4
1.4 Properties of beam-to-column connections

1.4.1 Fundamental response

The connectionsin precastconcreteframesare subjectedto both clockwise and anti-

clockwise bendingmoments M and this inducesthe relative rotations 0 betweenthe

beamend and the adjacentcolumnas shownin Figures1.2(a)to (c).

Connectionssuchas theseare known as "semi-rigid". Total frame analysismay

thereforebe carriedout by substitutingrigid joint connectionswith onesof finite

strengthandrotationalstiffness.The relevantpropertiesof connectionsare strength,

stiffnessanddeformationcapacity(ductility).Thebehaviourmaybedescribedin terms

of the well knownmoment-rotation

M-0 data,idegisedin Figure1.2(d),but in the

caseof precastconcreteconnectionsthe semi rigidity is due to both material and large

deflection effects. There is also a zone of influencebeyond the immediatelocality of

the joint. Previous and new work has shown that this is approximatelyequal to the

cross sectionaldimensionsof the adjoiningbeamand column members(Mahdi, 1992).

In this context it is very important that the M-ý characteristicsof die connectionare

tailored to suit the stiffnessand strengthof the frame.

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. on-site. 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

1-5
and tensile strengthsof the reinforcements.Finally the ductility of the connection is

mainly a function of the ductility of the reinforcement,but geometryplays a large part

in this, particularly if the connectionis over reinforced. If normative rules are to be

developed to classify such connections,the geometric and material effects must be

separatedand accountedfor in any single M-0 plot, where the general rotational

stiffnessJ of the connectionis given by the gradientof the M-0 curve as shown in

Figure 1.2(d).

The usualapproachis to expressstiffnessasa non-dimensionalterm Ks where

Ks =j Eq.1.1
4Ecl1l

i. e. the ratio of the stiffnessof the connectionto the flexural stiffnessof the beamto

which it is attached,where Ec is the modulusof elasticityof concrete, I is the second

momentof inertia of the beam,and I is the effective spanof the beam.

1.4.2 Classification of beam-to-column connections

Dependingon which criterion for frame analysisis used, i.e. sway stiffness, column

buckling load etc., theseconnectionsmay fall into oneof threeclasses,namely

0 Class 1. rigid with full strength

0 Class2. semi-rigid with full or partial strength

0 Class3. pinned

In the case of precast connectionsthe important classificationboundary is the one

which separatesClasses2 and 3.

1-6
 It is well known that the actual response of almost all beam-to-column

structural connections is non-linear. The concept of a perfectly rigid or pinned

connection is a purely theoretical one but useful to the designer to simplify the

calculationof framedstructures.

In engineeringcalculations,some actual beam-to-columnconnectionscan yet

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

behaviour of the frame.

Severalclassificationsystemsfor beam-to-columnconnectionsin steel frames

have so far beenproposedin order to detenninewhether an actual bealn-to-column

connection can reasonablybe consideredas pinned or semi-rigid (where the joint

flexibility has to be taken into account)or rigid in the frame design stage. Details of

these classification systems are given in Chapter 2.

1.4.3 Simplifled component method

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

1-7
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

expressedin termsof materialand geometricproperties,a simplemethodto determine

ý is possible. In this method an "effective modulus of elasticity of concrete Ece" is

found by experimentationand the associatedstrains,and hencedeformations 8 B, are

determined from the appropriate state of stress. Similarly, in the tension zone an

"effective tensilestiffnessKe" is found which relatesbond and tensiledefonnation 8T

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

assemblytests.Thesetestsare refeffed to as"inteiface tests".

1.5 General advantagesof using semi-rigid connections

Obviously, the flexural stiffness, bending moment and the deformation capacity

(ductility) of semi-rigid beam-to-columnconnectionsin any type of structure, either

precast,steel or composite,influencegreatly the responseof the structure as a whole.

The generaladvantagesof using semi-rigidconnectionsdependon the type of frame

and the usual basisof design.For bracedframesthis is simple construction, assuming

pinned connections,for unbracedframes this is continuous construction, assuming

rigid connections.

For bracedframes,the effect of semi-rigidconnectionson beamdesigncan be

observedby investigatingthe behaviourof a single spanbeam.Figure 1.3(a) shows a

1-8
simply supported beam, with a uniformly distributed load, the maximum design

bending moment takes place at mid-spanof 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 two-thirds of the maximum elastic

bendingmomentof the simply supportedcase.

Figure 1.3(c) shows a beam with semi-rigid end connections.Based on the

flexural stiffnessof the connection,the maximumelasticbendingmomentoccurs at the

supports or at mid-span (assumingthe semi-rigid end connections have the same

flexural stiffness capacity), but will always be less than that for a simply supported

and/orfixed supportsbeam,and permit a reductionin the beammaterial.The optimum

connectionswould be those which would allow just enough end rotation to balance

q12 Semi-rigid theory is concernedwith this

end and mid-spanmoments connection
16 .

problem and other,similar matters.

Figure 1.4 shows that by an appropriatechoice of connectionstiffnessrelative

to the beam Ks, the elasticbendingmomentat the supportscan theoretically be made

equalto the value at mid-span,henceminimizing the elasticdesignmoment.Of course,

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

additional cost of providing connectionswith the requiredflexural stiffness.Figure 1.4

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

connectionswill havea dramaticeffect on the designmomentof the beam.

1-9
 A similar pattern occurs when the elastic mid-spandeflection of the bewn is

considered.The variation in the elastic mid-span deflection of the beam with end

conditions and connectionstiffnesscan be seenfrom Figure 1.5 to Figure 1.6. It has

been suggestedthat reduced beam depth (Anderson, 1993) can economicaRybe

obtainedby either:

0 recognisingthe inherentstiffnessof sometypesof simpleconnection,or

0 modifying simpleconnectionsto a limited extentto provide increasedstiffness.

One of the objectivesof this study has beento recognisethe inherentflexural stiffness

and strengthof the beam-to-columnconnectionsas usedin precastconcretestructures

in the UK and to incorporate this into design proceduresrather than to modify the

connections.

1.6 Evaluation of sen-d-rigid connections using beam-line method

For bracedframes,the beam-lineconcept shown in Figure 1.7 provides a convenient

method to determinethe influence of semi-figid connectionson the behaviour of an

elastic beam in one interactive process. T'his approach in effect combines

characterisation.
of connectionresponse,analysisof internal moments,and evaluation

of performance.Using this method,connectioncharacteristicsmay be tested by being

superimposedon the beam-lineto determinethe correspondingvaluesof end moment,

and therebythe beamdesignmoment.Alternatively,the minimum connectionstiffness

neededto justify a particular beam section can be determined.This approach leads

directly to the minimumconnectionresistanceneededto achievethe elasticconnection

behaviour assumedin the analysis.Full details of the beam-linemethod are given in

Chapter 11.

1-10
1.7 Objectives of the work

1) To provide actual moment-rotationcharacteristicsof two types of beam-to-

column connectionsexperimentally,incorporatedin doubleandsingle sidedsubframes

2) To obtain the moment-rotation characteristicsof the connections from

smallerisolatedjoint componentstests

3) To study the effects of the flexural stiffnessof the connectionsand frame

memberson the effectivelengthsof the columnsusinglinear elasticapproachon single

storeyone bay sway frames

4) To presenta methodof applicationof the moment-rotationcharacteristicsof

the connectionsin the analysisand design of multi-storey precast concrete framed

structures
These objectives have been realised practically on the basis of the following

experimentalwork:

1) Full scaleframe connectiontestson:

0 weldedplate andbillet bearn-to-columnconnection

(a) Double sidedbearn-to-columnconnection(two way connection)Figure

1-1(a) with andwithout hollow core floor slabsand floor tie steel

(b) Singlesidedbeam-to-columnconnection(three way connection)Figure

1.1(b) with hollow core floor slabsand floor tie steel

0 boltedbillet bearn-to-columnconnection

(a) Double sided beam-to-column connection (two way connection) Figure

1.1(c) with hollow core floor slabs(in-situ concreteonly in sometests)

and floor tie steel

1-11
 (b) Singlesidedbeam-to-columnconnection(three way connection)Figure

1.1(d) with hollow core floor slabsand floor tic steel

2) Interfacetestson:

(a) interfacesin compressionand flexure

small scaleprecast-in-situ-precast

(b) full scaleprecast-in-situ-precast

interfacesin bond slip and bond failure

of rebarsin narrowin-situ concretestrips.

1-12
 -0

cz
u

"a

LL.

1-13
 oor
me

Section A-A

Figure 1.1(b): Welded plate and billet beam-to-column connection

(three way connection)
1-14
 C
ce

/ cc

U C/) -u
cz
u -m
vi
rn 21-3
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.

1-15
SectionA-A

Figure 1.1(d): Bolted billet beam-to-column connection

(three way connection)

1-16
 ing
ý-Inlt

sagging
moment
e momentsarereversible

Figure1.2(a):Swayloading

hoggingmoments

-ý - -r--z'

Figure 1.2(b):Gravity loading

1-17
 PI.
Zcm
-ccast
bm
ý-m
Joint (coversconnection)

Precastcolumn

Rotationalspring
ST +8B
h

Figure 1.2(c):Simplified definition of joint rotation

M
MU

mcr

Ocr Ou Of 0
ý =relative joint rotation (rad)
J,f,= initial secantrotational stiffness(kNnVrad)

Figure 1.2(d):Moment-rotationcharacteristic

1-18
 1.4 & Ow

(a) Simply supported

(b) Fixed

(c) Semi-rigid

Figure 1.3: Beammomentswith variousend conditions

1-19
 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

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Ks

Figure 1.4: Variation of beammomentswith connectionstiffness

-8
5qi74384EI

1.0

0.8ý- -\ --------------

0.6 ----------------

0.4-

0.2 --------j------
S=q, 4 /384EI

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 mo Ks

Figure 1.5 : Variation of mid-spandeflection with connectionstiffness

1-20'
 (a) Simply supported

(b) Fixed

(c) Semi-rigid

Figure 1.6: Beam deflectedprofiles with various end conditions

1-21
 q

Beam-line
124EI-MI12EI
ý=q 13

q12 /12
Moment-rotationcharacteristic
of connection
beam-line

Moment resistanceof beam

q12 M
8
implebeam
ý\ */-'rotation

q13124EI 0

Figure 1.7:Definition of beam-line

1-22
 77tesimplicityofthepwzzt concreteframes

Floor unils spanonto long,mdwaý

Plate 1.1:A typical precastconcretebuilding underconstruction

( British CementAssociation,1992)

1-23
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF

SEMI-RIGID CONNECTIONS

2.1 Introduction

The successfulstructural performanceof precast

concrete,in-situ, Composite,timber

and steel systemsdependsupon the connectionbehaviour.The configuration of the

connectionsaffectsthe constructibility,stability, strength,flexibility and residualforces

in the structure.Further more, connectionsplay an important role in the dissipationof

energy and redistribution of loads as the structure is loaded. Ibis literature review

attemptsto qualify thesestatementsin the context of beam-to-columnand semi-rigid

joint behaviourin general,andto precastconcretestructuresin particular.

2.2 Previous work

2.2.1 Reinforced concrete beam-to-column connections

In the past two decades,the investigationof the behaviour of reinforced concrete

beam-to-columnconnectionshas been a rewardingarea for many researchers

especiallyin theUSA.
The first studies on this subject were conducted at the Portland Cement

AssociationLaboratories(Hansonand Conner, 1967;Hanson, 1971). The subjecthas

2-1
also beenstudiedby other investigatorsin the USA (Lee, 1977), in Canada(Uzumeri

and Seckin, 1974)and Japan(Nakata,1980).

0
Recommendationsfor design of beam-to-column joints in monolithic

reinforced concrete structureswas first publishedby the ACI-ASCE committee 352

(1976). Someother interestingtechnicalpapers(Durrani and Wight, 1985; Ehsaniand

Wight, 1985)haverecentlybeenpublisheddealingwith the samesubject.

Durrani and Wight (1985) examinedthe performanceof the interior joints

which have lesstransversereinforcementthan required by the draft recommendations

of Committee352.They also investigatedthe effect of the level of joint shearstresson

the strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation of bearn-columnsubassemblages

and

examined the slippage of beam and column bars through the joint. Three interior

beam-to-columnsubassemblages
as shownin Fig. 2.1 were designedand tested under

reversecyclic loading.

The joint shearstresswas found to have a significant effect on behaviour at

large ductility levels. The joint hoop reinforcementwas more effective for lower

ductility levels.Guide-linesare suggestedto simplify the designof connections.They

indicatethat a lesseramountof hoop reinforcementcould be usedwithout significantly

affecting the performanceof joints.

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

percentageof transversereinforcementusedwithin thejoint p, and the shearstressin

thejoint on the behaviourof externalreinforcedconcretebeam-to-columnconnections

subjectedto earthquaketype loading.

2-2
 Six exterior in-situ reinforced concrete beam-to-columnconnections were

constructed as shown in Fig. 2.2 and tested. The results were compared with the

existing design recommendations. These recommendations prescribe 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

more conservativethan the limits of the draft recommendations,the present design

could be safelyrelaxed.
recommendations

2.2.2 Precast and prestressedconcrete beam-to-column connections

Earthquakeresistantreinforced concrete buildings require the structure to resist the

induced forces in a ductile manner. Ibis demands that the bearn-to-column

connectionsbe designedas a ductile, moment-resistantconnection.This has severely

limited the useof precastconcreteconstructionin seismiczones.

Pillai and Kirk (1981) developed a satisfactory ductile, moment-resistant

beam-to-columnconnectionto be used in earthquakeresistantbuildings with precast

reinforcedconcreteconstruction.

A satisfactorydesign for such a connectionenabledthe performanceof the

connectionto be investigatedexperimentally.A total of eleven tests were conducted

on full scale beam-columnconnections, including two monolithic specimens for

purposes of comparison.The type of connection chosen for detailed experimental

evaluationis shownin Fig. 2.3.

2-3
 Tbe test results have indicated that the proposed method of connection

developed adequatestrength, stiffness, and ductility to be classified as a ductile,

connection
moment-resistant in the context of seismicdesign.

Bhatt and Kirk (1985) grouped moment-resistingconnections used for

joining precast beam to columns into three categories and carried out tests on the third

categoryon an improvedversionof thejoint detail testedby Pillai and Kirk (1981).

Although the joints behavedsatisfactorilyin terms of ductility, most of the

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

the plate and the bar can be welded.

Resultsfrom the tests have shown that it is possibleto achievehighly ductile

behaviourby using thejoint detail adopted.

Uy Funded Researchand
Stanton et al (1986). In the USA, the PCI Specia.

Development Programs I and 4 (PCI 1/4) focussed on the actual behaviour of

commonly used connections.The two programswere combined in order to devote

maximum effort to the physical testing of connections in common use. PCI 1/4

consisted of individual tests of eight simple connections, eight moment resisting

connectionsand one momentresistingframetest. The ResearchReport (Stanton et al,

1986) contains a complete descriptionof the researchprogram, as well as detailed

descriptionsof the individual tests.

Dolan et al (1987) summarizesthe test program,describesthe test specimens,

and presentsthe basic findings and conclusionsreachedduring the investigation.The

ResearchReport along with related publications (Pillai and Kirk, 1981; Bhatt and

Kirk, 1985;Dolan et al, 1987;Dolan and Pessik-1,1989;

Seckin and Fu, 1990) began

2-4
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

studies to be compared with tests carried out by these researchers.

Dolan and Pessiki (1989) demonstratedthe feasibility of using models for

testing precast concrete connections. Model studies have been examined as an

alternative for obtaining basic information about the behaviour of precast concrete

connections.The advantagesof model studiesinclude lower cost, specimensthat are

more easily manufacturedand handled,a significantreductionin appliedloading, and a

correspondingreduction in test apparatussize.The PCI report allowed model studies

to be comparedwith full scaletests.

Based on a number of considerations,including available materials and

availabletestingframes,a scaleof one-quarterwasselectedfor the model studies.

A connection, designated BC-15 in the PCI report "Moment Resistant

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,

thusthe dataon its behaviourwill havewidespreadapplicationin industry. Second,the

connection relies on bond, anchorage,welding and shear friction to develop its

strength,thus providing a wide range of modelingparameters.T'hird, the connection

designrationaleis identical in the modeland the PCI report.

The results have shown that the behaviour characteristics of a welded,

monotonically loaded precast concrete connection can be simulated using models.

Good agreementhas been found betweenthe strength and the normalized moment-

rotation responseof the model and full scaletests. Ibe agreementhas demonstrated

2-5
that modelscan be used to study this type of precastconcreteconnectionbehaviour.

The effect of poor weld quality and designeccentricitieshave similar consequencesin

both the model and the full scale.

CERIB (1990-1991).In Europe,a small numberof technicalpublicationsand

guides on the design of precast wall connectionswere published, but a lack of

information on test data and designmodelsare still missingespeciallyfor connections

of precast frame structures.The Study and ResearchCenter of the French Precast

Industry (CERIB) investigated more deeply in this field. A research programme

entitled "Investigation on the behaviourof semi-rigid connections"was divided into

two tasks:

- initial classificationof connections

with to
respect their location

- collection of information on testsdataand designmethods.

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.

Comair and Dardare (1992) carried out a testing programme on thread-

rodded connectionswith grouted sleeves.It was acceptedthat this connectionsystem

is usuallyviewed asmoreeconomicalthanothersystemsusedin France.

The model test specimenis a beam-to-columninterior connection designated

as "BCI" and assumedto be located in the first storey of a three-storey, two-bay

momentresistingframe.
The experimentalresults verified the ductile failure mode of connectionBCI.

The experimentaland calculatedvalues of moments and failure loads are given in

Table 2.1.

2-6
 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

estimatedto be equalto 20% of the failure moment.

Becausethe rotation was determineddirectly from the end deflection of the

cantilevers,the relative rotation of the connectionshouldhavebeenseparatedfrom the

curvatureof the cantilevers.Thus Fig. 2.5 doesnot show the actual relative rotation of

the connection.

de Chefdebien and Dardare (1994) havefocusedon the behaviourof thread

rodded beamcolumn connectionswithin the frameworkof the designof a three storey

two baybuilding.

Five tests were carried out on intermediateand upper level beam column

connectionswith different parameterswhich is bearing of the beams,flMng between

beams,and anchoragereinforcement.All beamswere 300 mm wide and 500 mm deep

with 100 in-situ

mm. concrete.The concretegradeswere 60 MPa for precastmembers

and 25 MPa for cast in-situ part.

The moment-rotationcurves are given in Fig. 2.6. Connectionsbcl, bc2 and

bc5 do not include soft elements. The moment-rotation curves are bi-linear.

Connectionsbc3 and bc4 include soft elements.As before, the rotation includes the

curvatureof the beam.

The initial secantstiffnesswas calculatedbefore first cracking occurred and

secantstiffnesswas calculatedusing the beam-linemethod at the serviceload, taking

2-7
into account the second moment of area, I, of the "T' beam. However, it is not clear

whether I is basedon the flexurally crackedor uncrackedsectionproperties.

Ultimate momentsoccurredfor rotations higher than 0.06 rad, and they have

been compared with the ultimate design moments in the beams. The ratio

MconlMbeamvaries from 0.24 to 0.42 for the different tests.

According to the test results, it has been concluded that the continuity moment

on intermediatesupport could easily be increasedto a value equal to 30% of the

bendingmomentof a simply supportedbeam.

Mabdi (1992). Fourteentestswere carriedout as sbown in Fig. 2.7 and Table

2.2 to evaluate experimentallythe degree of semi-rigidity afforded by the most

commontypesof beam-to-columnconnectionsusedin the precastconcreteindustry in

the U.K. These were the billet, welded plate, corbel and cleat connections,two of

theseare shown in Fig 1.1.

Resultsgiven in Fig. 2.8. (a) and (b) are for the double sidedtest shown in Fig.

2.7(c) for initially sagging(-ve) and hogging(+ve) moments,respectively.The M-ý

data given in the figures show that relative rotations are in excess of 0.02 radians when

the ultimate moments of the connection is reached.

A secantstiffness value Jes (see Chapter 11) obtained using the beam-line

method, as shown in Fig. 1.7, was used in the stability analysisto determinecolumn

buckling load capacitiesand 0 (columneffective length) factors. The secantstiffness

was used becausethe local tangent stiffness J given by the gradient of the M-0

curvesis changingthroughoutthe loadingcycle.

It has been reported that connection momentsin the order of -125 kNm to

+210 kNm and stiffnessvalues J= 19,000kNm/radian are sufficient to enablethe

2-8
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

increasedfrom 1.5 to 1.6 shouldthereforebe appliedto thesetype of connectionsto

avoid column failures, becausedamagewas extensive in the precast column. The

factored moment of 130 kNm is approximatelyequal to the moment used in the

determinationof the Jes using the beam-linemethod, and no visual cracking was

evidentin the column at this bendingmoment.

It hasbeenobservedthat all connectionspossessed

somestrengthand stiffness,

but the capacitiesvaried over a wide range,Le Mcon from 5 to 2 10 kNm, and stiffness

from 200 to 19,000kNm/rad. The analyticalwork showedthat the stiffnessneededto

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

connections would give a precast structure sufficient global stiffness to satisfy

serviceabilityand ultimate limit state criteria, and would lead to a more economical

column design,but the cleat and corbel connectionswould not both

possess sufficient

strengthand stiffnessto satisfytheselimits andmust thereforecontinue to be classified

aspinned.

Virdi and Ragupathy (1992a). The stability behaviourof isolated restrained

beam-columnshaspreviouslybeenstudiedby Virdi (1973,1976). The method enables

an ultimate load analysisof no-sway isolated columns of a variety of cross-section,

including material and geometricnonlinearities,following a variety of load paths, as

well asallowing variation of cross-sectionalong the length of the column. The method

hasbeenextensivelyverified by testson compositeandreinforcedconcretecolumns.

2-9
 The above method of analysis of isolated columns of all types has been

developed further to include the problem of 3-dimensional frames subjected to side-

sway (Virdi and Ragupathy, 1992a). The analysis also applies to no-sway frames and

to continuous columns. The analysis takes proper account of the behaviour of flexible

connections, such as those encountered in precast frames. The numerical procedure is

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

solution take place in three principal stages: at a section to determine moment

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

Virdi and Ragupathy (1992a).

The computer program, labelled SWANSA (SWay And No-Sway Analysis),

was developed based on the above method. It has the following options:

I. Linear or non-linear analysis of 3-dimensional precast concrete sway and

nonsway frames. Joints can be rigid, pinned or flexible (semi-rigid).

2. Computation of the ultimate load of a single beam-column or continuous

bearn-column for given external forces, or combination of forces can be increased to

reach the ultimate load.

3. The output includes deflections, moments, shear forces, axial forces, strains,

and tortions at all member stations and at global nodes.

2-10
 Virdi and Ragupathy (1992b). They conducted eight tests on precast

concrete subframesas shown in Fig. 2.9 to provide data for the validation of

computational results. Each subframesconsistedof a 6m long continuous column

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

(300 mm squarefor the column and450 x 300 mm for the beam).

The ultimate loads obtainedfrom all the eight experimentsare comparedwith

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

terms of the failure momentis however,not so good.

For illustrative purposes,resultsfor Test CT6, are presentedhere. It has been

reported that results for other tests show similarly good correlation. The connection

detail at the beam-columnjunction for this test is shown in Fig. 2.10. By comparing

the slopesof the beamand columnat the beamcolumnjunction, it has beenpossibleto

deduce the moment rotation characteristic of the particular connection. The hogging

moment-rotationresponseobtainedfor this test is shownin Fig. 2.11.

The Test Program of the Finnish Connections (Tampere, 1995). The main

aim of this ongoing project is to examine the semi-rigid behaviour of precast

connectionsusedin Finland.The project partially involvesfull size testing to establish

M-0 curvesof varioustypesof connections.

The Fmnish test program is divided in two phases.In the first phase the

behaviourof connectionswill be examined(Fig. 2.12). where three similar tests will

be carried out. The tested beam cross section is not rectangularbut has flanges to

2-11
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

simpler. In the secondphasethe influenceof hollow cored floor slabswill be included

asshown in Fig. 2.13.In this testseriestwo similar testswill be carried out to examine

the single and doublesidedjoints.

Ile type of connection,CaRed"KF', is shown in Fig. 2.14. The connection

behaves rather like a hinge when the joint concrete is not used. The effect of the joint

concretecausingthe semi-rigid behaviourwill be checked,but the grade of the joint

concretehasnot beenmentionedto date.

Mohamed and Jolly (1995) conducted two full-scale test programmeson

sleevedbolt connections,shown in Fig. 2.15. Test seriesA examinedthe influenceof

bolt density on overall joint behaviour, e.g. failure mode, ultimate strength and

stiffness.Test seriesB studied the effect of concretestrength and its confinementon

the load-carryingcapacityof single-boltedjoints.

Joint momentstiffnesshasbeencharacterizedby the moment-rotationcurve. A

moment M has beencreatedat the concreteface due to the eccentricity of the load

from the column. This moment,which tendsto extendthe top boltsýinducesthe plate

rotation 0. Valuesof the m-0 havebeencomputed,and plotted in Fig. 2.16. 'nese

curves show that the numberof bolts per joint has an effect on the joint's rotational

rigidity.

Loo and Yao (1995) investigatedthe strengthand deformation behaviour of

two types of precastreinforcedconcretebeam-to-columnconnections.Referredto as

Types A and B, theseconnectionshavebeenrecommendedby the PCI Committee on

ConnectionDetails and the AustralianPrestressedConcreteGroup for use in precast

2-12
reinforcedconcretebuilding frames.A total of 18 half-scaleinterior connectionmodels

were designed,built, and tested to failure to evaluate their strength and ductility

properties under static and unidirectional repeated loading. They include four

monolithic modelsand four eachof the precastconnectionTypes A and B static load

tests.Details of theseconnectionsare given in (Loo and Yao, 1995).

They found that the two types of precast concrete connections performed

satisfactorilyin that their bendingstrengthswere, without exception,higher than the

monolithic connections.In addition, the ductility and energy absorbingcapacitiesof

the precastconnections,generally,are superiorto their monolithic counterparts.

The load deflection curves for some of the specimensare presentedin Fig.

2.17. From the results,it was concludedthat all the precastmodelspossessednot only

greaterductility but alsohigher stiffnessthan their monolithic counterparts.

2.2.3 Classification of steel beam-to-column connections

Stiffness boundaries (Zoetemeijer, 1989) investigatedthe influence of the Stiffness

of the connectionson the stability of the frame. The relationshipsbetween loading

momentsand deformationswere given for frequently occurring situations in braced

and unbracedframes.Thesewere expressedby consideringthe situation where rigid

connectionsare multiplied by a reductionfactor R, which is a function of k, the ratio

betweenthe rotational spring stiffnessof the connectionand the bending stiffness of

the beam.Therefore k= c11EI where c is the calculatedvalue of the rotational spring

stiffness of the connection.The stiffnessboundarieswere chosen on basis that the

Euler buckling load at k> 25 deviatesby lessthan 10% from the Euler buckling load

at k=-. It has beenconcludedthat a connectioncan be consideredto be rigid when

2-13
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

stability of the frame.

Stiffness boundaries (Briquet et al, 1994). As none of classificationsystems

is flilly satisfactory,it was decidedto dedicatea part of the COST Cl Project to find

two new classificationboundaries:these boundarieshave to be defined in terms of

rotation stiffness (rigid, semi-rigid and pinned) and moment capacity (fuR strength,

Partial strength and pinned). Tberefore as a further step, it should also be tried to

eliminatethe ductility of the connections(brittle or ductile) in the analysis.

The stiffnessboundariesbetweenrigid and semi-rigidhavebeenestablishedfor

a simple portal frame, bracedor unbraced,with rigid or pinned column bases.The

comparison of these boundaries allows to determine, in each case, the most

determinant ones. They are based on classification criteria defined as ratios 0, either

betweentwo loads or between two displacements,one calculated for the structure

with semi-rigidbeam-to-columnconnections(F) the other one for the samestructure

with rigid connections(u = . ).

The consideredcriteria are:

F,,(F)
- Ultimate load criterion PU = ý
Fu(F = co)

The ultimate load is determinedby the Merchant-Rankineformula in the case

of an unbracedstructureas:

2-14
 Fcr =1)
(-ýP-j

FE)

f(F = 00)
- Deformationcriterion Of
f (F)

with f= secondorderelasticlateraldisplacementunderserviceload in the

caseof an unbracedframe:

= elasticmid-spanbeamdisplacementin the caseof a bracedframe.

The joints have been consideredas rigid if their influence on the structural

frame responseis limited to 5% for resistancecriteria (Pu

= 0.95) or 10% for

deformabilitycriteria ( Of = 0.90). AU thosecriteria have beenpresentedby a curve, as

shownin Fig. 2.18 where p= Rb/ Rc= beam/ columnrigidity.

It has beensuggestedthat in the caseof unbracedframes,the most determinant

criterion is the one concerning the lateral displacementeven if the 0 values for

deformationsare lesssevere(of = 0.90) than those relative to ultimate loads (Ou =

0.95).

Theseboundariesfor unbracedstructureshave beenconfirmed by calculations

performed by meansof the non linear FEM software called FINELG on realistic

simple portal frameswith rigid or pinnedcolumnbases.

Another stepin the investigationis whetherdeformationcriterion built up for a

simple portal frame could be extendedto muld-bays,multi-storeysframes.It has been

reported that the problem can be solved, in the case of one-storey muld-bays

structures,by referring to the so-caUed"equivalentGrinter frame!'. Two examplesof

2-15
one-storey two-bays 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

deformationcriterion definedhere abovecan be usedprovided the beamand column

rigidity Rb and Rc replaced by the correspondingones in the equivalent Grinter

frame.

Beforeestablishinga classificationsystemfor beam-to-columnconnections,the

foRowingwork hasbeenprogrammed:

- stiffness boundary between rigid and semi-rigid domains for multi-storeys

unbracedstructures;

- stiffnessboundarybetweenrigid and semi-rigid fields for bracedstructures;

classificationaccordingto the for

resistance bracedor unbracedframes
-

(shouldbe tried for both bracedandunbracedframes);

boundarybetweensemi-rigidand pinnedfields.
- problem of

It has been reported that work on these different topics is in progress, but

detailshavenot beengiven abouthow it is going to be done.

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.

The classificationsystemis nondimensional,but is basedon connectionsthat

be
can associatedwith a certainreferencelength for the beamcomponent.It has been

suggestedthat this is necessary in

because the analysisof the responseof frames, it is

the angular displacement, i. e. the rotation, of the connection that is needed, rather than

the curvature.

2-16
 The rotation is the essential measure of deformability in the evaluation of the

various types of however,

connections, in the analysisof the beams,
it is the curvature

that plays the similar role. This was shown as one of the reasonswhy it has been

decidedto use specific beamelementlength to correlate the connectionrotation and

the beamslopein the developmentof the classificationcriteria. The length of the beam

is chosensuchthat the initial stiffnessof the beammatchesthat of the connection.

Basedon evaluationsof a large numberof test data for a variety of beam-to-

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

connection,would be the most appropriate.This length placesthe connection in the

middle of the semi-rigid range. The data confirm that the stiffer the connection, the

shorterthe equivalentreferencelengthof the beamwill be.

To provide the dividing lines betweenrigid and semi-rigid and betweensemi-

rigid and flexible, referencelengthsof 10h and 2h havebeenproposed(h = depth of

beam).Ilese magnitudesare basedon the connectiondata, obtainedfrom a total of

55 connection data sets.

Based on the data, ultimate moment magnitudesof 0.2Mp and 0.7Mp.

respectively, for the flexible to semi-rigid and the semi-rigid to rigid connection

strengthboundarieshave beenchosen.For the rigid connections,the ultimate bending

moment boundaryhigher than 0.7Mp, or perhapseven larger than the full Mp has

beenchosen.The latter value reflectsa designphilosophythat aims at having failures

occur away from the connectionregions.

The nondimensional.
ductility requirementhas beenrelated to the ratio of the

ultimate momentcapacityof the connectionto the fully plastic momentof the beam.It

2-17
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

end-point moment ratios of 0.2 and 0.7, and the initial stiffnessconnection valuesof

EI110h and EI12h, respectively. This gives the nondimensional ductility requirement

values of 2.7 and 1.2 respectively.

Classilleation adopted In (Eurocode 3, ENV 1993-1-1:1992 E) based on an

Euler instability criterion (Bijaard and Steenhuls, 1991): Generallya connectionis

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,

1991),illustratesthe relationshipbetweenthe relative rotation stiffness F and the ratio

betweenthe flexural stiffnessesof the beamand column p at a constantratio between

the Euler buckling loads of a frame with semi-rigid connections and rigid ones

PEW)
0.95 To be ableto classifya connectionaccordingto this diagram,the

moment-rotationrelationshipof the connection,and the geometryof the column and

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

unbracedand U= 25 for bracedframes),thereforeit is at least not to

necessary know

the length of the column.

Classificationof beam-to-columnconnectionsis given for steel connectionsin

steel ftarnes in (Eurocode3, ENV 1992

1993-1-1: E) as follows (Fig. 2.21):-

Bearn-to-columnconnectionsmay be classifiedby :-

rotationalstiffness

2-18
 momentresistance
The rotationalstiffnessof a beam-to-columnconnectionjnay be classifiedas:

nominallypinned

semi-rigid

rigid

A beam-to-columnconnection may be classified as nominally pinned if its

rotational stiffness Sj (basedon a moment-rotationcharacteristicrepresentativeof its

actualanticipatedbehaviour)satisfiesthe condition:

Sj: 5 0.5EIb I Lb

where Sj is the secantrotationalstiffnessof the connection

lb is the secondmomentof areaof the connectedbeam

Lb is the length of the connectedbeam

A beam-to-columnconnectionin bracedunbracedframesmay be considered

to be rigid comparedto the connectedbearnif the rising portion of its momentrotation

characteristiclies abovethe solid line on the appropriatediagramin Fig. 2.21.

If the rising portion of its moment rotation characteristic lies below the

appropriate line in Fig. 2.21, a beam-to-columnconnection should be classified as

semi-rigid,unlessit alsosatisfiesthe requirementsfor a nominally pinnedconnection.

With respect to the design moment resistance,beam-to-columnconnections

may be classifiedas

nominallypinned

partial-strength

fuH-strength

2-19
 A bearn-to-columnconnection 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.

A beam-to-columnconnectionmay be classifiedas full-strength if its design

momentresistanceMRd ý: MplRd providedthat it also hassufficient rotation capacity.

A beam-to-columnconnection should be classified as partial strength if its

design moment resistance MRd is less than MpIRd (see Fig. 2.2 1).

Euler Instability criterion (Bijaard. and Steenhuis, 1991): For the purposes

of the standardisationof connectionsit is desirableto classify a connection without

knowing the length of the beam.Bijaard and Steenhuis(1991) publisheda proposal

satisfying this aim. By assuminga specific ratio betweenthe beam length and the

beamheight (11h = 20 for bracedand l1h = 25 for unbracedframes),they achieveda

classificationsystemindependentof the length of the connectedbeam.Therefore, as a

further step, it should also be tried to eliminate the distinction between braced and

unbracedsystemsin the classificationprocess.The following proposalfits this aim.

Proposal Innsbruck (Tschemmernegg,1993): This proposal is independent

of the length of the connectedbeam and the frame system(braced or unbraced).A

boundarycurve, which is lying betweenthe two Bijaard proposalshas been assumed

and has beencalculatedaccordingto the Eurocode3 boundaries.The variable relation

11h for braced and unbracedfrarnesaccordingto the Innsbruck proposal, is a quite

reasonable,practical rangewith the advantageof having only one classification-curve,

but is only valid for a specificratio of beamlength to height (11h = 12 for bracedand

2-20
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
-

andleadsto different classification-curvesfor bracedand unbracedsystems.

Bearn-to-column connections In Eurocode 4 (Johnson and Anderson,

1993). Whereas Eurocode 3 gives detailed rules to classify such steelwork

connections,Clause4.10.5 of EC4 extendstheseto compositeconnectionswhere the

slab reinforcementcontributesto the tensileresistanceof the connection(i.e. when it

resistshogging bending).For this reason,Section4.10 of EC4 is restricted to braced

frames.

To non-dimensionalizethe classificationlimits, the propertiesof the connection

are comparedwith thoseof the connectedbeam.For the compositebeams,the design

plastic resistancemoments are generallydifferent in sagging and hogging bending.

Similarly, the flexural rigidity of the beam depends on whether the cracked or

uncrackedsectionis considered.

For classificationby moment resistance,the appropriatevalue of the design

plastic resistancemomentis that of the compositebeam'seffective sectionadjacentto

the connection.As in Eurocode3, a connectionmay then be classifiedas full-strength

or partial-strength,dependingon whether the resistanceof the connection is greater

than or less thanthe designplastic resistancemoment.

For classificationby rotational stiffness,clause4.10.5.2 permits the flexural

rigidity of the beamto be taken as the crackedor the uncrackedvalue, consistentwith

the approachused in global analysis.As the cracked value is lower, it is more likely

that a connectionwill be classifiedas rigid if this valueis used;with this classification,

the flexibility of the connectionis ignored.Ibis is appropriate,asthe crackedapproach

2-21
is the more accuratemodel of beambehaviourand therefore greater approximation

can be toleratedin the representationof the connection.

No detailedrules are given for the calculationof the three main propertiesof a

composite beam-to-columnconnection; moment resistance,rotational stiffness and

rotation capacity. Methods to predict these properties are not yet sufficiently well

establishedto justify inclusionin Eurocode4. However, attention is drawn to the use

of the rules in Eurocode3 for steelconnections,supplementedby considerationof the

slabreinforcemenL

2.3 Summary

This literature survey contributesa first step dealing with the knowledge of flexural

behaviour of semi-rigid beam-to-column connections in general and to precast

concretestructuresin particular.

It will enable the performance of the connections to be investigated

experimentally. This will allow the test results of the experimental work to be

comparedwith the relevanttestscarriedout by the researches.

The test results will be non-dimensionedand compared to the classification

system used in Eurocode 3 as being the only standard one and yet there is no

classificationsystemfor precastconcrete semi-rigid beam-to-columnconnections in

the Hterature.survey.

2-22
 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

(Comair and Dardare,1992)

Reference Connection Beam Subframe Loading

typ depth(mm) mode
TB 1 Billet 300 Single Reversible
TB2 300 sided do
TB3 600 no do
TB4 600 slab do
TWI Weldedplate 300 Monotonic
TW2 300 Reversible
TW3 600 do
TW4 600 do
TB5 Billet 300 Double Reversible
TW5 Weldedplate 300 sided do
TCL5 Cleat 300 no do
TC05 Corbel 300 slab do
TW6 Weldedplate 300 Double Reversible
with slab in-plane
TW7 300 Reversible
out-of-planej
Table 2.2: Scheduleof experimentaltests(Mahdi, 1992)

2-23
 Test No Experiment SWANSA % Error

1 1140.4 1801.0 ---

2 1939.1 1818.1 -6.2
3 1862.2 1737.8 -6.7
4 1704.9 1796.5 5.4

5 2042.8 2132.4 4.4

6 2023.6 1899.2 -6.1

8 2038.0 2086.1 2.4
Table 2.3: Experimentalandtheoreticalfailure loads(kN) (Virdi and

Ragupathy,1992)

Test No Experiment SWANSA % Error

7 180.1 238.5 32.4
Table 2A Experimentalandtheoreticalfailure moments(kNm) (Virdi and

Ragupathy,1992)

2-24
 -LOAD POINT
CL
m (A -
cr. cr.
ix 9) w -
CO ot

14-0 3 STIRRUPS
14-03 STIRRUPSdP3.5
V 3.5

IE,
42 IN 42 N
1
zi
(D

47-,; 7

8-1*8
1*3
GR So
4-06 04
lk
II IN IN
8EAM N
SPECIMENS
X 1. X2
3-07
:
z
4-07
03-4
4-06 6
LL GR 6G
3-06 04

14.25
BEAM COLUMN-
SPECIMENX3

Figure 2.1: Beam column subassemblage

usedby Durrani andWight (1985)

2-25
 7 r-,

d2b
d1b
Lc hb

AS1b
bb
in -4
SECTIONA-A
BEAMS SYMMETRICAL
ABOUT x-x AXIS
AA MSIC
sic s2c
aI

hc

d2C

dic
hc
SECTION B-B

Figure 2.2: Configurationanddimensionsfor the specimens

by EhsaniandWight (1985)

2-26
 *I

__ '
Th! _I_E]TT1
11i I
__
-----------
BEAM ANGLE SWED

COLUMN T

BOTTOM FIBER
ANCHORING

Figure 2.3: Joint detail usedby Pillai andKirk (1981)

drypack --]-, 111 11-5:2-#3

! 410-#3
[3 @9-C-C Four 1/2' dia
270 k strand
ELEVATION

V,
ýý, PL 1/2x7x6

-PL 1/2x6xll7/8

2-#9 ASTH A7061 I ft 1

4-1121 hockded
Grade 60 robar studs

END DETAIL SECTION

Figure 2.4: 71e PCI connectionB C-15 details

2-27
 140

120

I'VIO

80
4-'

E
6O

40

20

. 1 1
0.004 0.006
0 0.002
Rotation (rad)

Figure 2.5: Moment-rotationbehaviourcurve for connectionBC 1

Comair and Dardare(1992)

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

Figure 2.6: Moment-rotationbehaviourcurvesfor the tests

de Chefdebienand Dardare(1994)

2-28
 precastbearn

precastcolumn

(a] singlesidedbe=-colu= [b] doublesidedbeam-column

hollow cored II ffisitu concrete

slab ffifill.

::

[c] doublesidedbeam-colunm-slab doublesidedbe=-column-slab

(d] out-of-plane

Figure 2.7: Test arrangementby Mahdi (1992)

2-29
 250 Moment (KNm)
200

150

100

Relative rotation (rad.) * E-04

-200, - -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250

-250

-100
U."Bir

.ISO
a) Beam 1

250 Moment (KNm)

200

ISO

100

so
Relative rotation (rad. ) * E-04

-250 10 5 100 50 . 100 150 200 250

-200 .1 .5 Alk50

-100

. 150

b) Beam 2

Figure 2.8: Moment rotation datafor testTW6

I Mahdi (1992)

2-30
 A l=
mm

DETAIL A

100 mm

CASE 1 CASE 2

Figure 2-9: Loading casesfor subframetests

Virdi and Ragupathy(1992b)

SEE
DETAIL A

KýO
LOCATING CLEAT

LOAD BEARINGBILLET

DETAIL A

Figure 2.10: Connectiondetailsfor test CT6

Virdi and Ragupathy(1992b)

 CT6
40,000

E
E
z

Z 30,000
ui
m
0
m

20,000

10,000

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

ROTATION (RAD.)

Figure 2.11: Moment-rotationcharacteristicfor the connectionusedin test CT6

Virdi andRagupathy(1992b)

2-32
 RCE

R
150 280 150

580

FORC

ko-

Figure 2.12: Test series I (Tampere)

Figure 2.13: Test series2 (Tampere)

2-33
steel pipe, fil
with concrett

steelpart of
column

Figure 2.14: KP-connector (Tampere)

Bolt sleeve Grout hole

Figure 2.15: Typical details of a sleeved bolt beam-to-column connection

Mohamed and Jolly (1995)

2-34
 z

E
0

0246a 10 12
Rotation: mrad

Figure 2.16: Moment-rotationcurvesfor the testsin seriesA and B

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 rý- SM1 SM2 4.5

4) SAI SA2
.... 0... SBI SB2

20 30 40
10
Deflection(mm)

Figure 2.17: Load-deflectioncurvesfor Groups I and 2 modelsunder static loading

LOOand Yao (1995)

2-35
 E
so defform
C3 1 ""ation criterion
'Jjoaaddýcrriterion
j' ""
uitimatee
40
1
FINELG LG
30

20

10A

----------- P
02468 10 12

a) Portal frame with rigid column bases

a
5(

3(

2C

V
P--------------P
02468 10 12

b) Portal framewith pinnedcolumn bases

Figure 2.18: Classificationcriteria andcomparisonwith FINELG Briquet et al (1994)

0. ý

0.
d

0.:

eq
10 20 30 40

Figure 2.19: Deformationclassificationcriteria and FINELG resultsfor multi-bays

framesBriquet et al (1994)
2-36
 IC
I :

aF = 0,95. FE(;
E(c) . 00)

\ unbracedframe
304-

20

10
braced 7Weýý
fra,
0 12 '4 '6 10
p

Figure 2.20: Relationshipbetween6 andp

Bijaard and Steenhuis(1991)

2-37
 M Full strength
1.0- vRi
Rigid
gid
Rigid

0.8

o.G Partial strength

0.4-
I
0.2 I ..... j --wego
---*: to#
Pinned
-Fre-xible
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-

0.6- Partial strength

0.4-
Senii-ýigid
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

Figure 2.21: EM recommendedclassificationboundariesfor rigid beam-to-column

connections

2-38
 CHAPTER 3

ANALYTICAL STUDY

3.1 Stability analysis of precast structures

by the
Undercertainconditionsthe maximumloada structurecancarryis determined

stiffnessof the structurenot by the strengthof the material.Ite conditionis obtained

at stressesbelow the elasticlimit andis calledelasticstability.An exampleof such

conditionsis Eulercolumnbuckling.The analysisrequiredto determinetheseloadsis

calledelasticstabilityanalysisandresultingloadsarecalledcritical or bucklingloads.

The analysis is independentof materials, providing the moment curvature

of themembers
characteristics arerecognised.

Precast concrete skeletal structures are designedusing pinned-jointed

connections between beams, columns and floor slabs. The stability of unbraced

structuresmay only be provided by cantileveraction of the columns becausetransfer

of bendingmomentsis not permittedinto the beamsor slabs.This gives rise to large

Swaydeflectionsand second- order P-A bendingmomentsin columnsof 3 or more

storeysin, or about 10 m to 12 m, heightfor columnstypically, 300 mm in Size.

BS8 110 allows a precastconcreteframe to be analysedas though it were a

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-

3-1
column connectionsused in precastframes,this arbitrary approachis neither rational

nor representativeof real behaviour.

Considerthe standardbeamas shownin Figure 3.1(a), and the beammodified

by a semi-rigid connectionof rotational stiffness J at the end of the beam in Figure

3.1(b). The rotational stiffnessof the standardbeamis :-

4Eblb
ýH = Eq. 3.1
0 Lb

with the presenceof the the

semi-rigidconnection samemomentis applied to the LHS

of the semi-rigid connectionso that the total end rotation is given by :-

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 semi-rigid

connection. This modified relation can be used to representa beam with semi-rigid

connectionin a frame analysis(seeFigure3.1(c)).

(M) EcIc
Lc ý,
= TbIb + Eq. 3.3
(M )Eq Ks
0 3.2 Lb

3-2
By combining the stiffnessesof the beamAND the connection in one equation, the

framestiffnessfunction a is modified to a' where

(1
ajp=a + 71-) Eq. 3.4
S,;

For example if the column-to-beamstiffnessratio is a=0.5, and the connection

stiffnessis Ks = 0.6 (say), then the effect of the semi-rigid connectionis to increase

the apparentstiffnessof the column to a' = 1.33,thus increasingthe column effective

length factor 0 (see Eq. 3.6 later). Adopting a value of 10 for this function for every

situationin precastconstructionis clearly unreasonable.

Extending this simple analysisto full 2-d, and even 3-d 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

componentsmay be consideredaseither linear-elasticor non-linear(reflecting yielding

of the steel bars), and the connectionscan be consideredlinear-elasticwith infinite

strength, or non-linearwith finite strength.In all casesmaximumcolumn loads, and

hence 0 factorsare obtainedfor given valuesof a and K.

.
If linear-elasticcomponentsare specifiedthen the resulting value 0
of may be

usedto compute Madd accordingto BS 8110,Part 1, clause3.8.3.

If non-linearcomponentswith linear connectionsare

specified, the computer

program will give column bendingmomentswhich will replacethe BS 8110 method.

3-3
This is because second order P -A effects are built into the program, and Madd is

givenimplicitly.

If non-linearcomponentsAND connectionsarespecified,the program not only

determines P -A effects but also checks for the finite strength of the connection

Mcon. This is a very important designconsiderationbecauseif Mcon is greater than

Madd, the P-A moments may be distributed into the beam, and need not be

successivelyaccumulatedto the foundation as in the present practice when pinned

connectionsare used.

Thus if the strength, stiffnessand moment curvature characteristicsof the

-
beam and column componentsare known, and the Mcon-ý characteristicsof the

connection are either measuredfrom tests or calculatedfrom design equations, the

frame may be designedto allow for the effectsof non-linearityin the componentsand

connections.These effects may be studied in the realistic range to determine the

importanceof eachparameteron frame design.

In the context of the presentwork, stability implies generalstability, i. e. if a

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

functions that enablethe memberstiffnessmatrix equationsto be modified to include

the influenceof axial load on bendingstiffness.

It is therefore possible to study the elastic stability of frames and obtain the

elastic buckling loads,maximumloadsat large lateral deflections,(and henceeffective

3-4
lengths)of simplesub - framesin which the stiffnessof the beams,columnsandjoints

are varied in the realistic rangeof typical concretestructures.

3.2 The definition of effective length

'ne critical loadsfor columnswith variousend conditionscan be relatedto the critical

load of a pin-endedcolumn through the concept of effective length factor which is

commonlyusedin design.This can be expressedin terms of an effective length factor

0:

Le = OL Eq. 3.5

Here Le is the effective length, L is height of the column and P is calculatedfrom

the buckling load of the frame (Gregory, 1967)as :-

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.

The effective length factor 0 is a major parameterin the design of columns.

Codes of practice have adopteddifferent criteria for determiningthis parameter.The

structural steelworkcodeBS 5950 (1985) regardsthe 0 asa quantity dependentupon

whetherthe column is effectively held in position andrestrainedin direction at its ends.

The code also specifies 0 ratio for columnsin multi-storey beam-columnframes by

3-5
using the limited framemethodappliedonly to rigid joints for the bracedand unbraced

situations.

The structural concretecode BS 8110 (1985) specifiesequationsand provides

for
simplified recommendations the P
calculationof dependingon the relative stiffness

of the rigidly connectedelementsat the endsof the column. It specifiesintermediate

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.

The American code AC1318 (1990) provides equations for calculating P

using a similar approachto that of BS 8110.

3.3 Method of analysis

The sub-framesshown in Figure 3.2 were analysedusing the computer program

(Gfttin, 1992) (mountedon a 486 seriesPC) with the rotational and axial stiffnessof

the beams and columns calculated for the uncracked section. The linear - elastic

rotationalstiffnessof the beam-column

connectionswas specifiedas follows:-

(a) Ks = IxIO-9; to simulatea pinned-joint.

(b) lxlO_9 < Ks < 10; to simulatethe semi-rigidjoint stiffness*

(C) Ks = lxI 09 ; to simulatea fully rigid joint

* except Ks = 0.1 in frameFl.

The computerprogramanalysisstartswith zero axial forces in all members,giving the

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

3-6
and the final displacements and rotations, member end forces, and bending moment

distributionsare determined.

If the value of frameloadsare known beforehandthe output from the program

gives memberaxial forces, shearforces, and bendingmoments,and joint deflections

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

components.This is given when the sway deflectionsincreasewithout bound. In this

casea small lateral disturbance(force or displacement)is given to the frame to induce

sway.

3.4 Assumptions of parametric study

i) - One of the fundamentalassumptionsof the present work is that there is

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

disturbance(80 =I mm displacement)is given to the frame to induce sway. See Fig.

3.3.

Ile presentwork focuseson the problemof in-planebuckling becausethe

associatedstiffnessis the flexural stiffnessof the membersandconnections.

iii) - The critical loads is designatedPcr at which the frame becomesunstable

and the lateral deflectionsof the membersincreasewithout bound.SeeFig. 3.3(b).

iv) - The present work assumesthat at failure the stressesin the structure

remainelasticandthat the effect of changesin the geometryof the frame on the failure

load (secondorder analysis)is takeninto account.

3-7
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

beamsat eachconnectionon the bucklingcapacityof a multi-storey structure a linear-

elastic analysiswas carried out to determine P factors in the single-storeysub-frames

which would representthe common situation shown in Figure 3.2. The sub-frames

wereasfoRows:
Fl representsan upperfloor unbracedsub-frame.

F2 representsa groundfloor unbracedsubframewith rigid foundations.

F3 representsan upper floor unbracedsub-framein which only one of the

columnshasa rigid foundation

Thesesub-framesF1 andF2 were chosenbecausethey are compatiblewith the

standardcasesfor determining0 of columnsas presentedin BS 8110, Part 1, clause

3.8.1.6.Sub-frameF3 was selectedasbeing intermediatebetweenFl. and F2.

The valuesgiven in BS 8110 are due to Cranston(1972) in which the degree

Of restraint provided by the connectingbeamwas expressedin terms of the factor a

but assumingrigid joints. Cranstonconsidereda range of ccvalues between 0.0 and

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

abovesub-frames.For this reasona=0.001 was usedto simulatecc = 0. Using rigid

joints the sub-frameF1 was comparedwith solutions given by Mahdi (1992) and

3-8
Cranston (1972). The sub-frame F2 was compared with a solution given by Mahdi

(1992) and Timoshenko(1961).

The next task was to replacethe rigid connectionswith rotational springs in

the ends of the beams(not in the columns)in order to observethe effects of semi-

rigidty of connections.The resultscould thenbe usedto map both the influenceof Ks

and a as definedabove,on P factors. A rangeof valuesfor Ks was used as shown

in Table 3.1. As it can be noted that the minimun values of K. used 0.1 for Fl,

becausethis frameis unstablefor K. = 0.

The resultsarereportedon and discussedin Chapter4 and are given in Figures

4.1 to 4.9. Curvesdrawn for the column effective length equationsgiven in BS 8110,

Part 2, clause2.5.5 are alsoshownin thesefigures for completeness.

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

Table 3.1: K. and a valuesusedfor F 1, F2 andF3.

3-9
mB Ic
'I
Beam
Mb
mc
0
M --:Mb + Mc

30

(a)

0 --2Ob+e
(b)

ri
j
B C
Beam
0
r

(c)

Figure 3.1: Implication of semi - rigid joints

3-10
 Figure 3.2: Types of precastframes(a) unbraced(left) and partially braced.

P PP PP P

Beam2 Beam2 Beam2

Sub-frame Sub-frame Sub-frame

Fl F2 F3

Ks rigid Beaml
BearnI

simple support Lb=Lc

Figure 3.2(c): Definition of sub-ftamesusedin the analysis.

3-11
 4,ä.L

(a)

Pcr

50 = initial disturbance

(b)

Figure 3.3: Deformation of sway frame

3-12
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR

EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTOR FOR SWAY FRAMES

4.1 Results

4.1.1 Variations In column effective length factors for rigid connections

Comparingthe results obtainedfrom this work and those calculatedusing BS 8110,

Part 2 equations5 and 6. Figures4.1,4.4 and 4.9 presentthe results for the variation

in 0 with a assumingMy rigid connections.Note that in the caseof sub-frameFl,

ccI -ý172, where ocI and OC

2 are the relative stiffnesses
of the column to the lower and

upper beams,respectively.In sub-frameF2, (xI=0 becausethe foundation is rigid.

There is no equationin BS 8110 to dealwith sub-frameF3. The resultsin Figures 4.1

and 4.4 show that the code equationsare in good agreementwith analyticalresults for

0< cc < 2, and conservativethereafter.It is postulatedthat an equationfor sub-frame

F3 may be taken as the meanof the equationsfor F1 and F2. The results suggestthat

the codeequationsmight be modified for valuesof cc> 3.

4.1.2 Variations In column effective length factors for send-rigid connections

Figure 4.2 showsthe resultsfor the variationsin 0 with (x for selectedvaluesof Ks

and Figure 4.3 with Ks for selectedvaluesof a in the upper storey sub-frameFl.

4-1
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

Figure 4-3(a) for values of Ks < 2.

Figures4.5 and 4.6, and Figures4.7 and 4.8 show similar sets of results for

selectedvaluesof Ks and cc for sub-framesF2 and F3, respectively.As expectedthe

values of 0 in the ground floor sub-frame F2 converge at P=2.0, and are

independentof (x The correspondingvalue in F3 is 0=2.7. A major

. sub-frame

differencebetweenthe upper floor (M) the ground floor (F2) sub-framesis the more

rapid decreasein 0 with Ks in the upperfloor sub-frame.This is becauseF3 contains

four semi-rigid connections,(although one of them is located adjacent to a rigid

column foundation) whereasF2 contains only two. Also, F3 has eight degreesof

freedomwhereasF2 has only six. This result has obviousimplicationsfor frameworks

containing a small number of bays in the plane of bending, say 2 or 3, where the

number of semi-rigid connections is disproportionately large to the number of

columns. The variation in a does not appear to have any major influence on the

behaviour of the various sub-framcsonce the effects of changesin Ks have been

removed.

4.2 Parametric equations

Subtractingthe value of 1.0 from all the data and normalisingthe results with respect

to a, the variation in 1/0 with Ks is primarily linear and marginally quadratic. A

4-2
simple analysisof a right angledknee-joint (comprising one beam and one column

connected by a semi-rigid rotational spring) will show that the effect of the semi-rigid

connection is to modify the relative stiffness of the membersfrom a to a' (see

Eq.3.4).

For exampleif a=0.5 and Ks = 0.6 (say), then the effect of incorporating a

semi-rigidconnectionis to increasethe apparentstiffnessof the column to (x' = 1.33,

thus increasing 0 according to the results in Figure 4.1. 'Ibus, the influence of the

connectionstiffness Ks is paramountin the presentparametricequations,whilst that

of a is of lesserinfluenceover the rangestudied.The influenceof Ks on 0 is greater

for values of Ks <2 than when Ks > 2, and therefore separateequations are

presentedto caterfor the differencesin behaviourat thesepoints.

Referring to Figures4.2 and 4.3, the data for the upper storey sub-frameFl

be by
may approximated using the following empiricalrelationship(derived in GbrgUn

(1996)and subsequentlymodified) :

+, + for 0.1:5 Ks :52 Eq. 4.1(a)

0.2+10. OKs 0.3+1.8Ks-0.45KS2

1- (X for 2< Ks: 5 10

M+ Eq. 4.1(b)
7.4 + 7AKs - OAK + 0.3Ks
s2+1.6

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

4-3
equation, then 0=1.40. This shows that equating a semi-rigid connection to a rigid

connectionin an equivalentframe underestimates0 for theseparticular parameters.

Referring to Figures4.5 and 4.6, the data for the ground floor sub-frameF2

may be given as:

cc for 0.15 Ks :52 Eq. 4.2(a)

+1 + -4.0
2.0 + 2.OKs + 4.OKs2 + 0.5Ks

0=1+ 1a ++O. for 2< Ks: 5 10 Eq. 4.2(b)

8.6+ 8AKs - OAKS2 3.9 qKs

Referring to Figures4.7 and 4.8, the data for the upper storey sub-frameF3 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+

To demonstratethe full parametricvariations,the three selectedvaluesfor (x show the

trendsclearly. The dashedlinesin Figures4.10 to 4.12 show the plots of the proposed

parametricequations.Resultsare presentedonly for valuesof Ks :52 for the reasons

outlined abovein Section4.1.2.

4-4
4.3 Discussion

The primary objective of the parametricanalyticalstudy has beento observeboth the

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.

It has been establishedthat where column effective length factors P are

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 sub-frame

in a
anincrease
iii) a decreasein Ks .

In the context of precastconcreteframe connections,where full scale experimental

results indicate valuesof Ks between0.1 and 3.35 [Chapter 11] it is significant that

for valuesof Ks <2 the influenceof connectionstiffnesson P is much greater than

that of the relative stiffnessof the frame members,particularly in sub-frameF1 where

all connectionsare semi-rigid (seeFigure 4.3). In the sub-framescomprising at least

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

4-5
maximum benefit in obtaining reductionsin 0 with greater connection stiffness wiU

accruein upper storey sub-frameswhere Ks < 1, and in the ground floor sub-frame

where Ks < 0.5.

The results obtainedfor the upper storey in the partially bracedsub-frameF3

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

(which can be appreciatedfrom the designrules given in BS 8110, Part 2 equations5

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

equal storey heights). However the true manner of induced

slenderness deflections

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.

4-6
 pp

FKs ýLl
C12
3 -a%-Beam 2
ra Sub-frame
Fl
1+0.15

« cl + a2) K. Beam 1 xs
C',
Bs8110 simple support

-2

0 Present

- BS8110]

2 3
(X
a,.,: al, =a2

Figure 4.1: Comparisonwith BS8110 using Fl with fufly rigid joints

P P
Kg
02
15
ni 2

)rame m
E

Ni al
10
support

C:L

0iII,
05
10
a
(X ý OC Cc2

Figure4.2 (a): Variationin Pfactorwith 0.001z!

5 cc :5 10for upperfloor sub-frameFl

4-7
 p p

Is a2
6 --411
2

-ame

iupport

CO.

0iiiII
012
a
C4 ý_-a2

Figure4.2 (b): Variationin 0 factorwith 0.001 :5a<2 for upperfloor sub-frameF1

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 sub-frame Fl

4-8
 p p
Fics
02
10
12
0
rame

C',

support

cm-5

0iii
012

Ks

Figure 4.3 (b): Variation in 0 factor with 0.1:5 Ks !ý2 for upper floor sub-frameFl
PP

a2
1.8 Beam 2
1+0.15 E Sub-frame
1 0 F2
BS8110 U
1.6 rigid
***ý
al

ýý 1.4

1.2
BS8110
Present

1.0-1
0 234
Cc

Figure 4.4: Comparisonwith BS8110 using F2 with fully rigid joints, where al =0

4-9
 p P

2.0 a2
Beam 2
Sub-frame E
F2
1.8 C.?
rigid
cli
1.6
Ks=O

0 KS=O.
l
1.4
40 KS-0.5

13 Ks. 1
1.2
A Ks--4

+ Ks-1E9
1.0-4
0 5 10

Figure 4.5 (a): Variation in 0 factor with 0.001 :!ý cc :r. 10 for sub-frameF2

P P

2.0 a2
Beam 2
Sub-frame
E
F2
1.8
rigid

1.6
a K$=O
C,:L
40 KS=O.
l
1.4
40 Ks--0.5
13 Ks-I
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 sub-frameF2
_-ý

4-10
 pp

10 ------ a2
Beam 2

Sub-frame r=
F2
1.8
rigid

1.6

en
w--lo
CC7-5
1.4
a=2
13 w-- I
1.2
*
a;=0.5
*
1.01 m=0.2
0 246 10
Ks * CC=0.001

Figure 4.6 (a) : Variation in 0 factor with 0 :5 Ks 10 for sub-frame F2

p P

02
2.0 Beam 2
Sub-frame
F2

rigid

1.6
10
cc--
cm

1.4
m=2
13 a= I
1.2
" a;=0.5
" a;=0.2
1.0-t
012a; I
=0.00
Ks

Figure 4.6 (b):Variation in 0 factor with 0: 5 Ks 52 for subframeF2

4-11
 p
ICS
3 a2
Beam 2
Sub-frame
F3 E
=

A. S Beam 1
'al
m KS=O
CM
0 Ks=O.
l

0 Ks-I
KS=2

KS-10

m MAO

0 10

(y' -ý Ct1 ý--(y

Figure 4.7 (a): Variation in 0 factor with 0.001 :5cc:5 10 for sub-fi-ameF3

p p

s ic'I F
-- 401 111
2
3
Beam 2
Sub-frame
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 sub-frame F3

4-12
 P
, iýB
(12
3 Beam 2
Sub-frame
F3 E

Beam I
IctI

a,=5
-

m=1
a=03
a;=Ol
a; =0.001

0 4 Ks 6 10

Figure 4.8 (a): Variation in P factor with 0: 5 Ks: 5 10 for sub-frameF3

p p

Fics
U2
3 BeaM2
Sub-frame
ri F3

Beam 1
al

4 a--5
-
x ct;--2
0 ov--1

U=02

0 1
Ks

Figure 4.8 (b): Variation in P factor with 0: 5 Ks 52 for sub-frameF3

4-13
 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

Figure4.9: Variation in column effectivelengthfactor 0 with frame stiffnessa for

rigid joints

77-

5 Analysis
,
Equation

a=2
LAAA.

a=l

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Ks

Figure 4.10: 0 factors vs Ks :52 for selectedvaluesof cc in sub-frameFI

4-14
 2.5--

Analysis
2 Equation
eln

1.5--

0.5-

+
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Ks

Figure 4.11: P factorsvs K. :52 for selectedvaluesof a in sub-frameF2

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

Figure 4.12: 0 factors vs, Ks :52 for selectedvaluesof a in sub-frameF3

4-15
 Deflected column profile

1. Small restoring
.

Level N x
cq
11

Figure 4.13: Behaviourof a partially bracedframe, (a) discretecolumn deflection

profiles (left), (b) column deflectionprofiles in a frame environment(right)

4-16
 CHAPTER5

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME FOR FULL SCALE FRAME

CONNECTION TESTS

5.1 Introducdon

The main aim in the full scale precast concrete frame connection tests is the

determinationof the moment-rotationM-0 of the most common

characteristics

typesof beam-to-columnconnectionsusedin the precastconcreteframesin the UK as

shown in Figure 1.1. From these characteristicsit will be possible to abstract the

rotational stiffness, bending strength and ductility of the correspondingconnections

and hence their effects on the stability of these frames. Becausecurrently, beam

connectionsare rated and identified by their shearcapacityonly, a sheartest TW I (B)

was carried out after the bendingtest TW I (A) was completedto ensurethat the shear

resistanceof the entire connectionwas satisfactory.

In this project study it is hopedthat the connectionscan be identified not only

by theirshearcapacitybut alsoby theirrotationalstiffness,flexuralstrengthaswell as

ductility.

The contribution of thesemain characteristicsof the connections(also referred

to as joints on completion) to frame behaviourunder gravity cycling loading is well

studied in braced (nonsway) precast concrete frames where the precast concrete

5-1
connectionsare subjectedto hoggingbendingmoments.For this reasonbracedframes

were consideredin the presentstudy.

Consider the masterbracednonswayskeletalframe shown in Figure 5.1. All

beamsare loadedequally.The joints in this frame may be classifiedaccordingto their

locations,as those requiredto connectbeamsto internal columns,subframeSF1, and

those required to connect beams to external columns, subframe SF2. Tberefore two

separateinvestigationsarerequiredon internal andexternalsubframes.

The subframesSM and SF2 can now be shownseparately,as in Figures5.2 to

5.5. The length of the beams,and hence the position of the bending load P was

selectedto representthe point of contraflexurein a uniformly distributedloadedbeam.

Assumingthat the maximumbendingmomentis recordedat the face of the column,

the shear span/ beam effective depth ratio for the load is 2365 / 400 = 5.91. The

effective depth to the 2T25

reinforcement, tie bars, is 500 - 100 = 400 mm. The lever

arm distanceat 2.365 m was kept constant,eventhough it will changewhen plasticity

is reached in the connection. The subfrarne SFI (essentially symmetrical) was

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 1-1. As can be seen the overall

dimensionsof thesesubframesindicatethat they are full scaletests. It is important to

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

5-2
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

schedulewas organisedso that the relationshipbetweenthe momentsand shearforces

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

further the full scaletests.

Four seriesof experimentaltestswere carriedout asfollows

* Test series1 includedthree testsCIW I (A), TW I (B) and TW 1(Q) on double sided

full scale(internal) subframeSM assemblages

with (TWI(A) and TWI(B)) including

floor slabs and (TWl(Q) without floor slabs as shown in Figures 5.2 to 5.4 and

incorporatingtwo way weldedplate connection(Figure 1.1(a)).

e Test series2 included one test ('IW2) on single sided full

slab-beam-column scale

(external) subframeSF2 assemblageas shown in Figure 5.5 incorporating three way

welded plate connection(Figure 1.1(b)).

* Test series3 included three tests (TB I (A), TB I (B) and TB 1(Q) on double sided

full
slab-beam-column scale(internal) subframeSFI (TB
assemblage I (A)) as shown in

Figure 5.2, and double sided in-situ-beam-columnsubframesas shown in Figures 5.6

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 slab-beam-columnfull scale

(external) subframeSF2 assemblageas shown in Figure 5.5 incorporating three way

billet connection(Figure 1.1(d)).

5-3
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 In-situ infill only
Test 7 [TB I (C)I' Billet Double sided In-situ infill only
4 Test 8 [TB2] Billet, Single sided Hollow core
TW = Welded plate.TB = billet.

* sheartest. ' flexural test with shortlength components

Table 5.1: Scheduleof full-scale frameconnectiontests

In the tests,the subframeswere subjectedto vertically appliedbendingloads at

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

columns,300 x 300 mm beamsspanningin x-direction, and 200 mm deephollow core

floor slabsspanningat right anglesto the beams.The in-situ concreteinfill placedover

the top of the beams gives a composite floor beam section 500 mm deep. The

compressivecube strength for the precast beam,column and beam-to-columnjoint

2, 2,
concreteand grout is specifiedas 40 N/mm for the slabas 60 N/mm and for in-situ

concreteinfill overthetop of thebeamsas30N/mm2.

5-4
5.2 Details of bearn-to-column connections

Ibe beam-to-columnconnectionsthat use steel inserts at the beam end and at the

column to transferload are consideredin threeparts(I Struct E, 1978):-

0 asa columninsertalone,transferring
loadto theconcreteof thecolumn

0 asa beam-enddetail, transferringload from the concreteof the beam,and

0 asa totality, with insertsfrom the beamandcolumnjoined together,and the

joint completed

Ibe way in which the connectionis assembledand completedaffects the choice of

inserts.Methods of calculationfor someof the more commonlyusedinsertsare given

in the I Struct E Manual (1978). In most casesbeamshearforce is transferredthrough

direct bearingbetweenthe inserts

The welded plate and billet beam-to-columnconnection(to be referred to as

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

the beamand a projectingwide sectionsolid steelbillet insert embeddedin the column

(seeFigure 5.10, Figures5.11(a), (b) and (c) andPlate5.1).

The designmethodis usedwherethe projectingplate cannotbe fully contained

in the depth of the beam(seeFigure 5.12(a)). Typical applicationsare in the ends of

the precast parts of compositebeams.It is located on the vertical centre-line of the

beam(seeFigure 12(b)).Shearreinforcementin the beamis carried through to the end

of the beamso that the insert is well containedby links. The links project above the

precastsection, and the precastbeamis proppeduntil its in-situ topping has reached

an adequatestrength.The main tensionbarsin the beamare taken through to the end

5-5
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

the column and is weldedusing20 mm fillet weld (seeFigure 1.1(a) andPlate5.5).

Welding the steel insertsrequiresskilled labour and is a special operation to

ensurethat weld cooling doesnot causepermanenttwist in the precastmembers.

The connection(the 100 mm gap betweenbeamand column) is subsequently

filled up to the top level of the beamwith nominal fcu = 40 N/mm2 strength in-situ

concreteusing 10 mm aggregatewithout additivesand is now called a joint (Plates5.6

and 5.7).

The bolted billet beam-to-columnconnection (to be referred to as billet

connection) (seeFigures I. I(c) and (d)) comprisesa simply supportedconnection in

which a cast-in 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

an anglecleat bolted to the columnface (Plate5.18). The whole connection,including

the inside of the RHS, is subsequentlygrout filled. The expandingagent 'Tricosal"

(I% of cementweight) is usedto reduceshrinkage.

The design of the column RHS billet is based on the method outlined in

I Struct E (1978) and is basedon the assumptionthat the load is transmitted by

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)

studiedthe influenceof reinforcementon the bearingcapacityof the Met. In the same

study a seriesof teststo examinethe shearcapacityof steel billets of various sections

cast into the columns with different reinforcement details wag studied. It was

5-6
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

one third of the column width.

5.3 Design and manufacture of precast concrete test components

Geometricand reinforcementdetailsof the column, around the billets are presentedin

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

required to accommodatethe typesof wide sectioncolumn insertsunder investigation.

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

allow the passageof continuing longitudinal in

reinforcement test series 1 and 3, and

two M16 dia, cast-in 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.

Geometricaland reinforcementdetailsof the beamsfor welded plate and billet

connectionsare presentedin Figures 5.12 and 5.13, respectively.The ends of the

beamsconnectedto both sidesof the column vary in accordancewith the requirement

of casting in a standardbeamconnectionplate of 278 kN (Bison literature reference

5-7
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

concrete respectively,using BS 8110 simplified stress block). The design ultimate

(y and calculatedultimate (y ) shearresistancewere 250 and 312.5

m=1.25) m=1.0

kN, respectively

The cross section of the slabs, reinforcement details, and continuity

reinforcementare presentedin Figure 5.14(a), (b) and Figure 5.15, respectively.The

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

5.9) to permit the placementof reinforced(T12 transversebars) in-situ concreteinfill.

The thickness 200 mm. of the slabs representsthe most widely used thickness in

precastconcrete structures.The slab units contained33 no. 5 mm diameter crimped

prestressedwires. 'ne ultimate design sagging moment and shear resistanceof the

slabswere 125.6kNrn and 162.10kN, respectively(Bison literature reference).

5.4 Horizontal ties for building Integoty

The specific requirements relating to ties in precast concrete structures are given in BS

8110, Part 1, clause5.1.8. Tie passingthrough precastcolumns (double sided tests,

5-8
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

practical difficulty of forming thesesleeves.This meansthat the width of the beam,

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

frame stability, and not for the solepurposeof thesetests.

The tie steel was designedaccording to BS 8110, Part 1, clause 3.12.3.4.2

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.

Thus, the basictie force Ft is --

Rt =(20+4no)=(20+4x5)=4OkN/m Eq. 5.1

where no is the numberof storeysin the structure,and the modified tie force Fl' (to

allow for larger spansand greaterfloor loads)is given by :-

(9k + qk) Ir (5+5)6

Ft'= - F - 40 = 64 kN/m run Eq. 5.2
7.5 5 t= 7.5 5

5-9
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 -

-. Use 2 no T25 bars (982 mm2) shown in Figure 5.15.

.

Note: yf = 1.0for this situation

5.5 Concrete mixes

10 mm single-sizedTrent River Valley coarse(gravel) uncrushedaggregatespecified

in Table 3 of BS 882: 1992 were used in all the test carried out. The fine aggregate

consistedof uncrushedsand complying to medium grading zone of BS 882: 1992

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.

5-10
 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

A5.2.4 in Appendix 5.2, togetherwith correspondingslumpvalues.

5.6 Test rig

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

alignedperpendicularto the test subframes.Both of the tic back framesare capableof

carrying 600 kN working load at the centre of the horizontal 250xl5Oxl6 RHS cross

beambetweentwo 152x76xlOchannel-stanchions.
This was calculatedon the basisof

the availablenumberof the holding down bolts. Vertical bendingloads at the free ends

of the concrete cantilever bearnsof the test subframeswere applied incrementally

through hand operatedhydraulicjacks and measuredusing 200 kN capacityelectrical

resistanceload cells. The jacks were clampedto the cross beamsas shown in Plate

5.12. The beamswere loadedso as to provide in-planebendingonly and to keep the

continuouscolumn in a vertical plane.This inducedthe correct bendingmomentsand

shearforcesin the connectionsby keepingthe lever arm constant.

Two semi-roller load spreaderswere used undemeaththe load cells to make

surethat the positionsof the appliedloadswerekept constant.

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

5-11
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

(seeFigure 5.5) in test series2 and4.

5.7 Test procedure

The column was lifted vertically usinga craneand a pin passingthrough the top sleeve

of the column. It was placedon to the strong laboratoryfloor on smooth castingface.

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.

The column was permanentlybracedagainstin and out of plane movementsto

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

"Acrow SGB" props (two for eachplane).Four lOOxlOOx5x9OO

mm long RHS were

usedto supportthe props to transfertheir loadsacting on to the laboratory floor.

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

5-12
correct horizontal position (see Plate 5.12) before welding the ends of the beam

unclampedto prevent twisting during the welding of welded plate connections.The

beam connections were welded to the column connections using the fillet weld

(NOVOF IL 70 SG2,1.2 mm wire) madeusingcoveredelectrodescomplying with BS

639 and steel complyingwith BS 4360 obtainedfrom Table 36 for mild steel. (It was

carried out by a professionalwelder from the EngineeringFaculty Workshop.) The

welding was done slowly to preventtwisting becauseof high temperatureduring the

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

twisting (out of plane) before welding. The imperfectionswere re-measuredafter

welding, and the maximumimperfections(twisting) were about 7 and 8 mm for the

beams1 and 2, respectivelyin test series1. The throat thicknessesand the leg lengths

welds were measuredusing weld measuringapparatusand a small steel ruler in the

narrow connectionregions(seeAppendix 5.4).

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 bearn-to-columnjoints were concretedusing mix proportions presentedin

Table A5.2.1. Plate 5.7 shows the joints after completion. They were concreted

without vibrating, but tampedcarefully.

Two plastic tube sleevespassingthrough the column were removedand 2T25

(grade460) longitudinaltie barswith steelstraingaugeson werepassedthroughthe

5-13
open sleevesand were placedover the bearns.The bars were tied to the shear links

projecting from the beams.New measurements

were taken after positioning the bars,

i. e. centre distanceof the bars from the top of the beams.It was not possible to

measurefrom the top of the beams.Owing to somecastingproblemsthe top edgesof

the beamhad a 25 mm wide rebate,which reducedthe bearing distancebetweenthe

slab units and the beamsfrom 75 mm to 50 mm. The bottom edgesof the beamswere

used as reference points to measurethe distancesrequired. Plate 5.8 shows the

location of the 2T25 tie barsand steelstrain gauges.

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 slab-to-slabjoints and sides of the column at the bottom level of the slabswere

mouldedto castslab-beam-columnin-situ concrete.

The transversereinforcementas placed into the openedcores of the slabs as

shownin Figure 5.15 (seePlate5.10).

The construction was completedfilling the gaps betweenthe slabs, over the

top of the beamsand around the column usingthe slab-beam-columnin-situ concrete,

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).

Testing dateswere detenninedby the cubestrengthof the in-situ concrete.

The samegeneralprocedurewas foRowedfor the remainderof the tests.

5-14
5.8 Instrumentation and measurement

Figure 5.17(a) presentsthe layout of the different measuringinstrumentsthat were

14
usedin tests

Tle functions and locationsof the instrumentsusedare presentedin details in

TablesA5.3.1 to A5.3.5 of Appendix 5.3.

The importantmeasurements
were:-

(a) Vertical deflectionsof the beams

(b) crack width 8T at boundariesof the slab,beamandcolumn

(c) compressivedeformation8B in the compressionzone

(d) strain in the tie barsin the tensionzone

(e) strain in the concretein the compressionzone

For one of the main tests e.g. test TWI(A) twenty deflection transducers

(potentiometric type), called "POTs", were used to measurethe vertical deflections,

crack width and compressivedeformation.AH of the offsets were measuredat the

beginningof eachtest after the attachmentsof the POTswerecompleted

Six 30 mm concretestrain gauges(type: PL - 30-11, gaugeresist: 120 ±3Q,

gauge factor: 2.12) and ten 10 mm steel strain gauges(type: FLA - 10-11, gauge

resist: 120 ±3 fl, gaugefactor: 2.13) as shown in Figures5.17(b) and (c) were used

to record the strains.

All signalsfrom thesensors recordedusinga model3535D

wereautomatically
Scorpio data logger. The signals were then linearized by inputting the respective

calibrationfactors (the load cells were calibratedbeforecarrying out the tests) for the

varioussensorsinto the data logger and the resultswere displayeddirectly in the units

5-15
of millimetre for POTs and kN for the load cells. ne data logger was linked to an PC

and operatedusing the proprietarysoftware,Scorpio through Windows. This package

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

softwarepackageExcel (version5.0) throughWindows.

5.9 Material testing

5.9.1 Reinforcement

For the stability tie bars for eachtest, two T25 x 1000 mm.long hot-rolled deformed

high tensile bars were cut at random from the lengths used in the tests. They were

tested in accordancewith the requirementsof BS EN 10 002-1: 1990 for the yield

stressand elastic modulus in the 2000 kN INSTRON 8500 testing machine.Results

for four test seriesare presentedin Table A5.4.1 in Appendix5.4.

5.9.2 Tle rods

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

out using a ZWICK 1484testingmachine.Resultsarepresentedin Appendix 5.4.

5-16
5.9.3 Concrete

Slump testing (to BS 1881, Part 102) was carried out to ensure unifonnity of

workability of the mix. The desiredslumpmeasurement

for precastunits is between50

and 100 mm. Actual results are given in Tables A5.2.1 to A5.2.4 in Appendix 5.2.

Compressivestrengthtests (to BS 1881,Part 116) were carried out on 100 mm size

cubeswhich were cast simultaneouslywith the beamand column specimens,and with

the infill concrete.The strengthof the latter were usedto dictate the testing date. AJI

resultsare shownin Tables5.2 to 5.5.

5.10 Prediction of collapseload

The predictedcollapseload was calculatedaccordingto the simplified stressblock of

BS 8110 : 1985with safetyfactor y,, taken as 1.0 using the internal forces inducedin

the connectionsat the column face. The maximumhogging bendingmoment of the

connectionswas predicted at the column facesfrom the internal forces presentedin

FiguresA5.4.1 and A5.4.2 in Appendix5.4 as:-

For weldedplateconnectionwith slabs:

x 10,
0.67fcub

5-17
 x is the depth of the stressblock (mm), from the condition of internal forces

to be in equilibrium (see Appendix 5.4).

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

thicknesswas measuredon completionof the welding.

fcu is the actual compressivecube strengthof beam-to-columnjoint concrete

at test day (Nlmm2)

b is breadthof the section= 300 mm

The predictedmomentwas found as--

Mpred = Ft' 400 - -L x 10-3 + Fwl 200 -1 x), 0-3 in (kNm) Eq.5.2
2)2

For weldedplateconnectionwithout slab:

Ft
X=-
0.67fcub

Mpred = Fwt 200 -1x 10-' Eq.5.3

2)

For billet connectionwith slabs:

X=0.67fcub X10

5-18
 (300
Mpred = Ft(400 - -1 x 10-1 + P, -1 X)IO-3 Eq.5.4
2)2

where

P is the shear force in the tie rod tested

S

fcu is the actual compressivecube strengthof beam-to-columnjoint grout at

day (N/mm 2)
test

The predicted moments were calculated in this way by substituting

corresponding Ft, Fwt and Ps values in the relevant equation above for each test

reducing to a function of fcu. The calculatedpredicted momentsare presentedin

Tables 5.6 to 5.9. with Ft, Fwt, Ps and fcu values.

The predictedcollapseload was found as:-

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

face of the column to the centreof the appliedload.

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

concrete(assumingperfectbond) was assumedthat they were equal up to failure.

5.11 Test monitoring and loading history

Each test was monitored by the Eveplotting of the appliedbendingload versuscrack

opening, beam-to-columnjoint compressivedeformation, and concrete and steel

5-19
strains.The performanceof the connectionwas viewed on a PC monitor using the live

resultsduring the loading.

The loading schemewas aimed at simulatingthe cyclic action of the gravity

force on a precast concrete skeletal frame. Ibis action causes hogging bending

momentto the bearn-to-columnconnections.

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

underneathof the free endswere removedto recordthe initial deflections.

The bending load was applied in four reversible cycles prior to loading

monotonically to failure. The cyclic tests were performed to measurereductions in

stiffnesswith increasing damage.The first three cycles (three cycles were chosen as

being the least number)were appliedin incrementsof 5 kN up to 30% (Mahdi, 1992

showedmajor changesin behaviourat about 30% of ultimate load or moment) of the

predicted failure load (see later Figure 6.1). The fourth cycle was applied to 50%

(Behaviour when normalisedwith respectto ultimate valuesthere is a marked change

at about 0.47 x ultimate load or moment(Minutes of 4th ConcreteStructuresWorking

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

deflectionsindicatedthe onsetof non-linearity,the load incrementswere reducedfrom

20 to 10 then 5 kN in the last cycle. Betweenany two successiveincrementsa visible

check was carriedout on cracksin the critical zonesof the subframe,and the stroke of

5-20
 the POTs andjacks. Where thesewere exceededa scanwas taken and the appropriate

POT was resetfollowed by a further scanand the resumptionof the loading.

It was decided to measurethe flexural stiffness of the connections at the

bendingmoment in the connectionsat the face of the column Mcon ranging from 30

and 50 per cent of the Mpred. Theselimits havealso beenusedat TampereUniversity

of Technology (Finland). Because the stiffness decreaseswith an increase in moment,

the moment at which the stiffness has been determined should always be stated.

Repeatedloading and unloadingreducesthe effect of the tensilestiffnessof the floor

slabswhere cracks occur at low loads and give an artificially low stiffnessso that the

moment-rotationcurve on second,third, fourth and final loading exhibits only small

%. curvature.
The test procedure was to apply load incrementsuntil the joints were not

capableof supportingany further bendingload.

5.12 Calibration of load measuring equipment

Load cells were calibratedin the DennisonM/C testing machinewhich was in turn

calibrated for accuracy and certificated to National Physical Laboratory Standards

annuaUyby an independentTestingOrganisation.

5P-21
 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

Table 5.2: Specifiedand averagecompressivecubestrengthsin test series1

Specifiedcube Actual cubestrength(N/mm2

(28 day) (at testing)
TW2
strength(N/mm2
Column 40 57.3
Beam I (Readymix) 40 44.5
---
L bearns 40 56.1
Upstand 40 53.3
Beam/columnjoint 40 45.0
Slab/bearn/column
in situ 30 39.3

Table 5.3: Specifiedandaveragecompressivecubestrengthsin test series2

5-22
 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

Column 40 38.3 38.7 38.7

Beam 1 40 50.3 52.0 48.4

Beam 2 40 48.4 52.0 48.4

Beam/column grout 4 46.4 51.9 51.9

_joint
Slab/beam/column in situ 30 27.8 32.4 32.4

Table 5A Specifiedand averagecompressivecubestrengthsin test series3

Specified cube 2
Actual cube strengt1i (N/mm
(28 day) (at testing)
2 TB2
strength (N/mm

Column 40 45.4

Beam 1 (Ready mix) 40 34.2

L beams 40 34.2

Upstand 40 34.2

Beam/column joint grout 40 41.8

Slab/bewn/column in situ 30 38.7

Table 5.5: Specifiedandaveragecompressivecubestrengthsin test series4

5-23
 Mpred Ft' Fwt fcu

(N/mm 2
(kN m) (kM- (kN)
1
TW1(A) 309.84-2599.59- - 526.91 495.36 45.4
fcu

TWI(B) N/A 526.91 495.36 45.4

(99.07
TWI(c) - 610.40 'ý N/A 495.36 45.0
7c-)
u
Ft' tensileforce in stability ties (tested)

Fwt tensileforce in fillet weld (measured)

fCU cube strengthof joint concrete(on test day)

Table 5.6: Predictedmomentsof the connectionsin test series1 usingsimplified

stress block in BS 8110 and forces, Ft' and Fwt, given in the table

Mpred Ft' Fwt fcu

(N/mm 2
(kNm) (kN)
(294.00-2402.09
TW2 -I- 487.31 495.36 45.0
fcu

Table 5.7: Predictedmomentof the connectionin test series2 usingsimplified

stressblock in BS 8110and forces, Ft' and Fwt, given in the table

5-24
 Mpred Ft' PS fcu

kNm) (kN ) (kN ) (N/mM2)

_(
(219.34 )
TB 1(A) - 809.98 481.56 89.07 46.4
fcu
1)
TB 1(B) 236.34-935.12 - 524.06 89.07 51.9
fcu
(221.22 )
1TB 1(C) - 823.34-L 486.25 1 89.07 1 51.9
fcu 1

Ft' tensileforce in stability ties (tested)

ps shearforce in the tie rod (tested)

fCU cubestrengthof joint grout (on test day)

Table 5.8: Predictedmomentsof the connectionsin test series3 usingsimplified

stressblock in BS 8110and forces, Ft' and P., given in the table

Mpred Ft' PS fcu

(kNm) (kN) (kN) (N/MM2)

(220.45
TB2 - 817.86 484.33 89.07 41.8
fcu

Table 5.9: Predictedmomentof the connectionin test series4 usingsimplified

stressblock in BS 8110andforces, Ft' and P., given in the table

5-25
 q

(a) Masterframe showinglocations

of connetionsin subrames

(b) Bending moment

in actual subframe

(c) Loading regime

usedin tests

(d) Bending moment

in test subframe

Lever arm usedin thesetestswas x=2.515 m. The difference

betweenthe parabolicBM diag. aboveand the triangular one used

in the test is slight.

Figure 5.1: Location of connectionsin the moment resistingframe

Cý

5-26
 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.
C-4 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)
------

Ogg -loot, 0ou" 098

ON

5-27
 f-

C)
C)
0 W) rA
iD
CD cq

0001

JE3

vi CD
*m

1-1
Ci

C14

kk1.
9Z6 -I 00C"MI

5-28
 10
oooz

0-1

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

5-29
 OOOZ

C
C
>

LLI
CD
Q

CA
u
E
N
_Z

L"

kkL.
M OOfX
oof

5-30
 C)
kil)
Ic

ri
©
©©
CC
(N

oc

'1515

Figure 5.5(a): Front elevation of subframe SF2 with floor slabs

for test series 2-TW2 and test series 4-TB2

lIV) 17,71-N C
-7-7

Figure 5.5(b): Plan view of subframe SF2 with floor slabs

5-31
 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
5-32
 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

5-33
 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

5-34
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

117-cl
#
ozi

5-35
 95

Sleeve
D50
PmE)
150
150
I
A-A Test series I- TWI
lOOxlOOx480
Solid billet

2 Sleeves
ID50

235 for 10OX10OX190 JION100040

REIS Solid billet Solid billet
CA A
billets
A-A Test series 2- TW2

F
cl .
&.
0
> C)
0 W) (14

80
21

B9 .3V, - .
2MI6 - B 0
Cast-in-sockets
A-A 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
A-A Test series4- TB2
.3r

CD
e

Figure 5.10: Geometrical details of column .är

-1 2M 16 r
Cast-in-socketsý

B-B
5-36
 12-04-U
'S
IT12-02 link
C&40 01 01
130 04
" q 04
AL 02-
rSleeve -03
ID 50 5T12-02 links
0 50 c/c 04 04
200 01 ot
5T12-03 links
@ 50 c/c
A-A

185

II .- C 05
2T12-02 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
B-B
I 100
1=11 11 lOOxlOOx480
olid billet
75
_ _4T16-05.,
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
C-C

1851 Test series 1-TWI

8 Details vary dependingon
r connection.SeeFigures
5.11(b), (c), (d) and (e)
200 for front elevation

130

Figure 5.1I(a): Reinforcementdetails of column

5-37
 1 10
100 C' , 12 Sleeves

75
.3 C,
kn,
c
1 O-H ID50

75 J
lOOxlOOx480
100 100
'I Solid billet
75
.3Ir kn r, I -4T16-05
links
75;
f0
I -r
loo

Plan on billet

castin
socket
M16

Front elevation

Figure 5.11(b): Reinforcementdetails in the column aroundthe billet

in test series I-TWI

5-38
100

75 )OXIOOX190 05
Aid billet r-
75
L01
100
1
[fl
11
-1
I LLjr
1-
1-
W
75" -1
[6-05 01 01
75 Is

100

lOOxlOOx340
Solid billet Plan on billet

Front elevation

Figure 5.1I(c): Reinforcementdetails in the column aroundthe billet

in test series2-TW2

5-39
 4T25-01 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 M-05
go li nks
50 .3Ir
J
50 r
50
Plan on billet
cast
in soc
M16

Front elevation

Figure 5.1I(d): Reinforcementdetails in the column aroundthe billet

in test series3-TB I

5-40
 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
T-O,
10OX10OXIO
I nc 200 long Plan on billet
Casi RHS billet
Sod

Front elevation

Figure 5.11(e): Reinforcementdetails in the column aroundthe billet

in test series4-TB2

5-41
 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

5-42
 tn

cj
C)
2
rn
rý

ý-2 w
Z; 0
CD

ON

5-43
 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 r-i Q

L"

4--) C)

5-45
 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

5-46
 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

5-47
 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

5-48
 -4
LTý
C/)

4.

cis

cz

W;

oz
.0

iz

5-49
 ++

++

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

5-50
 0

.0
'U
-
.L.

.im

,Z
--00

"0

009Z
tz:

5-51
 CA

Cl)

10
CA
ce 0
tz

ce U

5-52
 4. t
CD

1U
91

4-
"0 ý
10

(U
lu

40.

iz
V-1
vý

ýc
co

Cf)
CD CD
c1t, v)
C14 M
1-4
.L

Cf) N
0
rA Ln
C14
5
2
ýL4

%.wo

m
.0
4- 44

01

5-53
 moor '4M

um

"o

42'

E
u

Cd
Qý

5-54
Plate 5.2: Standard beam connection plate

5-55
 II
Plate 5.3: Beam reinforcement with standard beam connection plate and special links

5-56
,x:

I-VON''

fl
Plate 5.4: Column with bracingsagainstsideswaymovements

Ii

Plate 5.5: Welded plate connectionsafter welding

5-57
 0-1()

Plate 5.6: Castingjoints concrete

ffiq

Fkl

Plate 5.7: Joints concrete after casting

5-58
Plate 5.8: Location of stability tie bars with steel strain gauges for subframe SF I

Iw.
V.'
li

Plate 5.9: Subfrarneunderconstruction

5-59
Plate 5.10: Subframereadyto castslab-beam in
-column situ concrete

Plate 5.11: Generalassemblyin StructuresLaboratoryfor testseries I

5-60
Plate 5.12: Mechanisims at the free ends of the beams

5-61
Plate 5.13: Location of stability tie barswith steelstrain gaugesfor subframeSF2

Plate5.14: Generalassemblyin StructuresLaboratoryfor test series2

5-62
 do

'Ai

Plate 5.15: Column reinforcement with RHS billet

Ti

Plate 5.16: Beamreinforcementfor boltedbillet connection

5-63
 Plate 5.17: Constructionof bolted billet connnectionin test series3

Plate 5.18: Column connecting angle (connections ready for grouting)

5-64
Plate 5.19: General assembly in Structures Laboratory for test series 3

Plate 5.20: Constructionof subframein test series4

5-65
 Plate 5.21: Connectionsreadyfor grouting in testsseries4

Plate 5.22: General assembly in Structures Laboratory for test

series 4

5-66
 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS OF FULL SCALE FRAME CONNECTION TESTS

6.1 Calculation of moment-relative rotation and stiffness

6.1.1 Calculationof moments

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

bendingstresses,was calculatedby multiplying the magnitudeof applied bendingload

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.

The initial bendingmoment of the connection Mi due to self weight of the

componentswas calculatedusing the samelever arm and the magnituderecorded by

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

were ignored to be on conservativeside and not involved in calculating actual (test)

valuesof thejoint Mcon or Mu and not measuredin the rest of the tests.

6-1
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

column as shown in Figure 5.17(a). They measuredthe vertical deflections (e.g.

"POT14" meansthe deflection measuredby POT no 14) of the beams and joints

relative to the column including sheareffects. Sheardeflections are thus eliminated.

The deflectiondivided by their respectivedistances(actual distances)from the column

facesproducedthe requiredrelative rotationsasfollows:-

For the beam 1 (B I) side:-

(POT14
Ml BI Vl: e= ý Eq. 6.l(a)
9-0

(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)
300-110 )

Ditto for the beam2 (B2) side.

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 in-situ, beamsand column.They measuredthe crack openings8T and

6-2
compressivedeformations8B in thejoints relativeto the column (seeFigure 5.17(a)).

This method assumesfull shearinteractionbetweenthe floor slab and the beam. The

requiredrelative rotationswere producedasfollows:-

For the slab 1 (S1) and beam I (B 1) side:-

(POT2+POT10)-(ST+8B)
M2Sl: ý= ) Eq.6.2(a)
500 )-ý 5-00

where 8T (mm) is the crack openingat the top of the slab I recordedby POT2

8 (mm) is the compressivedeformationin thejoint recordedby POT10

500 (mm) is the actualvertical distancebetweenstrokesof PO'12and POTIO

POT6 + POTIO) (8 +8B )

M2 BI: 0=j =rT Eq.6.2(b)
260 260

where 8T (mm) is the crack opening at the top of the beam I recorded by POT6

260 (mm) is the actualvertical distancebetweenstrokesof POT6 and POTIO

Ditto for the slab 2 (S2) and beam2 (B2) side.

The rotations 0 were then used in the presentationof the moment-relative

rotation (Mcon -0) graphs.The sideswayof the column in and out of the plane of

bendingwere ignored due to the symmetricalloading of the beams,equal span slabs

and the way of measuringdeflection, becausethe POTs measuredthe deflections

relative to the column itselL

6-3
6.1.3 Calculation of stiffnesses

The rotational stiffnesses, J (general), were calculated from the slope of the

Mcon -0 curve on the basisof both tangentstiffnessand the secantstiffnessof the

chord of the curve. Each loading and unloadingcurve was analysedusing regression

analysis.Cycle 1 has five different estimatesof rotational stiffness J as follows (see

Figure 6.1(a)):-

a) Before cracking

(1) T'heinitial tangentflexural stiffnessJu which is the slope of the Mcon-0

,

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

the same curve in (1)

b) After cracking

(3) The tangentflexural stiffnessJc which is the slope of the Mcon-0 curve
,

from the Mcr to the peakmomentof the cycle Mpeak

(4) The flexural stiffnessof unloadingcurve Junj

(5) The secantflexural stiffness J., which is the slope of the chord of the

Mcon -0 curve from the beginningof the cycle to the Mpeak

For the second,third and fourth cycles Jc and Js were calculatedfrom the

beginning of reloading Mcon-ý curves to the peak moment of the corresponding

cycle Mpeak. For the last cycle, C5, Jc was calculated up to a moment value at

which the slopeof the graphdecreased

rapidly (seeFigure 6.1(b)).

6-4
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

at boundariesbetweenthe slabsand column and betweenthe beamsand column in the

caseof the test incorporatingfloor slabsand in-situ concrete,and betweenthe beams

and column only in the case of the test TWI(Q. Moment versus compressive

deformations8B in the joints, concreteand steelstrains ge and relative rotations 0

,

of the joints are also presentedgraphica.

Hy. Where necessarythe behaviourduring the

loading cycles 1-3 is enlargedand presentedseparately(as Figure(a)) before each of

the corresponding results to failure (as Figure (b)). The latter do not show the

unloadingcycles and are derived by the sequentialsuperpositionof peak values.This

enablesa full picture of the behaviourto be realised.

6.3 TestseriesI

6.3.1 Test TW1(A)

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

compressivedeformations 8B in the beam-to-columnjoints for the double sided

welded plate connection.Theseresultsshow the relative displacementswhich induces

the relative rotations betweenthe slabsand column, and the beamsand the column.

The displacementsare a measure of the elastic and plastic deformation of the

connection as a whole and representa releasein concrete strain in tension, which

6-5
increasessteel strains at the cracked section, the compressivestrain generally, and

strain in the joint concreteparticularly

Calculated moment versus concrete strains in compression in the precast

beams, and steel strains in bars A and B are presentedin Figures 6.4 to 6.6,

respectively.They definelimits of the strainsin thejoint zone.

Figure 6.7 shows vertical displacementprofiles along each of the beamsfor

in 5
selectedvaluesof moment cycle only. The gradientsof these plots enablebeam-

to-column 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

sheardeformation)would give the relative rotation of the beam-to-columnby dividing

the relative deflectionsof the sensorsby their relativeoffsets(seeSection6.1.2 for MI

BI V4). This is the relative rotation commonlyusedin many computer programs,i.e.

SWANSA, by ignoring the length of thejoint elementand assumingthe rotation of the

joint takesplaceat its centrewhich variesaccordingto the type of the connection,i.e.

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

depth of the beam(h = 300 mm).

The derived moment versus relative rotation graphs obtained from the two

methodsdescribedin Section6.1.2are presentedin Figures6.8 to 6.10. Figure 6.1I(a)

presentsthe tangent loading and unloadingstiffnessesJ calculatedusing Method I

for V4 only for both beams.Figure 6.11(b) presentsthe stiffnessescalculated using

6-6
Method 2 for both slabsand beams.The solid lines and dashedlines are used for the

loading and unloadingstiffnesses,respectively.Ibe solid symbolspresentbeam 1 side

and open symbols beam 2, respectively.

Typical damaged zones for this test are presented in Plates 6.1 to 6.4. (The

notation refers to applied target incrementload P in kN. It was convenientto mark

cracks at the applied target incrementload P they observedduring the tests. It is

important to note that (a) the recordedP valuesare slightly different from the marked

P values,i.e. the abovemarkedP= 15 kN has beenrecordedas 15.5 kN for beam I

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

cracks are a clear indication of unconfinedconcretecompressivefailure in the in-situ

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

to those predictedare also presented.The tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnesses;

of

6-7
the connectionsfor each cycle in TWI(A) from the Methods 1&2 are presentedin

Tables A6.1.1 to A6.1.2 and the secantflexural stiffnessesare presentedin Tables

A6.1.3 to A6.1.4 in Appendix 6.1 with correspondingrelative rotations and calculated

K. (see Eq.1.1) valuesfrom the secantstiffnessesin cycle 5. Details for calculating

Ks valuesare given in Chapter7.

6.3.2 Test TWI(B)

This test was carried out after the bending test, TWI(A), to ensure that the shear

resistanceof the entire connectionwas satisfactory.The ultimate experimentaldesign

resistancepreviouslyobtainedwas 278 kN. With known distancesof the applied 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

pinnedjoints, at the centreof the column respectively.

The test was stoppedafter a satisfactoryshearresistanceV= 300 kN of the

connection was achieved.The reasonfor stopping the test was to prevent damageto

the precastbeamsand column for re-usein the flexural beamtest TW 1(C).

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

presentedin Plates6.5 to 6.10.

6-8
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

characteristicsof the connectiondue to the absenceof theseitems.

Figure 6.13 presents moment versus crack opening at boundaries of the

beamstcolumn.The moment versus compressive deformations in the joints are

presentedin Figure 6.14. Vertical deflectionsprofiles are presentedin Figure 6.15.

The reasons for the apparent reversals in deflections within the joint zone are

explainedin Chapter7 (Section7.4.3).The moment-rotationcharacteristicsof the two

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

are presented in Tables A6.1.6 to A6.1.8 as in TW I (A).

6.4 Test series2

6.4.1 Test TW2

Referring to Figures 6.20 to 6.21, thesegraphsrepresentthe moment Mcon versus

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

compressivedeformations8B in the beam-to-columnjoint for the single sided welded

plate connection.

6-9
 The momentversusconcretestrainsin compression,and steel strainsin bars A

and B are presentedin Figures6.22 to 6.24, respectively.In addition to the concrete

compressivestrain gaugeSG1 in test TW I (A) two more concretestrain gaugesSGIb

and SGIc were usedin the compressionzoneat interfacebetweenthe end of the beam

and adjacentface of thejoint andat the centreof thejoint, respectively.

Figure 6.25 shows vertical displacementproffles along the beam for selected

valuesof momentin cycle 5 only.

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

stiffnessesfor loading andunloading.

Typical damagedzonesfor this test are presentedin Plates6.13 to 6.17. Plates

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

right hand comer of thejoint (Plate6.15) to indicatethe extent of the concretetension

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

presentedin Tables6.1. The tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessesof connections

for eachcycle in TW2 from the Methods 1&2 are presentedin Table A6.1.9 and the

secant flexural stiffnesses,are presentedin Table A6.1.10 in Appendix 6.1 with

correspondingrelative rotationsandcalculatedKs values.

6-10
6.5 Test series3

6.5.1 Test TB1(A)

Figures 6.29 to 6.30 representthe moment Mcon versus crack opening 8 T, at

boundaries of slabs and column, and beams and column, and Mcon versus

compressive deformations 8B in the beam-to-column joints for the double sided billet

connection. There is no compressivedeforrnationvalue after cycle I in beam 2 side

due to a fault in POT9.

Calculatedmomentversusconcretestrainsin compressionin the precastbeams

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

mrn far from the column face.

Figure 6.34 shows vertical displacementprofiles along each of the beam for

selectedvaluesof momentin cycle 5 only. POT18failed to recorddeflections.

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

stiffnessesfor loading and unloadingcalculatedfrom the Method 1 for V4 for beam2

(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

sab 2 and beam2 due to a fault in POT9).

6-11
 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

concretecompressionzoneandthe final position of the neutralaxis, i.e. about 160 mm

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

flexural stiffnessesfor tangentand unloadingof connectionsfor each cycle from the

Methods 1&2 are presentedin Tables A6.1.11 to A6.1.12 and the secant flexural

stiffnesses are presented in Tables A6.1.13 to A6.1.14 in Appendix 6.1 with

correspondingrelative rotations and calculated Ks valuesfrom the secantstiffnesses

in cycle 5.

6.5.2 Test TBI(B)

Figures 6.38 to 6.39 representthe moment Mcon versus crack opening 8 T, at

boundariesof slabs(in-situ)andcolumn,andbeamsandcolumn,and Mcon versus

compressivedeformations8B in the beam-to-columnjoints for the double sided billet

connection.

Calculated moment versus concrete strains in compression in the precast

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).

6-12
 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,in-situ infffl topping

andjoints. Flexuralcrackshavebeenmarkedon the top of the beamsand in the joints

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

presentedin TablesA6.1.16 in Appendix6.1 with correspondingrelative rotations and

calculated K. values from the secant stiffnesses in cycle 5

6.5.3 Test TB1(Q

Figures 6.45 to 6.46 represent the moment Mcon versus crack opening 8 T, at

boundariesof slabs (in-situ) and column, and beamsand column, and Mcon versus

compressivedeformations8B in the beam-to-columnjoints.

The momentversusconcretestrainsin compressionin the precastbeams,and

steel strainsin barsA andB arepresentedin Figures6.47 to 6.49, respectively.

Ile momentversusrelativerotationcurvesobtainedfrom the Method2 (the

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

flexural cracks initiated at 80 kN in cycle 4 at the horizontal interfacebetweenthe in-

6-13
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

stiffnesses are presentedin Tables A6.1.18 in Appendix 6.1 with corresponding

relative rotationsandcalculatedK. valuesfrom the secantstiffnessesin cycle 5

6.6 Test series 4

6.6.1 Test TB2

Figures 6.52 to 6.53 representthe moment Mcon versus crack opening 8 T, at

boundariesof slab and column, and beamand column, and Mcon versuscompressive

8B in thebearn-to-column
defonnations, joint for thesinglesidedbilletconnection.

Calculatedmomentversusconcretestrainsin compressionin the precastbeams

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

selectedvaluesof momentin cycle 5 only.

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

loading and unloading stiffnessescalculatedfrom the Method I for V4 for beam I

side. Figure 6.60(b) presentsthe stiffnessescalculatedfrom the Method 2 for both slab

1 and beam 1.

6-14
 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

crack is a clear indication of unconfinedconcretecompressivefailure in the part of the

beamcovering the joint grout (seePlate 6.30 right). A summaryof the test results is

presentedin Table 6.1. The tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessesof connections

for each cycle from the Methods l&2 are presentedin Table A6.1.19 and the secant

flexural stiffnessesare presentedin Table A6.1.20 in Appendix 6.1 with corresponding

relative rotationsandcalculatedK. valuesfrom the secantstiffnessesin cycle 5.

6-15
 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
lo-I 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

tn rl: q t, en V) C14 IC 10 Irl, ItT ON

u 00 r- od C-i c'; r-: r-:
en V) t- r- ttl a s 00 00 00 r- r-

(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)

-%d 0-1 8 t- m C,4 ON

In 0 00 - - -
0
,3 -t
u g "i
r-
,R ell
r-
n
tn
I
vi
W-1 r
ýý C14 c"I r--:
c
I
r- C:) "
09
r-
R -t-ý cr-i r-:
od W)
0 ý6-t
V) V') W) in

-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)

0-1
-W en 00 0 C ON - NO 8 00 8 C oc
C,4 ýc
% - 0 0 % tn
9
:z Q. C-i 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 C-4 t-ý
(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
C-4

E5

-
k E- E-

6-16 -
 Ee

Ocr Ounl Opeak

Relativerotations0 (rad)

Figure 6.1(a): Actual momentversusrelative rotationcurve at which flexural

stiffnesseswere defmedfor cycles 1-2

I
I Olud Oend Ou Of

Relativerotationsý (rad)

Figure 6.1(b): Actual momentversusrelative rotationcurve at which flexural

stiffnessesweredefinedfor cycle 5

6-17
 80
70
60
50
ý
40

30 Sl
20 S2

10 -o-Bl
-o- B2
ý=ý I
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Crack opening&r (mm)

Figure 6.2(a): Moment versuscrack openingat slab/columnand beam/column

boundariesin TW 1(A) for cycles 1-3

250

200
Ei

150

100 0 Sl

o S2
50 -o-BI
-0- B2
0.
468 10 12 14
Cmckopening&r (mm)

Figure 6.2(b): Moment versuscrack openingat slab/columnand beam/column

boundariesin TW I (A)

6-18
 250

200 -ø-B2

150

loo

50

0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0
Compressivedeformation8B(mm)

Figure 6.3: Moment versuscompressivedeformationin joints in TW I (A)

250

--w-Bl SG1
200
-a- B2 SG3

150

100

50

04-
-3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
Concretestrains(gp-)

Figure 6.4: Moment versusconcretestrainsin beamsin TW I (A)

6-19
 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)

Figure 6.5: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar A in TW I (A)

250

200

150

oB SG1
100 B SG2
-o-
B SG3
50 B
B SG51

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Steelstrains(ge)

Figure 6.6: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar B in TW I (A)

6-20
 0

-0.1
-0.2 Joint-io-column:

-0.3 rotation gradient:

0.4 to-c 17
,Bearn-to-column
tatl
ptationIn gradient
ffa M1BIV
tM:
-0.5 end of
beam aM= 25.42 kNrn
-0.6 face of A
M= 48.03 kNrn
-0.7 column M= 72.59 kNrn
-9-
-0.8 Joint M= 96.04 kNm
-0.9 M= 120.08kNrn
-1
0 100 200 300 400

Lengthof thebeam(mm)

Figure 6.7(a): Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beamI in TWI(A) with various

momentlevel

-0.1
-0.2 Joint-t6-colunm:
-0.3 rotationgradient:
Beam-to-colurnn
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 ý-colurnn 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)

Figure 6.7(b): Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beam2 in TW I (A) with various

momentlevel

6-21
 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)

Figure 6.8(a): Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam I in TWl(A) using method I

for cycles1-3

250

200

150

loo
-*-M1B1V1
-x-M1B1V2
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)

Figure 6.8(b): Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam 1 in TW 1(A) using method 1

6-22
 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)

Figure 6.9: Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam2 in TW I (A) using method I

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)

Figure 6.1O(a):Moment versusrelative rotationsin TW I (A) using method 2 for

cycles 1-3

6-23
 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)

Figure 6.1O(b):Moment versusrelative rotationsin TW 1(A) usingmethod 2

6-24
 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

30%Mu 30%M. 31%M. 50%M. Failure

0
ul uz LJ LA U5

Cycle no

Figure 6.11.(a): Tangentandunloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in beamsin

TWI, (A) using method 1

6-25
 500
TWI(A) Method 2
TANGENT VALUES

450

400

350

300
l=
LIJ

250
mi
P2 unload

200 ý_S2 unload

Bi foad

2 load
150

100
unload
Sf týfl-&F
:BI load S1load
50

30%Mu 30%Mu 31%Mu 50%Mu Failure

0 cl U2 uj U4 L;.:)

Cycleno

Figure 6.11(b): Tangentandunloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in slabsand

beamsin TW 1(A) using method2

6-26
 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)

Figure 6.12: Applied shearload versusreactionof the connectionin TW I (B)

6-27
 80
70
60
50
40

,'E 30
20
B1
10
B2
0
2 4
Crack opening 8T (MM)

Figure 6.13: Moment versuscrack openingat beam/columnboundariesin TW I (C)

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.)

Figure 6.14: Moment versuscompressivedeformationin joints in TW I (C)

6-28
 0

-0.01 I
-0.02
-0.03 r
Lo
2 0.04
L
end of
-0.05 be-a-m 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)

Figure 6.15(a): Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beam 1 in TWl(Q with various

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

Length of the beam (mm)

Figure 6.15(b): Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beam2 in TW I (C) with various

momentlevel

6-29
 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)

Figure 6.16: Moment versusrelativerotationsin beamI in TW I (C) using method I

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)

Figure 6.17: Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam2 in TW I (C) using method I

6-30
 30

25

20

15

lo
5 e M2 BI
-o- M2 B2
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002

Relative rotations0 (rad)

Figure 6.18(a): Moment versusrelative rotationsin TW I (C) using method 2 for

cycles 1-3 for both beams

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

6-31
 50
IW I (C) Method 2
TANGENT VALUES

40
BI unload

B1 load

30
v
B2 unload
'A
B2 load

20

10
2,

35%M. 35%M. 56%M. Failure

_34%M.
0 Ul UL %-3 %.,(+ U-3

Cycleno

Figure 6.19: Tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in beamsin

TW I (C) usingmethod2

6-32
 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)

Figure 6.20(a): Moment versuscrack openingat slab/columnboundaryin TW2 for

cycles 1-3

160
140
120
100
80
60
U 40
20 I

0
2468 10 12 14 16
ST (mm)
Crack operäng

Figure 6.20(b): Moment versuscrack openingat slab/columnboundaryin TW2

6-33
 160
140
120

100 m B11
80

60
:5-ý 40

20
0
-0.65 -0.55 -0.45 -0.35 -0.25 -0.15 -0.05
Compressivedeformation8B(mm)

Figure 6.21: Moment versuscompressivedeformationin joint in TW2

160
140
120
100
80
60
40 III SG1
20 Ill SGlb (Interface)
x BI SGIc (Joint)
0

-3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0

Concretestrains(gE)

Figure 6.22: Moment versusconcretestrainsin beam 1 in TW2

6-34
 160
140

'rR 120
loo
80
60
El
40

20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Steelstrains(p)

Figure6.23:Momentversussteelstrainsin barA in TW2

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)

Figure 6.24: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar B in TW2

6-35
 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)

Figure 6.25: Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beam 1 in TW2 with various

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

Relative rotations0 (rad)

Figure 6.26(a):Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam 1 in TW2 using method I for

cycles 1-3

6-36
 160
140
120
100
80
60 -x-MI 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)

Figure 6.26(b): Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam I in TW2 using method I

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)

Figure 6.27(a):Moment versusrelativerotationsin TW2 using method2 for

cycles 1-3

6-37
 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)

Figure 6.27(b): Moment versusrelative rotationsin TW2 using method2

6-38
 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

4ý%M,, 45%M. 45%Mu 74%Mu Failulre

0
Ul uz U. 3 U4 C5

Cycle no

Figure 6.28: Tangentandunloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in TW2 using

methods1 and 2

6-39
 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)

Figure 6.29(a):Moment versuscrack openingat slabs/columnand beams/column

boundariesin TB 1(A) for cycles 1-3

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
--*-Sl
60
o S2
40
-0-BI
20 B2
-0-
0
234 7
Crackopening&r (mm)

Figure 6.29(b): Moment versuscrack openingat slabs/columnand beams/column

boundariesin TB 1(A)

6-40
 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

Figure 6.30: Moment versuscompressivedeformationin joints in TB 1(A)

2uu
180
160
140
120
100
80
Ei
60
40
20
0

-9000 -8000 -7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0

Concretestrains(ge)

Figure 6.31: Moment versusconcretestrainsin beamsin TB 1(A)

6-41
 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)

Figure 6.32: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar A in TB 1(A)

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)

Figure 6.33: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar B in TB I (A)

6-42
 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

Length of the beam(mm)

Figure 6.34(a):Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beam 1 in TB I (A) with various

momentlevel

-0.1
-0.2
0.3 3tationgradient :
0.4 Beam-to-columý.
.
rotation gradient.
-0.5 MI B2 V4 25.51kNm
xM=
Zý -0.6 face of end of 49.42kNm
,äM=
-0.7 To-lumn -beam10, M= 73.68kNm
--<>-
-0.8 Joint --o- M= 95.17kNm
-0.9 oM= 115.38kNm
.1
0 100 200 300 400

Length of the beam(mm)

Figure 6.34(b): Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beam2 in TB I (A) with various

momentlevel

6-43
 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)

Figure 6.35: Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam I in TB I (A) using methodsI

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)

Figure 6.36: Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam2 in TB I (A) using method 1

6-44
 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

38%M, 38%M, 38%M, 61%M. Failure

C r%
%--?
A
%-j
L; I LIZ -_j

Cycleno

Figure 6.37(a):Tangentandunloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in beam2 in

TB I (A) using method 1

6-45
 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

38%Mu 38%Mu 38%Mu 61%Mu Failure

0
Ul UZ U. 3 %-If+ ko:)

Cycleno

Figure 6.37(b):Tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in slabsand

beamsin TB I (A) usingmethod2

6-46
 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)

Figure 6.38: Moment versuscrack openingat slab/columnboundariesin TBl(B)

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)

Figure 6.39: Moment versuscompressivedeformationin joints in TB 1(B)

6-47
 180
160
140
120
100
80
-a-BI SG1
60
BI SGId
40
B2 SG3
20 B2 SG3d
I --&-
0
-3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
Concretestrains(ge)

Figure 6.40: Moment versusconcretestrainsin beamsin TB I (B)

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)

Figure 6.41: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar A in TB I (B)

6-48
 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)

Figure 6.42: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar B in TB I (B)

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)

Figure 6.43: Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam 1 in TB 1(B) using method2

6-49
 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

I-0

20

10

i2%M,
32%M, 32%Mu 53%Mu : Failure
0 ui U4
ul U2

Cycleno

Figure 6.44:Tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in slabsand

beamsin TB I (B) usingmethod2

6-50
 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)

Figure 6.45: Moment versuscrack openingat slab/columnboundariesin TB I (C)

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)

Figure 6.46: Moment versuscompressivedeformationin joints in TB 1(C)

6-51
 180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 BI SGI
20 B2 SG3
0
-1000 -500 0
-3000 -2500 -2000 -1500
Concretestrains(ge)

Figure 6.47: Moment versusconcretestrainsin beamsin TB 1(C)

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)

Figure 6.48: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar A in TB 1(C)

6-52
 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)

Figure 6.49: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar B in TB I (C)

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)

Figure 6.50: Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam 1 in TB I(C) using method2

6-53
 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

Figure 6.51: Tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in slabsand

beamsin TB 1(C) usingmethod2

6-54
 60

50

40
1
30

20

10

0 23456
Crack opening&r (mm)

Figure 6.52(a):Moment versuscrack openingat slablcolumnboundaryin TB2 for

cycles 1-3

60

50

40
1
30

20
I
10

04
0 10 15 20
Crackopening&r (mm)

Figure 6.52(b):Moment versuscrack openingat slab/columnboundaryin TB2

6-55
 60

so
I
40

30

20

10

04-
-0.1 -0.05 0
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15
Compressive deformation 5B (mm)

Figure 6.53: Moment versuscompressivedeformationin joint in TB2

60

50

40

30

20

10

04-
-12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0
Concretestrains(p)

Figure 6.54: Moment versusconcretestrainsin beam 1 in TB2

6-56
 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)

Figure 6.55: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar A in TB2

60

50

40

30

El 20
0
>l:
10

00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Steelstrains(ge)

Figure 6.56: Moment versussteelstrainsin bar B in TB2

6-57
 0
Beam-to-column
-0.1 rotation gradient
-0.2
0.3
CM Joi -to-colum
-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

Length of the beam (mm)

Figure 6.57: Moment versusvertical deflectionsin beam 1 in TB2 with various

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)

Figure 6.58(a):Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam 1 in TB2 using method 1 for

cycles 1-3

6-58
 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)

Figure 6.58(b): Moment versusrelative rotationsin beamI in TB2 using method 1

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

Relativerotation ý (rad)

Figure 6.59(a):Moment versusrelative rotationsin TB2 using method2 for

cycles 1-3

6-59
 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)

Figure 6.59(b): Moment versusrelative rotationsin TB2 using method2

6-60
 30
TB2 Method I
TANGENT VALUES
USING V4 only

25

20

10

15

10

BI unload
10
BI load
IN

cj.
5

96%M,, 97%Mu 97%M. Failure 95%Mu

- -
0 ul Uz %-j %-,+ %-j

Cycleno

Figure 6.60(a): Tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in TB2 using

method I

6-61
 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

Figure 6.60(b): Tangentand unloadingflexural stiffnessversuscycles 1-5 in TB2 using

method 2

6-62
 rl, ýý'-, fokl

co

Plate 6.1: Failure region at top of slab from West in TW I (A)

Plate 6.2: First cracks opening at joints-column boundaries from West in TW I (A)

6-63
 0

I ?;,

Plate 6.3: Failure region of beam 2-column joint from East in TW I (A)

P4

70

Plate 6.4: Failure region of beam 2-column joint from West in TW I (A)

6-64
 i1ii I

Plate 6.5: Shear subframe before testing from East in TW I (B)

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)

6-65
 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)

6-66
 00

Plate 6.9: Inspectingthe weld after re-weldingfor TW I (C)

Plate 6.10: Damaged regions in the precast members from West after testing TW I (B)

6-67
I -L-'Lr,

2(--CS
-4C:S
32

Plate 6.11: Damaged regions around joints from East in TW I (C)

26-

Plate 6.12: Damaged regions around joints from West in TW I (C)

6-68
 /
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

6-69
 H
.
C/l,

ft
Vý

"1
Io

7: 5

03
coi

Cl.
if
i I-.

tb

LL.

1.:

6-70
 Z--

;2

7r,

6-71
 2 /:
7-
hhýý
9.1

r_-

CD

CA
r.
0
-.
-4
71,

CIS

lop

6-72
 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)

6-73
 Plate 6.19: Flexural cracksin beam I from Eastin TB I (A)

I 1.

Plate 6.20: Flexural cracks in beam 2 from East in TB I (A)

6-74
 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-,
/

Plate 6.2 1: Failure regions in beam I from East in TB 1(B)

L LO

Plate 6.22: Failure regions in beam 2 from East in TB I (B)

6-75
 " "".... "
I "

T8110 NE
(.

-T

Plate 6.23: Failure regions in beam I from East in TB I (C)

VOW

TIMM
Vb

r-2- i
4,

cl, -I

C6

Plate 6.24: Failure regions in beam 2 from East in TB I (C)

6-76
Plate 6.25: First cracksat top of slab from Eastin TB2

1ý

Coi, aj
,

Plate 6.26: Failure regions at top Of Slab from East in TB2

6-77
 TEST

TB2

BILLET
CONNECTOR

-I\ 'Cl-l-
ý1-11

<7
-

lei

Plate 6.27: Hair cracksat top of slab from North in TB2

Coll

/ Plate 6.28: Damaged regions in the column from South in TB2

6-78
 T: 3

al
I=

aý

6-79
 CIA

CZ

6-80
 -

1111111
II.
-
%LC

Plate 6.3 1: Damaged profile of the precast members from East in TB2

Plate 6.32: Deformed profile of the subframe from East in TB2

6-81
 CHAPTER7

DISCUSSION OF FULL SCALE FRAME CONNECTION TESTS

7.1 Introduction

Tle main aim of the experimentalwork on full scaleframe connectiontests has been

to identify the moment-relativerotation Mcon-0 characteristicsand to recognisethe

inherent flexural stiffness J of the most widely usedbearn-to-columnconnectionsin

precast concrete structures in the UK. Secondarybehaviouralinformation included

crack opening 8T at the boundariesof the slab (in-situ)/column and beam/column,

compressivedeformation 8B in the compressionzone in the joints, strain in the tie

bars in the tension zone and strain in the concretesin the compressionzone. The

results, presented in Chapter 6, are discussed in this chapter and additional

interpretativeinformation, suchasthe comparisonof all the tests in terms of the above

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

7.9 compressivestrainsin beamsandFigures7.10 to 7.13 relative rotations.

Ile results indicatemajor differencesin the responseof the single sided test to

the symmetricaldouble sided versions.The momentcapacitiesof the connectionsare

given in Table 6.1. The doublesidedconnectionsachievedfull capacitybecausethe tie

steel in the floor slab is fully effective,whilst single sided connectionsare limited by

7-1
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

geometry of the tie steel which is a consequenceof having to achieve continuity

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 in-situ 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

extensivecracking in the topsof the floor slab.

The resultsalso show that at Mu the relativerotation Ou = 10 to 15 mrad. for

double sidedand 0u= 33 to 38 mrad.for single sidedconnections,respectively.

The zone of influence is deflned as that region where the effects of the

connection influence the Mcon-0 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.

7-2
7.2 Overview on the experimental work

The successfulstructural performanceof precast concrete systemsdependson the

connection behaviour.The configurationof the connectionaffects the constructibility,

stability, strength and flexibility of the structure. Furthennore, connections play an

important role in the redistributionof forcesasthe structureis loaded.

Beam-to-columnconnectionsare essentialto develop frame action in precast

concrete buildings. The connectionsmust develop sufficient strength to resist the

applied loads and must havesufficient stiffnessto limit the sideswaymovementof the

structure.
In this thesis, connections were examined for structural performance, as

measured by forces and deflections from which the moment-rotation of the

connectionswere calculatedat the face of the column. Emphasiswas placed on the

behaviour of the connectionsubjectedto gravity loading. Although seismic analyses

were not performed, the connectionswere subjectedto cyclic loading in order to

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

momentstransferredto connectingmemberssuchas beamsand slabs.

In the case of the subframestested, the simulated maximum gravity load

applied at end of beam(s)inducedmomentin joints at the face(s)of column which are

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 :-

0 load to beamby shearandbending

7-3
0 beamto joint by shearandbending

joint to column by shearand bending

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

momentsin the connectionswere calculated.

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

studies (GOrgUn,1992)) of the structure particularly in transmitting forces to other

connecting members. The magnitude of these forces depending on the type of

subfrarne(double or single sided) and particularlythe type of the connection (welded

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 beam-to-

columnconnections.

Using the local force path conceptit was possibleto formulate expressionsfor

predicting momentcapacityof the joints as presentedin Tables5.6 to 5.9. Due to the

simplified nature of theseexpressions,it is thereforeto be expectedthat the predicted

moment capacities(Table 6.1) will be different from the experimentalvalues. In the

majority of the test carried out theseexpressionsservedas an approximateindicator of

the maximum force appliedto the end of the beam(s).

7-4
 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

strong floor in the laboratory.

7.3 Overview on the presentation of the test results

The graphical outputs of moment versus crack opening, compressivedeformation,

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

In the presentationof the joint moment-rotation characteristics,the initial

moment-rotationof thejoints due to the self weight of the componentswas considered

to be small.

7.4 Test series 1

7.4.1 Test TW1(A)

Figures7.1 and7.2 presenta comparison

of the momentversuscrack openingat top

of beamsin the double sided, and at top of slabsin the double and single sided tests

respectively,using weldedplateconnection.

7-5
 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

plane of weakness due '0

to the relative strength and stiffness of the two different

materialsin thejoint and the beam.

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.

Ibis force may representthe integralof bond stressesoperatingalong the welded

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

theseaffect the bond strength.

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

the correspondingonesin testsdoublesidedbeamsonly TW I (C) and single sided with

floor slab and bar anchorageIW2dueto the effect of*.-

a) for TWI(C) missing longitudinal bars at slab level as outlined in section

7.4.3

b) the slab in contact with the column was to lock the systemdue to bearing

forces againstthe column, i.e. restrainthe rotation

c) the symmetricalvalueof loadedconnections,i.e. no momentin the column

7-6
Despite these effects, a transverseflexural crack (Plate 6.1) was first observedat an

applied bending moment of Mcon = 35.5 kNrn coffespondinga load of 15 kN being

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

columnto joint interface(Plate6.2).Ibese initiatedat a momentof 35.5 kNm which

coincideswith the large reductionin stiffnessseenin Figures6.8(a)to 6.11(b) and may

be interpreted as the point at which the sectionis cracked flexurally. With increasing

rotation, the cracking becamemore widespreadnear the joints. The compressiveand

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

horizontally indicating flexural overstressingresulting from the increased moment

capacity of the joint. The column showedno sign of cracking. Apart from one or two

minor deviationsin the resultsthe behaviourwas generallyanticipatedwith non-linear

behaviourcommencingat about 80 per cent of the ultimate moment, i. e. 190 kNm.

Signsof compressiveconcretefailure in the bottom of the beamwere evident.

Compressivedeformations8B (Figure 7.7) were measuredover a distanceof

180 mm, i.e. 100 mm joint plus 40 mm precast beam and column. Tle maximum

concretestraincalculatedfrom thesevaluesis 0.0037,andbeinggreaterthan0.0035

ultimate strain at which concreteis normally assumedto crush explains the onset of

failure at Mu. The 0.0037 strain including two interfacesbetweenjoint/column and

joint/beam is greater than the compressiveconcrete strain 0.00347 recorded by the

7-7
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

indicates, however smaH,the effects of the presenceof the interfaceswhich will be

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

yielding of the barsand concretecrushingfailure in thejoints

The moment-relativerotation Mcon-0 resultsin Figures7.10 to 7.13 and 6.8

to 6.10 show smaUvariations in the different methodsof measurementup to about

Mcon = 50 kNm, i.e. approximately 115 ultimate. The figures show the gradual

deterioration in the stiffnesssoon after the cracks becwnewidespreadnear the joints.

This is becauseas the momentincreased,this led to high compressiveand tensilestrain

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

shows that the moment-rotationbehaviouris generallynon-linearand the extent of the

deviation from linearity is dependenton both the details of the connection and

subframe.To this end, the scale of the moment-rotationcurves 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

during the loading cycles 1-3 is enlargedandpresentedseparately(asFigure(a)) before

7-8
each of the corresponding results to failure (as Figure (b)) to evaluate the initial

behaviour. Therefore the initial responseof the moment-rotation results must be

carefully interpreted.
This is because
in the mf4jorityof the moment-rotationgraphsthe

joint might appearto have maintainedfiffl continuity of moment up to approximately

50% of the crackedmoment Mcr This could be attributedto the in-situ infill concrete
-

which provided the initial tensile stiffness.

The increasein the momentcapacityin the caseof test TW 1(A) comparedwith

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

105%) of the connection. Currently, in practice this remarkablecontribution of the

floor strength and stiffness to the flexural capacity of the joint is neglectedin the

design processof the precastconcreteframes.

The incorporation of the slabssatisfiedother structural requirementssuch as

compositeaction with the beam,andslabcontinuity in tensionacrossthe beam/column

zone. These structural improvementssignificantly influencedthe global strength and

stiffnessof the subframetested.As mentionedthis test was terminatedbecauseof the

significant yielding of the barsandconcretecrushingfailure in the joints. This indicates

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

plane dimensionsof slab carry no structural significanceother than imposing gravity

forces on the beam.

7-9
 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

deflectionsfrom the isolatedjoint testsin Chapter8.

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

was near to the level of the weldedplateconnection.An exact agreementwas obtained

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 generateMcon-ý data,and is the first step towards the validation of

the "component method" (seelater in Chapter8)

The lowest tangentflexural stiffness, Jc = 45,800 kNnVrad. (M IBI V4), is

obtainedusing Method 1, comparedwith valuesof about Jc = 50,000 kNnVrad. (M2

SI) and Jc = 49,500 kNm/rad. (M2 B I) usingMethod 2. It is for this reasonthat all

subsequentresultsand designvalueswill be basedon Method I V4 (see Eq.6.1(d)).

In Figure 6.11(a) (Method 1) the tangent and unloading stiffnessesof the

connectionfor Beam 2 is alwaysgreaterthan the Beam 1 becauseof more cracks on

Beam 1 side (see Plate 6.1). The tangentstiffnessesdecreasevery rapidly due to the

first flexural tensile(transverse)cracksoccurringat low loads and gave low stiffnessin

cycle 1. Thesecracksreducedthe contribution of the tensilestiffnessesof the slabsto

the stiffnessesof the connections.Repeatedloading and unloadingin cycle 2 reduced

this effect, henceincreasedthe stiffnessesof the connections.There is no significant

7-10
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

to take place at Beam 2 side.

In Figure 6.11(b) (Method 2) in addition to the observationsin Figure 6.11(a),

the stiffnessesobtainedfrom the slab rotations are less than those obtained from the

beamrotations in the cycles 1-3, unlike in the cycles4-5 as a result of more cracks far

from the column faces giving less crack openingat column/slab(in-situ) boundaries.

By comparing the results of the two Methods it is found that the Method I gives a

lower tangentstiffnessesthanthe Method 2 in eachcycle for both beamsandjoints.

Ile mean ultimate moment Mu value 237.90 kNm, ultimate rotation Ou =

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

moment capacity of the compositebeam Mbeamwas attained.Currently, in practice

this remarkablecontribution of the strengthand stiffnessto the flexural capacityof the

precast concrete membersis neglectedin the designprocessof the precast concrete

frames.

7.4.2 Test TW1(B)

The shear resistanceof the entire connectionwas found to be satisfactory after the

bending moment capacity of the connection was obtained. The beam-to-column

connectiontestedwas of 278 kN designshearcapacity,which was obtainedin the test

without significant changein the behaviourof the connection.It gave confidencethat

7-11
the connectionsmay be identified not only by their shearcapacity but also by their

rotational stiffness,flexural strengthaswell as ductility.

Although it was not intendedto studythe semi rigidity of the connectionin this

test, it was possibleto gain someunderstandingof the degreeof connection stiffness

becausethe experimentalratios of appliedload vs connectionreactionPN were 1.163

and 1.138 for the beams 1 and 2, respectively.These were closer to the rigidly

connectedanalytical value of PN = 1.113than for the pinnedconnectionvalue of P/V

= 1.374, as shownin Figure 6.12.

7.4.3 Test TWI(C)

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

characteristicsof the connectiondue to the absenceof theseitems. The crack openings

and compressivedeformationswere obtainedusing the samePOTs and drilled holes

used in test TWI. (A) for the beamsto comparethe results with those obtainedin test

TW1(A).

The joints in test TW I (C) showeddifferent patternsof cracking from those of

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.

Becausethe first flexural tensilevertical cracks were initiated at an applied bending

momentof 9 kNm at the boundariesbetweenthejoint and column, and beamandjoint

interfaceswhere the maximumflexural stresstakes place. The changein the slope of

the momentvs crack openingcurve is too smallto be consideredafter the first cracks.

7-12
 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

deformations0.15 and0.19 mm remainedaspermanentdeformationsin the joints. 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

%was the failure momentfor the beam 1.

Ile stiffnessof thejoint slightly reducedafter cracking.Two more cycleswere

repeatedin a similar mannerto cycle 1. "Ibere were no significant changesin stiffness

although the linearly elasticregionsincreased.The fourth cycle was applied to 50 % of

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

strength of thejoint regardlessof the slabsand the bars.

The compressivedeformationof the joints 8B (Figure 6.14) increasedrapidly

after the first flexural cracks. Greater crack widths of the beam resulted in greater

compressivedeformationof that beamto columnjoint concrete,due to the rigid body

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

7-13
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

plastic momentcapacityof the weldedplateconnectionitself to give a referencedatum

being independentof the slabs,the stability fie bars to evaluateperformanceof the

connectionwith thesetwo itemsusedin testTW1 (A). This hasbeendoneas presented

in Section7.4.1.

Unlike in test TW I (A) a disagreementbetweenthe joint and beam deflections

and their distancefrom the face of the columnwas observed(Figure 6.15). The beam-

to-column 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)

at the infill-to-column interface,and (b) beam-to-infillinterface.The latter is greaterin

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

very high stiffnesses.It was decided to use Method 2 to evaluate moment-rotation

behaviourof the connectionsin this test.

The moment-rotationcurvesin Figure 6.18 obtainedusing Method 2 showed

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,

7-14
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

ductility of the reinforcementusedasstability tie bars.

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

deteriorationscan be attributedto the absenceof the removeditems and the quality of

the weld.

7.5 Test series 2

7.5.1 Test TW2

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 in-situ infill concreteover a distanceof 100 mm from the column

face. The largest cracks are, as expected,at the column to in-situ 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

effect of the slab and the nonsymmetricallyloadedconnectioninducing moment in the

7-15
column, henceincreasingthe cracks.The column in this test was heavily cracked by

comparisonwith all the testscarriedout.

Horizontal bursting cracks are a clear indication of unconfined concrete

compressivefailure in the in-situ concreteinfill. A secondhorizontal crack occurs at

the level of the top surfaceof the solid steel billet, and is possibly indicative of local

stressconcentrationsthere as in test TW1(A). Unlike test TW1(A) the damagedzones

are not only limited in the beamsandjoint but also big damageoccuffed in the column

tension up to about 220 mm above slab in-situ Will (Plate 6.14) and compression

zones 160 mm from the top level of the edgebeamto downward (Plate 6.17 left) and

aboutjoint size 100mm below thejoint (Plate6.16).

Surprisingly,it seemsthat the interfacehasno affect on the compressivestrain

or deformation in the joint zone in this test. Also, it should be noticed that the SGI

recorded more strain than the othersat a momentvalue of between115.15and M. =

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

out. This suggests,structurallyspeaking,that the flexural continuity of the connection

was being maintainedto the extentthat it weakenedthe column. This requiresa strong

7-16
column to be used at the connectionbetween the beam and external column. Tle

ultimate moment Mu = 156.43kNm was about2/3 of Mu in test TW 1(A).

The moment-relativerotation Mcon-ý resultsin Figure 6.26 show very small

variations in the Method 1 to

up about ultimate moment, which was not the case in

test TWI(A). By comparingFigure 6.26(a) and Figure 6.27(a) it is seenthat there is

no rotation obtainedusing the Method 2 up to the Mcr = 34.84 kNm (which is about

0.22Mu) becausethere was almost no crack opening(seeFigure 6.20), which is the

key parameterin using Method 2, up to this value.It seemsthat the Method I is more

reliable becauseof being independent

of the horizontal deformationsthan the Method

2. The largest rotation was once again obtainedusing Eq.6.1(d) as Ou = 38 mrad

which is 3.75 x ýu in the test TWI(A). This large difference is due mainly to the

contribution of the bendingstiffnessof the column to the flexibility of the connection.

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

sided). Method 1 V4 givesthe lowest stiffnessand largestrotation, which can be seen

in Figure 6.28 in eachcycle.

Overall, the values0.66 x ultimate moment M., 3.75 x ultimate rotation ý,

and 0.18 x stiffness J. in testTW I (A) were achievedin this test using Method 1-

7-17
7.6 Test series 3

This test series 3 included three tests on double sided slab-beam-columnfull scale

(intemal) subframe SF1 assemblageTBI(A), and double sided in-situ-beam-column

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

were testedwas an attemptto simplify evenfurther the full scaletests.

7.6.1 Test TB1(A)

Figures 7.3 and 7.4 presentcomparisonof momentversuscrack opening of the tests

subframesincorporating billet
on double and single sidedslab-in-situ/beam-to-column

connection. Thesefigures show that tests TB I (B) and TB I (C), which were basedon

smaller length beamsand in-situ 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

slabs.Test T132was terminateddue to the suddenfailure of the joint. Figures7.5 and

7.6 presentthe comparisonof momentversuscrack openingat top of slabsand beams

in four main testsusing weldedplateand billet connections.

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

joint was mainly dominatedby the fully effectivestability tie bars.

7-18
 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.

The compressivedeformations8B (Figure 6.30) at failure was 0.57 mm for

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 compressiveconcretestrain obtainedfrom the strain gaugesin the beamsnear to

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

interface.Generally,the strainsin the grout were greaterthan those in the concrete.It

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

case for beam 1 (1800 ge). Comparisonof moment versus compressivestrains in

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

7-19
bars,and crushing failure of the grout andconcretein thejoints and beams,althoughit

was not as badly damagedasin testTW I (A).

The moment-relativerotation Mcon-0 resultsin Figures6.35 and 6.36 show

up to about Mcon = 60 kNm.

smaHvariations in the different methodsof measurement

Figure 6.37 shows the tangent and unloading stiffnessesof the connections.

There is no significant changein stiffnessesin cycle 3. The stiffinesses,

decreased in

cycles 4 and 5 because of the repeated loading and unloading damaging the

components.The slab rotationsare lessthan thoseobtainedfrom the beamrotations in

the cycles 1-4, unlike in the cycles 5 as a result of more cracks far from the column

facesgiving lesscrackopeningat column/slab

(in-situ)boundaries.
By comparingthe

results of the two Methods it is once againfound that the Method 1 gives the lower

tangentstiffnessesthan the Method 2 in eachcycle.

The meanvaluesof 189.78kNrn ultimate moment Mu, 15.36 and 7.66 mrad

ultimate rotation Ou and 12990and 27440kNm/rad secantstiffness Js were achieved

in this test using Methods I and 2, respectively.

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

test TW I (A) were achievedin this testusing Methods I and 2, respectively.

7.6.2 Test TBI(B)

First transverseflexural cracks were marked at an applied bending moment of 24.0

kNm at the locations in Plates6.21 and 6.22. This is sameas in the test TI3 I (A) and

suggeststhat the slabsbeing replacedwith in-situ infill concreteonly do the samejob

7-20
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

in-situ infiR concrete are extendeddown to and stoppedby the top of the projecting

billet from the column. The largestcrackswere expectedto be a continuation of the

first cracksat the column to joint interface.Thesewould havebeentransferredto their

right locations (column to joint interface)if the slabswere used,even the absenceof

slabshasno effect on the first cracks.

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

concrete+ grout strain calculatedfrom thesevalueis 0.00167(was 0.0032 in TB I (A))

The compressiveconcretestrain measuredfrom the strain gaugesin the beamsnear to

the joint zone at failure were 0.000531and 0.000648,respectivelyfor beamsI and 2

(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 in-situ infill concreteflexural (bond) failure above the

mid-spanof the beams.

The moment-relativerotation Mcon-0 results in Figure 6.43 show small

variations in the different methodsof measurementup to about Mcon = 60 kNm and

very good agreementbetween Mcon = 60 and 107kNm, except M2 B 1. The rotations

7-21
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

these rotations to the corresponding(available)rotation in test TBI(A) is 0.76 and

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

ductility of the test TB I (A) by employinglongerbeamlength to preventbond failure.

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

column face giving lesscrack openingat in-situ/columnboundary.

ComparingtestsTB I (A) and TB I (B) the values0.97 x ultimate moment Mu,

0.84 x ultimate rotation Ou and 1.07 x stiffness Js in test TBl(A) were achievedin

this test.

7.6.3 Test TB1(Q

In this test the RHS billet in the column and beamend plate (Figure 5.9) were not

incorporated. First transverseflexural cracks were observed at an applied bending

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

7-22
plate), and may be acceptedas the secondfinding that the items have influence on

bendingload or momentbya factor of 1.5at which the sectionis crackedflexurally.

The compressivedeformations8B (0.41 mm and 0.37 mm) in Figure 6.46 and

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

necessarilymeanthat this connectionis stronger,becausethe stability fie bars used in

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 in-situ infill concrete flexural failure

above the mid-spanof the beamssimilar to the test TBl(B). The ratio of the ultimate

failure moment of test TB 1(C) / TB I (B) is = 0.97.

The moment-relativerotation Mcon-0 resultsin Figure 6.50 show very good

agreement up to about Mcon = 75 kNm. The above mentioned horizontal cracks

cause less slab (in-situ) 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

6 and 7 mrad in test TB I (B). The ratio of theserotationsto the correspondingrotation

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

24% difference in rotation to 19% as far as the ductility of the connection is

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

7-23
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

exception to the observationsin the testTB 1(B) values.

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

test TB I (A) were achievedin this test.

7.7 Test series 4

7.7.1 Test TB2

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 in-situ infill concrete,over the top of the beams,up to where the

first cracks appearat the face of the column passingbetweenthe measuringpoints.

The recordedcrack openingis a quantity that is usedin conjunction with compressive

7-24
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 in-situ interfaces(Plate6.29). This may be attributed to the

rotation of the edge bearnsdue to the dowel action of the tie rods. These cracks

initiated at the samemoment,which coincideswith the large reduction in stiffnessseen

in Figures 6.60(a)to 6.60(b).At a momentvalue of 38.83 kNm a horizontal crack was

observedfrom the joint grout to the main beamat the mid-height 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

new region with large increasein the magnitudeof the deformationsandstrains.

The compressiveconcretestrain measuredfrom the strain gaugesin the beam

near to the joint zone at failure was 0.0015. The grout strain (0.0051) in the joint was

greater than the concretestrain in the beam.The maximumconcretestrain in the beam

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

7-25
dangerousfailure, thereforeit must not be employedat the beam to external column

locations as semi-rigid partial strengthconnection.Appendix A5.4 reports an average

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

by 120% whereasthis increasewas 625% in the doublesidedtest TB 1(A) to compare

with their predictedvalues.

The moment-relativerotation Mcon-0 resultsin Figure 6.58 show excellent

agreementusing Method 1 up to about Mcon = 40 kNrn and this limit falls to about

Mcon = 25 kNm for the Method 2 in Figure 6.59.By comparingthe abovefigures it is

seen that the Method 1 gives greaterrelative rotation. 'ne largest rotation was once

again obtainedusing Eq.6.1(d) as Ou = 33 mrad (was 38 mrad in TW2) which is 2.16

x0u in the test TB I (A). This large differenceis due mainly to the contribution of the

column to the flexibility of the connection,althoughit was not as badly damagedas in

test TB2.

It was found that no matter the type of the subframeor connectionstudied, it

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

unloadingstiffnessesof the connectionin eachcycle.

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

TB I (A) were achievedin this testusingMethods I and 2, respectively.

7-26
7.8 Summing up

In this section, the performance of the connections have been compared based on their

flexural strength, relative rotation and flexural stiffness.Most of the subframeswere

subjected to the same beam end vertical bending load distance to the face of the

column to facilitate comparisonof test results. The measuredand predicted ultimate

moments of the connectionsare listed in Table 6.1. It is clear that the predicted

flexural strengthsof the connectionsare greaterthan thosemeasured.This was mainly

due to the variable strength of contiguous materialsbeing much greater than each

other, uncertainties of the contribution of the each individual component,

simplificationsmadein the calculationsand most likely the geometryof the subframes.

The ratio of the measuredexperimentalflexural strengthsof the connectionsto those

of the predicted MulMpred varied from 0.84 to 0.95 in the double sided subframes

but to between0.29 (TB2) and0.65 (TW2) for the single sidedsubframetests.

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

tests.The lever ann of theseforcesalso helpedto increasethe bendingstrength of the

connections.The measuredexperimentalflexural strength Mu = 238.78 kNrn of the

double sided welded plate connectionTWI(A) is greater than the billet connection

TBl(A) Mu = 191.34kNm by 25%. This should be interpretedas the reduction due

7-27
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

tie bars and floor slabs,being greaterthan 162.44/76.34= 2.13 x connectioncapacity

itselL Finally, the large differencefrom 238.78kNm to 156.43kNm in single sided test

TW2 is due mainly to geometryof the subframe.

By comparingthe resultsof the single sidedtestsTW2 and T132it is found that

the ratio of the ultimate momentsTB2fIW2 = 58.02/156.43= 0.37 is less than this

ratio in correspondingdoublesidedtestsTB I (A)/*IW I (A) = 191.34/238.78=0.80.1 t

is very interesting to note that this ratio of the predicted ultimate moment values is

also 0.80 = 201.89/252.58.This clearly indicates that it is possible to predict the

ultimate strengthof the connectionswith fie bars and slabsin double sided subframes.

However the ultimate strengthcapacityratio TB2/TBI(A) = 58.02/191.34 = 0.30 is

much Iessthan the ratio TW2[IWI(A) = 156.43/238.78= 0.66. Ibis indicatesthat the

single sided connectionsare mainly limited by the strength of the connectionitself as

the tie steel is not fully effective.The incorporationof the slabsand especiallythe tie

bars in thesetests is lessdominanton the real behaviourof the connectionsthan in the

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 in-situ infill concrete or grout to fulfil their function in the

completedstructureduring the servicelife.

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,

respectively.This confirms that the useof thesetestsarrangementsto replacefull tests

with slabswould not make a greaterdifferencethan 7% as far as the strength of the

7-28
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.

The joints generallyexhibiteda remarkablestrength (except TB2) particularly

with floor slabs.Valuesof the ultimatemomentcapacity Mu of 0.46 up to 0.70 of the

actual ultimate momentcapacityof the compositebeam Mbeamwere attained.These

satisfy the limits of 0.25Mbeam:5Mu :5Mbeamin the classificationof partial-strength

steel bearn-to-columnconnectionsin Eurocode 3: Part 1.1: ENV 1993-1.1: 1992.

(There is no classificationsystemfor precastconcretebeam-to-columnconnectionsin

A
the literature yet). However the resulting Mu c-o. 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 semi-rigid frame design and must therefore continue to be

classifiedasnominally pinned Mu :50.25Mbeam

7-29
 250

200

150

(L) loo

50

o
0 2468 10 12 14 16
Crack opening&r (mm)

Figure7.1:Momentversuscrackopeningat topof beamsin testsusingweldedplate

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

7-30
 200
180 * TB1(A)Sl
o TB 1(A) S2
160
-e-TBI(B) Sl
140
-o- TB 1(B) S2
120
TB 1(C) S1
100
TB l(C) S2
80
-A-TI32Sl
60
40
20
0
05 10 15 20

Crack opening&r (mm)

Figure 7.3: Moment versuscrack openingat top of slabsin testsusing billet

connection

200
s TB1(A)BI
180
o TBl(A) B2
160
-o- TB I (B) B1
140
-o-TBI(B)B2
120
-o-TB1(C)Bl
100 TB 1(C) B2
--a-
80 A TB2Bl
60
40
20
0
0234 5
Crack openingSr (mm)

Figure 7A Moment versuscrack openingat top of beamsin testsusing billet

connection

7-31
 250
* TWI(A) Sl
o TW I (A) S2
200 TW2 SI
TBI(A)SI
150 --a-T]31(A)S2
A
T132Sl

100

50

03
2468 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Crack opening&r (mm)

Figure 7.5: Comparisonof momentversuscrack openingat top of slabsin four main

testsusing weldedplateandbillet connections

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)

Figure 7.6: Comparisonof momentversuscrack openingat top of beamsin four main

testsusing weldedplate and billet connections

7-32
 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)

Figure 7.7: Comparisonof momentversuscompressivedeformationin beamsin four

main testsusing weldedplateandbillet connections

250

200

150
-o-TW I (A) A SG2
TW2 A SG5
100
TB1(A) ASG2
--m-TB2 A SG4
50

OB

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Steelstrains(ge)

Figure 7.8: Moment versusmaximumsteelstrainsin stability tie barsin four main

tests

7-33
 250

200

150

6 IWI(A)BISGI
100
S 0 TWI(A) B2 SG3
--0-'IW2 BI SGI
m TBI(A)BISGI
50
--C3--TBI(A)B2SG3
A TB2 Bl SGI

04-
-3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
Concretestrains(ge)

Figure 7.9: Comparisonof momentversuscompressivestrainsin beamsin four main

testsusing welded plate andbillet connections

250
s TW1(A)BI o TWI(A)B2
4o TW2 BIM TBI(A) BI
200 A TB2BI
--a-TB1(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)

Figure 7.10: Moment versusrelative rotationsin beamsin four main testsusing

Method I (seeFigure 6.7(a) for derivation of the relative rotation M1B1 V4)

7-34
 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

Compressive deformation 8Band crack opening &r (mm)

Figure 7.11: Moment versuscompressivedeformationandcrack width in test TW 1(A)

beam 1 sideshowingderivation of the relativerotation using Methiod 2

250
o TWI(A) Sl

0 TWI(A) S2
200
--0- TW2 S1

150 -a-TBI(A)Sl

-ti-TBI(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)

Figure 7.12: Moment versusrelative rotationsin slabsin four main testsusing

Method 2

7-35
 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: ,- --c3-T]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)

Figure 7.13: Moment versusrelative rotationsin beamsin four main testsusing

Method 2

7-36
 CHAPTER 8

ISOLATED JOINT TESTS

8.1 Objective of the precast-in-situ-precast interfaces tests

71behistory of precast concrete structuresshows that where failures have occurred

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

calculationsmust be relatedto the localised.stressesthat can occur since thesecan be

materially different from the stressesthat are usedin designingthe memberas a whole.

Local stressesunder a bearing should not be added directly to the overall

stressesin the member;usually they can be treated separately.The local and overall

stressesshould be checkedseparately,and only if the overall stressesare close to the

relevant maximum allowable stressesneed the interaction of the two be assessed.

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.

The main objective of the isolated tests is to obtain information in areas

confined by precast members and/or reinforced in-situ concrete or grout. Ibis

infonnation is necessaryin order to be able to interpret the effects of localisedunder

or over strengtheningin connections,wherethe behaviouris often disguisedin a single

8-1
 -14,

result. The information is alsorequiredto validatefinite elementwork (using computer

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.

8.2 Identiflcation of isolated joint tests

The experimentalwork hasbeencarriedout in two main areas:-

(a)frameconnectiontests

(b) isolatedjoint testson partsof the connectionstestedin (a)

The data collected from (b) will be used to assist in the separationof the various

componentsfound in a full connectiontest; for example,local cracIdng in the tension

zone, and crushing in the compressionzone of a moment resistingconnection.Being

able to characterisethe behaviourof a full frame connectionby simplifying it into a

number of isolatedcomponentswill enablea largerrangeof connectiontypes and sizes

to be studiedas shown in Figure 8.1.

When connectionssuch as theseare subjectedto hogging bending moments

and shears,the extreme fibres in the soffit of the joint are subjectedto compression.

Concrete material non-linearifieswill proceed from the positions of the maximum

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 precast-in-situ

interfacesare a major sourceof deformationand must be includedin any investigation.

Thus, the total deformation 8B in the concreteis the sum of the elastic deformationin

the precast Scp and in-situ 8ci concretes,plus the two precast-in-situinterfaces2%,

8-2
where X is the normal deformationof eachinterfaceacrossa concretejoint subjected

to uniaxial compressionor flexure, or both. In this work x is defined as the gauge

length (or centre-to-centredistance)betweendeflection transducersand their targets

over which the total deformation 8B is as

measured shownin Figure 8.1.

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

the precast-in-situinterfaceis approximatelyaxial (seePlates6.3 and 6.4 in full scale

frame connectiontest). This situation, which is representedby position 'T' in Figure

8.1, hasbeenstudiedin the isolatedtest series1 to 5. If the depthof the sectionis

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

6. It is thereforepossibleto isolatethe regionsidentifiedin Figure 8.1 and to construct

to
small prismatic specimens representthe precast and in-situ concretes or grout,

inclusive of the two interfaces,asshownin Figure 8.2.

The extremefibres in the top of thejoint are subjectedto tension.Cracks in the

column to slab or beam interface will cause the transfer of tensile force from the

concreteto the long tie steelpositionedover the tops of the The

beams. force in the tie

bar is axial. This situation, which is representedby position "2" in Figure 8.1, hasbeen

studiedin series7.

8.3 Compression tests

In the compressionzone the concrete in the precast elementswill be confined to

varying degreesby the reinforcing stirrupsin the beamand column members.Concrete

is usually C40. However lateral splitting in the in-situ concretein the joint can only be

8-3
restrained by frictional contact acrossthe interfaces.In-situ infiR is C20. These tests

were carried out to evaluatethe deformabiHtyin the joint betweenconcreteshaving

different strength.It was not possibleto include the steelbillet (showndotted in Figure

8.1) in thesespecimens.This could havean effect on the result and is to be suggested

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 in-situ 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 ex-steelmould surfacestowards the

centre, and gap was Bed for eachof the specimens

using fresh concreteor grout. The

precast faces were dry (i. e. were not The

dampened). specimenswere stored in the

water tank.

Demec pips (or POTs) were attachedto sides of the specimensshown in

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.

In this test seriesthe important measurements

were:

i) ultimateloadcapacities
of thespecimens
ii) defonnability in thejoint betweenconcreteshaving different strength

The loading was appliedincrementallyuntil failure. The failure was defined by sudden

specimenfailure in compression.The specimenswere testedin DennisonM/C testing

8-4
machine.Certificate for calibrationwascheckedbeforeusing the machinefor eachtest

series.

Test series 1:

The purposeof the testswas to find out the compressivestrengthof the specimensand

the compressivedeformationsof the joints with a varying thickness of in-situ infiU

concrete as shown in Figure 8.3. The main geometric variable consideredwas the

thicknessof the in-situ infill (t) which asshownin Figure 8.3 varied from t= 50 to 100

mm. The strength of the precast concrete = in-situ inflU. Fifteen cubes were made

using mix I concrete,a further mix wascastusingmix 2 concretefor repeatability

purposes.

The test specimenswere placedupright and crushed.For t= 50 and 75 mm

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

concretes having different thickness AND strength. Five specimens,as shown in

Figure 8.5, were tested.

In this test the thicknessof the in-situ 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

8-5
strength for the precast concrete. In one additional experiment a thin sheet of

polythenewas placedbetweenthe precastcubesand in-situ infill. A thicknessof t= 50

mm was suggestedfor this. Two of thesewere madejust to be sure of measuringreal

effect.

Test series 3:

This test seriesis similar to test series2 with the following differences:-

1. To keep the height of all specimensthe same to obtain maximum

compressivestrength,and to observethe effect of the thicknesst on the deformability

of thejoinL

2. To use the samelength gauge(8 inches)to measurestrain for all specimens

usedin thesetest series,and to comparecompressivedeformabilityand strain over the

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-

situ concrete,respectively.The castingsequenceand instrumentationwas the sameas

in testseries1.

Test series 4:

This test seriesis similar to test series2 and 3 with the following differences:-

8-6
 1. To use nominal grade C50 and C25 for the precast and in-situ concrete,

respectively. (Although the mix designs were the same as in the C40 and C20

concrete,the strengthsachievedherewere greater).

2. To measurecompressivedeformabilityon four vertical facesof specimensto

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

instead of demecpips. It was experimentallyconvenient.The specimenswere placed

upright and linear potentiometerswere attachedin clockwise and symmetrically in

vertical direction. SeePlate8.2.

In this test seriesfive specimenswere testedasshownin Figure 8.7. The height

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-

situ infill mixes.

Test series 5:

Although the foregoing tests gave information on the behaviour of precast-in-situ

interfaces,no accountwas madeof the presenceof two sections(see Section B-B in

Figure 5.6) having different joint grout thicknesst= 10 mm at the outer sectionsand

110mm at thecentresectionat theendof thebeamincorporatingthe billet connection

found in real full scaleframe connectiontest. It was felt that the introduction of these

sectionsmight influencethe deformabilityat the interface,and for this reasona set of

prismswerecastasshownin Figure8.8at thesamedayusingthe sameconcretesand

8-7
grout usedin the column, beam1 andjoint grout in full scaletestsT13I (A). As before,

three referenceprismsrepresentingcolumn,bewnandjoint grout were cast to provide

datum points.

The main aim of thesetestswas to observethe differencebetweencompressive

deformation in the joint with grout thicknesst= 10 mm.and 110 mm. The strength of

the precastandin-situ infill werenominally identical.

8.4 Bending tests

8.4.1 Small scale bending tests

Test series 6:

These tests were used to study joint deformationin flexure, as shown in Figure 8.9.

Two modesof failure were of interest.-

i) tensioncracking at the bottomshownin Figure 8.10

ii) compressiondeformabilityat the top shownin Figure 8.11

For theseexperiments500xlOOxIOOmm pdsmsshown in Figure 8.12 were used.The

loading detailsare shownin Figure 8.13respectively.Plate 8.4 showstest assemblyfor

test series6.

For the tensilecracIdngtests the modulusof rupture was calculatedwhen the

separation occurred and therefore no instrumentation was required. For the

compressiontest high tensile reinforcementwas used in the bottom of the prism as

shown in Figure 8.12.The areaof steelbarswas calculatedasfollows: -

F=0.67fcub 0.603 d for a balancedsection

cc

8-8
 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.

Using two linear potentiometersacrosstwo targets,the deformation5 was measured

over a distancex= 118mm as shownin Figure 8.14.

To determine the modulus of elasticity of precast concrete Ecp and in-situ

infill concrete Eci, 2 no 500xlOOxIOO

mm prismsmadefrom the two mixes separately

were tested. Before carrying out any of the flexural tests, ultrasonic pulse velocity

(UPV) methodswere usedto find Ec for the standardand compositespecimens.The

UPV test gives the dynamic modulus Ecq from which the static modulus may be

derived (accordingto BS 8110) asfollows:-

E (kN/MM2) 1.25Ecq(kNIMM2) _ 19
c =

where

Ecq =pV 2(1+

gXl - 2g)/(l - 4)10-3

V= pulsevelocity (mls)

p =density (kgIM3)

g= dynamicvalue for Poisson'sratio 0.25 (assumed)

8-9
 71bepredictedcollapseload was calculatedasin Section5.10 in Chapter5. The

maximum bending moment of the specimenswas predicted at the centre of the

specimensftom the internal forcesas:-

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

Fst = 79.6 kN is the total tensileyield load in the 2T10 reinforcementbars

tested

fcu =19.8 is the actual compressivecube strength of in-situ concrete at test

2
day (N/mm ). SeeTable 8.2

b is breathof the section= 100mm

The predictedmomentwas found as--

160
Mpred = FS, 85 -1x 10-3 = 79.6 85 - 10-3 = 4.38 kNm
2)2)

where 85 is the measuredeffective depth from the top of the specimensto the centre

of the bars.

8-10
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

specimenshaving in-situ infiH concrete.

The loading was appliedin one stepto the tensionand incrementally(5 kN) to

the compressionspecimensuntil failure. The flexure failure was defiried by sudden

specimenfailure in rupture for the tensionand concretecrushing for the compression

specimens.Ilese specimenswere also testedin the DennisonM/C testingmachine.

8.4.2 Isolated tension test

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

bars usedin the top of the specimen(seeFigure 8.15).

Section A, representinga precastcolumn, was cast using mix 1 concrete. Mix

in Table8.1 for mix 1, mix 2 andmix infill.

proportionsusedin this testarepresented

Reinforcementdetailsof the sectionsare presentedin Figure 8.16. Four 10 mm strain

gaugeswere attachedto the 2T25 bars 100 mm c/c as shown in Fig 8.15. (Two of

8-11
them can be seenin this figure, the other two were attachedto the other bar.) The

reinforcement of section B, representinga precast beam, was placed in the same

mm polystyreneplate was used between section A and B.

mould. A 20x3OOx4OO

Section B was then cast using mix I concrete.The polystyreneplate was removedand

section C was cast using infiRconcrete.

thick plate was bolted to the section A and B

Using 2M 16 bolts, a 250x3OOx25

at the bottom of the joint to act as a load spreaderin order to distribute the point

reaction.
A test rig was designedas in fuH-scaleframe connectiontests in Chapter 5 to

accommodate the test specimen. The rig consists of two parallel steel frames

perpendicularto the The

specimen. framesare capableof carrying 400 kN (right) and,

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

This was calculatedon the basis of the

between two 152x76xlO channel-stanchions.

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)

through a hand operated hydraulic jack and measuredusing a 200 kN capacity

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

a horizontal plane.This inducesthe correct bendingmomentsand shearforces in the

joint by keepingtheleverarmconstant.

the load cell to makesure

Onesemiroller loadspreaderwasusedunderneath

that the position of the appliedload is kept constant.

8-12
 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

casting to testing place.It was placedon to a permanentroller and temporarysupports

on the laboratory strong floor.

The SectionA was permanentlybracedagainstin and out of planemovements,

which might be causedduring the loading.

Trestles and timber shims were provided to support the test specimen

temporarily. The specimenwas then seatedat the joint on to the permanentroller

support at the free (right) end on to the timber shimsthat were placed on the top of

the trestles (seePlate 8.5). The horizontalposition of the specimenwas adjustedusing

smaUtimber packs.

The entire concrete units were then painted white to detect the cracks. The

testing datewas dictatedby the compressivecubestrengthof the in-situ infill concrete.

Theimportantmeasurements
were:-
(a) crack width 8T at boundaryof the column and in-situ concrete

(b) compressivedeformation8B in the compressionzone

(c) stmin in the tie barsin the tensionzone

For the test four deflectiontransducerswere attachedto sidesof the specimen

as shown in Fig 8.15 to measurethe crack width and compressivedeformation. (Two

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.

8-13
 Four 10 mm steel strain gauges(type: FLA - 10-11, 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-

scale frame connectiontests in Chapter5 using the software packageExcel (version

5.0) through Windows.

The predictedcollapseload wascalculatedas in Section5.10 in Chapter5. The

maximum hoggingbendingmomentof thejoint was predictedat the column face from

the intemal forcesas:-

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

8-14
 fcu =20.2 is the actual compressivecube strength of in-situ concrete at test

day (N/mm 2)- Table 8.2.

b is breathof the section= 300 mm

The predictedmomentwas found as-

42)2
Mpred «= 321.5 -1x 10-3 = 502 321.5-1 123.6 10-3 = 130.37 kNm

where 321.5 is the measuredeffective depth from the bottom of the joint to the centre,

of the bars.

The predictedcollapseload was found as:-

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 thebearn-to-column

The bendingload was appliedmonotonicallyto failure in incrementsof 5 kN.

Between any two successiveincrementsa visible check was carried out on cracks in

the critical zonesof thejoint, and the stroke of the POTsandjack.

8-15
 The test procedure was to apply load incrementsuntil the joints were not

capableof supportingany further load.

8-16
 C-4
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
C-4

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)
4-4
tn CA
CA

CA V-4
CA

vli
CA 00
CA --9 1 I
Wt Cf)
4ý

C) IT
C,1 C14 N
(A

cn r4 V) 00
CAý_u
W-4

2 en 00
C14

C'4
C CD(Z cn
d)
ý0
C14 -4
C-1

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 C-4

25
C/)
10
4ý4
06
E3 0
1x = .0
9
< c02 u
C-A

8-17
 Insitu 2 No 25 mm dia bars

\2
-
4
C,

r-3-1.
--ý en OT
40- P
M=P. z = T. z
Precastcolumn Precastbeam

-0- 11111-. 0-P

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,

Figure 8.1 Sub-sectionsof beam-columnconnectionusedin simplified model

8-18
 Infill concretetxlOOxIOO
cubesIOOxIOOxIOO

01
Oj

steelmould
100 100
+

Figure 82 Filling the gap usingfresh concrete

b
100 square
t-09-AMP-1

(0

Al A2 A3
t= 50 t= 75 = 100

Mix I and2
1,14 -I
-I

Figure 8.3: Compressivespecimenstype A usedin test seriesI

8-19
 Compression load

100cubeaboveand below
2 setsof Aoý
dernec pips
Precast grade C40 nom.

t -.*- Infill grade C40 nom.

t 50,75,100 mm

50 c/c

steel plattens

Figure 8.4 Location of demecpips

t=O t=25 t=50 t=100

Figure 8.5: Compressivespecimenstype A usedin test series2

8-20
 Compression load

2 sets of
demec pips

Precast = grade C40 norn.

rl

arade C20 nom.

rn 4n
0,25,50,100,300 inm

50c/c

steel plattens

100 square

II

A3 A4 A5

t=O t=25 t=50 t=100 t=300

Figure 8.6 Compressive specimens type A used in test series 3

8-21
 100 ',qllýllc
.44 MPH

00

Al A2 A3 A4 A5

t=25 t=50 100

Figure 8.7: Compressive specimens type A used in test series 4

100 square t)
.444 MPH

beam beam beam

column cyrout
I,

'-S
C
00

x
column column

Al A2 A3 A5

10 t=l 10

Figure 8.8: Compressive specimens type A used in test series

L,

8-22
 Figure 8.9 Joint deformation in flexure
zn

Figure 8.10 Tension cracking at the bottom

Figure 8.11 Compression deforinabi Iity at the top

c

8-23
 B5
C40

500
wl
i 49

Figure 8.12. Flexural specimens type B tested for compression defori-nability in

test series

,cast 40 N/nim-

h
25,50 nim
-SK

500

Figure 8.13 The loading of the flexural specimens type B

9-24
 IN

Figure 8.14 Measurement of the deformation

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

170 440 715 75

k
In
k
q
L, 111,
11

1400

Figure 9.15 GeneraI arrangement for flex uraI joint test

8-25
 2T25+2TB 9T9t;

VI 11J I VIJ II" Ifla

600 800
1ý
1OOC/C

.'1' 8R6-100 links

CD
C%j

=20

300 780
1ý

300

Figure 8.16 Reinforcement used in the test series 7

8-26
Plate 8.1: Generalarrangementof compressionspecimenstype A

for test series1,2 and 3

Plate 8.2: General arrangement of compression specimens type A

for test series 4

8-? 7
 Plate 8.3: General arrangementof compression specimens type A

for test series 5

Plate 8.4: General arrangement of flexural specimens type B for test series 6

9-29
Plate 8.5: General arrangement for bond
slip test for test series 7

8-29
 CHAPTER9

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF COMPONENT METHOD FOR

ISOLATED JOINT TESTS

9.1 Results

For test series1-3 handcalculations

werecarriedout and graphswereplotted using

Excel in PC.

AXIS SOFIWARE 3465 was usedto processand presentthe test results for

series 4-7 in three stages.The first stagewas to transfer data from magnetictape to

PC hard disc (C drive). The secondstageinvolved transferringthe data from C drive

The third stagewas to use the spreadsheetin the Excel

data file to Excel Spreadsheet.

for calculations(seeSection5.8 in Chapter5 for details).

9.1.1 Compression tests

In test series 1-3 the axial strain was calculatedby using Dernecextensometersand 2

sets of Dernec pips which were attached to one cast side of the specimensand

calculated by multiplying the reading

extensometer by 1.
ggxlo-5 for 4 inches length

gauge, and I. OxIO'5 for 8 inches length gauge. In test series 4 and 5 linear

potentiometersattachedto four sidesof the specimenswere used to take into account

the possibility of nonaxial loading. The strain was calculated by dividing the

extensometerreadingby the gaugelength. In all of theseteststhe uniaxial compressive

9-1
stressc; was calculatedby dividing the appliedcompressionload by the cross-section

of the specimen.The Ileffective" secantYoung's modulus Ece was calculated at 2/3

ultimate uniaxial compressivestressfor each specimenusing the measuredaverage

uniaxialstrain.
Figures 9.1(a) and 9.1(b) show the uniaxial compressive stress versus

measuredaverageuniaxial strain in thejoint for mixes 1 and 2, respectively.

The failure loads, maximum uniaxial compressivestressesand "effective"

secantmodulii are presentedin Table 9.1. Typical damagedzonesfor test series I are

presentedin Plate9.1(a) and 9.1(b) for mixes I and 2 respectively.

It was necessaryto reducethe compressivecube strength of the in-situ inffll

2 2
concrete from 40 N/mm to 20 N/mm and to vary the thicknessof the in-situ inffll

concretebetween25 mm, 50 mm and 100mm in test series2 to observethe real effect

of the thicknesst on the uniaxial compressivedeformability of thejoint.

Figures 9.2(a) and 9.2(b) show the uniaxial compressive stress versus

measuredaverageuniaxial strain anddeformation,respectivelyin thejoint in test series

2. The failure loads, maximum uniaxial compressivestressesand "effective" secant

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

maximum uniaxial compressivestrength by eliminating the variation in height of

specimen.By measuringthe uniaxial strain acrossa known constant distance it was

possibleto observethe real effect of the in-situ infill concretet which was varied from

0 to 100mm in test series3.

9-2
 Figures 9.3(a) and 9.3(b) show the uniaxial compressive stress versus

measuredaverageuniaxial strain and deformation,respectivelyin thejoint in test series

3. The failure loads, maximum uniaxial compressivestressesand "effective!' secant

modulii are presented in Table 9.3. Typical damagedzones for test series 3 are

presentedin Plate9.3

Figures 9.4(a) to (e) show the uniaxial compressivestress versus measured

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

inducing a bendingmoment,which might be taken into account by using the lowest

stressversus strain curve to obtain a conservativevalue of Ece. Figure 9.4(f) shows

the uniaxial compressivestress versus average uniaxial strain obtained from four

readings.The variation in the meanvalue of Ece obtainedfrom the curves in Figure

9.4(f) is not great and at variancewith the minimumand maximumvaluesby 14.9 and

15.0%, respectively.The failure loads, maximum uniaxial compressivestressesand

"effective" modulii are presentedin Table 9.4. Typical damagedzones for this test

seriesare presentedin Plate9.4.

Figures 9.5(a) to (f) show the uniaxial compressivestress versus measured

uniaxial strain in thejoint for the specimenstestedin testseries5.

Becauseeach specimenin this test serieshas four stressversus strain curves,

the strains obtainedfrom the oppositefaceswere averagedto observethe variation in

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

9-3
"effective" modulii are presentedin Table 9.5. Typical damagedzones for this test

seriesare presentedin Plates9.5(a)and (b).

9.1.2 Calculation of effective Young's modulus

For the purpose of structural analysisthe membersare consideredhomogeneousof

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: -

The total deformationis given by (seeFigure 9.13):-

5 =Bcp+Sci +2% Eq.9.1

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%
-Tc-p Ecp . Xcr
x(Eci

9-4
where Ecp = Young's modulusfor the precastconcrete, Eci = Young's modulus for

the in-situ infill concrete, P= uniaxial compressiveload, A cross-sectionalarea of

the compressionspecimens,n= number of the interfacesin the joint, X= is the

interface deformabiHty(mm) which has been found to be dependanton the inflU

thickness t, and x= is the gauge length over which the interface defonnation is

measured.

Variation in the maximumuniaxialcompressivestressc;, and "effective" secant

modulus Ece (measuredat 2/3 ultimate stress)with t is presentedin Figures 9.6 to

9.10.

9.1.3 Bending tests

9.1.3.1 Small scale bending tests

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.

The bendingmomentandflexural stressesare calculatedasfollows: -

M=0.5M Eq.9.3

9-5
 and Zuncr= Iulxu

Zcr Icrlxcr
=

m
Hence Eq.9.4
z

This is the relationshipfor a flexurally uncrackedand crackedequivalentsections(see

details in Section 10.2).

To determinethe secondmomentareaof the uncrackedequivalentsection lu

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

Figure 9.16(a) to (c) shows the applied moment versus averagecompressive

deformation in the joint in test series6, for t=0,25 and 50 mm, respectively.Two

theoreticalcurves,basedon the sectionpropertiesderived from the cracked(Zcr) and

uncracked (Zuncr) concrete beam, are also plotted in these figures. The failure

moments,maximumflexural stressesare presentedin Table 9.7. Figure 9.16(d) shows

flexural stressvs. averagecompressiveflexural strain in top of specimensfor this test

series. The zone of interface deformability for the flexural specimensis defined in

Figure 9.17. Variation in the interfacedeforinability X with t is presentedin Figure

9.18 and in the ratio EceI Ecp with Ecl in Figure9.19.

Specimenstestedfor compressiondeformabilityfailed in shearat 4.32 and 3.75

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

9-6
specimenon the supportsand in the bottom of the applied load points to reduce the

shear effects and these failed

specimens at 4.5 and 5.5 kNrn in flexure as expected.

Typical damagedzonesfor this test series6 are presentedin Plates9.6(a) and (b).

9.1.3.2 Isolated tension test

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

force in the steel bars.Bendingmomentwas calculatedby multiplying the appliedload

by the lever arm of 715 mm. Crack width and compressive deformations were

calculatedusing four linear potentiometers,shownin Figure 8.17.

In the tension zone an "effective tensile stiffness Ke" is found which relates

bond and tensile deformation 8T to the applied tension forces. Experimentaltesting

has beencarried out to measurethesevalues,which may then be validatedagainstthe

resultsof full connectionassemblytests.

The anchoragebond length L is the length of the reinforcementbar required

to develop the steelstressfs andis given by:-

fsAs
Eq.9.5
00 ýKcu

9-7
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

already include a partial safetyfactor ym of 1.4.

Effective anchoragelength of the barswascalculatedfrom :

8T
Le = Eq.9.6
Cav

where;

8T= averagecrack width (at the level of C )

av

eav = averageaxial tensilestrainin the bars

Typical damagedzonesfor the test are presentedin Plate 9.7.

Referring to Method 2 in full-scale tests in Chapter 6 Section 6.1.2, relative

rotation of the specimensrepresentingbeam and slab to the specimenrepresenting

column was calculatedby the crack width plus compressivedeformation divided by

the distancebetweenthe linear potentiometerslocated at the top and bottom of the

specimen.

9-8
9.2 Discussion of isolated tests results

9.2.1 Compression tests

In test series I it was expectedthat the compressionload for t= 50 mm >t= 75 mm >

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 in-situ infill concrete

on the uniaxial compressivestrengthof thejoint and on the "effective" secantmodulus

of the specimenscannot be observed,as shown in Figures 9.6(a) and 9.6(b), but the

effect of the compressivecubestrengthof the precastconcretecan be observedon the

ultimate uniaxial compressivestressof the specimens.Specimensmade from mix I

concretefailed at lower loadsthan specimensmadefrom mix 2 concrete.

The ratio of the failure stressof the specimento that of the precastconcrete

varied from 0.71 to 0.79, which is to be expectedfor specimenof height to breadth

ratios of 2.5 to 3.0.

Values for Ece are lower than would be expectedfrom the well established

relationships,e.g. Ec 5.5ýf-cu (BS 8110,1985) Ec 9.1f, 1/3 (Neville, 1981),

= and = cu

2
which would indicate Ec in the range28 to 33 kN/mm for the maximum stressesin

the tests.Clearly the presenceof two interfacejoints reducesEc to approximately2/3

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

compressivedeformability of the joint. As expectedspecimenshaving a larger infill

thicknessfailed at lower loads,as shown in Figures9.7(a) and 9.7(b). The most likely

9-9
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).

The effect of a single interfacejoint is to reduce the monolithic strength and

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

at which Ece The

was measured. specimenalso consistedof one "dry" joint, making it

susceptibleto having a lower stiffnessthanin the monolithic case.

In test series3 specimenshavinglarge thicknessfailed at lower load. The trend

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

might not be comparedwith the other due

specimens to there being no interface in the

specimens, but both can be compared to each other to see the effect of the

compressivecube strength of the concreteon the evaluation of Young's modulus for

the C40 and C20 concretes.This has beendone and presentedin Figures 9.8(a) and

9.8(b)

ii) - specimenA2, C40/t--O(2xl5O mm prisms), is different to the remainder

of havinga singledry interfacejoint.

because

iii) - specimensA3, A4 and A5 can be compared,as shown in Figures 9.8(a)

and 9.8(b), with each other to see the real effect of the thickness and compressive

strength of the in-situ 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

9-10
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

interface is therefore significant in a compressiontest becausethe failure mode is by

lateral splitting.

The effect of a single interfacejoint is to reduce the monolithic strength and

elastic modulus by 8% and 44%, The

respectively. large changein elastic modulus is

probably due to the suddenincreasein strain (seeFigure 9.3(a)) just prior to the point

at which Ece The

was measured. specimenalso consistedof one "dry" joint, making it

susceptibleto having a lower stiffnessthan in the monolithic case as in the test series

2.

In the test series4 specimenshaving large thicknessfailed at lower loads, as

shown in Figure 9.4. It is now obvious that the thicknessof the in-situ infIll concrete

does effect the uniaxial compressivestrengthand Young's modulus of the specimens

as shown in Figures 9.9(a) and 9.9(b). It has been reported by B1juger (1988) that

relatively large deformationsof mortar and concretelayersare causedby local contact

deformationsand becauseof this are independentof layer thickness.It was found, in

these compressiontests, not to be the case.This might be the case if the strength of

the in-situ inffll concrete is the same as the strength of the precast members as

observedin test series1.

The main aim of the test series4 was to observethe compressivedeformability

measuringon four surfacesof each This

specimen. might be different from surfaceto

surface due, possibly, to the bendingmoment induced by a small eccentricity of the

appliedcompressiveload. It hasbeenfound that, as it can be seenfrom Figures 9.4(a)

to 9.4(e), this does not significantly effect the deformability of the joint. The most

9-11
damagedsurface,includesthe effect of the bendingmoment,of eachspecimenmust be

used to obtain the deformability of the joint. This surface may be simulated to the

joint's compressionzone in full scaleframe connectiontest. i.e. concrete crushing. It

was suggestedto usemeanvalueof deformability measuredfrom four surfaces.

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

110 mm grout thickness,respectively.Although the specimenhaving 110 mrn grout

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

as shown in Figure 9.10(b).This is because100mm in the upper part, simulatingbearn

concretefcu = 50.3 N/mm2,of the specimen

A2 (seeFigure8.5) was replacedwith

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

the specimenA2 or even greater.This indicatesthat the results of either specimenA2

or A3 may be usedto generatethe behaviourof thejoint.

9-12
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

experimentalresultsand the analyticalequation9.2. Tlere are no Ecp and Ecl values

for series 1 and 2. Figure 9.12(b) shows Ece/ Ecpversust/x at various stresslevels for

series 4. The zone of interfacedeformabilityfor compressivespecimensis defined in

Figure 9.13. Figures9.14 and9.15 show a versusX for series3 and 4 for experimental

and analyticalequation.

In Figures 9.11 and 12(a) the differencebetweenanalytical and experimental

%Ep
n.
curves is thought to be due to the term ,
This tenn was taken as zero to plot
X0

the analyticalcurves.Becausethe interfacedeformability X is not known in the term,

analytically. It is derived after obtaining Ece from the tests. From equation 9.2 the

deformability of thejoint X can be derivedasfollows:-

(X - t)
x=( - -x
Fce - Ecp -t Eci Eq.9.7
n

In the above equation % is a linear function of the stress (y At lower stress

.
levels the variation in X is greater than the upper casesbecauseof the presenceof

voids betweeninterfaces,cementrich zonesgiving greater deformation. These voids

are closed rapidly at lower stresses(stressconcentrationleads to local deformation)

and give larger X values, initially, as shown in Figure 9.13. At this stage it is not

9-13
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

reduction in the EcelEcp ratio)

2) Reductionfactor due to the interfacedeformability %:

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

For whoHyprecastand infill specimensin Figures9.11 and 12(a) there is no interface

hence no reduction in the EcelEcpratio, and the analytical and experimentalresults

are the same,but for the specimenhaving a single dry interfacejoint the reduction

9-14
factor as shown in Figure 9.11, only due to the interface defonnability (the term

) is about44% (in this specimenno reductiondue to t). For the specimenswith

XCI

infiR concretethe areaabovethe analyticalcurvesshowsthe reduction factor due to t,

and the area betweenanalyticaland experimentalcurves shows the reduction factor

n%Ecp
due to the tenn
xa

Clearly as t increasesthe reduction factor due to t increases,and due to X

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

specimen.In this casethe reductionfactor due to the deformability term increasesas t

increasesas shown in Figure 9.12(b) as the differencebetweenthe solid and dashed

lines.

Figures9.14 and 9.15 show the uniaxial stressversusinterfacedeformability X

of the joint in the extremestresszoneasshown in Figure 9.13. There are no valuesfor

wholly precast and infill specimens(no interfaces). The data for the curves were

calculated on the basis of the relative deflection of each specimenup to 14 and 20

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

stressdeflectioncr -5 curveof eachspecimen.

Analytical curveswereplotted usingequation9.7.

where a

9-15
 Experimentalcurveswere plottedusingthe dataobtainedfrom:

j) using the samestressfor eachspecimen Eq.9.9

xx

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

summation of 3 measuredterms, and small variations in measurementsat each load

incrementwill havedrasticeffectson the final output value.

From Figure 9.14, analytically and experimentally, the variation in the

deformability X with stresscr is in the increasingorder of magnitude:-t= 100,25,

50 and 0 (dry joint). Initially the specimenwith t= 50 mrn infiH shows similar

behaviour to the specimenwith t=0 (dry one) becauseof the separatedinterface

giving larger X values at lower stresses.After gaining full contact interfaces, the

variation in X is negligible for the having

specimens infill concrete. Gaining the full

contact interfacesin a dry joint takeslonger (requiresgreaterstresseslevels) than the

others, and the increasein X is continuouswith the increasein stressa, becausethe

voids in a precast-infillinterfaceare lessthan in the dry joint one. Most of the voids in

the precast-infill interfacesarefifled with freshconcretemaking a good contactzone.

The ratio of the total interfacedeformability 2% of the specimenwith t= 50

mm,(two interfaces)to the total joint deformation8 (measured

over a distancex= 200

mm) is about 0.51, and 0.78 for the singledry joint one at 14 N/mM2 stresslevel. This

9-16
was the maximumstressat which the deformationsof the wholly infill specimenwere

recorded.

From Figure 9.15 the variation in the deformabilityX is in the increasingorder,

in magnitude:-t= 100,25 and 50 mm as in Figure 9.14, analyticaRy.This order was

not improved Once

experimentally. againthe large valuesof the X take place at lower

stresses.The maximumratio of the 2V8 is about 0.14 for specimenwith t= 100 mm

infiR (the 8 was measuredover a distancex= 180 mm). This effect might be ignored

to find flexural stiffnessof the connectionsto comparewith those 8T and 8 R.

9.2.3 Bending tests

9.2.3.1 Small scale bending tests

Test series 6:

In test series6, the specimenshaving interfacestested for tension cracking in flexure

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.

Most of the specimenstested for compressiondeformability failed in shear.

This was an unintendedfailure asshearlinks which reducesheareffects were not used.

SpecimenC40/t = 25 mm failed in flexure asexpected.

From Figure9.16(a)the gradientsof the theoreticalmomentdeflectionM-8

curves are 43.5 and 27.75 kNnVmm for C40 specimenbased on the transformed

section properties derived from the flexurally cracked and uncrackedconcrete beam.

9-17
First flexural crack occurred at 1.88 kNm. Up to the first crack the compressive

deformation 8 is lessthan the theoreticalvalues,thereafterthe experimentalvaluesof 8

lie betweenthe two theoreticalcurves.The gradientof the experimentalM-8 curve is

approximately 133.35kNnVmm up to a momentM=1.0 kNm, and 29.17 kNnVmm

between M=1.0 - 2.75 kNm (close to the flexurally cracked curve), and 18.18

kNm/mm thereafter.A shearcrack occurredat a momentof 2.5 kNm and propagated

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

compressionzone. The specimenfailed at 4.32 kNm in shear.The failure load which

was calculatedbasedon the compressivecubestrength fcu of the specimenat test day

was 5.57 kNm. The ratio of the failure loadswas 0.78.

From Figure 9.16(b) the gradient of the theoretical curves is 42.5 and 27.75

kNnVmm. It varieswith Ece and Z. 'ne experimentalcurve Hesbelow the theoretical

curves. Because this specimen has two interfaces. Their effect increases the

compressivedeformation8 reducingthe flexural stiffnessof the joint. There might be

two reasonsfor this behaviour.-

1) The strengthof the in-situ infill concrete

2) The presenceof the two interfaces.

The specimensfailed at 5.5 kNm in bending. The trend was as expected. The

calculatedfailure momentsbasedon the compressivecube strengthsof the concretes

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

specimens in compression tests, especially for specimen having large difference

9-18
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 M-5 curve is 19.36 kNnVmm between 1.0-3.25

kNm moment values.The recordedmaximumflexural strain was 0.00518. It was not

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

27.35 kNnVmm. The experimentalcurve is similar to C40/t=25 mm curve, but this

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.

Figure 9.16(d) showsthe flexural stressstrain curves of the specimens.At the

same stresslevel, the strain in the specimenshaving in-situ infill concrete is greater

than the wholly precast one. Unfortunately, linear potentiometers attached to the

wholly in-situ specimendid not record deflectionsup to a momentvalue of 1.75 kNm.

But this specimenfailed at 4.5 kNm in bending.First shear crack occurred at 1.88

kNm. The calculatedmaximumfailure momentfor this specimenwas 4.38 kNm. The

testfailuremomentwasgreaterthanthecalculatedvalueby 2.7%.

Figure 9.18 shows the flexural stressbasedon the uncrackedsection versus

interface deformability X of the joint in the extreme stress zone as shown in Figure

9.17. There are no valuesfor wholly precastand infill specimens.Becauseof having

9-19
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

momentdeflection M-8 curve of eachspecimen.

Analytical curveswereplottedusingequation9.7.

m
where cr
Zuncr

Surprisingly, the gradient of the two analyticalcurves was found to be negative.This

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

= 25 mrn and positive in t=

specimen 50 mm.

Experimentalcurves were plotted using the data obtained from equation 9.9

using the sameflexural stressfor each As

specimen. in the compressionspecimens,at

each flexural stress level 8, Scp and Sci were found from the corresponding

specimens,and substitutedin above equation to find X. This also causeda "zigzag"

pattern to the test curves in Figure 9.18 due to the fact that X is derived from the

algebraic summationof 3 measuredterms, and small variations in measurementsat

9-20
each load incrementwill have drastic effects on the final output value. In this test it

was found that an increasein t decreasesX, both analytically and experimentally.

However, it is possibleto draw boundaryenvelopesto theseresultswhich give :-

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).

9.2.3.2 Isolated tension test

Test series 7:

In the tensionzone the linear stiffnessof the embeddedreinforcementis a function of

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

assumedfrom the geometry of the connection,it is necessaryto measurethe actual

strainsin the bars

From Figure 9.20 the relationshipbetweenthe averageaxial tensile strain Eav

and the crack width 8T is approximatelylinear up to a crack width of 0.5 mm. Where

an effective bond exists the strain in the reinforcementmay be assumedto be equal to

that in the adjacentconcrete.Thereafterthe strain gradient decreasesfrom 1.84x,0"3

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:

namelya higher concretestrength,heaviershearlinks and larger concretecover to the

9-21
reinforcementbars. In this test concretecover was large enough (60 mm to links) but

concretestrengthof the in-situ 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

greaterthan the experimentalresults(779 mm) by 10.4%. A partial safetyfactor ym of

1.56was obtained

From Figure 9.23 the effective stiffness K of the embedded bar is

approximately 180 kN/mm up to a crack width of 0.5 mm, and 100kN/mm thereafter.

The effect of bond slip, tensionstiffening etc. areall includedin thesedata.

From Figure 9.26 the flexural stiffness J of the connection is approximately

36200 kNm/rad up to a rotation value of 0.0016 rad, and 16100kNm/rad thereafter.

Ibis datamight be usedto presenta monolithicjoint data point to comparewith those

precastconcreteconnectionstests.(SeeChapter7).

The test procedure was to apply load incrementsuntil the joints were not

capableof supportingany further bendingload.

Steel strainsincreasedto more than 2450 ge indicating possibleyielding of the

bars.Ultimate failure was due to the in-situ infill concreteflexural (bond) failure above

the mid-span of the beam as in the tests TB1(B) and TBI(Q. The ratio of the

9-22
 measured experimental flexural strength of the joint to that of the predicted

MUIMpred = 0.93.

9.3 Summing up

In this section, the performanceof the specimenshas been comparedbasedon their

uniaxial strength for compressionand flexural strength for bending tests only as the

relative rotation and flexural stiffnessare not applicable.

All the compressionspecimenswere cast in the samecross-sectionalarea and

subjected to the compressiveload using the same testing machine to facilitate

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

specimenswhich is to be expectedfor specimenof height to breadth ratios of 2.5 to

3.0. This was mainly due to the strengthof the different cubes, representingprecast

and in-situ concretes, being much greater than each other, uncertainties of the

contribution of the eachindividual cubeand confinementof the cube representingjoint

concrete or grout. For the specified grade C40 precast and in-situ concretes, the

variations in the test strengthsare ignorableand for the specifiedgrade C40 precast

and C20 in-situ concretesthe variationschangedto a decreasewith an increasein t

indicating the importance of the strength of the in-situ infiH concrete. Cunrntly, in

design practice this is only usedto protect the mechanicalconnectionagainstfire and

corrosion. It was felt that the joint concrete strength that greater than the precast

9-23

k
concrete may cause failure to occur in the member themselvesnear to the joint

attaining the fuH momentcapacityof the connection.

The small bending specimenswere subjectedto the same beam end vertical

reaction bendingload distancesto the centre of the specimensto facilitate comparison

of test results. The measuredand predicted ultimate momentsof the specimensare

Hstedin Tables9.6 and 9.7. The ratio of the measuredexperimentalflexural strengths

of the compressionspecimensto thoseof the predicted MulMpred varied from 0.78

up to 1.03in the wholly precastand in-situ infill specimens.

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

comparisonof test resultswith those of full scaletests by keeping the sameconcrete

cover to the stability tie bars and meassuringthe crack width at the same distamce

from the bars. This enablesthe derivation of the moment-rotation data from the

isolatedjoint test to comparewith thoseof the full scaletests.This has beendone and

presentedin Chapter 10.

9-24
 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

Table 9.1: Resultsfor axial compressionspecimenstype A usedin testseries I

Test Infill depth Failure Ultimate 2/3x Ultimate Effective

Ref t loads strength strength modulus Ece
nim kN N/mm 2 N/mm2 kN/mm2
Al 318 31.8 21.2 27.9
A2 0 300 30.0 20.0 22.2
A3 25 280 28.0 18.7 21.9
A4 50 200 20.0 13.3 16.0
A5 100 180 18.0 12.0 14.4
Note * Solid precastspecimen,i. e. no infill. used

Table 9.2: Resultsfor axial compressionspecimenstype A usedin testseries2

9-25
 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

Solid infill specimen,i.e. no precastused

Table 9.3: Resultsfor axial compressionspecimenstype A usedin testseries3

Test Infill depth Failure Ultimate 2/3x Ultimate Effective

Ref t loads strength strength modulus Ece
mm kN N/mm 2 N/mm 2 2
1 kN/mm
Al 430 43.0 28.7 33.6
A2 25 380 38.0 25.3 27.7
A3 so 310 31.0 20.7 26.2
A4 100 250 25.0 16.7 24.8
A5 230 23.0 15.3 23.2
Note * Solid precastspecimen,i.e. no infill used

Solid inffil specimen,i.e. no precastused

Table 9A Resultsfor axial compressionspecimenstype A usedin test series4

9-26
 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

Table9.5: Resultsfor axialcompression typeA usedin testseries5

specimens

Test Infill depth Density Pulsevelocity Ecq Ec

Ref t P V
nun kg/M3 M/S kN/MM2
kN/mm2
B1 2354.8 4.252 38.8 29.5
B2 25 2400.2 4.405 38.2 28.8
B3 50 2385.0 4.386 38.3 28.9
B4 2386.4 4.390 35.5 25.3
Note Solid precastspecimen,i.e. no infill used
Solid infill specimen,i.e. no precastused

Table 9.6: Resultsfor flexural specimenstype B usedin testseries6

Test Infill depth Failure Ultimate

Ref t loads strength
MM kN N/mM2
I
B5 86.3 24.8
D6 25 110.0 31.6
B7 50 75.0 21.5
B8 90.0 1 25.7
Note Solid precastspecimen,i.e. no infill used
Solid infill specimen,i.e. no precastused
Table 9.7: Resultsfor flexural specimenstype B usedin testseries6

9-27
 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

Figure 9.1(a): Axial stressstraindatafor compressivespecimenstype A for mix I in

test seriesI for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

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
--o-C40/t=100
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003

Axial strain

Figure 9.1(b): Axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimenstype A for mix 2 in

test series1 for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

9-28
 30

25 Nfix 1 fcu = 40.9 N /mm 2

Infill fcu = 21.4 N/ mm 2

20

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

Figure9.2(a):Axial stressstraindatafor compressive typeA in testseries

specimens

2 for varyingthicknesst of insituconcrete

30

25 Nfix 1 fcu = 40.9 N/ MM2

El 20 Inrill fcu = 21.4 N /MM 2

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)

Figure 9.2(b): Axial stressdeformationdatafor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series2 for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

9-29
 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)

Figure 9.3(a): Axial stressstrain data for compressivespecimenstype A in test series3

for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

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 --m-C40/t=100
--*- C20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Axial deformation(mm)

Figure 9.3(b): Axial stressdefonnationdatafor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series3 for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

9-30
 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

Figure 9.4(a): Axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimentype A in test series4

for C40 concrete

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

Figure 9.4(b): Axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimentype A in test series4

for C40/t=25mm infill concrete

9-31
 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

for C40/t=50mminfill concrete

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

Figure 9.4(d): Axial stressstraindatafor compressivespecimentype A in test series4

for C401t=100mm infill concrete

9-32
 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 sa-ain

Figure 9.4(e): Axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimentype A in test series4

for C20 concrete

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

Figure 9.4(f): Mean axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series4 for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

9-33
 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

Figure9.5(a):Axial stressstraindatafor compressive typeA in testseries5

specimen

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

Figure 9.5(b): Mean axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimentype A in test

series5 for specimenA2

9-34
 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

Figure9.5(c):Axial stressstraindatafor compressive typeA in testseries5

specimen

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

Figure 9.5(d): Mean axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimentype A in test

series5 for specimenA4

9-35
 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

Figure 9.5(e): Axial stressstraindatafor compressivespecimentype A in test series5

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

Figure 9.5(f): Mean axial stressstrain datafor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series5

9-36
 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

specimenstype A in test seriesI for varyingthicknesst of infill concrete

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)

Figure 9.6(b): Variation in effective modulusfor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series1 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

9-37
 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)

Figure 9.7(a): Variation in maximumaxial compressivestressfor compressive

specimenstype A in testseries2 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

30
No interface
er" 25

20
ýSingle dry interface
CA 15

lo Mx I fcu = 40.9 N/ mm2

Infill fcu = 21.4 N/ mm2
5
1--*-Lestýjl
n I .... I .... I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
t (MM)

Figure 9.7(b): Variation in effectivemodulusfor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series2 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

9-38
 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)

Figure 9.8(a): Variation in maximumaxial compressivestressfor compressive

specimenstype A in test series3 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

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)

Figure 9.8(b): Variation in effective modulusfor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series3 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

9-39
 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)

Figure 9.9(a): Variation in maximumaxial compressivestressfor compressive

specimenstype A in test series4 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

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)

Figure 9.9(b): Variation in effectivemodulusfor compressivespecimenstype A in test

series4 for varying thicknesst of infiH concrete

9-40
 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)

Figure 9.10(a):Variation in maximumaxial compressivestressfor compressive

specimenstype A in testseries5 for varying thicknesst of infill grout

35
A-1
A4, Mix 2 only
30 No interface A5, Grout only
A2 A3 No interface
25
Al, Mix 1 only
20 No interface

15 Mix 2 fcu = 50.3 N/ mm2

Grout fcu = 46.4 N/ MM2

10
fcu=38.3N/mm2
5 IMixI
I
--*- Lest 5ý
n
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t (mm)

Figure 9.10(b): Variation in effective modulusfor compressivespecimenstype A in

test series5 for varying thicknesst of infill grout

9-41
 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

Figure9.11:Variationin effectivemodulusfor compressive typeA in test

specimens

series3 for varying thicknesst of infiU concrete

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

Figure 9.12(a): Variation in effective modulusfor compressivespecimenstype A in

test series4 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

9-42
 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/m-rP
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

Figure 9.12(b): Variation in effective modulus for compressivespecimenstype A in

test series4 for varying thicknesst of infill concreteandaxial compressivestress

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

Figure 9.13: Zone of interfacedeformability for compressivespecimens

9-43
 14

12
11-1lo
C4

13 Test t=25
6 Test t=50
8
0 Dry joint 0 Test t=100

6 Analytical t=25

...... Analytical t=50

4
Analytical t= 100
Mix I fcu = 41.2 N mm2
2 i Test t=O
Infill fcu = 19.0N mm 2
Analytical t--O
oI
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
InterfacedefonnabflityX (mm)

Figure 9.14: Axial stressinterfacedeformabilityfor compressivespecimenstype A in

test series3 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

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

Nfix 1 fcu = 52.7 N/ MM21

Infill f, = 26.7 N/ mm2
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Interfacedefonnabflity%(mm)

Figure 9.15: Axial stressinterfacedeformability for compressivespecimenstype A in

test series4 for varying thicknesst of infill concrete

9-44
 6
INfix I fc,, 39.4 N/
C40/t=O
C Oft = MmIll
5
Euc,
4 ncrackedconcretebeam
Unr,
ncr,
EcpZuncr
Grad 10-3
x

f Crackedconcretebeam
I Ecp
Grad = CpZcr10-3
0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

deformation8 (mm)

Figure 9.16(a): Load compressivedeformationat top of specimenfor t=0 in test

series6

6
C40/t=25
5
Mx 1 fcu = 39.4 N/ MM2
//
Infill feu = 19.8N/ mm2

Uncrackedconcretebeam
EceZuncr-
Grad = 10-3
x
Crackedconcretebeam
EceZcr
Grad = 10-3
x

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

deformation5 (mm)

Figure 9.16(b): Load compressivedeformationat top of specimenfor t= 25 in test

series6

9-45
 6
C40/t=50 Nfix I fcu = 39.4 N/ MM2
5 Infill fcu = 19.8 N/ mm 2

[U-ncrackedconcrete bearn
EceZuncr
Grad = 10-3

Crackedconcretebeam
EceZcr
Grad = 10-3

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

deformation8 (mm)

Figure 9.16(c): Load compressivedeformationat top of specimenfor t= 50 in test

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

9-46
 ' Figure 9.17: Zone of interfacedeformability for flexural specimensrype B in

testseries6 for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

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)

Figure 9.18: Load interfacedeformability for flexural specimenstype B in

testseries6 for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

9-47
 1
In this region
X wiU be - ve
0.95

0.9 Value of E,,/Ep

that will give X=0
0.85
In this region
0.8 X wiU be + ve

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

series6 for varying thicknesst of insitu concrete

0.0025
Nfix 1 fcu = 40.6 N/ mm
0.002 -- Nfix 2 fcu = 39.1N/ MM2

w Infill fcu = 20.2 N1 mm2

t. O.0015

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

9-48
 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)

lengthof barsin bondslip test

Figure9.21:Tensileforcein barsvs;effectiveanchorage

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)

Figure 9.22: Compressiveforce in concretevs compressivedeformationat bottom of

specimenin bondslip testin testseries7

9-49
 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)

Figure9.23:Tensileforcein barsvscrackwidthopeningat topof specimen

in bond

slip testin testseries7

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

test in test series7

9-50
 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)

deformationat bottomof specimenin

Figure9.25:Bendingmomentvs compressive

bond slip test in test series7

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

9-51
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

9-52
Plate 9.2 : Failure regions of test series 2

Plate 9.3 : Failure regions of test series 3

9-53
Plate 6.4(a): Failure regions of test series 4 (front face)

Plate 9.4(b) : Failure regions of test series 4 (back face)

9-54
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)

9-55
Plate 9.6(a) : Failure region of test series 6 for tension cracking

Plate 9.6(b) : Failure region of test series 6 for compression deformability

9-56
Plate 9.7 : Failure regions of test series 7

9-57
 CHAPTER10

VALIDITY OF COMPONENT METHOD

10.1 Simulating joint behaviour from sub-section tests

Ile experimentalwork on full scaleframe connectiontests establishedthat the most

common types of connectionsexhibit somedegreeof in-plane flexural semi-rigidity.

Values of strength, stiffness and (Mcon -0) data have been given previously

(Chapter 6 Section6.2). Of course,it restswith the designengineerto decide whether

this information justifies a semi-rigid frame design. However, the need to provide

further Mcon -ý data, without incurring the additional expenseof testing, has led to

the development of the so called componentmethod (Elliott et al, 1994b). Here

Mcoa -ý data are generatedby superpositionof individual (and combined) actions

within the connection. The component method is accepted in semi-rigid steel

connection analysis,and previouswork by the authors(Elliott et al, 1994b)suggested

that it might also be feasiblein precastconcreteconnections.

The main objective of the experimentalwork of the component method has

been to reproducethe moment-rotationcharacteristicsof the connectionsfound in full

scale subframe tests, from smaller isolated joint components tests. This has been

achieved by studying the influence of the strength and thickness t of in-situ infill

concrete on stress-strainbehaviourin compressionand flexural specimens.

10-1
 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

8B can be computedseparatelyfor given loading and expressedin terms of material

and geometric properties,a simplemethodto determineý is possible.In this method

an "effective tensilestiffness"is found which relatesbond and tensile deformation 8T

to the applied tensionforces. Similarly,in the compressionzone an "effective concrete

modulus" Ece is found by experimentationand the associatedstrains, and hence

deformations 8B are determinedfrom the appropriate state of stress. They were

obtained using the Ece values calculatedfrom the compressiontests. It should be

noted that this is an applicationof the method

component to the subframeby using the

effective modulusof the consisting

compressionspecimens, of precastand in-situ infill

concrete, and that it was experimentallyfound that it is always greater than the infdl

and lessthan the precastconcretesmodulus.

Ibis presentwork takesthe abovea further step forward by determining the

Mcon -0 curves for double sided connections,subjectedto equal hogging moments

andshearforces,by threemethods:
1. Direct measurementusing vertical deflectionsfrom full scaletesting

(called'Method I (Ml)'defined in Section6.1.2);

2. Direct measurementusing horizontal deformationfrom full scaletesting

(called 'Method 2 (M2)' definedin Section6.1.2);

Joint rotations computed from isolated test results based on the

'Component Method' defined in Section L. 4.3 for comparison with 2

above.

10-2
10.2 Calculation of moment-rotation 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

used in crack-width calculations.

Figure 10.1(a) shows the cross-sectionof the joint at the column face,

subjectedto a incrementalhoggingbendingmoment Mcon- The following simplifying

assumptionsare made(Kong & Evans,1990):-

(a) Planesectionsremainplaneafter bending.In other words, the strainsvary

linearly with distancesfrom the neutralaxis.

(b) Stressesin the steeland concreteare proportionalto the strains.

(c) The concreteis crackeddown to the neutralaxis, and no tensilestressexist in

the concreteaboveit.

When Mcon is small enoughfor the maximumconcretetensilestressnot to exceedthe

tensile strengthof the concrete(before the joint starts cracking), an analysisbasedon

an uncrackedsectionbecomesrelevant.The effectiveconcretesection is then the full

section bh, as shown in Figure 10.1(b) and the equivalent section is as in Figure

10.1

The neutral axis of the uncrackedsection passesthrough the centroid of the

equivalent section,the neutralaxis depth xu is thereforegiven by:-

Ac(xu-ý =aeAs(d-xu) Eq.10.1

2)

10-3
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

concreteas mentionedabove.It is necessaryto convertthe steelto an "equivalentarea

of concreteby multiplying A. by " e. Referringto Figure 10.1(c), the secondmoment

area of the uncrackedequivalentsectionof the joint lu may be determinedusing the

pamllelaxisdicoremasfollows:-

bh3 h)2
IU = +bh xu - +aeAs(d-xuf Eq.10.2
12 2

At any distance xi from the neutral axis, the concretestress fci and the steel stress

fsi are given by:-

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

the slab-columnor beam-columnboundarieswherethe bendingmomentis maximum.

10-4
 After cracking the crosssectionalpropertiesof the sectionwill changeand it is

first necessaryto determinethe depth to the neutral axis, xcr, using first momentsof

area. Referring to Figure 10.1(d); taking momentsaboutthe bottom of thejoint: -

bxcr2+a
(bxcr +aeAs)xcr = Ad Eq.10.4
2

hence xcr may be obtainedby solving the resultingquadraticequation.

The secondmomentof areaof the flexuraRycrackedsection Icr is given by:-

bxcr3 2
icr = +aeAs -Xcr Eq.10.5
3

The compressivebendingstresswas thenfound from the bendingformula as:-

Mcon
Ad ý-- Xcr Eq.10.6
Icr

For each value of moment Mcon at the section, the concrete stress fc on the

compressionface was calculated.It was assumedfc in Figure 10.1(g) is just equal to

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

Met connection). Tben, the compressive deformation 8B in each relevent

10-5
compressionspecimenwas calculatedfrom the stressversuscompressivedeformation

curve, for examplein Figure 10.2,usingthe abovestressvalues.

From the condition of equilibriumof forces (seeFigure 10.1(g)), tensile force

T in the bars was calculatedas:-

Mcon
T= Eq.10.7
z

where z is lever ann, z=d- xcr/3, and d is effectivedepth.

Crack width opening 8T correspondingto the above T valueswas obtained

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, Mcon-0 data is

derived from the componentmethod,using the Method 2, asfollows:-

1. Using the flexurally uncrackedsectionpropertiesZ,, of the joint (at

the column face)andfloor slab (neglectingthe weldedplate or billet

connection),the compressiveflexural stressa in thejoint is

determinedfor a given bendingmoment Mcon i.e. a -,4 MconlZu

, -

2. The compressivestrainin thejoint e= alEce where Ece is given in

,

Figures9.9(b) and9.1O(b).Compressivedeformation 8B is

determinedover a gaugelengthof 180mm.

3. The tie force in the top steelis equatedto the total compressionforce

in the beam.8T beingdetermineddirectly from the aforementioned

crack width test data.

10-6
 8T+8B
Rotation Eq.10.8
h

5. Repeatsteps1 to 4 using the flexuraUycrackedsectionproperties

wherethe flexural tensilestressin the concreteexceededthe limiting

value.This point coincidedwith thecommencementof the first crack in

the test series7, Le at Mcon = 30 kNm.

10.3 Comparison of Mcon-0 derived from full tests and the component

method

Figure 10.4 shows a comparisonof the results obtained from the above work with

those obtained in the full scalesubfrwneconnectiontest, test TWl(A). Figure 10.4

shows the two methodsare in exceRentagreementfor Mcon < 75 kNm, and within 14

per cent of one anotherthereafterasfar as the rotation of the connectionis concerned.

This shows that, within the normal scatter in experimentalwork of this type, either

method may be used to generate Mcon-0 data, and is the first step towards the

validation of the componentmethod.

The agreementwith the full scaleresultsvaries between-12 and +14 per cent

of the rotation. However, the maximummoment M. achievedis onlY 160 kNm, i.e.

two-thirds 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.

The post-crackingtangentstiffness Jc (in cycle 1) of the connectionin the full scale

10-7
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

approximatedfrom the datain Figure 10.4asfollows:-

Ju = 485.0kNm/mrad

This value was calculatedat the first crack level (Mcr = 30 kNm) as shown in Figure

10.4. The initial connectionstiffnessesin the full scalesubframetest are presentedin

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

subframetests with thoseobtainedby Mahdi (1992) in a full scale3-dimensionaltest

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

gap betweenthe endsof the slabs.The beam-column

connectionsin the full scaletest

was subjectedto bending

a simultaneous momentand vertical shearforce. The details

of which are given in Chapter2 Section2.2.2. The stiffnessof the sideswayconnection

(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

concerned)nor the ultimate rotationsin the full size connectionscould be reproduced

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

and the capabilityof the connectionto redistributemomentsin the frame. it should be

10-8
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 Mcon-ý curve of the simplified component method into

better agreementwith full scalesubframeexperimentalresults.

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.

However, the maximummoment Mu = 160kNm is 0.84 of the full scaledouble sided

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

of that achievedin the full scaletest. The post-crackingtangentstiffness Jc (in cycle

1) of the connectionin the ffill scaletest variesfrom 48.0 kNm/mrad, whereasin the

componentmethodit is approximately30.7kNm/mrad.

The connectioninitial tangent flexural stiffness in the simplified test may be

approximatedfrom the datain Figure 10.6asfollows:-

Ju = 456.0kNm/mrad

The initial connectionstiffnessesin the full scalesubframetest are presentedin Table

A6.1.11 for eachcycle for testTBI(A) for Beam I side.

10.4 Summing up

In making comparisonsbetween the Mcon-0 results obtained from the different

methodsthere are a numberof important featuresin the behaviourof the full scaletest

10-9
worthy of further discussion.Thesepoints were/arediscussedin the context of gaining

confidence in using the componentmethod, and to qualify some of the (inevitable)

assumptions(in italics) made.

In generating the Mcon-0 data using the componentmethodit is assumedthat the

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

will have an influenceon this.

In the isolated tests it is impossiblefor strains to exceed the uniaxial limit and

therefore no redistribution of stressis possiblein the componentmethod.

In using the componentmethodit is assumedthat plane sectionsremain plane, and

that full horizontal interface shear interaction between the beam and slabs is

possible. It is not necessaryto includefor the effectsof the weldedjoint betweenthe

steel billet and narrow plate as thispoint coincideswith the neutral axis.

The comparisons between full scale tests and the component method for the

symmetricalgravity loading casefor hoggingmomenthavebeenencouragingfor both

uncracked and cracked regions of the connection.No attempt has been made in this

work to make comparisonswith either saggingmomentsor sideswaysituations,or to

estimatefailuremoments.

10-10
 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.

10-11

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)

Figure 10.2: Axial stressdeformationdatafor compressivespecimenstype A in test

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

Nfix 2 fcu = 39.1 N mm 2

350
300 Infill fcu = 20.2 Ni mm2
Ei 250
.
200
C>
2
150
100
jo
50
9

0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Crack width &r (mm)

Figure 10.3: Tensileforce in barsvs crack width openingat top of specimenin bond

slip test in test series7 (Section 8.4.2)

10-12
 250

200

150

100

Ml BI V4
M2SI
50
-*-M2Bl
-. 0 Component
1-0- co method
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Relativerotations0 (rad)

Figure 10.4: Moment-rotation data obtained using three different measurement

methods for test TW 1(A) comparedwith componentmethod

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)

Figure 10.5: Comparisionof moment-rotationdatawith Mahdi's work for welded

plateconnections

10-13
 250 f--- I 11
-0-TBI(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)

Figure 10.6: Comparisionof moment-rotationdata with componentmethodfor billet

connections

10-14
 CHAPTER11

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

11.1 Introduction

Full scaletesting of precastconcretebeam-columnconnectionshasbeencarried out to

(Mcon-0) data.The tests included

generatepracticalsemi-rigidmoment-rotation

200 mm deepprecasthollow cored floor slabsand stability tie reinforcementsas used

in practice. The results show that connectionsat internal columnsmay be considered

as full strength and semi-rigid,whereasedgeconnectionsshould be better classifiedas

pinned-jointed becauseof their limited strength. Designersmay use these results as

input data in a frame analysisby adopting the 'beam-line7

approachto determinethe

stiffness and strengthof the connection.

Column effective length factors 0 have beencomputedin a number of sway

sub-framesin unbracedand partially bracedprecastconcrete frames, by varying the

frame stiffnessratio andthe connection/beam

stiffnessratio. Parametricequationshave

beenpresentedwhich enabledesignersto determine 0 factors for situationscurrently

not cateredfor in designcodes.

11.2 Objectives

Precastconcreteskeletalframesare designedas braced,unbracedor partially braced

structures, in which the columns are continuous at the floor level. The majority of

11-1
connections are either single sided (at the edges of buildings) or double sided (at

interior columns), and thesehaveformed the basisof all the experimentaltests carried

out in this thesis. Precastconnectionsalso distinguishbetween those which include

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

component in the connection.

Presentdesignmethodsconsiderall precastconnectionsas pinnedjointed such

that continuity between beamsat internal connectionsis not allowed, and column

moments,due to sway loadsetc., may not be distributedinto beams.Although Mahdi

(1992), Lindberg et al (1992) and Comair et al (1992) have establishedthat the most

commonly usedconnectionsdo exhibit somedegreeof in-planeflexural semi-rigidity,

it rests with the designengineerto decidewhetherthis infonnationjustifies its use in a

semi-rigid frame design.To achievethis aim, two setsof dataarerequired.

(a) designequationsfor columneffective length factors 0 presentedin

termsof frameAND connectionstiffness,which enablecolumn sway

deflectionsand P-A momentsto be determined.

(b) ' moment-rotation

(Mcon-0) datacollectedfrom experimentaltestson

actualprecastconcretebeam- column connections.Theseresults

provide the connectionstiffnessusedin (a) definedby Jes, the lowest

secantstiffness,in Figure 11.1(d).

Chapter4 presentedthe resultsof a parametricstudy of P factors in unbraced

and partially bracedframes(item (a)), and Chapter6 presentedthe Mcon-0 data of

full scalebeam-column-slabsub-frames(item (b)). A methodfor a semi-rigid approach

11-2
to the design of a multi-storey precastframe is proposedand a worked example is

presentedin this Chapter.

Typical Mcon-0 graphs are presented to define the beam-line and to

determinevariousrotationalsecantstiffnesses,definedby J. and Je in Figure 11.1(c)

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

(dashed)beam-linewith the Mcon-0 curves.A summaryof all the valuesfor Ks are

presented in Tables 11.1 to 11.7, and for the rotations and measuredstiffnessesin

Tables 11.8 and 11.9.

11.3 Beam-line concept and experimental tests to determine connection

stiffness

For a simply supportedbeamacted on by a uniforinly distributed load q and equal

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

characteristicgives the momentandrotation of the connectionfor a given loading.

11-3
 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

characteristicsof relevantfigures in Chapter6, and is shownin Figures 11.1to 11.8.

The beam- line is drawn correspondingto a loading and a certain beamspan-

to - height ratio l1h . The moment- rotation characteristichas to intersect the beam-

line, otherwisetherewill be insufficientrotationcapacityavailablefor usein design.

71besolid beam - lines in Figures 11.1 to 11.8 give the hogging bending

moment of resistanceof the composite(or bearnonly) section Mbeamfor the actual

material properties measuredin the tests, i.e. actual compressivecube strength of

concrete and yield strength of rebar. The rotation capacity Obo is calculated for a

typical spanof I=6m (beamspan- to - heightratio 11h= 60001500= 12 inclusive of

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 Mcon-0 plots in Figures 11.2 to 11.8 or intersectsat critical

points (seedetail in Figure 11.1(b)). The fact that the beam-linedid 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

decided to use a beam-line(dashed)assumingthe beam end moments equal to the

moment capacitiesof the connections(Mbean = Mu, see Figures 11.1(c) and (d)) to

ensure it intersects the Mcon-0 plots before attained M. to obtain reasonable

characteristics(e.g. sufficient rotational capacity)of the connectionfor use in design.

11-4
It is desirable for the intersectionpoint to be within the linear elastic part of the

Mcon -ý plot so that a linear elasticstability analysismay be used. 17hismethod has

also beenusedby Zoetemeijer(1989).

When the beam- line approximationis adopted,the lowest secantstiffness J.,

of the connection is used in calculating the Euler buckling load of the frame.

According to Zoetemeijer (1989) this is a safe approximation to the connection

behaviour in calculatingthe stability of the frame. The secantstiffnesshas also been

recommendedby Ioannides(1988)for the following reasons:

a) the factoredloadswill be appliedin one step,

b) the secantstiffnessprovidesan integratedaverageof how the

connectionarrived at the presentlevel of loading,

C) regardlessof the modeof loadingandunloadingat one time in the life

of the structurethe actualmoment- rotation was followed to arrive at

the presentstateof load.

d) if an initial stiffnessis usedthe deflectionsderivedwill be erroneous

It is further proposedthat factored loads be utilized in the analysis,otherwise

due to the non - linear natureof moment- rotation curvesan incorrect factor of safety

may be assumedto exist. Using unfactoredloads and allowablestressdesign leads to

false factor of safety, underestimatestotal deflections,and thus underestimatesthe

P -A effects.

11-5
11.4 Test series 1

11.4.1 Test TW1(A)

Beam-lines are drawn in Figures 11.2(a) and (b). Although the solid beam-line in

Figure 11.2(a) does not intersect the Mcon-0 plots for beam 1, it intersects the

Mcon -0 plots in Figure 11.2(b) at a momentvalue of 235 kNm, and at a rotation

value of 12 mrad, which is greaterthan the Ou due to the ductility of the connection.

However the intersectionsof the Mcon-0 plots with the dashedbeam-lines

give the lowest Me valuesas 195.60kNm and 198.40kNm for

respectively, beamsI

and 2 (seeTablesA 11.1.1

&2). Both valueswere obtainedfrom the intersectionof the

McO,j -0 plot of V4. The lowest secantflexural stiffnessesJes at these moments

were calculatedas 39.5 kNmImrad and 44.9 kNm/mrad,respectively.By comparison,

4EcIc
the flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 rn) is 17.4 kNm/mrad,
I

so that the correspondingvaluesof Ks determinedfrom the various measurementsof

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.

Designersadopting the beam-line'approachmay use Jes the lowest secantstiffness,

,

as input data in a frame analysisto determinestrengthof the connection.It is safer to

use J., as it would have beenthe secant

stiffnessvalue if the joints were loadedin one

11-6
cycle to failure. A check is requiredto ensurethat the strengthof the connectiondoes

not exceedthe Me.

I

11.4.2 Test TWI(C)

The intersections of the dashed beam-fine 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 Mcon-0 plot of

M2. Ile secantflexuralstiffnessesJes at thesemomentswere calculatedas 18.3

kNm/mrad and 15.6kNm/mrad,respectively.ne flexural stiffnessof the bearnsection

4ECIC
alone (for 1=6 m) is 6.1 kNm/mrad. The corresponding values of K.
I

of stiffnessare given in Table 11.2. Jes =

determinedfrom the various measurements

79% Je, and J. = 62% Je and Jus = 54%Je. In comparisonwith test TW1(A) the

proportion of maximumvalueis approximatelythe sameat Me, theseproportions are

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

crushing failure in the joints in test TW I (A). Ratios of K. determinedfrom Je and

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

ratio 0.97 of Ks determinedfrom Jes to the correspondingKs in test TVI(A) as

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

the propertiesof eachmemberin the frame.

11-7
11.5 Test series 2

11.5.1 Test TW2

The beam-linesdrawn for comparisonwith the experimentalresults for the bearnand

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 Mcon-0 plots before

attained M. due to the ductility of the connection.The intersectionsof the Mcon -0

plots with the dashedbeam-linegive 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

stiffnesses,Jes at thesemomentswere calculatedas 12.2 kNm/mrad. By comparison,

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

the flexibility of the column asmentionedin the discussionof this test.

11.6 Test series3

11.6.1 Test TB1(A)

Similarly, in Figures 11.5(a)and (b) the intersectionsof the Mcon-ý plots with the

dashed beam-linesgive the lowest Me values as 162.20 kNm and 149.75 kNm

11-8
respectively,for beamsI and 2 (seeTable A 11.1.5 & 6). The lowest secantflexural

stiffnesses,Jes at these moments were calculated as 48.42 kNm/mrad and 33.73

kNm/mrad, respectively.By comparison,the flexural stiffnessof the compositesection

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
.

reduction in the stiffnessof thejoints at the Mu is a function of the greater ductility of

the joints.

11.6.2 Test TB1(B)

In Figure 11.6 the intersectionsof the Mcon-ý plots with the dashedbeam-linesgive

the lowest Me values as 148.5 kNrn and 150 kNrn respectively,for beams 1 and 2

(seeTable A 11.1.7).The lowest secantflexural stiffnessesJes at thesemomentswere

calculated as 37.1 kNm/mrad and 38.96 kNm/mrad, respectively.By comparison,the

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

coffespondingvaluesin the testTB 1(A).

11.6.3 Test TBUQ

In Figure 11.7 the intersectionsof the Mcon-ý plots with the dashedbeam-linesgive

the lowest Me values as 142 kNm and 139.5 kNm respectively,for bcams I and 2

11-9
(seeTable A 1.1.1.8).Ibe lowest secantflexural stiffnessesJ., at thesemomentswere

calculatedas 35.06 kNm/mrad and 32.07kNm/mrad,respectively.By comparison,the

4ECIC
flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 m) is 17.4 kNm/mrad. The
I

valuesof K. are given in Table 11.6.Ratios of K. to the correspondingKs in the test

TB 1(B) varies from 0.89 to 0.96. Thesemay be regardedas good correlation between

the two tests.

11.7 Test series 4

11.7.1 Test TB2

The intersectionsof the Mcon-0 plots with the dashedbeam-linein 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

thesemomentswere calculatedas 16.27,19.23and 22.95 kNm/mrad. By comparison,

4EcIc
the flexural stiffnessof the compositesection (for 1=6 m) is 17.4 kNm/mrad.
I

The valuesof K. are given in Table 11.7.

11.8 Significance to designers

Precast concrete frames are currently designed assuming that beam-column

connectionsare pin jointed, and that columnbendingmomentsmay not be distributed

into the beams.This implies that deflectioninducedmomentsmust be conservatively

summedat the foundation over the full height of the structure. Secondly,columns in

11-10
unbraced,frames must be consideredas full height cantileverswhere P=2.3 (BS

8110,1985). If the beam-columnconnectionis shown to possessstrength, stiffness

if
and ductility, which the internal connections tested in this work clearly do, then

columns may be designedfor eachstoreyheight providing that the total moment in the

bearn-to-column connection is less than the moment capacity Mbeam which

corresponds the moment-rotationallimit of the beam. Tle designer must therefore

select the following:

(a) weldedplateor billet,

thetypeof connection,

(b) the column-beamgeometry,i. e. internal or external,

(C) position in frame,i. e. groundfloor, upperfloor, and

(d) the appropriateM-ý curve for the connection,and beam-linesfor all

beamsin the frame.

The intersectionpoint of the beam-linewith the joint experimental Mcon -0

curve gives the secant stiffnesses defined by Je and Jes, the connection design

strength Me and the necessaryrotation capacities Oe in Figures 11.1(a) and (b).

Design valueswill of courseincorporatea partial safetyfactor to the test results. The

resulting connection/beamstiffness ratio is used in frame analysis programs to

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

8110,Part2, clause2.5.6,andEC2,Part 1,clause4.3.5.3.5.

11-11
11.9 Design example

The section describesthe analysisand designof a4 bay x2 bay x3 storey precast

concrete skeletal sway frame using both linear-elastic and non-linear analytical

techniques taking into account the semi-rigid behaviour of the beam-to-column

connections. The geometry and loadings were determined in consultation with

membersof the PrecastConcreteFramesAssociation(Elliott et al, 1994a).

The work was divided into two parts:

1) frameanalysisusinglinear-elasticsemi-rigidconnectionswith non-

linear elasticcomponents.This work was carriedout at Nottingham

University.

II) usingthe computerprogramSWANSA which takes into

frame analYSis

accountmaterialand geometricnon-linearitiesin the reinforced

concretecomponentstogetherwith actualnon-linearbehaviourof the

connections.This work was carriedout at City University.

In part Ia single load combinationof dead, imposed and wind loading was used.

Member momentsand forces were found for pinned, semi-rigid and fuUy rigid joints

with linear and non-linear elastic components.Then, using a linear-elastic analysis,

column effective length factors 0 in the single-storeysub-frameswere found. Finally,

beamsand columnswere designedusingmembermomentsfound in the previous steps

and 0 factorsfor pinnedandsemi-rigidjoints.

The variation of 0 with Ks and cc has been exatnined and presented in

Chapter4 Section4.1.2 both graphicallyand in the form of designequationssimilar to

those currently used in DS 8110. For the semi-rigid connectiona value of K. = 0.6

11-12
was used.TTdswas determinedfrom the initial stiffnessmeasuredin previous full scale

experimental testing on specimensof equal size (Mahdi, 1992) and specification to

those used in the frame analysis.Variation in the column and beammomentswith K.

is also given.

In Part II, the program SWANSAconsiders both material and geometric

nonlinearities in the members. The connections were characterised by tri-linear

moment-rotation data which closely approximatedthe measuredexperimental data

mentioned above. Four different loading combinationswere used. Beam and column

memberswere designedfrom the direct output,which takesinto accountsecond-order

deflection effects.The computerprogramis describedin detail in Virdi and Ragupathy

(1992a) (seeSection2.2.2).

11.10 Frame Design Exercise

10.10.1 Geometry and loading

The designexerciseaimedat analysinga 3-storey x4 bay x2 bay unbracedstructure

shown in Figure 11.9.The frameconsistedof continuous300 x 300 mrn columns, 300

x 300 mm beamsspanningin the x-direction,200 mm deephollow core floor slabsand

150 mm deep hollow core roof slabs spanningat right angles to the beams. The

columns and beamsare reinforcedasshownin Figure 11.10.The in-situ concrete infill

placedover the top of the beams

givesa floor
composite bearnsection500 mm deep.

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

11-13
possible to separatethe in-situ infill from the precastbeammaterial in the analysis.)

The foundationswere consideredencastre.

Referring to Figure 11.12,the structuremay be consideredin two planes:-

(i) in-plane,Figure 11.12(a),wherethe main flexural strengthand stiffness

derivesfrom beamandcolumn bendingandshear,and beam-column

connectionin bendingandshear.

(ii) out-of-plane,Figure 11.12(b),wherethe flexural behaviourderives

from flexure andshearin the slaband the beam-slabconnection,and

the torsion in the beam-columnconnection.

Insufficient experimentaldatapresentlyexist for case(H) to be consideredfurther.

Ile in-planestructurecase(i) was analysedas a 2-d plane frame (ignoring the

lateral stiffnessof the slabs)alongthe centreof the building.

The floor and roof loading was asfollows:-

Dead

SuperiMposed Self weight Finishes*

Floor loads (kN/m2 4.00 3.00 3.00

1.50 2.30 0.70

Roof loads (kN/m2)
1
Floor beamload (kN/m)** 30.00 47.00

Roof beamload (kN/m)** 11.25 24.50

* Partitions,floor or roof Mshes, servicesandceiling.

** Allow 2 kN/m self weight

11-14
Wind loads Basicwind speed= 40 m/s Building height = 12 m

ClassB structure, S1= S3 = 1.0

S2 = 0.83 (groundroughness= 3)

Horizontal designwind pressure= 0.676 kN/m2

Horizontal wind point loadsat eachfloor level are kN

Roof level 8.11

Secondfloor 17.75

First floor 18.51

'Me loading case that produced maximum bending moments in the columns was

combined dead,live and 'If

wind, with = 1.20.

11.10.2 Method of analysis

The frame was analysedusing the computerprogram (GOrgiln, 1992) (SeeChapter 3

Section 3.3) with the rotationalandaxial stiffnessof the beamsand columnscalculated

for the uncracked section. The rotational stiffnessof the beam-columnconnections

was specifiedasfollows-

Ks = 0; to simulatea pinned-joint.

(b) Ks = 0.6; to simulatethe semi-rigidjoint stiffnessfound in previous

full-scaleexperimentaltestingby Mahdi on componentsof equal

dimensionsasin this study.SeeFigure 1(a).

11-15
 (C) Ks =Ix 109;to simulatea fully rigid joint, and to serveasa

comparisonfor case(b).

The connectionusedis assumedto be of weldedsteelplate type. The moment

rotation data used in the analysis is based on tests carried out at Nottingham

University (Mahdi, 1992) as given in Table 11.10.

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

shown in Figure 11.13.

11.11 Part I results using linear connections

11.11.1 Pin-jointed connections

In this situation the horizontalloadingis sharedequallybetweenthe columns(because

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

maximum bendingmomentsof wL2 /8 at mid-span,and zero at the support.

1) Column design

Column bendingmomentsdue to sway deflection were assessedusing two methods.

Firstly, by a full computer analysisof the 2-dimensionframe with elastic non-linear

beam and column components.The computerprogram (GOrgUn,1992) inducessway

deflections and iterates towards the maximumcolumn load, at which point the sway

deflection increaseis unlimited. The resulting bending moments, shown in Figure

11.14(a), are clearly due to the flexibility of a 3-storey pin-jointed frame. The size of

11-16
column required to cope with this behaviouris approximately450 x 450 mm requiring

4 T32 bars.

In the second method, according to BS 8110, second order deflections are

assessedfor each floor level in turn, using effective length factors of 2.3. This is

becauseac= 10 for pinnedconnections(BS 8110, Part 2, clause2.5). The resulting

values for Madd are summedover the full height of the frame becauseno moment

may be transferredinto the beamthroughthe pinnedconnection.

External column

Considering the externalcolumn reE I (Figure 11.12(a)),the bendingmoment at the

foundation is due to (a) frame action in resisting wind loads, Mw, (b) connection

eccentricity, Me and (c) sway deflections,Madd..

(a) The resultsfrom the frameanalysisgive Mw = 70 kNm (Figure 11.14(b)).

(b) Moments due to connectioneccentricityderive from out of balancebeam

loads,acting at e=h/2+ 50 mm as shownin Figure 11.13.The out of

balanceload at the first floor is due to the ultimate shearforce, i.e.

V=1.2 x 77 x 6.0 /2= 277.2kN for Ist and 2nd floor

V=1.2 x 35.75x 6.0/2= 128.7kN for 3rd floor

(300 / 2) + 50 = 200 mm

M= 55.5 kNm at first and secondfloor

*. M= 25.8 kNm at roof

.

11-17
 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

(c) Sway deflectioninducedmomentsarecalculatedasfbHows(using BS 8110

notation):-
Le = 2.3LO

2
au = Lelb Kh / 2000

Madd = Na.

where N is the ultimate axial load at eachfloor level (given above,excluding

column self weight), andare given in Table 11.11.

Thus Mdesign= 322.7K+ 83.7 kNm

N 687AO3
if N= 687 kN, then Th = ý0-0 7.63
x3OO
X300

Using BS 8110, Part 3, Chart 47 gives K 1.0

2!
and M= 406.4 kNm, then - = 15.05
bh2

11-18
 -. The column may NOT be designed
using b=h= 300 mm
.
Redesigningthe column usingb=h= 350 mm gives

Mdesign= 276.4 K+ 15.4+ 70.0 = 276.4 K+ 85.4 kNm

N m=8.44 Asc
Now 5.7.-. K=1.0 for which = 5.5 clo
ýh bh2 bh

-. Use 350 x 350 mrn externalcolumn with 6 T40 bars

.

li) Beam design

The beammomentsobtainedfrom the computerprogramare for spansbetween

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

200) = 5600 mm.

Mbeam= 93 x 5.62/8= 364.6kNm for the floor beams.

The moment at the end of the beamis zero.

11.11.2 Semi-rigid connections

The 2-d frame was analysedusing a beamto column connectionhaving a stiffnessof

Ks = 0.6, but with a limiting strength of Mcon = +125 kNm in the sagging mode

11-19
(bottom of connectionin tension)and -210 kNm in the hogging mode. These values

are the ultimate strengthsobtainedin the experimentaltest indicated in Figure 2.8 in

Chapter 2.

As before with the pinned-jointed analysis, two methods were used to

determinecolumn bendingmoments.In the first casea full computeranalysis(GlirgUn,

1992) using non-linearframe componentsgavebendingmomentswhich would include

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

are shown in Figure 11.16.

One notices immediatelythe effects of moment distribution in the columns

where a reductionin the foundationmomentfrom 1080.4kNm to 47.4 kNm has taken

place. The maximummomentof -170 kNrn at the floor beamconnectionsis less than

hogging connectionmoment Mcon = -210 kNm (from Figure 2.8 and Table 11.10).

1) Column design using non-linear analysis

External column (Figure 11.12)

The moment at the foundation = Mw + Me, where Mw = 47.4 kNm from frame

action, and Me = 13.7kNm as before.Total = 61.1 kNm.

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

kNm, or Mw = 72.3 kNm plus M. = 29.6 kNm = 101.9kNm

11-20
The column may be designedusingb=h= 300 mm with 4T 25 bars

ii) Beam design

The effect of the semi-rigidconnectionis to induce a hogging moment in the end of

the beam,and to reducethe mid-spansaggingmomentas shownin Figure 11.16.Now

that the connectionis capableof carrying beamend moments,the beammomentsare

basedon a6m effective spanrather than a 5.6 m centre to centre span in the pinned

condition. Whetherthereis a gradual transitionin the effective spanftom 5.6 m to 6.0

m as the connectionstiffnessincreaseshasnot beenascertainedat present.

The maximumbendingmomentsare:-

Mhog =- 170.3 kNm < -2 10 kNm (Figure 2.8 and Table 11.10)

Msag =+ 283.2kNm, i.e. a reductionof 81 kNm from the pinned condition

111) Column design using linear-elastic analysis

In this case a linear-elasticanalysiswas carried out to detennine 0 factors in the

single-storeysub-framesshown in Figure 11.17. The fbHowing 0 factors were also

determinedfrom equationsEq. 4.1(a) and Eq. 4.2(a) for the upper and ground floor

sub-framesusing K. = 0.6.

11-21
 Floor cc 0 0
Level
from analysis from equations
3 0.405 1.44 1.49 (Eq. 4.1(a))

2 0.341 1.37 1.44 (Eq. 4.1(a))

1 0.328 1.18 1.29 (Eq. 4.2(a))

The design method usessecondorder elastic deflectionsassessedat each floor level

using the 0 values(from analysis)given above.If the sum of Madd + Mw + Me

Mcon the bendingmomentsareassumedto be distributedinto the beamsand Madd is

assessedfloor-by-floor, and not summedover the total height of the structure as in

the pinned-jointed situation. This is the crux of this design exercise. The frame

moments for the columns and beamsare shown in Figure 11.18. Ile connection

eccentricity momentsMe are asbefore.

External column

The maximum bendingmomentsaregiven in Table 11.12.

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

kNm and N= 126kN.

The column may be designedusingb=h= 300 mm with 4T 25 bars

11-22
11.11.3 Fully rigid connections

The 2-d frame was analysedusing rigid connectionsof stiffness Ks =1x 109. Tbe

strength of the connectionwas equal to that of the column. Using non-linear frame

(GbrgUn, 1992) componentsthe bending moments in the columns and beams are

shown in Figure 11.19. The major differencescomparedwith the semi-rigid analysis

occur (as expected)at the endsof the beams,where due to its increasedstiffnessthe

beam attractsa greaterbendingmoment.

The frame analysisgives the designforces and momentsdirectly. At the first

floor level N= 376 kN and M= 92.4 kNm.

The column may be designedusingb=h= 300 mm with 4T 25 bars

The maximum beammomentsare Mhog = -317.4kNm, and Msag =+ 187.8kNm.

11.12 Part 11results using non-linear connections(SWANSA)

11.12.1 Summary of results

Starting with an assumedmember geometry and reinforcement,the structure was

analysed for the Ultimate Limit State conditions for all four of the above load

combination cases.After redesign,the processresultedin the reinforcementshown in

Figure 11.10. With this reinforcement,the structurewas able to support all the above

load combinationssafely,with only a small sparecapacity.

The results are presentedas tabulatedvaluesof the axial loads, mid span and

end bendingmoments,and shearforces,in Report to PCFA (Elliott et al, 1994a).The

labels for beamsandcolumnsareidentified in Figure 11.20.It should be noted that the

11-23
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 resultsfor serviceabilitycasesis shownin Table 11.13.

1) Column design using SWANSA output

External column ref C1 - C3, and C13 - C15.

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

M= 84 kNrn (Bottom of column C15) and N= 98 M

The column may be designedusingb=h= 300 mm with 4T 25 bars

li) Beam design

The maximum bendingmomentsarefound :-

Mhog =- (140 + 345 x 0.050) = -157.3kNm

Msag =+ 389 kNm.

11.13 Joint behaviour

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

11-24
frame is 0.014.2mradian,andthat this valueis well within the failure rotation obtained

in testsfor this type of joint.

11.14 Discussion

11.14.1 Effect of connection stiffness on column and beam frame moments

These are shown in Figures 11.21to 11.23for the beamend and mid-spanmoments,

and the column foundation moments,respectively.Again, the largest changestake

place over the range 0< Ks < 1.5. The large differencesin the momentsin columns

reL 1 and 5 are due to the wind

non-symmetrical loading combined with the beam

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

thereforean effective lengthfactor of about 1.5could be imaginedfor this column.

Large changesin momentsat the first floor also take place when Ks < 1, for

examplethe beamend momenthas by

increased 2/3 of the total increaseat this point.

The hogging moment capacity of the connection (-210 kNm) would have been

exceededwhen Ks > 2. Therefore, for this particular frame geometry and loading,

using a connector stiffness Ks greater than 2 would require greater connection

strengthin order for the connectionto behavesemi-rigidly at the ultimate limit state.

The large end hogging momentscan easily be resistedby the compressionin

the bottom of the beamand the tensionin the stability tie steel placedalong the top of

the beam in the in-situ 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

11-25
prestressedbeamswhere the combinedstressesdue to pretensionand frame moments

needto be checked.

11.14.2 Comparison of column bending moments for the send-rigid

analysis

Position in edge Linear elasticmemb- (G(Jrgtin,1992) SWANSA

column ers with BS8110 Non linear members Non linear members
Madd
with linear and connections
connection

Roof 81 81 82
2nd - Roof 90 85 71

2nd - lst floor 101 102 84

I st - 2nd floor 118 100 77

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 non-linearmemberanalysisis in

reasonableagreementwith SWANSA exceptat the foundationwhere the fon-nerunder

estimatesthe momentby 20 kNm.

11.15 Conclusions

M exerciseset out to designa3 storey precastconcreteframe consisting of 300 x

300 mm beamsand columnssupporting200 mm deep hollow cored floor slabs.The

11-26
main objective of the exercisewas to show that when the connectionsbetween the

beamsand columnsareconsideredassemi-rigidjoints, then:-

1. it is possiblefor the columnsto be designed300 mm square;

2. the negativesteelat the end of the beamis cateredfor by the stability

fie steelin the in-situ concreteinfill;

the mid-spanreinforcementin the beamis reduced.

For the semi-rigid connectiona value of Ks = 0.6 was used. This was determined

from the resultsof somepreviousftffl scaleexperimentaltestingon specimensof equal

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

300 mm columnsusing pin-jointedconnections(Ks = 0). The requiredsize of column

to cope with second-order bending moments of more than 1000 kNm. at the

foundation is at least450 mm square.

When the connection is considered semi-rigid (Ks = 0.6) the column

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 semi-rigid values,

reducing the maximum columnmomentto 92 kNm.

Reductions in beam moments at mid span for the pinned and semi-rigid

conditions were in the order of 80 kNm, whilst the negativemoment at the end of the

beamincreasedfrom zero to -170 kNm, respectively.

77zusa semi-rigid designis a practical and economicalapproach.

11-27
Method of Ks determinedfrom stiffness:

measurement Je Jes is JUS

Ml B V4 Beam 1 2.83 2.27 1.59 1.43

Beam2 3.13 2.57 1.33 1.24
Mean 2.98 2.42 1.46 1.34
Proportion of
maximum 100% 81% 49% 45%
value
M2 S Slab 1 3.08 2.56 1.66 1.52
Slab2 4.70 3.88 1.53 1.44
Mean 3.89 3.22 1.60 1.48
Proportion of
maximum 100% 83% 41% 38%
value
M2 B Beam 1 3.06 2.52 1.65 1.51
Beam2 3.90 3.23 1.46 1.37
Mean 3.48 2.88 1.56 1.44
Proportion of
maximum 100% 83% 45% 41%
value I I I II
Table 11.1:The valuesof Ks determinedfrom the variousmeasurements
of stiffness

in test TW I (A)

Method of K. determinedfrom stiffness:

measurement Je Jes is JUS

M2 B Beam 1 3.75 3.00 2.29 2.00

Beam2 3.29 2.55 2.05 1.80
Mean 3.52 2.78 2.17 1.90
Proportion of
maximum 100% 79% 62% 54%
value
Ratio of Ks to
1.01 0.97 1.39 1.32
corresponding
Ks in TWI (A)
Table 11.2:The valuesof Ks determinedfrom the variousmeasurements
of stiffness

in test TW I (C)

11-28
Method of Ks determinedfrom stiffness:

measurement Je Jes is ills

MI B V4 Mean=Beam1 1.05 0.71 0.27 0.24

Proportion of
maximum 100% 68% 26% 23%
value
Ratio of Ks to
0.35 0.29 0.18 0.18
corresponding
Ks in TW 1(A)
M2 S Mean=Slab1 1.30 0.94 0.35 0.30
Proportion of
maximum 100% 72% 27% 23%
value
Ratio of Ks to
0.33 0.29 0.22 0.20
corresponding
Ks in TWI(A)
Table 11.3:The valuesof K. determinedfrom the variousmeasurements
of stiffness

in testTW2

11-29
Method of K. determinedfrom stiffness:

measurement Je Jes is JUS

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)

Method of Ks determinedfrom stiffness:

measurement Je Jes is JUS

M2 S Slab 1 3.58 3.31 3.49 3.28

Slab2 3.80 3.31 3.85 3.41
Mean 3.69 3.31 3.67 3.35
Proportion of
maximum 100% 90% 99% 91%
value
M2 B Beam 1 2.43 2.12 1.87 1.72
Beam2 2.46 2.23 1.47 1.39
Mean 2.45 2.18 1.67 1.56
Proportion of
maximum 100% 89% 68% 64%
value I I I II
Table 11.5:The valuesof K. determinedfrom the variousmeasurements
of stiffness

in test TB I (B)

11-30
Method of K. determinedfrom stiffness:

measurement Je Jes is JUS

M2 S Slab 1 3.60 3.01 3.45 2.97

Slab2 3.73 3.28 3.63 3.24
Mean 3.67 3.15 3.54 3.11
Proportion of
mwdmurn 100% 86% 96% 85%
value
Ratio of Ks to
corresponding 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.93
Ks in TB I (B)
M2 B Beam 1 2.33 2.02 1.76 1.61
Beam2 2.08 1.84 1.45 1.35
Mean 2.21 1.93 1.61 1.48
Proportion of
mwdmum 100% 87% 73% 67%
value
Ratio of K,, to
0.90 0.89 0.96 0.95
corresponding
Ks in TB 1(B)
Table 11.6:Ile valuesof K. determinedfrom the variousmeasurements
of stiffness

in test TB 1(C)

Method of K., determinedfrom stiffness:

measurement Je Jes is JUS

Ml B V4 Mean=Beam1 N/A 0.94 0.22 0.08

Ratio of Ks to
N/A 0.48 0.29 0.11
corresponding
Ks in TB 1(A)
M2 S Mean=Slab1 N/A 1.11 0.23 0.08
Ratio of Ks to
N/A 0.34 0.12 0.05
corresponding
Ks in TB I (A)
M2 B Mean=BeamI N/A 1.32 0.60 0.16
Ratio of Ks to
N/A 0.47 0.38 0.11
corresponding
Ks in TB I (A)
Table 11.7:The valuesof K. determinedfrom the variousmeasurements
of stiffness

in test TB2

11-31
 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 V-4 -4 1
< z
cl C-i 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 ý-q 00 C (14 It r-
CIA
od
eq 1--i
;E

W) r- 00 W-1
00 en 0 10
cn C-i C4 A
C , C-i CO)
C14 CN 0ý cn
-0-

RT 00 C14 WI) C% 1ý0 II II

> W)
ON
tl-:
CD C
t": Wi
00
Ci
W) en
m en . -q CO)

rA

WI) tn C14 tn -4 110 en C4 C14

C0 -! 1; dd d

eq 00

C-4 " en rý c o (M
%o %.
C14 66 C CC

I
ýo m t4 V-) t- ý-q
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
v-i
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

< << 0ýo CD

vli c00 0
00 en
rA O\ r-
\O ýe ýe ýý e
lqt
f4
(Z
--4 r-
a
\O
(Z
m
IND
't

> 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 C-1
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
11-33
 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
2-3 10.95 25.18 83.95 1.057 K 136.3 K
1-2 7.75 17.83 59.42 0.530 K 147.8 K
G-1 3.95 9.09 30.28 0.138 K 38.5 K

- 322.7 K 70.0 13.7

L_Total
Table 11.11:Calculation--
of designmomentsat foundationsfor K. =0

Floor LO Le Le au Madd Mw Me Mdesign

Level b
3-2 0 0 55.3 25.8 81.1
2-3 1 3.20 4.61 15.36 0.035 K 1 4.38 K 59.3 26.2 89.9
2-1 0 0 71.4 29.6 101.0
1-2 3.80 5.23 17.43 0.046 K 18.17 K 71.2 28.5 117.9
1-G 0 0 58.8 27.3 86.1
G-1 3.95 4.66 15.54 0.036K 23.78K 44.9 13.7 82.4
Table 11.12:Calculationof designmomentsat eachfloor level Ks = 0.6

11-34
 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)

Beam Number Left Joint Right Joint

B1 10.30 14.2
B2 9.95 13.09

B3 3.50 7.33
B4 12.57 12.22
B5 30-09 12.22
B6 7.16 7.16
B7 12.22 0.72

B8 12.22 12.57
B9 4.54 4.36

BIO 14.2 10.30

Bll 13.09 9.95

B 12 7.33 3.50
Table 11.14:Rotationin thejoint (mrads)(SWANSA)

11-35
 350 Actual beammomentMb. (ultimatehogging)

300

250 Actual connectionmomentM. (ultimate hogging)

-- ---- ------ ------- -
al.beamline
200
Beamfine assuming
150 Mbe.. M.

E
100

50 Actual momeýt*
0
rotation curve of connectioh'-
i. 2. Ii....

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Relativerotations0 (rad)

Figure 11.1(a): Actual momentversusrelativerotationcurve with beam-lines

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)

Figure 11.1(b): Actual momentversusrelative rotationcurve with beam-lines

11-36
 Mu ------------...

Me --------
E

is

Junl ::

Ourd Oend Ou Of Ob,,= Mu I /2EcIc

Relativerotations0 (rad)

Figure 11.1(c): Actual momentversusrelativerotationcurve at which flexural

stiffnesseswere definedfor cycle 5

mu

me
lo.,

E
0 46""
unl

00 Ou 0. = Mu I /2EcIc
Of
Relativerotations0 (rad)

Figure 11.1(d): Actual momentversusrelativerotation curve at which flexural

stiffnessesweredefinedfor full cycle

11-37
 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)

Figure 11.2(a):Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam 1 and slab I in TW I (A)

using Methods I and 2 with beamlines

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)

Figure 11.2(b):Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam2 andslab 2 in TW I (A)

using Methods I and 2 with beamlines

11-38
 180
160 o M2BI
140 o M2 B2

120 - Beam no PSF

..... Con no PSF
100
80
Ift.
Ei 60 I

0 1.
> I
40
20
0
/
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Reladverotaflons0 (rad)

Figure 11.3: Moment versusrelativerotationsfor both beamsI and 2 in TW I (C)

using Method 2 with beamlines (no slabs,and Method I is not applicable)

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)

Figure 11A Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam 1 and slab I in TW2 using

Methods 1 and 2 with beamlines (no slab 2 and beam2, single sided test)

11-39
 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)

Figure 11.5(a):Moment versusrelativerotationsin beam I and slab I in TB l (A) using

Methods I and 2 with beamlines (no V3 and V4 due to a fault in POT18)

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)

Figure I 1.5(b):Moment versusrelative rotationsin beam2 in TB I (A) using Methods

I and 2 with beamlines (no slab 2 dueto a fault in POT9)

11-40
 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)

Figure 11.6:Moment versusrelativerotationsin slabs(in situ) and beamsin TB I (B)

using Method 2 with beamlines (Method I is not applicable)

350
s M2 Sl
300
* M2Bl
250 --o- M2 S2
o M2 B2
200 Beam no PSF
S

150 ...... Con no PSF

lu
s ".
loo

/ 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)

Figure 11.7:Moment versusrelative rotationsin slabs(in situ) and beamsin TB I (C)

using Method 2 with beamlines (Method I is not applicable)

11-41
 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)

Figure 11.8: Moment versusrelativerotationsin slab I and beam I in TB2 using

Methods 1 and 2 with beamlines (no slab2 and beam2, single sidedtest)

E
U,
N

r=

4x6 rr. c/c

i

Figure 11.9:Plan of 3-storeyframeconsideredin this designanalysis

11-42
 0aaa

00

0C
COLUMN 300000
4T25
BEAM 1 300400
7T25
BEAM 2 3OOx5OO
AT25

Column lst and 2nd floor beams Roof beams

NOTEI The beams are connected to columns with flexible joints
Cover to Centre of the renforcements is 50 mm

Figure 11.10:Beamandcolumn reinforcementdetails

I 400 N/rn M2

SWANSA

Figure 11.11:Stressvs strain datafor steeland concreteusedin analysis

11-43
 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

Figure 11.12: Simplified 2-d frames

300 rnm

200 mm

TSEAM

COLUMN JOINT

Figure 11.13:Joint eccentricity

11-44
 25.8
Moment distribu

157 kNm 26.2

5.9 29.6

4q kNrr
28.6 ki 28.5 7.3
42

I C80 Wrn 70 kNm

13.67 4-J
Total moment Linear components Figure 11.15: Distribution of moments in edge

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

Beam ret. 6,9 Plpamref

48.6 9.5 55.4

49 7 16 5 "1-1 72.2
weýý

7 1.7 60.1
21

2M27 Z--J

External Internal External

.,oltjmnn rAf. 1 2.3,4 5

Figure 11.16:Bendingmomentsusing non-linearcomponentsand K. = 0.6

11-45
 2nClfI oor E
frl

I st floor m
r-

E
Grounafloa Lr)
Gý

6m

Figure 11.17:Sub-frames
consideredfor 2nd, Ist and ground floor

11-46
48.7 5.3 55.3

50 14.7

18.9

4.

External Internal External

columnn ref. 1 2.3,4 5

132.8 123.5

5.3 2ý
2
66.3 ý81 266.3

130.7 143.7
1445 160.7
266
'33

140.4 130 136.6 168.7

r-lp3r- ref 6.9 Beam ref. 7,8

Figure 11.18:Bendingmomentsusinglinear-elasticcomponentsand Ks = 0.6

11-47
 66.1 4A
7

70 3.2 13.6

2 1.8

3.7/ 1

Extemal Internal External

columnn ref. I 5

89.8 63

71.5 73.2 134

136.2 183.6 135.7

(
173.8ý 265.6 300 3
01 .
187.8 134.7

ýOO.
166.5) 317.4)
-ý 251.6

Bear- ref 6.9 Beam ref. 7,8

-

Figure 11.19: Bendingmomentsusingnon-linearcomponentsand K. =IxI OP

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

Figure 11.20: Identification for beamandcolumn membersusedin SWANSA analysis

11-48
 400

300

r_
200

m MHo96

too- - ----- ------ * MHog7

m MHoq8
40 MHog9
IL
0
2468 10"
Ks

Figure 11.21: Variation in hoggingmomentin first floor beamwith Ks

DUU

400
MSag6
E MSag7
300
4 msags
Msagg
200

100
02468 10
Ks

Figure 11.22:Variation in saggingmomentin first floor beamwith K.

80

60

E 40-
zIijII
a Column
I
20- Column2
0
0 Column3
0 Column4
Column5
-20-
0 10
.468
Ks

Figure 11.23: Variation in column foundationmomentwith K.

11-49
 CHAPTER12

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

12.1 Introduction

The current practice in the designof precastconcreteframesis to ignore any inherent

strength, stiffness and ductility existing in the connectionsbetween the beams and

columns, and to designboth beamsand columnson the assumptionof pinnedjoints.

The effect of this on the designof sway frame columns results in impracticableand

uneconomicalselectionsfor framesabovethree storeys.This is becausethe column is

assumedto behaveas a vertical cantilever from the foundation transferring all the

beam reaction momentsand wind momentsin an additive mannerMy to the base

without involving frame action. For larger columns the additional moments due to

P-A and instability effectsbecomeprohibitive.

The presenceof concreteas grout filled joints is ignored in design except to

protect the mechanicalconnection from corrosion and fire danger. Similarly the

presenceof longitudinalreinforcingbarsinterconnectingthe beamand column at floor

level for frame integrity purposes is not utilised in other ways in current design

procedures.However it is clear that the presenceof such existing materials together

with that of the mechanicalconnection,must provide the joint with existing residual

strength,stiffnessand ductility propertieswhich are at presentuntapped.

12-1
 The work developedin this thesisbuilds on the previouspromising work in the

field at Nottingham University which indicated the positive design and behavioural

advantagesof utilising the existingsemi-rigidjoint propertieswhich allow for the safe

designof such structuresin the form of small slendercolumnsfor taller structures.

The presentwork advancesthe knowledgebasein the following ways :-

1. Full scale of testing of two types of joint, the welded plate and the billet

connections,hasshowedthat the essentialM-ý relationcould be assessedin several

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 semi-rigid joint

behaviour, including various elastic stiffnesseswhich could be incorporated into

design. SeeSection 12.2.1.

2. A fundamentalappraisalof the behaviourof in-situ joint concrete surrounded

by stirrups precast concrete, resulting in a new estimate of strength and stiffness,

dependingon the relative thicknessof the in-situ bond hasbeenestablished,which can

be used to simulate concrete compressionjoint behaviour. Similarly a basic test

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

method" for estimating M-0 relationsfor thejoint. SeeSection 12.2.2.

3. The effect of joint stiffnessin the presenceof beamsand columns has been

expandedand re-appraisedfor thesebasicsubframes,which are suitable for use with

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

formulae. SeeSection 12.3.

12-2
4. A semi-rigid designapproachhas beenpreparedfor precast concrete frames,

which incorporatesthe essentialsof the presentapproachfor rigidly connectedin-situ

frames (BS 8110) with limited modifications and safeguards,but providing designers

with the samebasicapproach.

It has been tested carefully for a three storey three bay structures against an

advanced non-linear analysisprogramme,and the author's elastic large deflection

analysisprogramme,andfound to performwell.

12.2 Experimental work

12.2.1 Frame connection tests

The frame connection test showed that damageto the precast subframe occurred

mainly at the bottom of the connectionsin the compressionzone whilst the members

had sufferedlittle damagebeyondthe connections.The only exceptionsto this were in

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 between0.22 and 0.49 in the singlesidedtests.At failure Mu was approximately

0.84 to 0.95 of the predicted ultimate moment of resistanceof the connections in

doublesidedtestsand0.29to 0.65in thesinglesidedtests.Theeffectof the floor slab

and the tie bars was to increasethe ultimate moment (by 215%), rotation (by 46%)

and stiffness (by 105%) comparedto the basicconnection.Currently, in practice this

12-3
remarkablecontribution of the floor strengthand stiffnessto the flexural capacity of

the joint is neglectedin design.

A beam-line assuming Mbeam= Mu of each connection is proposed which

intersectsthe Mcon-0 plots beforeattained Mu to obtain reasonablecharacteristics

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

rotationcapacityavailablefor usein design.

12.2.2 Interface tests

If the relative rotation 0 of a beamto columncan be assumedto take placewholly at

the face of the column then 0 may be computedfrom the rigid body displacementsat

the top and bottom of the section,leadingto the aforementionedcomponentmethod

of analysis.

Mcon -0 connectiondata obtainedfrom full scaletestswere comparedwith

similar data generatedusing the componentmethod. A two stageapproachwas used

to validate the componentmethod.

Stage 1. True Mcon-0 data were obtainedfrom vertical beam deflections

measuredwithin 300 mm of the face of the column. Ilese values

were within 10 per cent of those obtained by summating extreme

fibre horizontal deformations.

12-4
 77

Stage2. Mcon-0 data were generated by surnmating horizontal

deformationsobtainedfrom isolated,small scale compressionand

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 steeluni-axial 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

redistribution of stressis possiblein isolated tests, and cracking is affected by the

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.

In conclusion it is such that, within the limitations described,the component

method providesa reasonabletool to generateMcon-0 data, and needsto be

developedfurther.

12.3 Analytical parametric studies

The variation in the effective length factors 0 with joint and member stiffness

parameters K. and a are presentedboth graphically and in the form of design

equationssimilar to thesecurrently usedin BS8 110. It is found that the changein the

resPonseof a structureis greatestwhen Ks < 1.5,and P factors increasedue to :-

i) an increasingnumberof total degreesof freedomin the sub-frame;

12-5
 an increase in a, the relative stiffness of the columns to the beam

members;

a decreasein Ks, the relative stiffnessof the connectionto a fully

encastrebeammember.

The resultsenabledesignersto determineP factors for situationscurrently not

catered for in in
codes of practice, particular the upper storey in a partially braced

frame.

12.4 Summing up

e The bendingstrengthof precastconcretebeam-columnconnectionsdependson the

type of connectionand its location in the frame.Double sidedconnectionsachieved

full capacity becausethe tie steel embeddedwithin in-situ concrete in the precast

floor slab is fully effective,whilst the useof singlesidedconnectionsare limited by

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

connections may not be suitable in a semi-rigid frame analysis, because the

suitabilityof eachtype for

of connection usein a semi-rigiddesignmustbe related

to the stiffnessand strengthof the frame for which it is a part.

12-6
9A simplified method to generatemoment-rotationdata is presentedand validated

againstthe resultsof full scale3-dimensionaltests.

9 Design equationsfor column effective length factors are given in terms of frame

andconnectionstiffness.

9A designmethod is proposedwhich supplementsthe existing methodsof BS 8110

and EC2 for concrete column design, whereby the strength and stiffness of the

connection enablescolumn moments to be shared with the connected beams,

making possiblea more economicaland practicalapproachto the designof precast

concreteframes.

12.5 Recommendationsfor future work

The work shouldbe divided into two main parts:

12.5.1 Experimental work

Cyclic loading frame connection tests (including floor slabs) and several

smaller interfaceteststo includethe following:-

a) Frame connectiontests

In plane tests on double sided internal connections(internal beams). Build

for the mostpopulartypesof connectionsi.e. cleat and

precastconcretesub-frames

corbel and test as nonsway structures in order to realise the true responseof the

connections.

12-7
 In plane tests on single sided connections.These tests may be used to

determine the differencesbetweensingle and double sided situations,with the aim of

finding equivalent symmetrical arrangements,and/or the influence of the 3rd

dimension. This is the essentialinformation required by the 3-d computer frame

analysisprograms.

b) Interfacetests

concretejoints testsin compressionand flexure using

1. Precast-in-situ-precast

the sameconcretemixes in the aboveframeconnectiontestsand carry out the tests on

the sameday with themusing the sameload cells andinstrumentationfor consistency.

2. Crack width openingand bond puH-outtests in areasconfined by precast

membersand/orreinforcedin-situ concrete.

This information is necessaryin order to be able to interpret the effects of

localised under or over strengtheningin connections,where the behaviour is often

disguisedin a single result.

12.5.2 Analytical work

Carry out frame stability analysesusing available programs to develop the design

equations for column effective length factors in multi-storeys x multi-bays frames in

unbraced and partially braced concrete

precast skeletal frames in terms of frame and

connectionstiffness.

12-8
 Appendix 5.1

Grading of aggregate

A5-1
 Gradinglimits
Sievesize Retained % % BS 882/1992
(mm) Retained Passing Table 3
-.-(gms)
14 NU- NIL 100 100
10 374 9.4 90.6 85-100
6.3 3416 85.9 4.7 -
1 1
5 155 3.9 0.8 0-25
,
1 1 1
2.36 18 0.5 0.3 0-51

Table A5.1.1: Grading of coarseaggregate(10 mm single sizedgravel aggregate)

Laboratory,Material stocks,August 1994)

(Civil Engineering-Concrete

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 89-100
2.36 389 14.1 85.5 60-100 65-100
1.18 227 8.3 77.2 30-100 45-100

600 4mm 489 17.8 59.4 15-100 25-80

300 amm 14.63 53.3 6.1 5-70 5-48

,1
150 ýtnun 1.65 6.0 0.1 0-15 w!
.

Table A5.1.2: Grading of fine aggregate(sand)

A5-2
Appendix 5.2

Design mixes

A5-3
 vi (= 8 en C
Iti rlý Ilý In
. CD

CD M CD
wl,
c4
vi
(In
r-:
c4
%cl vi
en
Wi
co) r-4
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,; C-i

29
W)
(4) vi

.0
W-b
1.4
W)

W)
CD

N w!
en V) cli -4

c4 W)
cx,
i
rA en (,
C-4 en C-i
12D
a vi tn
m Cq 0-1
en
2 a vý c
C-4
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
C-i
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

-- -
A5-4
 a
.- T3

C's

1--11
Ici
C-4

u V)
vi vi
v-,
m CN - (=
Ici

78
Ei
W) tt) ci
C14 4-4

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

>- ef). (14 Cf) el; lKt

ci
PO 10

8
P-q 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
A5-5
 Appendix 5.3

Functions of sensorsin the experimental work

AS-6
POTs Function

I records crack openingbetweenthe column and insitu infill at the top of

beam2

2 records crack openingbetweenthe column and insitu infill at the top of

beam 1

3 recordshorizontaldeflectionbetweenthe slab and the top of beam2

4 recordshorizontal deflectionbetweenthe slab and the top of beam 1

5 records crack openingbetweenthe column and the beam2 at the top of

Jo.nt

6 records crack openingbetweenthe column and the beam I at the top of

joint

7 recordstensiledeflectionat the top of beam2

8 recordstensiledeflectionat the top of beam 1

9 records horizontal deflectionbetweenthe column and the beam2 at the

bottom of joint

10 records horizontal deflectionbetweenthe column and the beam 1 at the

bottom of joint

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

13 recordsvertical deflectionof thejoint at the end of the beam2

14 recordsvertical deflectionof thejoint at the end of the beam I

15 recordsvertical deflectionof the beam2 at thejoint face

L- I

Table A5.3.1: Function of the linear potentiometers

A5-7
16 recordsvertical deflectionof the beamI at thejoint face

17 recordsvertical deflectionof the beam2 at 200 mm from thejoint face

18 recordsvertical deflectionof the beam1 at 200 mm from thejoint face

19 recordsvertical deflectionof the beam2 at the free end

20 recordsvertical deflectionof the beam1 at the free end

Table A5.3.1: Function of the linear potentiometers(continued)

Steel strains Function

" SGI records strain in bar A at 200 mm distance from face of the
column on beam2 side

" SG2 recordsstrain in bar A at 50 mm distancefrom face of the column

on beam2 side

" SG3 recordsstrain in bar A at centerof the column

" SG4 recordsstrain in bar A at 50 mm distancefrom face of the column

on beam 1 side

" SG5 records strain in bar A at 200 mm distance from face of the
column on beam I side

TableA5.3.2:Functionof thesteelstraingaugeson barA

A5-8
Steel strains Function

B SGI. records strain in bar B at 200 mm distance from face of the

column on beam2 side

B SG2 records strain in bar B at 50 mm distancefrom face of the column

on beam2 side

B SG3 recordsstrain in bar B at centerof the column

B SG4 records strain in bar B at 50 mm distancefrom face of the column

on beam 1 side

B SG5 records strain in bar B at 200 mm distance from face of the

column on beam I side

Table A5.3.3: Function of the steelstrain gaugeson bar B

Concrete Function

strains

SG1 recordscompressivestrain at the bottom of the beam 1

SG2 recordstensionstrain at the top of the beam I

SG3 records tension strain at the top of the in situ irTM concrete on
beam I side

SG4 records strain

compressive at the bottom of the beam 2

SG5 recordstension strain at the top of the beam2

SG6 records tension strain at the top of the in situ inffll concrete on
beam2 side

Table A5.3.4: Function of the concretestrain gauges

A5-9
Load cells Function

1 recordsmagnitudeof appliedload at the top of beam 1

2 recordsmagnitudeof appliedload at the top of beam2

3 recordsmagnitudeof self weight at the bottom of beam 1

4 recordsmagnitudeof self weight at the bottom of beam2

Table A5.3.5: Function of the load cells

A5-10
 Appendix 5.4

Predicted ultimate hogging bending moment capacity of the connections

A5-11
A5.4.1 Total tensile yield load F,' In 2T25 stability tie bars

Figures A5.4.1 and A5.4.2 show the internalforces inducedin the connectionsat the

sectionsin the vicinity of the columnfaces,respectivelyfor the welded plate and billet,

and bolted billet beam-to-columnconnections. F,' is the total tensileyield load in the

2T25 stability tie bars usedin testscarriedout. In all the testsrequire stability tie bars,

two T75 x 1000mm long hot-rolleddeformedhigh tensilebarswere cut at the random

from the lengths used in the tests. They were tested in accordance with the

requirementsof BS EN 10 002-1: 1990for the yield stressand elastic modulus in the

2000 kN INSTRON 8500 testingmachine.Resultsare presentedin Table A5.4. I. The

yield load Py was obtainedfrom load extensionplot at 0.43% strains for each bar.

Thus,

Ft." Py(barA) + Py(barB)

e.g.

Ft0= 526.91kN for testTW I (A)

A5.4.2 Total fillet weld tensile yield load Fwt:

The ultimate tensile forces in the weld were calculatedby measuringthe weld lengths

and throat thicknessesafter welding was completed. It is not possible to find the

tensile force before welding. Becausethe required weld dimensionsmight not be

achievedin practicedependson welder.It is vital to measurethe actualdimmensions

of weld after completion. It wasdoneon threeregionsas shownin Figure A5.4.1

A5-12
 The strength of Met weld is calculatedusing the throat thickness.For the 90

degreefillet weld the throatthicknessis takenas0.7 times the size or leg length.

Strengthof weld = 0.7 leg lengthpw / 103 kN / mm

where pw is the designstrengthof fdlet weld taken as pw = 215 N/ mm2, Table 36,

Clause 6.6.5.1. BS 5950: Part 1.

Weld lengthswere measuredas80 mm

The weld strengthfactorym = 1.2

Ibus, the calculatedsheartensilecapacityin eachweld (SeeFigure A5.4.1) --

Fwll = 1.2x 14 x 215 x 80 / 103= 288.96 kN

Fw12 = 1.2 x6x 215 x 80 / 103 = 123.84 kN

Fwt3 = 1.2x4x 215 x 80 / 103 = 82.56 kN

Fwt -=Fwtl + Fwt2+ Fwt3= 495.36kN

A5.4.3 The shear capacity Ps of M16 tie rods

P is the shearforce in the M16 tie rods used in the bolted billet connection tests.
S

Two M16 x 400 mm long grade8.8 fie rodswerecut at the randomfrom the lengths

used in the tests. They were tested in accordancewith the requirementsof BS 18:

1987 to estimatethe shearstrengthfrom the ultimate tensileload. Testing was carried

out using a ZWICK 1484 testing machine. The shear capacity Ps was obtained from

A5-13
 of two tie rods at 0.2% proof stressfor each rod
averagetensile capacity Pt(average)

2
using tensile stress area A, = 157 mm . Thus,

2
0.2% Proof stress=695.99N/mm for tie rod I

2
0.2% Proof stress=665.51N/mm for tie rod 2

(695.99 + 665.51))
Pt(average): -- x 157 = 106.88 kN
2

Pt(average) 106.88
= = 89.07
1.2 1.2

A5.4.4 Concrete compressionforce Fcc:

Fcc = force in the concretein compression

The concretestress= 0.67fcu

E=0.67fcubx
cc

where

is breathof the section= 300 mm

x is the depthof the stressblock and

fCU is the concretecompressivecubestrengthin N/mM2

A5.4.5 Moment capacity of the welded plate and billet connection

Total tensileforce in the connectioninTW 1(A) (SeeFigure A5.4.1) :-

A5-14
 FI'+ Fwt = 526.91+ 495.36 = 1022.27 kN

For internal forcesto be in equilibrium

E-F, '+ F,
cc -t WI

0.67fcubx = 1022.27xlo3

1=
5085.9 depthof the stressblock (mm),
fcu

Becausethe internal forces are equal, the momentsof resistancewith respect

to the steel + weld and concrete are equal. Taking moment about concrete

compressiveforce Fcc, the predictedultimate hogging bending moment capacity of

the connection Mpred: -

Mpred = Ft' 400 - -1 x 10-3 + Fwt 200 - -1 x 10-3

2)2)

by substitutingabove Fj', Fwt and x values,the equationbecomes

1
Mpred ý 309.84- 2599.59
fcu

A5-15
This force Fwt is difficult to measure,beacusethe weld cannot be tested and the

identical weld cannot be applied.This might changethe predictedmomentcapacity of

the connection.

Based on above assumptionthe predicted ultimate hogging bending moment

40 N/mm 2:
capacity of the welded plateconnectionrfor fcu =

1=
5085.9 127mm and
40

1127
Mpred = 526.91 400 - -1127 10-3 + 495.36 200 - 10-3 = 244.92kNm
22

or
I
Mpred 309.84 - 2599.59 -) = 244.92 kNm
40

Thus, the predictedcollapseload:

Mpred
p= = 103.56kN
2.365

where

2.365 is the lever arm from the face of the column to the centre of the applied

load P to the free end of the cantileverbeams(seeFigure 5.2 for details).

100 kN was usedto carry out the test due to self weight of the test specimens

were ignored.

A5-16
 At test day fcu = 45.4N/mm 2
was obtainedby crushing the cubes made of

the samemix for beam-to-columnjoint concreteto find out a new x value basedon

above equationto calculatethe actualultimatemomentcapacityof the connection.In

this case

x=112mm

1112
Mpred = 526.91 400 - -1112 10-3 + 495.36 200 - 10-3 = 252.59kNm
22

A5.4.6 Moment capacity of the bolted billet connection

Similarly, total tensile force in the connectionin testTB I (A):

Fto+Ps = 481.56+ 89.07= 570.63kN

For internal forcesto be in equilibrium:

E-cc -tsF+ P

0.67fcubx = 570.63xlo3

x=28 .91fcu

The predictedultimate hoggingbendingmomentcapacityof the connection Mpred:-

A5-17
 Mpred = Ft' 400 - -1 x 10-3 +Ps 300-Ix 10-3
2)2)

by substitutingaboveFt, Ps and x values

the equationbecomes

1
Mpred 219.34- 809.98
fcu

At test day fcu = 46.4N/MM2 was obtainedby crushing the cubes made of

the samemix for beant-to-columnjoint grout to calculatethe actual uldmate moment

capacity of the connection.In this case

Mpred 219.34- 809.98 201.89kNm

The predicted moments were calculated in this way by substituting corresponding

Ft' Fwt and P. values in the relevant equation above for each test reducing to a
,

function of fcu The calculatedpredictedmomentsare presentedin Tables 5.5 to 5.8.

.

with Ft#, Fwt, Ps and fcu values.

A5-18
 1--ý
c4
ji
Gn e c4 C IZ mt r- (14 rq (4 th In %D
(1) E cý lit C C ýlo \O m
p-
(1q

rý cl oý 3ýý -1: '10

ýc V-4 r-vi 20Irl 20n vi
00 00 C, 1 rýI eý tn

E2 Z 0 2 ZC Zo ZO 0
%, \O

r-1 cq 00 00 cc
r- r- 00 0, % CN r- en nt vi
I: coý 24 en og 00 00
Ln (4 e CP% (D6 Vi %e le 00
A
Od
cý
Cod ttý
C7N c\

E
c4 tA m cý 00 C vi V) V) cý
Gn 0% 00 en !? le IJD \o 00 en
10 r- c4) clq 00 fq c114 vl vi

73 lc ; \o \O
>o lý
ýd
le nt
vi vi
cK
ýd cý
Nt
rz
M
V)
00
e ý 9
kn vi
qt
V,
V C
lf, V, In V)
0

mi
r- en %0 c*I 00 00 en en
%I0 m (14 r4 C,4 cý en
N en CD o vl r-
rq
d
m m
0
%. en
\.O -
(In %.
V) cý ci
cn lle ci c-i rei
ýo \ID le m
le rei
nt
e
nt

IC %C cý 00 (4 e (4 (1q CD CD c4 r-
rn (D r4 V) V)
%0
0% 0% r- 00 00 rlý r1: rlý r1: clý Cý le»
(D) en 'z
rz rý vi c, c, cý oo oo oo CD
-:

im

C V) V) (Z
LU 00 00 00

e 0 ei
r 00 00 oc 00 00 Itz
ce le le

e
ýý r- (1q (4) 00 e V.-4 v 10 00 00 en -4
4) r- C% en lqt r- lqt CY% (> V-) vi 00 r-
ýe r- r-
M
\o
en
r-
M
r-
en
r-
cl
t- rý
(11 en
r-
en
r-
en
r-
en
r-
cn
42 en
G
Ei
s Z
en r- r- r- r-
W)
C14
c) cý cý e
-
-4 -4 "-ý -4
cý -; _Z
29 iz
iz

< Mi<

A5-19
 Z4-

lu
z:
oc
Ar 711,7F 7F 7F
001 001 001 001 001

0 lu

4:
C 0

LI 0
(I)

i-I

A5-20
mim
CQ
96
l=
4

0
U

0
U

v __
r_
0 0

C
r. U
0
0
U
HID C,,

111111 C
cl
m
E
U

ei

I)
I-.

A5-21
 Appendix 6.1

Flexural sdffnesses

A6-1
 -4 . -4 r- cn 140 (DO Cl% vi 00
= cr% KA --4 -4 le Cl% , r- cli c2% 00
CD M C% r- 00 \Z (>O vi r- ýt le Q
CI-1 le "a

%.
cn (N en 00 \o r- "0 r- "0 r- trý le

-0- > r- ý 00 00
(N let tn
ci -t r- rn
CD c% (9 -0 mt N kn ýo

V
1.0
rn %0 CIN r- "0 Cl%
CD. .. 0 rn M r- "0 r- le
*eli 0
=
zog

r=
> OB rnin
en =
ff) r- C\
CD tn 0., cý
r- fel
Ch
\O 00 m
00 V) 00 00 r- r- r- 00 IZ kn

cn C\ "0 00 (N rn
"ý cý C% IZ vi lý (4)

.0
9

A6-2
 8
41
8 a a 8
ee)
a
c>
§ 1 a -0
a a
1%0 00
oo oo cý CD \M ON IZ »4 ri
alý t (1q r- CD 00 rn \o e it)
"a
17

C'4 (N 00 t- 0,
.0
rq -q --4 cn % t41 S-
Ici
ce En -- rý 00 ri 00 rei cý (111 00

't
rn
00 0
c4
vli 00 vli r- cý
Cf) 00 nt
I.,.,

92 :1

> in r- vi ke) r- rn \Z 0% "0 00

-e
r-4 vl O\ tf) Im rn kn r- r- 00 "0
CI-1 CD Z
00 tA 't C,4 CN V) 00
ZU
ci

0 1.)

CA4. a FD S 8
1-
I-C,
0 > cý
vi A 4 tn 00 00
K clý r- 00 't oc kn en (111 00
4!. (N -4
"0 vl le 1.0 rn C (f) 1%0 cr% kt)
.ý cn
'd
u
> 0
Q

(V r- (zý 00 -4 C\ 00 "0 C) CD ..0 (14

rq clýI

> en
%0
OCD
4t c45
V')
oo ,::> 8
ICD
OB
r-
in
CD
a
ch C, 4 8 a
vi 00
x
ri 00 tn vl en ý
CN
V) vi cn r4 e V) r-

.0
E2

A6-3
 a
(Z " Ilt
v', t ýo "--l \O
vi -
00
V.,
rn rn f4)

vi vi 00 1.0.
rq ci cý ci
vi (1q en a 8 vt, 000
,a
ci 5
C: c5

r_ ei vi C% CD r- oý CD 4
0
=
u1 xt CD
>
Lh (9
ýo ý,0 vi
V) CD
r-
rn (11
r-
- 00
ýo CD
C.,
ýo 00
-1
ýe
CD cý
1--4 ý 00
Z
00

en
> (9
,'r, § l'-
tf)

(Z

a CD vi 8 "0 C> a

9E
rn
c9 Cn r- CD CD -4 1--4
1.0
0 > r4 N m
--4
ý-
0 c,
CD
le
Ilt
-4
m CD mt a 9 (N
00
r- a 00 00

.. -4
> 8
-4
(9 00 M
rn "0 CDIC rn en 00 IZ
00
r4
Int
ri

c5 ci
:5
1 1 1
-

t% -;;, --, -0- -0- >".b -0- -0- --,

vý -& -E)- -IE>
KZ
U
.

C13
Eo

A6-4
 10

10
%D %m --q 00

--4
r- "0 ýo
00
CD 00 M
r-
rq
(N
a 00 m "0 V)
cq en 0, % ir) 00 140
=
(111
a
§ 0 a = a
c4 c--1 __; -4

%C "0 8 cý r- rn C\

:3 § a "0
C% r- --4
11- 1
10
-4
v2
:3
rq
2;
a 00
et
Glý
00
rn
CD
(N
Kri
%M kn

ce C, 1 0 - C-1 c9 -4
e
ci CD cý
Cu CD r- C\ 8 (= 00 00
0 Int O\ CD
Igt CD r- V) 00 C l% 00 r9
*= -0- > 00 0, % r- vl r- er) t- clý vli
C% CD

ýze
mZ
n V-3 -0 g en 8 8
r- fe)r- CD
vi g' §
rn 00 c*I ýt CD r-
*m

= 8 § 0 a
cý a
c5 8
e enrA
00 r- 00 en V-ý

§ M M

8 = 9
c C3 a
r- 8 C 1.0-

CD "0 140 Z cq
> ö\ IZ
"0
00
Imt
r-
clý
00
\M
Vý
00

c5 ci ci

JW
-.C (V 924 :3 102 zt 14--. %) bm

0
vi
'
o.

.0
C43
i

A6-5
 . cZ;

vli V» ä 8 9 ' 0 a
110
%WD r- 20 rýc21
vi VX (8
vi le "0 (n vi
CD
12
CD CD

%A 00 00 00
C) V') cz ý CD C,4
en
nt m
rg v C") ýo r- rn le r- fIn
cu
UD ýh
ýt ý 00
Ici
9
Cl --4 ".. A

CD
C

CD r- - --4 M
= -0- C%
C,4
411
c\
cý
8
-t
CD c4
9.1
ýý
= rq
cn § § M
V)
c-
C)
(Z
cý
r-

ci >
1ý-.
-s rý -4 rn a a C\ c\ 9 0, % M a
(41 cý cz CD r- CD

- '
> 00 ýt 00
cq
C,4
"0
-
00
c"
ä
rn
00
le

CD
en

ci -4 CD (D CD (Z CD (D (Z

c4 CD V) \o cý IN
00 cn C> cn r- rn " 00
V) CD CD C\ § § Cl%
Lh
rZ
nt
wý 00 00 00
00
(D CD cý c5 c5 cý
:2
c4 "0
vi 19 1108 00
1111 a
".4 Q oo
0,% rn
12 Z 0 00
0 -, r-
rn
0
oo m
00
le
rn rn
r-
rA
00 00 00
C,4
en

Z. :s fn 1-5

-0- -0- NI-4 11-3

UD

A6-6
 I--,
10

W) 8 Cý It " 8 8 110
wl
C-4
Cý
'4t
C14
10 110
c1r)
c4A r;
!CWI) "
%C Irr 00
W)
It 11)
NIC)
m
C14
C\ C'4 V) M
m
8
C-4(=5 8 2
o 6
12
CA

M
C14 C
C,4 W) 00 Nt Cý c-I r-
lo-I § C., ON 1,0 I'D
It: $ En cf) W)
C-4 C-4 C-4 -; _4
C14 (ý;
C)

V) 00 "o Ch 0f oo
0
>
"I 8 C7,(14
00 ýtWI) (ON ý= .0
00
8 8
C14 14)
e)
m
m
CA
cq 4 00 m

1
(14
It -. 4
V) C14 Cq cli
r-
t:
tzý
" = 8 0 C) C)

:z - cý ci
cn ýs
cn tn
C, (7, rl zZ - 11
C Itcýl
>
8 C
C14
C4
t(=- ýC (14
r- 0 00

Itt m II
C
RT
c14l
cf)

NO - C,4 C14 CN C,
C) C)
0 o
I I I I I
= -S
te ef) -4 ýt
=o > %D .0
W')
§
8
t- 1-
-
1
c1r) (7', -4
C)
r- r- 110
kn
-4 -4
r4 1.4
r- C en N C14 C14

C) 0 1.0
r-
0

cq 10 It C14 C14 00
V*j C) r- C14 r- I' D
r- 4 C14 C14 \C en \C W) 'IT 0
§ -. (: -, --4 t- r- kn
r- 0 WI) It N N u
0 0 C

.0
co
E

A6-7
 41)
a E 8 CD
ý
=
00
--4
en
§a §
0%
--4
Wý
c
cn
V)
en
O\
140
en
ý
vi
rn
c>
r-
r-
rn
§ a a ý<ý
'40
rn
r-
r-
rq
kn
c114
cli
-4

Ici
1 1
5 ý § 8 8 E s E S S E
8 qý
cn
9.)
V')
CD
C> r-
N lKt
r- 140
r-
%M
e
kn vi
't
v-i vi
V-1
Ilt
-.. i
r-
r-
c>
le
rn
rn
0
r-
"0
c4

8
r_
112 1 1a
0 Z SD 8 ED a S
Q
4ý
0
>
,
ti

rn
> 9 a a ý vi S
vi rq clý ý r- \.0 Zt
ýý

r-
-Mr4 f4 (9 c4 C% "0 00 r-
(L) vl
cn r- r- r- r- r- r- 4A r-
cn
m
-5
4-4
= (9 --4 rý rý C,ý C-4 ý- (9 r4
CA
2 0
-4
> 1.0.
r-
0

C> CD 0
C% V) (1q en rn en ý C% u
in - en rn in en en .-4

C4

a a a a a S 8 E) a ,EI <
H > v) " cý - - ý "0 re) cn \Z ý
g2 CA
C% c114 (2N r- (9 V) oý cý
r- 00 (D r- ýt r- le -4
t - bl Cf) let (In le (n cq c-)

u
9ý (1) -4 N to) 3 V)
(2 u u u u .0
kcl

A6-8
 6)
10
a I;;
8 8
V')
"0
ke)
Xt
8 cz:
--4
%Z
»a a 8
, IC::::
v-i
IZ
en
"0
M
r-
a a IZ
9t
N
P

r- o0 C) 00 r- 00 00
\O en rq rn r rA 0, % 00 cn
00 c\ CD ýo c\
rq
0-
ei zý
0
ý
ci
gý
0
>
cq O\ !ý:
rý
ý (14
c4)
CD
rq
(9
en
-0
o
VI
-4
"0
00
rn
Vý
oo
c"i
f4-. --4
c02
u 0
a u
>

-d u > r- ä le 00 "0 ýe --4 t-

= .5 -.
vi (= 00 m:r ý
cli 00 10 vi
=rg
>" CD (N 00 C 00 r- 10 (D
1
2 r " en c4 c4) cq c9 clý CD
4-
o
* -
cn
u
C4
9 a a a 9 9
8 S 9 a 9
-4

> rý
a
-
lzt r-
%0
rn
c9
rn
00
et
CD
O\
--4
00
Z
00
c\
\Z
cn
" 00 00 00 r- Ir- "0 Cl% C% Cl%
-d

J.i ii
-ý -ý -ý -ý -ý -ý
--ý-ý .ý .ý .ý
(L) rn vi
-4 c4
.0
9

A6-9
 00 cq 121 I,l I
00 0%
(ýI
It-, c c>
le
(, 3
C,4 c-i
(N
cý CD "o
Ici
V)
a CD
00
vi CD Vi 0
u
ý: ý ih - th llö G
--4 c ,11
ýh rI --, ýh olro, 4n vi
r9

ci
(L)
V-3 vg kn vi
CD
ci > kt)
4.4 Cq a ýh CD
0
a 9
§
cý C% vi "0 rn c\
Gn m m ýo C-4 - c5 te
cý rn M

m
CA
0 0
12
1.ý ý

> ei (D Cfl
vi
1
vli CD
1
vý

vl rn cli vlý 8
Gn ci <4
>
CD en lr, 8
CD
8 cn
-0
- r,> 8 V)
-4 0

-d 2 Lý ý 9 vi
th cý-cn
0 ý ;h vý w &l
§
. -4 r- 1,1 c> r- 1- \Z
--4
= en "
- c,-I (41 lý rn
AE

VI
cn
> vi CD
Z,
CD
1,2n,
CD v CD CD
ILn
0.)

nr,
. -4 ýo 00 r- cý rn \o c% ýt cn
= c\ --4

cz
CA Kx -0-
Z2 -E)-
gzw
1,-% 4,-b
Q.
-0- -0- w»-s -0- -C)- 1"%
1
-0-

2
.

.0

A6-10.'
 1--%
10

10

C% -
8 10 O\ ('n (= 8 (= e .0
t.
= (4 ..
r- vi
C% CD
0 00 C%
cle) cn
(9 rq
c-i
rn CD 1.0
cli
§
a ý 8 kf ' ) -4 --4
C, 4 CD CD

Ici 1 1 1 1

rn 00
uz 2 a4 r ,4
r-
V' )
e cn
V)
C% 10
C,
oö iý
%,
-1
C
,
00 O
0
2 c5
r_ 12
r_ Z cý c\ a a
0E :: ý
r- vlä a m r-
en (N (D 00 rq r- r-l %
ci > C% NC %
Z 00 CD C
C.,

§ Lý
en C-4
rn cý rý

%0 V)

-2 0 >
en
r4
CD
di
v i
cq
YD
-
0
§
-
a §§
00
-

=0 (D \o C
ý
cý

v', a r- a a 9
rn CD 00
> C-4 Lý ýt
kn - 0
= r-
rg
t-
ý,0
m
ci
le CD kn cn rq (4
C
V% CD cý cý

4 Gn = 11,
-s .' .'
iD. -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-

.rU%m
U

. 92
C13
E

A6-11
 09

00 V, 4 8 (N cq
rn 10 CD r- (N 00
r4 V') vl %ýQ 00 %iD "0 "0 C\ "0 "0 r-
%0 \Q

l= 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ici
9
c05
vi E rn vi a
(Z 1. -4 CD
d3
5e u
c4 vl
CD
00
c4
vi
C-ý
ýh
cn
ý,0
-
C-4
CD
00 00

C)

00 CD CD
ci
00
"0
> LU § Lh ýt
00 § en

JS =
rq
0
Lh
r-
c4
nt
-I
fn
N
M
C-4
cn
clý
m

rn vi V'ý
c02 CD M CD
> r- cý §
ýh
ih r-
CD
00
ý

42

v) V,1 oo V,1 §
cn -.. d CD .-4 CD CD C
> ji
ih CN 8 0
c4 r- r- 0 - 8 M c\ 00 oc
CD

AJI

Ad -w -,W

te 531 1112
Zw
0 -,= u CZ4 t ce Q. Z ýn Z 1
pý cn W. -& e- -& Ni 1-,i -(D- -0- >* -& -0- >%

>% (4 rn

CA

iz

A6-12
 1--ý
lu

CD Cfl 00 (111 r- 8 ý r- --4

"-1 00 140 rn a 't Z
VN Ch vi o0
cq
=
xt
r-1 -- r- 0 ',0 Kt c4 - 0
'.
a cli
§ --4 8 l
rl, a 2:
< > ý -,
Ici 1 1 11
ce
44
_A N 1 et ýt 00 § a (In VI

eu
M
e
>
8 -4 kn vl 00 00
-e
00
vý 9
rn - -4 r- r- -t in
CD rA

0
cý cý
8 C,
M
r-
\o
V-1
CD \C
§ g'
"0
ä fiXt
0 8
00
a e e
4-4
0
> r-4
;
h \O r-
Od

§
ell (9
rA

2-
:5
= § en, (N
--9
ý --4

k
= 1 1 1
.50 - 19
rn
r-
rn
en
:d
c r- C)

<lýI
vi V) Ilt rq rn

i r-
r q
c>O rn

ý cý
c:: C:5

cn
tf)
%io "0
0
ý.
--4 CD CD CD "0 vi
nt rq (14 "0
> c-i
g dj 0
c4) ý,
00 e
"0 § r-4 ýe
CN c3

ý-) 1»
1%
gz
ce, -0- l".
b1 -0- -(D- -0-
cn -0-
--r e ee
U

iz

A6-13
 § § & 5 8 & ý
WI) CN Itt 00 ý § & §
NO "t

C) C14 1ý0 00 IC 00 C14 110 CD Olt kn

CN tn en 'Irr en tT cn C,4 -

10

U > 00 en 5, 00 cf) C-4 W') 00 CIN

i> C) (ON 00 C14 kn C14 ýT m CN
C,4 C,4 C,4 N
0u
u
cl
-0-
:V
.
0

4.4 > tr)

en
ON (ON oo N ti)
0 tf) C14 C14 C-4 C14 C'4 C-4
r.
4.4 -. 4
0

o.

cn C-4 C-4
cw)
00
8 )
(A?
8 r- m 00
Cý 00 N NT - M It Itt 0
W') C,4 r4 r4 C,4 N N - - -

E- P-4
> 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1
It IRt en tr) 0 Rzr C41)

tn as 00 C14 ýt (14 C4)

C14 Cq N N C14 C14

ýc

iz

-u l en tn
u u u

A6-14
 V') ei r- 2 a r- 0 9 - M a
cn (Z vi rn
00 0, % 00 4t ýe
cn Q% 10 renri
nt cz (N2
(9
a cq
rIi
ýc
it
gt
(N
m
-4
r-
rr)
le
Ici

C
CD

00 --,
tri
9 '--"
10 a
dre)
8
"0
4
0, %
''t
en
a
le -
clq
kn :"
-4
ýe
8
t-
ri CD Kel r4 wi c4 le
ýe --4 (N a r4
92 Ci 8 CD

ci e CD

ý
.. 0 JS
>
00 "0
"0 V-1 vi rq le V)
clý

en - 8 8

CA
m

ON C*%
CD CIM
CD rý C
cý
le
rn r-
00
CD
rn rf)
Xt C\
ä ZD r4
Ilt rq vi' V) V) clý le tA r-A rn
... -4
m
8 a rn -4 ? ý l"ý, 8 a C-1

ýc

A6-15
 1--,
"0

a 00
. -4 --4 zý 1,0 (: r-
-4
kn
t4)
ýt
00
r-
V)
O\
c9
r-
V)
CD
Irt
CD
c4)
§a
110 vi
xt
M
GIN
cq

rq
c4) rq
CD (Z
Ici (Z i (D i CD (= i 10
9
CA

V) en o 00 00 00 r-
rq M V kn le nt e

0 (Z
«0 0-
1.-4
cý cý

> V) -4 r- cl le 00 cý " r9
M cn (N
CA CD C CD

cli 00 8 cý 0, % en a 8 C_ý e9
Gn u (N (14 r-
> O\ c> c4) all ýo
00 00 r- (11 c"i
(111 9t IM C-1 kn
- 4 -q (n en r4
cý
C.,
1.
=
uE
0
=
-
cý
C
?
0
-
2
9
1 1

8 r- a 8 KA
V) -4 vli V) oo
r. 4
oo
"0
r-
CD
C>
r-
N
le
c>
le
Fl
Kt
00
cq rq
-4
rn rn r9 e cý
= ".q a -

"-b N-i N'-) U uý

pý UD p4 -0- -0-, -0- -0- -0- IWI

4.4

. CD

A6-16
 CD CD a c:, CD CD 0 8 CD CD CD
tf) 00 r- M en m V) N vi
t9 r- r4 CD ýo m r_ N \O 00
C% r- 00 1.4 M alt (4 en m C>
u
"Ci

en -4 00 tfi C% 9 " r- - %0
c4 0 rn
00 ýc

u -0- >
8 1 --4

, ::ý > M
0 412
00

en
>
-112

1
>
4
E (= C CD CD 0 (= 0 0 C CD CD
0% r- m vl r4 11- t- r- 00
4-4 en le
r. > en
r-
-4
00
ý,0
-4
rn -4 *e
kn (:
le
vlý
nt
r- ýo fli
4) -4
et kn - =
-4 a -4 1-0 c% r- vi ýo

CD CD a CD 0 (D CD CD (= CD

>
(114
c2"
%10
-,
rg0 v-)
(14
(D
s
0%
rq
00
vi V) N
cn
wý
V)
r-
§
vli
vli
-4
le
r-
vli
Z

12 c2
ei

A6-17
 CD
r- 0 >,
422 e.)
"Ci

> 9 T;
G
C
CD CD
-.. 1 00
10 (NI CD
Zo M D.
41.
cn r4 r- m

ci
le
>
en 0
-
V)
r-
en
C CD 0 0
0,% ýo
r- ýo CD CD
r-
CD
0
00
r-
(q rn . -4 CD
en
en u
Cb C) (q 00 (4 (9 00 m ir14 "0
g fq
00 (1)
tý f4 %Q ýC %Q "0 ýc let V) (411 en

CD CD
(D C CD C) CD
V'i r4 ýo e V) r- 00 V)
--4 3 en (14 CD «) 0% r- cý le le
mt V) V) 00 Ir) 00 ýC M r- vl cý
ü -9
czw N v-, v-i m en
CD ri Z0 v r- 3 0
1
g)
- >
C CD CD CD (Z CD CD CD
C.
D
4ý
r
u
4-i C-1
("
§-4
r-
mt
en
e
00
t-
-4
le
00
-4

00
c41
00
(=
C%
en
rq
00
v-i
r4
00
r-
r-
\Q
CD m
00
r-
r- r-

CD CD CD 0 0 c (D § CD
.>--4 rn
go rn
rý en
10
lit
rn
(N
10
--4
kn vi 00 tn 00
00 00

iz

E2

A6-18
 vi r- CD C) c9 -4
(= c4 r4
%A
%0 C,4 le C% lKt rn cn IZ
CD ýt a ýo
r- V)
110.

0 cli 00 CD 't c4
cq e4 r 0 CD
00

-A > cý cý 0 ci cý 0
ce
et
>

Cd..
d

ej
IL) CD CD
c4 N vi CD r- Kn r- CD
22 r- 0 10
\.
tý > rn rn kn
v11
1
-t oo ä
t-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
411
le (4 CD8
CD
rn oo xt 00
vi
oo
rn
C--4
r-
vl
ý
1
00
\o
r-4
m
rn
rn
e
1
(ýi

Ge

0 -,= V
co. in w.

.0
cl
E

A6-19
 (9 C rn CD (Z r- vi
IZ V) ri 4 r- r- rn
O\ 00 r- \o r- vi cý vi Mt
.. -9

16.
ý20

e 00 CD
00
1,0-
't
V)
c% c%
00 (VN
r-
le -q

le
CD
flý(14
CD 00
00
\o \O

10 r-
cn ri c>
00 cn C-4
eL)
0
= ci
-0- >

ei
t6-4 ::
ý > g j
00 4 -t
00
m .. -4
tbý
en F-4

fIn ti c\ 0 (D m vli
en 0
CD tr)
a 9t 0%
tr 1
1.0 00 v 8

e >
00 CD
cli
CN
CD
C-4
8 20
a
0
C ýo r- r- CD CD %0 r-
Ilt rq 00 cý V, 1 0
%. 00 --1
> -
r- 0, % r- M C% cý
0
U
q.
-d
0

0 -.-2 (L) ei
c114 :2
ýlb
-0- -0- , '13 -& -0- -0- ýý

14D

A6-2o
 r- C>
(14 "0
-4
rq
PZ
00 1-0
N en

%0 g 0
vi
2,
10
Ici

en vi r- C) C) r- 00 CD CD rn (=
0 c
c14. c9 VI M rn
,;
j 41 kn
CD
ýc
e
kt)
1,0
"0
-
g "0c7,
vi
rý
ýo
4-ý 00
2e r, 4
8 8 8 zý , 8 § %Za § NC
pz
coi
m . -4 rn 00
..
(n

00 00 "0
Vlb CD
CIN
r- 00 0
%,

CA >
e4
V
v)
cn e
-4
vi
§
V)
en
vi r4
r, 1

cý c5 (Z cý ci

C-4 r- 0% V) CDCD00 cý CD
CD V) 00 (14
00 vi 00 (14 2
JLD > 00 V)
00 00

cn ...q CD CD 0 CD
00 00
c; 0
:5 c5
1 1 1
. -4 rn 00 CD CD CD cý CD "0 m 0
.. -4 \o oý 00 cq cý r- e - c7% 140 (1q
Ce) ýt \O
cý, rn
00

CD CD cý

ge

cn

2
.
110

. IZ

A6-21
 «a
Gn

20

12 rq
Gn

Iti

"0 r14 Z 00
en en kn vi (N

8 00 00
't
V) vi
CD cq rý
r_
0
Z
-4
0
cý cý
1 A
-
r-
M,94. = (: CD 'z r- -C,1 (Z a r-
M 00
m rn cý ri
r-
V' k r- 00
12 ri § rn
r-
M
00
M g ýe rn e rlý
C,1 a CD
0 =
ci

rq 0 (14 CD ý
vl 0 (Z V)
> rq c4
00 clý
kn
00
t- cý ýc r-
CD r-
CD0 0 cý r-

1.0

oý C> e1q c"i a

vli 00 le
ý;
(1q
't
rq
a
00
ä
%0
ýo
%C
rn
(=
"0
c2
00
ý,0
8
C7N
cý
.w
r9
00
--i
= CD CD
.. -4
c5 = cý cý cý

'3
44
-0
-; ä'-ý ä -, '2
ný En tm <D- -0- N,.
b -& -& -0- "-e '% Z 19
e
Lzý

JM

A6-22
Cycle Stiffness Tangentflexural stiffnessesof connection(kNm/rad)
from the slopeof the Mcon-0 curves

Ref. Ref. M2 S1 M2Bl M2 S2 M2 B2

Cl. JU 83260 66830 99210 94000

JC 50580 43020 59880 60640

Juni 70000 65400 91520 91350

C2 JC 65450 62850 84900 87310

Jud 66160 64100 85930 86850

C3 JC 67440 59540 82500 82530

Jud 69160 62100 86960 87470

C4 JC 65300 48160 65980 64900

Jud 70720 55420 76730 74740

C5 JC 62240 33650 63340 26620

Juni 67130 42430 NIA N/A

Table A6.1.15: Tangentflexural stiffnessesof connectionfor eachcycle in TB I (B) for

both beams

A6-23
Cycle Rot. & Secant flexural stiffnesses,of connection (kNm/rad)
Stiffness from the chord of the Mcon -0 curves
Ref. Ref. M2 SI M2Bl M2 S2 M2 B2
_
C1 Ocr 0.000266 0.000318 0.0002 0.000207

Opeak 0.000938 0.001113 0.000759 0.000761

0 unI 0.00012 0.000243 0.000156 0.00017

1
jis 91040 76280 114860 111030
is 61850 52150 74400 74240
C2 0 0.000981 0.001133 0.000803 0.000795
peak
Oud 0.000129 0.000272 0.000163 0.000177

is 67400 65170 87790 90880

C3 Opeak 0.000977 0.001234 0.000828 0.000831

Oud 0.000123 0.000274 0.000168 0.000181

is 68940 60450 85740 87010

Table A6.1.16: Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionfor eachcycle in TB I (B) with

rotations and K. valuesfor both be=s

A6-24
Cycle Rot. & Secant flexural stiffnessesof connection (kNm/rad)
Stiffness from the chord of the Mcon curves

Ref. Ref. M2 SI M2 BI M2 S2 M2 B2
C4 Opeak 0.001576 0.002248 0.001594 0.001637

Oud 0.000203 0.000503 0.00035 0.00037

is 66410 48890 66680 65300

C5 OU 0.003046 0.005805 0.002874 0.007034

Of 0.00319 0.006184 0.002874 0.009431

Oend 0.000861 0.0025 0.002126 0.028378

is 61080 32770 67360 25680

JUS 57370 30100 59720 24400
is 1
Ks = 3.490 1.872 3.849 1.467
4EcIc
Jus 1
Ks = 3.278 1.720 3.412 1.394
4EcIc I I

Table A6.1.16: Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionfor eachcycle in TB 1(B) with

rotations and K. valuesfor both beams(continued)

A( 25
Cycle Stiffness Tangentflexural stiffnessesof connection(kNm/rad)
from the slope of the Mcon-0 curves

Ref. Ref. M2 S1 M2BI M2 S2 M2 B2

Cl. JU 59740 63240 98290 117270

JC 55890 55060 49000 50660

I Juni 97550 109090 76830 82830

C2 JC 73060 80450 67440 73810

Juni 93930 107990 75000 80810

C3 JC 71020 78020 65520 70900

Jud 93000 105920 74320 80510

C4 JC 61220 61130 58980 49600

Jud 88120 87990 71770 63910

C5 JC 63360 33240 64830 26820

Jud 109350 63640 75620 45590

Table A6.1.17: Tangentflexural stiffnessesof connectionfor eachcycle in TB I (C) for

both beams

A6-26
Cycle ROL& Secantflexuralstiffnessesof connection(kNm/rad)
Stiffness from the chord of the Mcot -0 curves
Ref. Ref. M2 Sl M2131 M2 S2 M2 B2
CI Ocr 0.000257 0.000242 0.000161 0.000135

Opeak 0.000999 0.000999 0.000988 0.000941

Ouni 0.000238 0.000305 0.000204 0.000228

Jig 60040 63630 96440 115290

is 57050 57070 57060 59950

C2 Opeak 0.001043 0.001032 0.001033 0.000977

oud 0.000239 0.000317 0.000189 0.000208

is 71720 79440 69230 76820

C3 ýpeak 0.001058 0.001057 0.001037 0.000982

ouni 0.000241 0.000315 0.000196 0.000216

'
Jf 304801 33650 29660 324601

Table A6.1.18: Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionfor eachcycle in TB I (C) with

rotations and K, valuesfor both beams

A6-27
Cycle Rot. & Secant flexural stiffnesses of connection (kNm/rad)
Stiffness from the chord of the Mcon -0 curves

Ref. ReL M2 SI M2BI M2 S2 M2 B2

C4 0 0.001881 0.001958 0.001804 0.002101
peak
Ount 0.000476 0.000545 0.000328 0.000497

is 58790 58660 58700 50030

C5 OU 0.003367 0.006208 0.003084 0.007407

Of 0.003367 0.011394 0.003084 0.007407

Oend N/A N/A N/A N/A

is 60050 30660 63080 25160

JUS 51600 27980 56380 23470

is 1 3.452 1.762 3.625 1.446

Ks =
4EcIc

1 2.965 1.608 3.241 1.349

Ks =j us
4EcIc

Table A6.1.18: Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionfor eachcycle in T13I (C) with

rotations and K. valuesfor both beams(continued)

A6-28
 = 0
00
(D
rý
CD
\O
CD
V)
C
en
1 CD
-
a cm
"-0
(=
e
0
;3
0 (1111 (4 r- r- ýo
en ýo
r, 4 --4 %0 r- le %0 en (1q 00
N -4 -4 _w -4 _O 1. -4
rn .-4 -4
c4
-4
:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 (Z (M (Z 0 c'1
C
rq r-
wý
(>
.
r-
r-
vi 1411)
ler rq 0
!? r- (=
r-

00 rA

0 c 0 (Z g
.2 le
> r-
0
in
r,
C>
e rn
V)
oo
c>
e t
o c
ýo vi 3 0
cli

CD
1.0
0Z
0

m
S
-:
4ý en
CD
f-
g
C%
a C)
M
CD
f4
0
--4
0
(:
CD
t-
0
00
CD
vi
g
C>
ce
u0
au > (N ö\ oo en c> v) ýZO
e 0

--4 cn
92

-d 0) U
0 CD CD
4- 0
g"
0, % (14 tA r-
rq
IC
\O
en
(9
-4
clq
rn
en
nt
rn
%I0
00
(1q
't
=
u
> en
00
r- rý
en e4 0

rn rn 00 -4 cý rý le -@ rn
c9 en vi s rn 00
> en
00 0
en -e
00 v-i
kn ilm let tn M 00 c>

.0
r.

A6-29
 t- Vlb 00 CD CD (4) cý 0 ,
-Z V% (D
00 00 \ V)
-4 r- kn en -4 ell m !ý; m c4 00
-4 § r- vi r--4 t- § "0 C r- en
=
a V) -
fl) c9 4 c9 (D
> cý d CD cý cý cý cý
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IC3
9
Ch qt %0 CD CD - - CD ri %A CD
0, % (4
00
%0 vi Cf) en
r-
en
00
00 c= 00 vi cm
. -% -4 rn -
10

ce Gn (D
-4 r- V) "_A 00
8 - - - -

r- e4 CD 0 Cf) r- Z \o c4 CD
-4 e f4 r- M 0% r- r- "0 cý
eg CD V) V rn (4) v) CD 0, %
N 00 00 le nt VI 00
CD
.5
0 --0 e c= c cý cý
ci 2ý > >1
Kn (= a CD V) en
r_ \O 00
r- 00 CD en
äý vl, (,lý 00 c4ý

1.2

Ei wý rl
vi 0
> 00 r- r- 00 00 (Z vli
vi 00 V) "0 rý V) t-
te) - 1,0 m
-4 0
0
8 a 8

,viýo 00 \o CD CD r-1 C% (Z en 00 CD
. -4 CD s 00 r4 CN 00 ýt (> "0 ýt
r- 00 1,0 m r- ef) vi
Cl% vi let 140 rn

42
zu Cli
CZ
in gý, -0- -0- -0- 1,
% ".b -& -0- -0- 4 --ri
.0
9

A6-30
 tu

0 00 W*j 0 0 en On
r- --4
00 N C14 ON C#)
r- It-I
r- CD 00
00 00 kn ON ON ýo C-4
4 23, -4
C', (=

8 C,4 1.0 C) 8 eq 0
Cý en w-4 ý0- Crl"41 00
00 "o
41 r- C-4 CIRI
(14 C14 ch C7% "
ci 6
cqs M en en (In
C4 q q q
CA
to
ý 0

u wl 0 CD C%
o 'Rt 00
c) 9 ON 00 r-
'= r- m N
uI
> -., tf) 9 00 en
C14 -4
8
-. 4
en
en
Cf)
en
N
Itt en 6 6
m
r.: CN
0 p

C) q ON
-S
ON ý-o a, C,4
4,
0
en
-t
en IRt
(p
ON
(7%
01% V) s N ItT It 00 .2
> C\ ef) 00 W11 m eq wl C14 0
CS C-4 wl, WI) C% "tT - d 6
7! C14

80 -4
PQ 6 0 C)

ci 6 6
42
r-
M C 0
wt
ýo cl r- C14 (14 a
00 (14 00 'it Cf)
C" > --1
C) tn (14
cq
(14 N
r4 Cf) 10
(14 ..4
(-4
q q C) C;
C/) C)
0

ON m C Cf) C\ \D C C r- (0\
C14 N tn r- IT 10 It en (14
wl 00 (14 C#)
It
q c
c ci

CO)

Ad

4 (1) C4 -e- -0- ,,

1: -o- -o- -o- I'll "It
I -ý kr --ý 4r C14

4.4

.0
cl
k

A6-31
 Appendix 11.1

Secantflexural stiffnesses

AIM
 )
41. d)
"0 "0

C14

ei C-4 rn VI) Itt Cý 00

en
. -4
cý
ON vl
e § ýo
CD
r. 4
vi
0 1.0
C,j N en cn
cs
00 C14
= ,
cq § rn 4 vl
c,; ci
m 8

10

00 IC cq
vi -0 en 01% 00
1-1 C4 C14 8 ON r-
r-
IC 00
Ici Gn
en "0 cn -. 4
-4
:3 ei ci Cd
Cq d 00
ý10

>z
i

clý
ci 1 > le drei vli 00
(. 4 06
Cý
tn m cl

0
u 2 2e-
.
-.
> uý

ý!
c 6.4
09 1 1 1 1 4.
0v ' ýý I I I I
s
ce r,n-:
5j 8 8
eZ0
c4 en (Z
--4
ý g a
\o
s
"0
00
t"
cn 0 00 -
>
22 >g r
--t:t
-,
oo00 clý cli
C,

=0 \o en 110
-01)
00 C14
en "0 N C
CD C-4

N N
1

-
> a , 00
§ 0 rn 1-4 Itt
>
Vi
eq C,
1ý0
on
(2) "o
Cý
W)
C14
ON
elý
\0
N
eli
go N f4mW
0

Illb te e
c4CA -0- ue
ýzr "
®r,

.0

All-2
 Cycle Rot. & of connection(kNm/rad)
Secantflexuralstiffnesses
Stiffness from thechordof the Mcon-0 curves
Ref. Ref. M2Bl M2 B2
C5 Me 64.00 62.5

Oe 0.0035 0.0040
Je 22900 20100

Jes 18300 15600

IJe 1
Ks = 3.749 3.291
4EcIc
Jes 1
KS = 2.996 2.554
4EcIc
L I

Table All. 1.3: Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionat intersectionwith bearn-line

in TWI(C) with rotationsand Ks valuesfor both beams

Cyc Rot. & Secant flexural stiffnessesof connection (kNm/rad)

Stiffness from the chord of the Mcon -0 curves

Ref Ref. MI Bl VI Ml Bl V2 MI BI V3 Ml BI V4 M2 Sl

C4 Me 91.75 91.75 91.75 91.75 102.20

Oe 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0063

Je 18100 18100 18100 18100 22300

Jes 12200 12200 12200 12200 16200

Je 1 1.053 1.053 1.297
Ks = 1.053 1.053
4Eclc
Jes 1 0.710 0.710 0.710 0.710 0.940
K-
s 4EcIc I I RI

Table A 11.1A Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionat intersectionwith beam-line

in TW2 with rotationsand Ks values

Al 1-3
 w (9
'CJ

D
41.
(= Vl> a CD r-4 cn
(N (W) (9 r- 00
-. « en cý ýt \o r-
Ci
cn 00
i

CD CD e
- a ch
1-1% 0
-4 %, rý r-
Ln 124
ce (4
Zc
--4
CD
.
r- 10
ý : Gn

r1q 00
le r- r-
> r-

ei 2ý
:Z =

rA S
m C'ý kn CD CD rn
f', rq CD
u2 0 en
> 0ý, CA 0 't
"0
en
ýC \Q --4
2 vi ý,0 C'i cli
=Gn
«
c.
Q PZ--4

-d ei >
= -3 1 1 1 1
r- (Z CD cli f4
eN olý c4 - vý 00 kn 't kn kn cq
> 00 -q [_ fn 00 00 -4 tA
a
8 --4
gz --4 c::ý wýrq ei
NO NO "l» ""

CD vi s CD 00 en t- CD V) rn
. -4
N r- vl rý ýo -q
> "0
> t- r-C,4 00
't
r4 r- Ilt

. %0 \o o
ýo t ý C#i

1: 1 1

cn gý :e -, --, e
«o- ký
. . . .-ý
c9 l ll,
u
hZ ýý

All-4
 Cycle Rot. & Secantflexural stiffnessesof connection(kNm/rad)
Stiffness from the chord of the Mcon-0 curves

Ref. Ref. M2 S1 M2Bl M2 S2 M2 B2

C5 Me 159.5 148.5 159.5 150

Oe 0.00275 0.004 0.00275 0.00385

1
Je 62620 42470 66470 43110

Jes 58000 37125 58000 38960

Je 1 3.577 2.426 3.797 2.463
Ks =
4EcIc

Jes 1 3.314 2.121 3.314 2.226

KS =
4EcIc I I I

Table A 11.1.7:Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionat intersectionwith beam-fine

in TB 1(B) with rotationsand K. valuesfor both beams

Cycle Rot. & Secantflexural stiffnessesof connection(kNm/rad)

Stiffness from the chord of the Mcon-ý curves

Ref. Ref. M2 Sl M2BI M2 S2 M2 B2

C5 Me 152 142 154 139.5

Oe 0.0029 0.00405 0.0027 0.00435

Je 62710 40510 64930 36210

Jes 52410 35060 57040 32070

Je 1 3.604 2.328 3.732 2.081
Ks =
4EcIc

Jel 1 3.012 2.015 3.278 1.843

Ks
L 4Eclc I I I I

Table A 11.1.8:Secantflexural stiffnessesof connectionat intersectionwith beam-line

in TB I (C) with rotationsand Ks valuesfor both beams

AII-5
 Gn

00 W)
-0 aA Ci
go 8 C14
C14 IC
C14

00

En

u V) C14 wl
0 "1 rý en r- en
ýý

9
(4
4.
0
m 00
Cf) 00
ell 00
tn
> CN

rn

Id = 2
> en C4 cen
r-

V)

;ýI
I I I I
< c) < 0%
CN
cn C'l
C4 ýý c") -
c4

I
fI
1
4-;

C4 CA 1:4 -e- --ý -ý,

4r -" tzr

im

AII-6
 REFERENCES

ACI-ASCE Conunittee 352. Recommendations

for designof beam-columnjoints in

monolithic reinforcedconcretestructures.ACI 352 R-7, AmericanConcrete Institute,

Detroit, 1976,19 pp.

Aksogan, 0. and Gbrgiin, H. The non-linearanalysisof planar framescomposedof

flexurally connectedmembers,Cukurova University Journal, Faculty of Engineering

and Architecture, Vol. 8, No. 2, December1993,pp. 117-129.

Anderson, D., Colson, A. and Jaspart, J. P. Connections and frame design for

economy.New SteelConstruction.October 1993,pp. 30- 33.

Bhatt, P., Kirk, D.W. Tests on an improved beam-columnconnectionsfor precast

1985,pp. 835-843
concrete.ACI Journal/Novernber-December

Bijlaard, F.S.K. and Steenhuis, C.M. Prediction of the influence of connection

behaviour on the strength, deformationsand stability of frames, by classification of

connections.AmericanInstitute of SteelConstruction,INC. April 1991,pp. 307-318.

Bison Floors Lindted. Amington House, Silica Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire B77

4AZ U.K.

Bjorhovde, R., Colson, A. and Brozzetti, I Classification system for beam-to-

column connections. 'Me Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 116, No. 11.

November 1990,pp. 3059-3070.

Bljuger, F. Design of precastconcretestructures.ERisHorwood Series.John Wiley.

1988,296 pp.

Briquet, C., Guisse, S., jaspart, J. P., Lognard, B. and Maquoi, R. Research

activities under COST Cl at the DeparunentMSM of the University of Liege, COST

R-1
Cl Proceedingsof the 2nd Workshop, Semi-rigid Behaviour of Civil Engineering

Structural Connections,Prague,October 1994,pp. 75-88.

British Standard Institution, 1983 : BS 12 Specification for ordinary and rapid

hardeningPortlandcement.

British Standard Institution, 1983: BS 1881Method of testing concrete.

British Standard Institution 1985: BS 5950 Part I Structural use of steelwork in

building.

British Standard Institution 1985:

BS 8110: Part 1: Structumluseof concrete,Codeof practicefor designand

construction.

BS 8110: Part 2: Codeof practicefor specialcircumstances.

BS 8110: Part 3: Designchartsfor simply reinforcedbeams.

BS 4449: 1988: British Standard specification for carbon steel bars for the

reinforcement
of concrete.
British Standard BS EN 10 002-1: 1990: Part 1: Tensile testing of metallic

materials,Method of test at ambienttemperature

British Standard Institution, 1992 : BS 882 Specification for aggregatesfrom

naturalsources.

City University. Semi-rigid connectionsin precastconcreteframes,Grant Reference

No GR/K20866.

Clarke, J.L. Testson embeddedsteelbillets for precastconcretebearn-to-column

CementandConcreteAssociationPublication42.523,August1978.
connections.

Comair, F. and Dardare, J. Investigationon the behaviourof semi-rigidprecast

beam-to-column Part1.CERIBDPOFCO/MM 1991/04/09

connections. EX 9102.

R-2
Cornair, F. and Dardare, J. Model testing of precast semi-rigid beam-column

connection. Proceedings of the First State of the Art Workshop, COST Cl,

Strasbourg,October 1992,pp. 99 -119.

Cranston, W. B. Analysisanddesignof reinforcedconcretecolumns,ResearchReport

20, Cementand Concrete.Association,52 GrosvenorGardens,London SWIW OAQ,

1972,54 pp.

Crendon Structures Ltd. Thame Road, Long Crendon, Aylesbury Bucks, Long

Crendon206481.

Davies, G., Elliott, K. S. and Mahdi, A. A. Progress Report 1 to the Precast

ConcreteFramesAssociation,The effect of moment-rotationbehaviourof connections

on the stability of precast concrete structures, Dept. of Civil Eng. Nottingham

University, 28 September1989.

de Chefdebien, A. and Dardare, J. Experimental investigations on current

connectionsbetweenprecastconcretecomponents.COST Cl Proceedingsof the 2nd.

Workshop, Semi-rigid Behaviourof Civil EngineeringStructural Connections,Prague,

26-28 October 1994,pp. 21-30.

Dolan, C.W., Stanton, J. F. and Anderson, R.G. Moment resistantconnectionsand

simple connections.SpeciallyFundedR&D Program, PCISFRAD Projects I and 4.

PCI Joumal/March-April 1987,pp. 62-74.

Dolan, C.W., Pessiki, S.P. Model testing of precast concrete connections. PCI

Joumal/March-April 1989,pp. 85-103.

Durrani, Aj. and Wigh4 J. K. Behaviour of interior bearn-to-columnconnections

underearthquake-typeloading.ACI Journal/ May-June 1985,pp. 343-349.

R-3
Ehsani, M. R. and Wight, J. K. Exterior reinforced concrete beam-to-column

connectionssubjectedto earthquake-typeloading. ACI Journal / July-August 1985,

pp. 492-499.

Elliott, K. S. and Tovey, A. K. Precastconcreteframe buildings.Design guide. British

CementAssociation,Wexham Springs,SloughSM 6PL, 1992a,88 pp.

Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Mahdi, A. A. Semi-rigidjoint behaviouron columnsin

precastconcretebuildings.Proceedingsof the First State of the Art Workshop, COST

Cl, Strasbourg,October 1992b,pp. 282-295.

Elliott, K. S., Urgiin, H., Virdi, K. S., and Ragupathy, P. Report to the Precast

Concrete FramesAssociation, on analysisand design of a-3 storey precast concrete

sway frame, Dept. of Civil Eng. Nottingham University & Dept. of Civil Eng. City

University, August 1994a.

Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Gdrgiin, H Determinationof moment-rotationin semi

rigid precast concrete connections using the component method, COST Cl

Proceedings of the 2nd. Workshop, Semi-rigid Behaviour of Civil Engineering

StructuralConnections,Prague,26-28 October 1994b,pp. 31-40.

Elliott, K. S. Minutes of 2nd Meeting of ConcreteStructuresWorking Group. COST

oject I 'Semi-rigid Behaviour', 23 May 1994c,pp. 1-7.

Elliott, K. S. Minutes of 4th Concrete Structures Working Group WGI Meeting.

COST ProjectCI 'Semi-rigid Behaviour', 15 December1995a,pp. 1-12.

Ell1oft, K. S. Minutes of Ist Meeting of Concrete Structures WG1-UK Branch.

University of Nottingham, 15 February1995b,pp. 1-6.

OHM, K. S. Multi-storey precastconcreteframedstructures,BlackweUScienceLtd.

1996a,Oxford, UK, 624 pp.

R-4
Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Gftfin, H. Component method validation tests in

precast concrete semi rigid connections, Semi-rigid Structural Connections, Proc.

IABSE Colloquium, Vol. 75, Istanbul,September1996b,pp. 299-308.

Effloft, K. S., Davies, G. and Gftiin, H. Effective length factors in precastconcrete

framm Semi-rigid Structural Connections, Proc. IABSE Colloquium, Vol. 75,

Istanbul, September1996c,p349-358.

Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Gftfin, H. Semi-rigidconnectionsin precastconcrete

frames. Report to EPSRC. Grand No. GR/K17286. Dept. of Civil Eng. Nottingham

Umversity, October 1996d.

Ellioft, K. S. The European research effort on the stabiHty of precast concrete

structures. Ibe 4th International Symposium on Noteworthy Developments in

Prestressing& Precasting,Singapore,3-4 July 1997a,pp. 69-77.

Elliott, K. S., Davies, G. and Gdrgiin, H. Semi-rigidconnectionsin precastconcrete

frames.FEPSymposium,Johannesburg,10-12March 1997b.

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings.

1992.

Eurocode 3: Designof steelstructures-PartU: Generalrules and rules for buildings.

April 1992.

FIP Conmission on Prefabrication, Design of muld-storey precast concrete

structures, Thomas Telford Ltd, Telford House, PO Box 101,26-34 Old Street,

London ECIP 11H,England, 1986.

Gdrgiin, H. Dugum noktalarina donel yaylarla bagHcubuklardan olusan duzlemsel

cercevelerin non-linear analW (in Turkish). M. Sc. Thesis, University of Cukurova,

Departmentof Civil Engineering,July 1992.

R-5
Gbrgiin, H., Ellioft, K. S. and Davies, G. Semi-rigid behaviour of connections in

precast concrete structures. Progress Report 1, No. SR 95 029. Dept. of Civil Eng.

Nottingham University, September1994.

Gftiin, H., Ellioft, K. E. and Davies, G. Semi-rigid behaviour of connectionsin

precast concrete structures.ProgressReport 2, No. SR 95 030. Dept. of Civil Eng.

Nottingham University, April 1995.

Gftfln, H. Semi-rigid behaviourof connectionsin precastconcretestructures.Dept.

of Civil EngineeringReportNo. SR 96-001,University of Nottingham,February 1996,

344 pp.

Gftfln, H. An experimentalstudy of the behaviour of double sided welded plate

connection in precastconcretefmmes.Dept. of Civil EngineeringReport No SR 97-

001, University of Nottingham,January1997,160 pp.

Gregory, M. : Elastic instability: Analysis of buckling modes and loads of frames

structures, MEN SponLimited, London 1967,pp. 234-237.

loannides, A. S. Frame analysisincluding semi-rigid connectionsand P-delta effects.

Connections in Steel Structures,Behaviour, Strength and Design. Elsevier Applied

Science,London and New York, 1988,pp. 214-221.

Jaspart, J. P. Extending of the Merchant-Tankineformula for the assessmentof the

ultimate load of frameswith semi-rigidjoints. J. Construct. Steel Research11.1988,

pp. 283-312.

Johnson, R.P. and Anderson, D. Designers' handbookto Eurocode 4- Part 1.1 /

Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Thomas Telford services Ltd,

ThomasTelford House, 1 Heron Quarry, London E 14 4JD, 1993,182 pp.

R-6
Kong, F. K. and Evans, R.11. Reinforced and prestressedconcrete. 3rd ed., Van

NostrandReinbold, U.K., 1990.

Lindberg, R., Vinha, J., Nlyllyvilta, S. and Hellman, 11. Beam-to-column

connectionsin storcy-heightconcreteframe. Report 57. TarnpercUniversity of

StructuralEngineering.P.O. Box 600.

Technology,Deparunentof Civil Engineering.

SF-33101Tampere.Finland.September
1992,104pp.

Loo, Y. C., and Yao, B. Z Static and repeatedload tests on precastconcrete tycarn-

PCIJOURNALMarch-April1995,pp. 106-115.
to-columnconnections.

in precast
MAW, A. A. Critical bucklingvaluesof rotationalstiffnessof connections

concrete frames. Internal Report No. SR 91003. Dept. of Civil Eng. Nottingham

University, January1991.

Mahdl, A. A. Moment-rotationbehaviourof connectionsin precast concrete

structures.PhD Thesis,Universityof Nottingham,Departmentof Civil Engineering,

July 1992.

Mohamed, S.A. M. and Jolly, C.K. An expcrimenulstudy of the behaviourof

sleevedbolt connectionsin precastconcreteframes.Magazineof Concrete Research.

1995,47,No. 171.June,pp. 119-127.

Neville, A. M. Propertiesof concrete.LongmanGroup Limited, LongmanHouse,

BurntMill, HarlowEssexCM202JE,England,1981.

NeChercot,D.A. Joint actionandthe designof steelframes.The StructuralEngineer,

Volume63A/No.12.Deccmtnr1985.pp.371-379.

Nethercot, D.A. The influence of semi-rigid joint action on the boehaviourof swel

frame structures.EX-vclopmentin Structural Engineering.Vol 2, ed. BV 11Topping,

Spon,August 1990,pp. 696-721.

R-7
Nethercot, D.A. Behaviour of semi-rigid connectionsand implementation in frame

design.American Institute of SteelConstruction,INC. April 1991, pp. 360-369

Notes on ACI 318-89: Building code requirementfor reinforcedconcrete with design

applications.Edited by Ghosh S.K and Basil G. RabbatPortland Cement Association

1990,pp. 13-1,13-11.

Pillal, S.U. and Kirk, D.W. Ductile beam-columnconnection in precast concrete.

ACI Journal/ November-December1981.pp. 480-487.

Southampton University. Finite elementanalysisof precastconcreteconnections.

Stanton, J. F., Anderson, R. G., Dolan, C. W. and Mc Cleary, D. E. Moment

resistant connections and simple connections.PCI Specially Funded Researchand

DevelopmentProgram,ResearchProject 1/4 PrestressedConcrete Institute, Chicago,

Illinois 1986,436 pp.

The Institution of Structural Engineers. Structural joints in precast concrete:

Manual. II Upper Belgrave Street,London SWIX 8BH, August 1978,56 pp.

Tschemmernegg, F. and Huter, M. Classificationof beam-to-columnjoints. COST

Cl Working Group 2 on "Steel and Composite",doc. Cl/WD2/93-16, June 1993.

Vambersky, J. NJ. A. Mortar joints loaded in compression. Delft University of

Technology / Corsmit Consulting Engineers The Netherlands. Prefabrication of

concretestructures.Proceedings
of the international
seminarDelft, October 1990, pp.

25-26.

Virdi, K. S. and Ragupathy, P. Analysisof precastconcrete frames with semi-rigid

joints. Proceedingsof the First State of the Art Workshop, COST C1, Strasbourg,

October 1992a,pp. 296-307.

R-8
Virdi, K. S. and Ragupathy, P. Tests on precastconcretesubframeswith semi-rigid

joints. Proceedingsof the First State of the Art Workshop, COST Cl, Strasbourg,

October 1992b,pp. 120-131

Wood, R.H. Effective lengthsof columns in multi-storey buildings, Part 1: Effective

lengthsof singlecolumnsand allowancesfor continuity. The Structural Engineer,Vol.

52. No.7, July 1974,pp. 235-244.

Wood, R.H. Effective lengthsof columnsin multi-storey buildings, Part 2: Effective

lengths of multiple columns in tall buildings with sidesway.The Structural Engineer,

Vol. 52. No.8, August 1974,pp. 295-302.

Wood, R.H. Effective lengths of columns in multi-storey buildings, Part 3: Features

which increasethe stiffnessof tall framesagainstsway collapse,and recommendations

for designers.The Structural Engineer,Vol. 52. No.9, September1974, pp. 341-346.

Zoetemeijer, P. Influence of joint characteristicson structural responseof frames.

Structural connections, Stability and strength (ed R Narayanan),Elsevier Applied

SciencePublishersLtd, 1989,pp. 121-151.

R-9
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bass, A. J. and Mottram, J.T. Behaviourof connectionsin framesof fibre-reinforced-

polymer section.The StructuralEngineer/ Volume 72 / No 17/6 September1994.

Bazant, P. Initial post-critical analysisof asymmetricbifurcation in frames,Journal of

Structural Engineering.Vol. 115,No.11,November 1989,pp. 2845-2855.

Bernuzzi, C. and Zandonini, R. Connectionresponseand stability of steel frames.

American Institute of SteelConstruction,INC. April 1991,pp. 295 306.

Bruggeling, A. S.G. and Huyge, G.F. Prefabricationwith concrete, A. A. Balkema,

Rotterdam,Netherlands,1991.

Chan, L. S. and Ho, G.W. M. Non-linearvibration analysisof steel frameswith semi-

rigid connections.ASCE. Vol. 120,No. 4, Apri I 1994, pp. 1075-1087.

--
Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M. Structural stability theory and implementation.Elseiver,

1988,pp. 5-12,253.

Chen, W. F. Designanalysisof semi-rigidframeswith Irfd. AmericanInstitute of Steel

Construction,INC. April 1991,pp. 370-379.

Coates, R.C., Coutie, M. G. and Konk, F.K. Suuctural Analysis. 3rd ed., Chapman

& Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London SE1 8HN, 1988.

Concise Eurocode, For the designof concretebuildings,British CementAssociation,

Century House,Telford Avenue,Crowthome,BerkshireRGII GYS, July 1993.

EI-Ghazaly, H. A. and AI-Zamel, H. S. An innovative detail for precast concrete

beam-columnmomentconnections.Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 18.1991, pp. 690-710.

B-1
EL-Metwally, S.E. and Chen, W. F. Moment-rotation modelling of reinforced

concrete bearn-column connections. ACI Structural Journal / July-August 1988, pp.

384-394.

Engstrom, B. Anchorage of ribbed bars in the post yield stage. Proceedings of the

First State of the Art Workshop, COST C 1, Strasbourg, October 1992, pp. 65-76.

French, C. W., Amu, 0. and Tarzikhan, C. Connections between precast elements-

failure outside connection region. ASCE, JnI of Structural Engg, Vol 115, No. 2,

February 1989, pp. 316-340.

French, C.W., Hafner, M. and Jayashankar, V. Connections between precast

elements-failurewithin connectionregion. ASCE, JnI of Structural Engg, Vol. 115.

No. 12, December 1989,pp. 3171-3193.

Glower, C.W. Structural precastconcrete,C.R. Books Ltd. The Adelphi, John Adam

Street,London, W.C.2.1964.

Goto, Y., NUyashita, S. and Chen, W. F. Classificationof semi-rigid connections

behaviour
basedon the elastic-plasticmechanical of frames. StructurescongressXII,

conf. code 20480,24-28 April 1994,Atlanta, GA, USA. pp. 1191-1196.

Hanson, N. W. and Conner, H. W. Seismicresistanceof reinforced concrete beam-

column joints. ASCE,

Proceedings, V. 93, ST5, October 1967,pp. 533-560.

Hanson, N. W. Seismic resistanceof concrete frameswith grade 60 reinforcement.

Proceedings,ASCE, V. 97, ST6, June 1971, pp. 1685-1700.

Johnson, B. C : The column researchcouncil guide to design criteria for metal

2nd
compressionmembers. ed, JohnWiley and Sons,Inc. New York 1966.

Lee, D., Wight, J. K. and Hanson, R. D. RC beam-columnjoints under large load

reversals.Proceedings,ASCE, V. 103,ST12,December1977,pp. 2337-2350.

B-2
MacGinley, Tj. and Ang, T. C. Structural steelwork design to limit state theory.

Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd, 1987.

MacGinley, T.J. and Choo, B. S. Reinforcedconcretedesign theory and examples.

2nd ed. E& FN Spon, an imprint of Chapman& HaU, 2-6 Boundary Row, London

SE1 8HN, 1990.

Moore, D.B., Nethercot, DA. and Kirby, P.A. Testing steel framesat full scale.The

StructuralEngineerNolume 7 I/Nos 23 & 24 /7 December1993,pp. 418-427.

Mosley, W. H. and Bungey, J. H. Reinforced concrete design. 3rd ed., Macmillan

EducationLtd. HoundmiRs,Basingstoke,HampshireRG21 2XS, 1987.

for US-Japan
Nakata, S. Tests of reinforced concretebeam-columnsubassemblages

Co-operativeResearchProgram.Building ResearchInstitute, Nfinistry of construction,

Ibaraki pref, October 1980,112 pp.

Plaut, R.H., Requirementsfor lateral bracing of columnswith two spans.Journal of

StructuralEngineering.Vol. 119,Number 10, October1993,pp. 2913-2931.

Rriestley, N. M. J. Overview of PRESS researchprogram, PCI JOURNAL, July-

August 1991,pp. 50-57.

Richard, R. M., Hsia, W. K., and Chniielowiee, M. Moment-rotation curves for

double framing angles,Proceedingsof the StructuresCongress.Material and member

behaviour, ASCE. August 1987.

Richard, R.M., Hsia, W. K., and Chniielowlee, A Derived moment-rotationcurves

Journalof ComputersandStructures,Vol 30.

for doubleframingangles.International

No 3. pp. 485-494,1988.

Richardson, J. G. Precast concrete production. Cement and Concrete Association, 52

GrosvenorGardens,London SWIW OAQ, 1973.

B-3
 Seckin, M. and Fu, H. C. Beam-columnconnectionsin precast reinforced concrete

construction. ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 3, May-June 1990, pp. 252-261.

Smyrell, A. G. Approximate formulas for determining the effective length of steel

columns to BS 5950. The StructuralEngineer/ Volume 71 No. 5/2 March 1993.

Smyrell, A. G. Approximateformulasfor effectivelengthof steelcolumnsASCE. Vol.

120,No. 9, September1994,pp. 2793-2801.

Stefano, M. D., Luca, A. D. and Astaneh-AsI, A. Modeling of cyclic moment-rotation

responseof double-angle ASCE.

connections. Vol. 120, No. 1, January1994, pp. 212-

229.

Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J.M.: neory of elastic stability, McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed,

1961,pp. 65-67.

Uzumerl, S. M. and Seekin, M. Behavior of reinforcedconcretebearn-columnjoints

subjected to slow load reversals. Publication No. 74-05, Department of Civil

Engineering,University of Toronto, March 1974,84 pp.

Vassilev, T. V. Semi-rigidbehaviourof concretestructures,Report of activities 1993.

I Departmentof Civil Engineering.Inst. of Architectureand Civ. Engng. VIAS-Sofia I

Chr. Smimenski str. 1421 Sofia, Bulgaria.

Wang, P.C. Numerical and matrix methods in structural mechanics.John Wiley &

Sons,Inc. New York, 1966,pp. 182-194.

Yau, C.Y. and Chan, S.L. Inelastic and stability analysisof flexibly connectedsteel

framesby springs-in-seriesmodel. ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 10, October 1994, pp. 2803-

2819.

B-4