Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
The knowledge of the cyclic behaviour of beam-to-column joints has a paramount importance for the seismic
design of moment-resisting steel frames, especially when the dissipation of seismic input energy has to occur
in the joint components. In particular, beam-to-column bolted joints are widely used in practical design for
their simplicity and their ability to provide a variety of structural solutions. In recent years different structural
details have been tested aiming to investigate both to the whole joint behaviour and to basic joint
components.
In order to verify the possibility to develop a component approach to predict the cyclic response of bolted
beam-to-column joints, new experimental tests have been carried out on full scale beam-to-column joints.
Aiming to verify the correct identification of the main dissipative joint components, the experimental test
results are herein presented in terms of both the total cyclic response of the joint and the cyclic response of
each joint component.
40
93 45
134
400
126
443
167
474
443
tcp = 10 mm
134
45 93
IPE270 IPE270
40
HE200B HE200B
170
25 25
170 120
53
200
200
2 EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
2.1 Test setup
The tests have been executed at the structural engineering laboratory of the University of Salerno. Fig. 5
shows the complete scheme of experimental tests. Two hydraulic actuators MTS (model 243) have been used
for the application of the axial load in the column and for the control of the imposed displacement history at
the top of the cantilever beam. Two hinges bolted to a base steel beam anchored to the strong floor allow to
obtain a structural scheme representing the behaviour of external joints as shown in Fig. 5. Finally, an
horizontal frame has been adopted to prevent the lateral buckling of the beam.
In particular, the bottom horizontal actuator (capacity: 1000 kN) has been governed under strength control
applying a costant axial compression in the column equal to 650 kN. The upper actuator (capacity: 250 kN)
has been hooked to the free end of the beam to apply, under displacement control, cyclic displacements. The
amplitude and the number of cycles have been planned according to AISC code for cyclic tests on beam-to-
column joint [5]. Such code proposes displacement history depicted in Fig. 6. in terms of interstorey drift
angle.
During the tests many parameters have been monitored and acquired: displacements and loads of both the
actuators and the displacements of the different joint components. To this scope 3 position sensors and 6
LVDTs located in different points of the joint, as shown in Fig. 7, have been adopted.
bolt M24 (10.9) bolt M20 (10.9) 30 30
94
35 94 35
40
RBS
35
257
93
177
40 40
423
400
167
400
542
tcp = 10 mm
tcp = 10 mm
81
93
257
IPE270
35
81
IPE270
164
twp= 10 mm
40
tep = 25 mm twp= 10 mm
154
R195
HE200B HE200B
170 70 180 170 293 tep = 25 mm
25 25 25 25 25 40
120 120 73 60 60 60
22
30
53
200
200
135
75
22
30
Fig. 3. EEP-DB-CYC03 Fig. 4. TS-CYC04
Vertical frame
IPE270 IPE270
L=170cm
Horizontal frame
Hydraulic Actuator
max load: +/- 250 kN
max disp.: +/-500mm
JOINT
HE200B
L=200cm
Trasducer
1557
LVDT
Load / Displacement
Actuator 1000 kN LVDT 3 e 4 LVDT 5 e 6
LVDT 1 LVDT 2
Transd. 1 Transd. 2
2700
Fig. 6. Displacement history (AISC) Fig. 7. Location of measuring devices
e1 e1
2.3 Experimental results p1
e2
The moment-rotation curves of the four joints are shown in Figs. 9, 10, 11
and 12, while in Fig. 13 the corresponding monotonic envelopes are
p2
compared. It is possible to observe that the four joints exhibit similar
strength as desired, but significant differences occur regarding rotational
h ep
p3
capacity and width and stability of hysteresis loops. In particular, the
dissipative behaviour of EEP-CYC01 joint is mainly due to the
p2
contributions of the shear panel and of the equivalent t-stub (Figs. 14 and
e2
16), while the column web in compression and tension (Fig. 18) provider a
t ep bep
minor contribution. In case of EEP-CYC02 and TS-CYC04 joints, the
dissipative behaviour is essentially due to the equivalent t-stubs only Fig. 8. Bolts and end-plate
(comparision among the Figs. 15 and 17) which are also responsible of
some pinching.
Hysteretic Curve M-θ EEP-CYC 01 Hysteretic Curve M-θ EEP-CYC 02
250000 250000
Mmax = 181479 kN·mm Mmax = 188456 kN·mm
Mmin = -200894 kN·mm 200000 Mmin = -198216 kN·mm 200000
150000 150000
100000 100000
Moment [kN·mm]
Moment [kN·mm]
50000 50000
0 0
-0,100 -0,075 -0,050 -0,025 0,000 0,025 0,050 0,075 0,100 -0,100 -0,075 -0,050 -0,025 0,000 0,025 0,050 0,075 0,100
-50000 -50000
-100000 -100000
-150000 -150000
150000 150000
100000 100000
Moment [kN·mm]
Moment [kN·mm]
50000 50000
0 0
-0,100 -0,075 -0,050 -0,025 0,000 0,025 0,050 0,075 0,100 -0,100 -0,075 -0,050 -0,025 0,000 0,025 0,050 0,075 0,100
-50000 -50000
-100000 -100000
-150000 -150000
200000
rotation supply has entirely offered by the weakened
150000
zone of the beam in bending, being negligible the 100000
Moment [kN·mm]
50000
the failure modes, the brittle fracture of welds -0,100 -0,075 -0,050 -0,025
0
0,000 0,025 0,050 0,075 0,100
-50000
between the beam flanges and the end-plate caused
-100000
sudden collapse of EEP-CYC01 joint at about 0.07 -150000 Envelope EEP-CYC1
4 CONCLUSIONS
On the base of the experimental results obtained in the present work, the possibility to extend the component
approach to predict the cyclic behaviour of beam-to-column joints appears feasible, because experimental
evidence shows that the total energy dissipated by beam-to-column joints can be obtained as the sum of the
energies dissipated by each component, provided that the joint components are properly identified and
modelled.
Hysteretic Curve M-γ EEP-CYC 01 Hysteretic Curve M-γ EEP-CYC 02
250000 250000
200000 200000
150000 150000
100000 100000
Moment [kNxmm]
Moment [kN·m]
50000 50000
0 0
-0,05 -0,04 -0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 -0,005 -0,004 -0,003 -0,002 -0,001 0,000 0,001 0,002 0,003 0,004 0,005
-50000 -50000
-100000 -100000
-150000 -150000
-200000 -200000
Shear Panel Shear Panel
-250000 -250000
γ [rad] γ [rad]
Fig. 14. Shear panel of EEP-CYC01 Fig. 15. Shear panel of EEP-CYC02
Hysteretic Curve F-δ EEP-CYC 01 Hysteretic Curve F-δ EEP-CYC02
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
Force [kN]
Force [kN]
0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
T-Stub Sx T-Stub Sx
-800 -800
Fig. 16. Left equivalent T-stub of EEP-CYC01 Fig. 17. Left equivalent T-stub of EEP-CYC02
Hysteretic Curve F-δ EEP-CYC 01 Hysteretic Curve F-δ EEP-DB-CYC03
800 800
600 600
400
400
200
200
Force [kN]
Force [kN]
0
0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -200
-200
-400
-400
-600
-600 -800
Fig. 18. Column web of EEP-CYC01 Fig. 19. Column web of EEP-DB-CYC03
Energy dissipation EEP-CYC 01 Energy dissipation EEP-CYC 02
250000 60000
Node Node
Shear Panel Shear Panel
T-Stub EP Sx T-Stub EP Sx
50000
200000 T-Stub EP Dx T-Stub EP Dx
PAN Sx PAN Sx
PAN Dx PAN Dx
40000
Energy [kN·mm]
Energy [kN·mm]
SUM Comp. SUM Comp.
150000
30000
100000
20000
50000
10000
0 0
20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35
n° cycles n° cycles
Fig. 20. Energy dissipation of EEP-CYC01 Fig. 21. Energy dissipation of EEP-CYC02
Energy dissipation EEP-DB-CYC 03 Energy dissipation TS-CYC 04
250000 200000
Node Node
Shear Panel 180000 Shear Panel
T-Stub EP Sx T-Stub EP Sx
200000 T-Stub EP Dx 160000 T-Stub EP Dx
PAN Sx PAN Sx
PAN Dx 140000 PAN Dx
Energy [kN·mm]
SUM Comp.
Energy [kN·mm]
SUM Comp.
150000 120000
100000
100000 80000
60000
50000 40000
20000
0 0
20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
n° cycles n° cycles
Fig. 22. Energy dissipation of EEP-DB-CYC03 Fig. 23. Energy dissipation of TS-CYC04
REFERENCES
[1] C. Faella, V. Piluso, G Rizzano (2000): “Structural Steel Semirigid Connections”, CRC Press, Florida,
ISBN 0-8493-7433-2.
[2] H. Krawinkler, V.V. Bertero, E.P. Popov (1971): “Inelastic Behaviour of Steel Beam-to-Column
Subassemblages”, Report UCB/EERC-71/7, Earthquake Engineering Recent Center, Univ. of
California, Berkley.
[3] H. Krawinkler, V.V. bertero, E.P. Popov (1973): “Further Studies on Seismic Behaviour of Steel
Beam-Column Subassemblages”, Report UCB/EERC-73/27, Earthquake Engineering Recent Center,
Univ. of California, Berkley.
[4] K. S. Moore, J. O. Malley, M. D. Engelhardt, (1999): “Design of Reduced Beam Section (RBS)
Moment Frame Connections”, Steel TIPS, August, Structural Steel Educational Council
[5] AISC (2202):”Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings”, ANSI/AISC 341-02, American
Institute of Steel Construction