Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995 www.elsevier.

com/locate/jcsr

Design provisions for connections between steel beams and concrete lled tube columns
A. Elremaily, Atorod Azizinamini*
University of NebraskaLincoln, W348 Nebraska Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA Received 10 August 2000; received in revised form 26 March 2001; accepted 17 April 2001

Abstract The through beam connection detail has been identied as an ideal rigid connection for attaching steel beams to concrete lled tube (CFT) columns in seismic regions. This connection detail is also well suited for non-seismic applications. In this research program a combination of analytical and experimental studies was conducted to comprehend the behavior of this detail and develop the accompanying design provisions. The experimental research program is presented elsewhere. In this paper the experimental and analytical results are used to identify the force transfer mechanism within the joint. A model to estimate joint strength is presented and used to develop design guidelines for the through beam connection detail. Calculated results based on the proposed design model are compared with experimental data. Finally, a design example demonstrating the step by step procedures to design the through beam connection detail is presented. Additional research areas necessary to ensure the ductile behavior of the through beam connection in seismic areas are also identied. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Concrete lled tube; Force transfer mechanism; Through beam connection; Seismic

1. Introduction The results presented in this paper are part of a comprehensive research program that was conducted to develop an economical connection detail for connecting steel beams to concrete lled tube (CFT) columns and provide accompanying design provisions [1,2]. Based on the review of previous studies [3,4], it was concluded that
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-402-472-5106; fax: +1-402-472-6658. E-mail address: aazizi@unl.edu (A. Azizinamini).
0143-974X/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 5

972

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Nomenclature Ac As bf d db dc E fc Fy Fyf Fyt Fyw Fu H Mn Mp Mtest Paxial Pbn Pcn Pj Po Ppred Ptest tf tw tt Mcn Mbn cross sectional area of the concrete core cross sectional area of the steel tube Beam ange width Total beam depth distance between centroids of beam anges diameter of the tube wall Modulus of elasticity Concrete compressive strength Yield stress yield stress of the beam ange yield stress of the steel tube yield stress of the beam web Ultimate strength Column height between points of lateral support Nominal moment capacity of the column Beam plastic moment Moment due to ultimate load Ptest Axial load applied on column during the test Beam load required to develop beam plastic moment Beam load required to develop column exural strength Beam load required to fail the joint in shear Nominal pure axial capacity of the column Least of Pj, Pcn, and Pbn Ultimate load obtained during test Beam ange thickness Beam web thickness thickness of the tube wall the sum of the design exural strengths of the columns framing into the joint the sum of the design exural strengths of the beams framing into the joint

the through beam connection detail is the most appropriate detail to achieve the strength, stiffness, and ductility required for a moment resisting connection. As shown in Fig. 1, in this detail the beam runs continuously through the column. Ishaped slots are cut in the tube wall on opposite sides and the beam is passed through the tube. The beam is welded to the tube using either a llet or a full penetration weld all around the beam section. In the experimental program presented in references [1] and [2], seven two-thirds scale connection specimens were tested. Each test specimen consisted of a CFT column and a steel beam passed through the column to represent

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

973

Circular Steel tube filled with concrete

Steel beam

I shaped slots cut in the steel tube

Section B-B

Fig. 1.

Through connection detail.

an interior joint in a building. The specimens were designed such that possible modes of failure and connection strength could be identied. The main test variables were the beam-to-column exural capacity ratio, the type of weld used to attach the beam to the tube, and the presence or absence of some of the connection elements within the panel zone. Table 1 shows the properties of the test specimens. The height of the column, H, shown in the table represents the distance between the lateral reaction points. The total beam length, L, between the loading points for all the specimens was 4115 mm (13 ft-6 in.) The beam and column exural strengths given in Table 1 were calculated based on measured material properties. The measured material properties are given in Table 2. The moment capacity of the column was calculated based on the axial load applied on column during the test using the analytical model developed by Elremaily and Azizinamini [2]. The squash load, Po, was calculated as the summation of the ultimate axial capacities of both the steel and concrete and is given by the following equation. Po = AsFy + AcFc (1)

An analytical investigation was also carried out using nonlinear nite element modeling techniques to provide a supplement to the experimental data in understanding the joint behavior and to quantify some of the parameters that could not be measured experimentally. The results of the analytical investigation are briey discussed in this paper. Greater details are provided in references [1] and [2]. In this paper, the experimental and analytical results are used to identify the force transfer mechanism within the joint. A model to estimate the joint strength is presented and used to develop design guidelines for the through beam connection detail.

974

Table 1 Comparison between experimental and analytical results NSF4 W1835 450 152 10.8 7.6 374.2 Built up 445 203 44.5 12.7 (0)a 1211.4 4066.4 mm 2438 0.22 1285.3 1.06 4066.4 mm 2438 0.19 1282.0 1.06 4066.4 mm 2438 0.21 641.8 2.17 Fillet Built up 445 203 44.5 12.6 (6.4)a 1211.4 W16x31 404 140 11.2 7.0 295.9 4066.4 mm 2438 0.18 637.6 1.70 Full pen. Rebars 222 Beam failure 231 Full pen. 4066.4 mm 2438 0.19 642.1 1.65 W1835 450 152 10.8 7.6 390.0 NSF5 NSF6 NSF7 NSF8

Specimen

NSF1

NSF2

Beam d (mm) bf (mm) tf (mm) tw (mm) Mp (kN-m)

W1850 457 190 14.5 9.0 500.4

W1850 457 190 14.5 9.0 500.4

Column

H (mm) Paxial/Po Mn (kN-m) Mn/Mp

3056.4 mm 2134 0.17 301.4 0.60

3059.5 mm 2134 0.16 400.9 0.80

Weld type Special details

Fillet

Ptest

(kN)

227

Fillet No concrete in panel zone 214 Joint shear

Full pen. Weak joint no web 418

Full pen. Weak joint thin web 476 Joint shear

165 Beam failure

Failure mode

Weld fracture and Beam failure tube tearing 662 14 1503 1078 482 202 380 202 593 15 1513 1078 473 210 383 210 (552)b (4)b (747)b (543)b

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Vwy (kN) Vf (kN) Vcsn (kN) Vtn (kN) Pj (kN) Pbn (kN) Pcn (kN) Ppred (kN)

Weld fracture and tube shearing 562 28 936 682 331 263 186 186

562 28 0 1016 240 263 248 240

0 329 1469 1078 379 6534 764 379

(0)b (334)b (1837)b (1214)b

517 329 1469 1078 448 653 762 448

(303)b (302)b (1850)b (1183)b

500 15 1485 1078 396 160 374 160

(467)b (4)b (676)b (405)b

Thickness of the portion of beam web inside the tube. Values from the nite element model.

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

975

Table 2 Material properties of connection test specimens Specimen Beam ange Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) Beam web Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) Column Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) fc (MPa)
a

NSF1

NSF2

NSF4

NSF5

NSF6

NSF7

NSF8

302 442

302 442

343 501

358 500

292 518

292 518

334 472

341 467

341 467

356 499

319 494

392 519

392 (334)a 294 519 (494)a 473

374 499 41.6

371 482 38.9

443 554 33.9

443 554 34.3

443 554 32.4

443 554 32.4

443 554 33.1

Value for the portion of beam web inside the tube.

2. Finite element model A comprehensive three-dimensional nite element model was generated for the test specimen using the ANSYS nite element program. Fig. 2 shows the typical nite element mesh used in this study to model the geometry of the test specimen.

Fig. 2.

Typical nite element mesh.

976

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Similar to the loading of the test specimen, opposite vertical loads were applied at the beam ends and a constant axial load was applied on the column. The same value of the column axial load applied during the test was applied to the nite element model. Actual material properties were used in the analysis. Eight-node brick elements (SOLID65 of ANSYS) with three translational degrees of freedom at each node were used to model the concrete core. Four-node shell elements (SHELL43 of ANSYS) with six degrees of freedom at each node were used to model the steel tube and the girder. The interface between the steel and concrete was modeled by using contact elements (CONTAC49 of ANSYS). The contact element can transfer compressive and frictional forces only. The coefcient of friction between steel and concrete was assumed to be 0.3. The steel rebars were modeled using link elements (LINK8 of ANSYS) with three translational degrees of freedom at each node. No bending of this element is considered. Full bond was assumed between the rebars and concrete. The weld was idealized by providing common nodes for the girder and the steel tube at the weld locations. The concrete material model in ANSYS accounts for both cracking and crushing. Cracking is modeled through an adjustment of the material properties which treats cracking as a smeared band of cracks rather than discrete cracks. Crushing is dened as the complete deterioration of the structural integrity of the material (i.e. material spalling). Under conditions where crushing has occurred at an integration point, material strength is assumed to have degraded to an extent such that the contribution to the stiffness of an element at the integration point in question is ignored. However, due to convergence problems, concrete crushing was not modeled in some test specimens. The tensile strength was assumed to be 0.623 fc MPa (7.5 fc psi). The ratio of the ultimate biaxial compressive stress to the ultimate uniaxial compressive stress was specied as 1.2. The elastic modulus was taken as 4733.1 fc MPa (57000 fc psi). A rate-independent plasticity model was used to simulate the inelastic behavior of the steel components. Von Mises yield criterion was used to dene the material yield surface, and an associated ow rule was used to determine the plastic deformation. A bilinear kinematic hardening model was used to simulate the elastic and inelastic behavior of all steel components. In order to verify the analytical model, the results from the nite element analysis are compared to the experimental data. Fig. 3 shows a comparison between the experimental and analytical load-deection relationships at the beam end for Specimen NSF5 which failed by plastic hinging of the beam outside the column. The numerical model was loaded up to a displacement approximately equal to the deection of the test specimen at the peak load. A good agreement between the experimental and analytical load-deection relationships is observed. Similar agreement was observed for specimens with different modes of failure. This illustrates the capability of the analytical model to predict the behavior of the joint in both the linear and the nonlinear stages. In the sections to follow, selected results from the nite element analysis and experimental results are discussed to develop design provisions.

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

250.0

977

200.0

Load (kN)

150.0

100.0 Experimental FE Model 50.0

0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Deflection (mm)

Fig. 3.

Comparison of load-deection response for specimen NSF5.

3. Failure modes In general, the development of design criteria for a certain connection involves rst identifying possible failure modes and then establishing appropriate design checks to prevent undesirable failure modes. The results of the experimental study presented in references [1] and [2] have shown that, in the case of the through beam connection detail, subassembly failure could take place in either one of the following modes: a) column failure, b) beam failure, or c) joint failure. Column failure takes place when the column exural strength is lower than the beam exural strength and the joint shear capacity. In the experimental study conducted, in Specimens NSF1 and NSF2, the column was weaker than the beam and a llet weld was used to attach the beam to the tube. Failure of these two specimens initiated by fracture of the weld attaching the beam ange to the tube followed by tube tearing on the tension side and buckling on the compression side. When a llet weld is used to attach the beam to the steel tube, the capacity of the column is reduced due to the reduction in the effective tube area resulting from the presence of the llet weld. Although no experimental data are available for the case when a full penetration weld is used with the column being weaker than the beam, it is expected that failure would still take place in the column but probably in a more ductile way. Beam failure takes place when the beam capacity is smaller than the column exural capacity and shear capacity of the joint. Such mode of failure was observed in

978

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Specimens NSF4, NSF5, and NSF8. In Specimens NSF4 and NSF5, the column-tobeam strength ratio was about 1.5 and a full penetration weld attached the beam to the steel tube. In Specimen NSF8, the column-to-beam strength ratio was approximately 2 and a llet weld attached the beam to the steel tube. Test results have shown that failure can take place in the joint panel when the joint is weaker than the attached members. Such mode of failure was observed in Specimens NSF6 and NSF7. Failure of these two specimens was due to excessive shear distortion in the connection panel.

4. Design philosophy For design purposes, it is desirable that failure takes place by plastic hinging in the beam outside the joint. Both column failure and joint failure should be avoided. This is consistent with the strong column-weak beam concept implied by seismic building codes. To prevent column failure, the column should be stronger than the beam. The experimental results of Specimens NSF4, NSF5, and NSF8 showed that column failure was prevented when the column-to-beam exural strength ratio was approximately 1.5 for full penetration welds and approximately 2.0 for llet welds. These ratios are higher than the 1.2 ratio recommended by the ACI [5] specications. It is recommended that these conservative values be used as lower limits on the column-to-beam strength ratio for the through beam connection detail until additional experimental data become available to justify lower values. To prevent joint failure, the force transfer mechanism through the joint and the joint strength need to be established. The following sections present the development of design criteria to prevent joint shear failure.

5. Force transfer mechanism 5.1. Moment and shear force transfer A moment connection should be designed to resist the forces transferred to the joint by adjacent members. The forces acting on an interior joint in a frame subjected to lateral loads are shown in Fig. 4. In developing the design criteria outlined in this paper, the effect of the column axial load is ignored. Therefore, the design provisions presented here are limited to connections with axial load levels lower than 25% of the column squash load, Po. This level is similar to the axial load level applied on the test specimens. It should be noted that higher levels of axial load could lower the joint shear capacity. The effect of axial load on joint behavior is a subject that requires additional investigation. For simplicity, the forces from both beams are assumed to be of equal magnitude. Also, the forces from the top and bottom columns are assumed to have equal magnitude. Such loading causes large shear forces and shear deformations in the connection panel as shown in Fig. 4. The mechanism of moment transfer could be visualized from the free body diagram shown in Fig. 5,

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

979

Mc Vc Plastic hinge in beam flange

Mb Vb

Vb Mb

Vc Mc
Fig. 4. Deformed shape of joint.

which represents the external forces acting on the boundary of the connection panel. In this gure, the beam moment is resolved into ange forces, Tf and Cf, while the column moments are replaced with the vertical tension in the tube, Ts, vertical compression in the tube, Cs, and the concrete compressive stress block, Cc. The diagonal compression strut that forms in the joint area is not shown in Fig. 5. References [1] and [2] provide more detailed information on the internal force mechanism responsible for creating the force Cc shown in Fig. 5. 5.2. Flange force transfer Fig. 6 shows an isolated portion of the top ange within the connection panel. As shown in Fig. 6, the axial ange forces, Tf and Cf, tend to push the beam ange through the column. Mechanics of the joint shear mechanisms may be visualized by considering their role in resisting the horizontal ange forces. The experimental results presented in references [1] and [2] indicated a drop in the axial tensile strains measured in the beam ange right at the outside and the inside of the tube wall. The variation of the axial stress in the ange along the beam longitudinal axis as obtained from the nite element model of Specimen NSF5 is shown in Fig. 7. It is observed that there is a signicant stress drop in the beam ange on the tension side once the ange enters the tube. The axial stress in the tension ange just inside the tube is approximately 70% of the stress value just outside the tube. These observations indicate that a portion of the axial tensile force in the ange is transferred to the tube wall, Vt. The gradual reduction in the axial tensile stresses in the ange, inside the tube, is due to transfer of the ange force to the concrete core by friction, Vcf, and to the beam web by shear, Vw. The rest of the tension ange force is applied

980

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Cc

Vc

Ts

Cf

Cs Vb Cs Vb

Tf

Tf

Ts

Cf

Vc Cc

Fig. 5.

Forces at panel boundaries.

Vc Cf Cb V + V cf w Vt
Fig. 6. Isolated portion of top ange (vertical elevation).

Tf

as compression to the back side of the tube. On the compression side the stress drops almost to zero right at the inside of the tube wall. This suggests that the axial compression force in the ange is transferred to the concrete core by bearing of the tube wall against the concrete. The same behavior was also observed from experimental

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Steel pipe 406mm X 6.4mm Beam W18X35

981

Compression flange, C

Tension Flange, T

Plan View
600.0

400.0
Flange Axial Stress (MPa)

200.0

0.0

-200.0

-400.0

-600.0 -1000

-750

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000

Distance from Column Center Line (mm)

Fig. 7.

Variation of axial stress in top ange along the beam axis for NSF5.

results. The force Cb represents the reaction force acting on the steel tube created by diagonal compression strut that forms in the joint between the anges.

6. Joint shear strength Beam ange forces and column shear transferred through the joint produce large shear in the panel zone of a CFT-to-beam moment connection. If the joint is unable to resist such shear, failure will take place due to excessive shear deformations in the connection panel. The joint shear strength is evaluated through studying the equilibrium of the horizontal forces on a horizontal plane at the midheight of the joint as shown in Fig. 8.

982

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Vc

Cf = Mb /db

Tf = Mb /db

Vn
Fig. 8. Equilibrium of horizontal forces.

6.1. Applied joint shear Column shear transferred through the joint increases joint shear strength by reducing the beam ange forces transferred to the joint. In the through beam connection detail it is reasonable to consider that the entire column shear is effective in reducing joint shear forces since the column is continuous through the joint and is directly attached to the beam. Assuming that the beam bending moment is carried entirely by the anges, the tensile and compressive forces in the beam ange, Tf and Cf, can be estimated as: Tf = Cf = Mb db (2)

Referring to Fig. 8, the effective horizontal shear force acting on the joint panel, Vu, may be calculated as: Vu = 2Mb V c db (3)

6.2. Joint nominal strength From the equilibrium of the horizontal forces shown in Fig. 8, the horizontal shear force in the joint is carried by: (1) shear in the steel web, Vw; (2) shear in the concrete panel, Vcs; and (3) shear in the steel tube, Vt. The joint shear capacity is reached when all the contributing mechanisms have reached their individual shear strengths. Test results indicated that the shear strengths of individual mechanisms are achieved at different joint deformations. In the test series conducted, the web panel was always the rst mechanism to reach its capacity, followed by tube yielding and then, nally, concrete crushing. It should be noted that both the web and tube panels maintained

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

983

their strength after yielding up to the joint global failure. Based on this discussion, the nominal joint shear strength, Vn, is calculated as the sum of the individual nominal shear strengths of the contributing mechanisms. This can be expressed as follows: Vn = Vwn + Vtn + Vcsn (4)

where Vwn, Vcsn, and Vtn are the nominal shear strengths of the web, concrete core, and the steel tube, respectively. At the point of joint failure, the applied horizontal joint shear is equal to the joint shear capacity. Equating Vu from Eq. (3) and Vn from Eq. (4) results in the following expression: 2Mb Vc = Vwn + Vtn + Vcsn db (5)

In the above expression, Vc can be related to Mb based on the geometry of the beam-column subassembly. Once the individual terms on the right hand side are established, the joint strength can be calculated in terms of the maximum beam moment, Mb, that could be resisted by the connection. The applied beam moment should be less than this nominal value in order to prevent joint failure. 6.3. Beam web panel The major portion of web resistance to joint shear forces is provided by means of panel shear. Additional resistance to joint shear is provided by the frame mechanism shown in Fig. 4. Such a mechanism causes local bending of the beam anges about their own axis right at the beam column interface as shown in Fig. 4. Local ange bending in Specimen NSF7 can be observed analytically from the distribution of the axial stresses at the top and bottom surfaces of the beam ange as shown in Fig. 9. The stresses at the bottom of the tension ange, as shown in Fig. 9, reverse to compression near the column face indicating local bending of the beam ange. This behavior could not be captured during the test from the instrumentation because strain gages were installed only on the top surface of the beam ange. However, local ange bending could be clearly observed by visual inspection of the test specimen. Similar observations have been reported by Sheikh [6]. The web panel strength, Vwn, is provided by means of web shear yielding, Vwy, and the frame mechanism, Vf. The web panel strength is given by the following equations: Vwn = Vwy + Vf Vwy = 0.5Fywdctw Vf = 4Mpf db Fyftf2bf 4 (6) (7) (8) (9)

Mpf =

984

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 -100.0 -200.0 -300.0 -400.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Distance from Column Face (mm) Top of flange Bottom of flange

Flange Axial Stress (MPa)

Fig. 9.

Axial stress (sx) in tension ange in specimen NSF7.

The web shear yield is calculated based on an average yield shear stress of 0.6Fyw acting over the web area within the joint panel. The shear yield stress of 0.6Fyw is based on Von Mises yield criteria and is the same value used in the AISC LRFD specications [7]. The resistance provided by the frame action is calculated based on a mechanism where plastic hinges form in the beam anges at four locations as shown in Fig. 4. Sheikh [6] and Deierlein [8] used the same expression given in Eq. (8) to calculate the force Vf. 6.4. Steel tube The tube contribution to the joint shear strength is calculated as the maximum horizontal shear force that can be resisted by the tube cross section, Vtn, and is expressed as follows: pdctt Vm = 0.6Fyt 2 (10)

In the above expression, the resistance provided by the tube wall is calculated based on an average yield shear stress of 0.6Fyt acting over the effective shear area of the tube given by [9].

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

985

6.5. Concrete core panel The concrete panel provides resistance to the applied joint shear forces by the formation of a diagonal compression strut. The formation of the compression strut was observed experimentally through the formation of diagonal cracks in the concrete core within the panel zone of Specimens NSF6 and NSF7, as shown in Fig. 10a. The formation of the compression strut is conrmed by the direction of the minimum principal stress in the concrete panel obtained from the nite element model as shown in Fig. 10b. This compression strut is similar to that used to model shear in reinforced concrete joints [10]. The horizontal force resisted by the strut, Vcsn, is calculated by the following: Vcsn = 1.99fc Vcsn

pdc2 = 24fc 4

pdc2 4

(fc in MPa) (11)

(fc in psi)

The term 1.99 fc MPa (24 fc psi) in Eq. (11) is the limiting horizontal shear stress over the horizontal projection of the strut region. This term is the same as that recommended by the ACI-ASCE [10] for reinforced concrete joints conned due to beams framing into all four sides of the joint. Since the joint in a CFT column is highly conned by the tube wall, it is reasonable to use the same value recommended for conned joints. The experimental data reported by Sheikh [6] for connections between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns indicated that the shear stress term varied between 1.99 fc to 2.99 fc MPa (24 fc to 36 fc psi). Experimental and analytical results have shown that the connection panel deforms

(a)

(b)
Z X

V M V M

Fig. 10.

Formation of compression strut.

986

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

as a monolithic unit. Thus, in Eq. (11), it is assumed that the entire area of the concrete core is effective in resisting joint shear. 6.6. Relative contributions The horizontal forces resisted by individual mechanisms were calculated from the nite element model and are shown in Fig. 11 for Specimens NSF7. The additional resistance to the joint shear provided by the frame action which causes plastic hinging of the beam anges at the connection panel boundaries was calculated by summing up the local bending moments in the beam anges at the column face and dividing the resultant by the beam depth to get an equivalent horizontal couple. Fig. 11 shows that all the elements contributing to the joint shear strength are activated from the beginning of the loading. The web was the rst mechanism to reach its capacity. After web yielding, the increase in the shear force is distributed between the tube and the concrete until the tube yields. After tube yielding, the additional shear force in the joint is resisted solely by the concrete core.

7. Design approach The discussion presented in the previous sections is synthesized into a design approach to evaluate the adequacy of the connection in a frame. The following sec2000.0
Concrete

1600.0

Joint Shear (kN)

1200.0

Tube

800.0
Web

400.0
Frame action

0.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 Load (kN) 300.0 400.0 500.0

Fig. 11.

Horizontal joint shear force distribution for NSF7.

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

987

tions present the recommended design model for the through beam connection detail between a steel beam and a CFT column. Since the design recommendations are mainly based on the specimens tested in this research, care should be taken in extrapolating the results to connections with substantially different geometry form that of the test specimens. 7.1. Strong columnweak beam criterion In order to ensure that plastic hinging of the beam occurs before column strength is reached, the column-to-beam exural strength ratio should satisfy the following Mcn/bn1.5 when a full penetration weld is used Mcn/Mbn2.0 when a fillet weld is used Due to limited test data, a ratio of Mcn/Mbn1.5 is not permitted in the through beam connection detail. 7.2. Joint forces The joint should be designed to resist the forces transferred to it by adjacent members. The forces on a typical joint are shown in Fig. 12. These forces represent member internal forces due to applied factored loads and could be obtained from structural frame analysis. Factored loads should be determined according the AISC LRFD specication [7]. The forces at the joint boundaries are assumed to be related as follows:
Mc1 Vc1

Vb1 Mb2 Vb2 Mb1

Vc2 Mc2
Fig. 12. Joint design forces.

988

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Mb = Mb1 + Mb2 Mc = Mc1 + Mc2 Vb = Vc = Vb1 + Vb2 2 Vc1 + Vc2 2

(12) (13) (14) (15)

7.3. Joint shear The horizontal shear strength of the joint is considered adequate if the following equation is satised: Mb Vcf(Vwn + Vcsn + Vm) db where Vwn = 0.6Fywdctw Vcsn = 1.99fc Vcsn (16)

pdc2 = 24fc (fc in psi) 4

pdc2 4

(17) (fc in MPa) (18)

pdctt Vtn = 0.6Fyt 2

(19)

In Eq. (16), f is the resistance factor and is equal to 0.7. The value of f could not be obtained from the experimental data due to the limited number of tests. The value of is f=0.7 based on the ASCE recommendations for composite joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns [11]. In determining the web panel capacity in Eq. (17), the contribution provided by the frame mechanism is ignored. 7.4. Weld design Fig. 13 shows the mechanism of the forces acting on the weld attaching the beam ange to the tube. There are two forces acting simultaneously on the weld. The rst force is the horizontal force transferred from the beam anges into the tube wall. The second force is the vertical force in the tube wall providing continuity of the column. If a full penetration weld is used no design is required. When a llet weld

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

989

Tube wall v R Beam flange h

Fig. 13.

Forces acting on weld.

is used to attach the beam to the steel tube, design checks should be conducted on the weld capacity to prevent premature failure due to weld fracture. Finite element analyses have shown that approximately 30% of the axial tensile forces in the beam ange are transferred to the tube wall through the weld. Thus, the total horizontal force, H, transmitted by the weld is calculated as 30% of the maximum force that can develop in the ange. H = 0.3fbFyftfbf (20) where fb is equal to 0.9, Fyf is the ange yield stress, bf is the ange width, and tf is the ange thickness. The 30% value used in Eq. (20) is based on the limited nite element analysis carried out in this investigation for the test specimens. Further research is still needed in this area. Fig. 14 shows the shear stress distribution txy in the tube wall at the tension ange
60.0

50.0

Shear Stress (MPa)

40.0

Average

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 -75.0

-50.0

-25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

Distance from Flange Center Line (mm)

Fig. 14.

Shear stress (txy) in the tube at the tension ange level for NSF5.

990

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

level for Specimen NSF5. Since this shear stress is transferred mainly to the tube form the weld, this shear stress distribution provides an insight into the distribution of horizontal forces transferred through the weld from the beam ange to the tube wall. Fig. 14 shows that the stress distribution is not uniform and that higher stresses are present at the ange tip. The stress concentration factor is approximately 1.5. Thus, the horizontal force, h, carried by the weld per unit length can be estimated as: h = 1.5

0.3fbFyftfbf = 0.225fbFyftf 2bf

(21)

The denominator 2bf in the above equation represents the length of the weld above and below the ange. The vertical force on the weld is determined from the axial vertical stress in the tube wall corresponding to the load that develops the design moment capacity in the beam. This can be achieved by calculating the moment in the column at the connection face at the point where the beam develops its design exural capacity right outside the connection. The maximum tensile stress in the tube wall, sv, corresponding to the column moment and axial load can then be calculated by conducting moment curvature analysis for the column cross section. The vertical force, v, transferred to the weld is then calculated as: v = svtt (22)

where tt is the thickness of the tube wall. The resultant force, R, acting on the weld is given by: R = h2 + v2 (23)

The nominal strength of a llet weld, Rnw, per unit length is given as the lower of: Rnw = te(0.6FEXX) for weld metal Rnw = tt(0.6Fu) for tube metal (24) (25)

where te is the effective weld thickness, tt is the tube thickness, FEXX is the weld metal tensile strength, and Fu is the tensile strength of the tube metal. The size of the llet weld should be selected such that: RfRnw where f is the resistance factor and is equal to 0.75. (26)

8. Comparison with experimental results The proposed design model is compared to the capacity of the specimens obtained from experimental testing. The three basic modes of failure for the beamcolumn subassembly are beam failure, column failure, and joint shear failure. For each test

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

991

specimen, the strength was calculated based on each of the basic modes of failure. The failure mode that resulted in the lowest strength is the governing mode and the strength corresponding to that mode represents the strength of the subassembly. The resistance factor f is set to 1.0 in the calculations. A summary of the measured versus calculated subassembly strength for various specimens is presented in Table 1. To facilitate comparison with experimental results, the calculated subassembly strength is given in terms of the applied load at the beam end. The governing mode of failure for each specimen is also given in that table. In Table 1, Ptest is the value obtained from the experiment and Ppred is the predicted capacity using the procedure outlined above. Ppred is the smallest of Pj (beam end load required to fail joint), Pbm (beam end load required to fail beam) and Pc (beam end load required to fail column). Calculated values compare quite well with the measured results. Specimens NSF6 and NSF7 show that the joint shear strength calculated by the proposed model is conservative. The ratios of the measured-to-calculated strength are 1.1 and 1.06 for Specimens NSF6 and NSF7, respectively. The individual contributions of different joint shear mechanisms obtained from both the design and nite element models are also given in Table 1. The values predicted from the nite element analysis are given in parenthesis. The values predicted by the design model for the web, frame mechanism and tube contributions are in good agreement with those obtained from the nite element analysis. The design model underestimates the contribution of the concrete core. This can be explained by the connement effect. The shear stress term, 1.99 fc MPa (24 fc psi), used in the design model is for reinforced concrete joints. The joint connement in a CFT column is much higher than that in reinforced concrete joints. Also, the concrete contribution from the nite element model should be used with caution since concrete crushing was not accounted for. In general, the results obtained from the design model are conservative as compared to both the experimental and the nite element results. The nite element results also show that the connection did not reach its shear capacity in both Specimens NSF5 and NSF8. Both the design and nite element models show that the contribution provided by the frame mechanism is signicant in Specimens NSF6 and NSF7 with built-up sections; however, such a contribution is small in specimens with rolled sections. The beam ange thickness in Specimens NSF6 and NSF7 was intentionally increased to force failure to take place in the joint region. The specimens with rolled beam sections would be more representative of normal design situations. Based on this discussion, the contribution of the frame mechanism to the joint shear capacity could be ignored without being overly conservative.

9. Design example For Specimen NSF8 check the adequacy of the joint shear capacity and design the llet weld based on the design procedure presented in this paper.

992

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

9.1. Geometry and material properties H = 2438 mm (96 in.), L = 4115 mm (162 in.), Beam section W1631, d = 403 mm (15.88 in.), bf = 140 mm (5.525 in.), tf = 11.2 mm (0.44 in.), tw = 7 mm (0.275 in.), Z = 8.849105 mm3 (54 in.3), Fyf = 334 MPa (48.5 ksi), Fyw = 294 MPa (42.6 ksi), Tube 4066.4 mm (161/4 in.), Fyt = 443 MPa (64.3 ksi), fc MPa (4.8 ksi), Paxial = 1690 kN (380 kips) 9.2. Strong columnweak beam criterion The beam exural capacity is taken as the full plastic moment of the section. Mbn = Mp = ZFyf8.849105334 = 295.56106 (N - mm) (2619 kip - in.) The column capacity is determined from momentcurvature analysis for the given value of axial load. Mcn = 641.84106 N - mm (5680 kip - in.) Mcn 2641.84106 = = 2.17 2.0 o.k. Mbn 2295.56106 The strong columnweak beam criterion is satised and a llet weld can be used. 9.3. Joint forces Mb = fMbn = 0.9295.56106 = 2.66106 N - mm (2357.1 kip - in.) Vb = Mb 266.0106 = = 143.43103 N (32.3 kip) (Ldc)/2 1854.5 4115 L = 143.43103 = 242.09103 N (54.5 kip) H 2438

Vc = Vb

9.4. Joint shear 2266.0106 M b V c = 242.091031.115106 N (250.8 kips) db (40311.2) Vwy = 0.6Fywdctw = 0.62944067 = 501.3103 N (112.5 kips) Vcsn = 1.99fc

pdc2 p4062 = 1/9933.1 = 1.482106 N (334.3 kips) 4 4

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

993

p4066.4 pdctt = 0.6443 = 1.085106 N (242.4 kips) Vtn = 0.6Fyt 2 2 f(Vwn + Vcsn + Vtn) = 0.7(0.501 + 1.482 + 1.085)106 = 2.148106 N (482.4 kips) Mb Vc = 1.115106 N (250.8 kips) o.k. db

9.5. Weld design The horizontal force in the weld is given as: h = 0.225fbFyftf = 0.2250.933411.2 = 758 N/mm. (4.32 kip/in) For Mb = 266.0106 N-mm (2357.1 kip-in.), the corresponding column moment is given by:

Mc =

Mb L/2dc/2

L H d 266106 = H 2 2 4115 402 2 2

4115 2438 403 2438 2 2

= 246.3106 N - mm (2182.8 kip - in.) The axial load on the column is 1690 kN (380 kips). Using moment curvature analysis for the column with the given axial load and moment, the axial tensile stress in the tube wall is 122 MPa (17.74 ksi). The vertical force in the weld is given as: v = svtt = (122)(6.4) = 781 N/mm (4.44 kip/in.) R = h2 + v2 = 7582 + 7812 = 1088 N/mm (6.19 kip/in.) Using an 8 mm (5/16 in.) weld, the weld capacity is given as te = 8 = 5.7 mm (0.22 in.) 2

fRnw = fte(0.6FEXX) = (0.75)(5.7)(0.6483) = 1239 N/mm (6.93 kip/in) > 1088 N/mm (6.19 kip/in.)

994

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

Thus, the llet weld is adequate. The results of this design example agree with the experimental results.

10. Conclusions This paper demonstrated the force transfer mechanism in the through beam connection detail based on the experimental and analytical results developed in this research program. The axial forces in the beam anges are transferred as horizontal shear forces through the joint. If the joint is unable to transfer such high shear, failure will take place due to excessive shear deformations in the joint panel. Elements that contribute to the joint shear capacity are identied as the beam web, the concrete core, and the steel tube. The contributions of the beam web and the steel tube are provided by the shear strengths of their cross-sections. The contribution of the concrete core is provided by the formation of a diagonal compression strut. Design guidelines capable of accurately predicting the test results are introduced. Due to the limited number of tests, and to guard against weld failure, it is recommended that a lower limit on the column-to-beam strength ratio be established 1.5 when a full penetration weld is used and 2.0 when a llet weld is used. Until further experimental data become available, a column-to-beam strength ratio less than 1.5 should not be used with the through beam connection detail. There is also a need for conducting cyclic tests to ensure ductile behavior of the through beam connection detail in seismic regions. This task could be accomplished by designing a test specimen based on the procedure outlined in this paper and subject it to cyclic loads. It should be mentioned, however, that limited cyclic tests carried out at the University of Illinois [4] and those conducted in this research program indicate that the through beam connection detail exhibits satisfactory energy dissipation capabilities.

Acknowledgements The funding for this investigation was provided by the National Science Foundation (Award Number 9520280). The authors greatly appreciate this support. Some of the test specimens were provided by Valmont Industries. The authors greatly acknowledge this help. Specically, the authors would like to thank Mr Dan S. Thiemann and Mr Armand Damiano of Valmont Industries for all their help and suggestions during the fabrication of the connection test specimens. This project was part of the USJapan Cooperative work in Earthquake Engineering (Phase 5). The authors would like to thank the US and Japan research teams for their technical inputs. Partial support for this project was provided by the National Bridge Research Organization (NaBRO) and the Center for Infrastructure Research (CIR) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This support is greatly appreciated.

A. Elremaily, A. Azizinamini / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 971995

995

The conclusions and recommendations made in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the sponsors.

References
[1] Elremaily A. Connections between steel beams and concrete-lled steel tube columns. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, May, 2000. [2] Elremaily A, Azizinamini A. Development of detail and design criteria for steel beam to concrete lled tube column connections in seismic regions. A nal report submitted to National Science Foundation, April, 2000. [3] Azizinamini A, Yerrapalli S, Saadeghvaziri MA. Design of through beam connection detail for circular composite columns. Engineering Structures 1995;17(3):20913. [4] Alostaz YM, Schneider SP. Connections to concrete-lled steel tubes. A report on Research Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, October, 1996. [5] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-95) and commentary (ACI 318R-95). American Concrete Institute, Detroit (MI), 1995. [6] Sheikh TM. Moment connections between steel beams and concrete columns. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, December, 1987. [7] Load and resistance factor design. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago (IL), 1994. [8] Deierlein GG. Design of moment connections for composite framed structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, May, 1988. [9] Boresi AP, Schmidt RJ, Sidebottom OM. Advanced mechanics of materials. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1993. [10] ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Recommendations for design of beamcolumn joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures. ACI Journal 1985;May/June:26683. [11] ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete. Guidelines for design of joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1994;120(8):233057.