Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.

2011; 40:10631081 Published online 22 November 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1070

Bidirectional seismic performance of steel beam to circular tubular column connections with outer diaphragm
Wei Wang1,2,3, , , Yiyi Chen1,2 , Wanqi Li2 and Roberto T. Leon3
Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, Peoples Republic of China 2 Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, Peoples Republic of China 3 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355, U.S.A.
1 State

SUMMARY This paper presents an experimental investigation on the seismic behavior of H-beam to circular tubular column connections stiffened by an outer ring diaphragm. An innovative three-dimensional (3D) connection subassembly testing system was rst described. Specimens representative of two-dimensional (2D) interior columns, 3D interior and exterior columns in a steel building frame were then tested to failure under unidirectional or bidirectional cyclic loads. Various specimen parameters are used to evaluate their effects on connection behavior. Test results indicate signicantly different failure modes for 2D and 3D weak panel connections, with panel shear buckling and local distortion of outer diaphragm occurring only for 3D connections. The weak beam connections unexceptionally exhibited nal fracture at the junction between diaphragm and beam ange. In contrast with weak beam connections, weak panel connections demonstrated better seismic performance and ductility. As a result, a seismic design philosophy considering panel zone yielding before beam exural yielding is proposed. Based on experiment observations, small diaphragm width and simplied llet welding are found to be feasible especially for weak beam connections, improving architectural appearance and facilitating construction. Strength evaluations also suggest that current AIJ design provisions may be appropriate when applied to panel zones in 3D connections. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 20 April 2009; Revised 23 August 2010; Accepted 24 August 2010 KEY WORDS:

connections; cyclic tests; circular hollow sections; three-dimensional tests; seismic design

1. INTRODUCTION Circular hollow sections have excellent properties in resisting compression, bending and torsion in terms of loading in all directions, and their shape is aesthetically pleasing. Their use in modern steel-framed structures is becoming more and more popular. These tube sections, when used as columns, have to be connected to beams of H-sections. When an H-beam frames into a circular tube column, the width of the H-beam ange is normally smaller than the diameter of the column. Such joints, when the beam is directly welded to the column without any stiffeners, have been found to be very weak in terms of their stiffness and load-carrying capacity. This can be avoided by welding continuity plates inside the column such that the continuity plates and beam anges are at the same levels. This method, however, is expensive and complicated for fabrication. An alternative method is though to use diaphragm type of connection, which is fabricated by rst
Correspondence

to: Wei Wang, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, Peoples Republic of China. E-mail: weiwang@tongji.edu.cn Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1064

W. WANG ET AL.

cutting the steel tube into three pieces and then welding them together with two diaphragms. Accordingly, this type of connection requires a large amount of welding. Moreover, if the depths of beams coming into a connection are different, the tube is separated into more layers than that in an ordinary beam-to-column connection. This requires a greater amount of welding resulting in increased possibility of defects. Therefore, researchers have proposed outer stiffeners for such joints involving tubular columns and H-beams. The use of outer stiffeners is perhaps the most efcient form of force transfer from both the structural and constructional point of view. Most of previous research work has been devoted to studies of the strength and behavior of externally stiffened steel beam to concrete-lled tubular (CFT) column connections, and signicant efforts have been made to understand their structural performance. These representative investigations include that of Kang et al. [1], Nishiyama et al. [2], Azizinamini and Schneider [3], Fukumoto and Morita [4], Wu et al. [5], Wang et al. [6] and Shin et al. [7], all of which involved experimental studies to assess elastoplastic behavior from subassemblage tests. On the other hand, limited work exists in the literature on the behavior of externally stiffened connection between tube column and steel beam. Ting et al. [8] presented the results of nite element analysis of externally stiffened box-column to I-beam connections with different types of stiffener. T-stiffeners were reported to be the most efcient form in redistributing stresses and improving stiffness. Shanmugam and Ting [9] carried out experimental investigations on the ultimate load behavior of interior I-beam to boxcolumn connections stiffened by T-sections under static and uctuating loads. Experiment results showed that these connections satisfy the basic criteria of strength, rotation capacity and stiffness. Kumar and Rao [10] proposed a new and efcient connection between rectangular hollow section beams and columns, which employed channel connectors welded to the column ange and bolted to the beam to transfer beam ange forces into the column webs thereby avoiding internal diaphragms in the column. The behavior of the connection was evaluated by cyclic tests and non-linear nite element analysis. Failure was observed to occur at the beam net section away from the column face in the case of channel connectors of high strength. Design guidelines were then given for evaluating its ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Although considerable amount of investigations have been carried out on outer-stiffened connection system of steel beams to vacant or CFT columns as stated above, no research is currently available on the seismic behavior of three-dimensional (3D) circular tubular column to H-beam connections with outer ring diaphragm under the severe earthquake. Because of the lack of test evidences, the seismic design criteria and correlative detailing requirements of this type of connection remain unclear and require further investigation. Therefore, this paper presents an experimental investigation of circular tube column to steel beam subassemblies with outer ring diaphragms, including three two-dimensional (2D) interior subassemblies, ve 3D interior subassemblies and one 3D exterior subassembly. An innovative spatial testing system for beamcolumn connections has been developed. Test results are presented and discussed on the hysteretic behavior of the connections subjected to unidirectional and bidirectional cyclic lateral loadings. The seismic performance of the connections is evaluated in terms of strength, ductility and energy dissipation. The design implications are proposed based on the comparison of the effects of various test parameters. The work in this paper provides a basis for further development of an analytical model, which will be described in another paper, and will help to establish a more reasonable seismic design approach of this type of connection.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 2.1. Design of test specimens The experimental program consisted of nine specimens to investigate the seismic behavior of the steel beam-to-tubular column moment connections with outer diaphragm. Figure 1 shows the details of the connection, where dc and tc are the diameter and thickness of the circular tube column, respectively; bf , tf , h b and tw are the width, ange thickness, overall depth and web thickness of the H-beam, respectively; and h s and ts are the width and thickness of the outer diaphragm,
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

1065

R
h

R
h h

Outer diaphragm

Outer diaphragm Outer diaphragm

Circular tube column

Circular tube column

Circular tube column

t h

H beam
d

H beam

H beam

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Connection details: (a) interior (2D); (b) interior (3D); and (c) exterior (3D).

respectively. The outer diaphragms were rst welded around the tube column and then jointed to steel beams by welded ange-bolted web connections. In order to mitigate the abrupt geometric changes in load transferring from a beam to the diaphragm, the rounded edges of the diaphragm plate were formed by making it tangent simultaneously to the borders of two adjacent orthogonal beam anges and an auxiliary circle, which was marked with a dashed line in Figure 1. The radius of the auxiliary circle was the sum of column tube radius and outer diaphragm width, h s . Thus, the radius of diaphragm plate edge, R1 , can be determined by the following equation: 2 dc o +h s bf R1 = ctg(22.5 ) (1) 2 2 The moment of the beam may be carried by the beam anges in the form of a couple axial force, Tf (see Figure 2). The axial forces from the beam are rst resisted by the outer diaphragm. In this case, the outer diaphragm plays an essential role in transferring the forces from the beam anges to the column tube. The key parameter for the diaphragm design is the width (h s ) of the critical section. By assuming that the force from the beam ange is entirely transferred through the outer diaphragm, as shown in Figure 2, the following equilibrium expression can be obtained: Tf = 2Td (2) where Td is the internal axial force based on critical section of the diaphragm. If the thickness of the diaphragm is set equal to that of beam ange and the diaphragm is required to yield after beam ange yields, a simple design criterion for outer diaphragm can be derived as follows: h s 0.7bf (3)

Table I summarizes the dimensions of test specimens for the experimental study presented in this paper. The column height, H , was 3025 mm. The beam length, L, was 3600 mm for interior subassemblies and 1800 mm for exterior subassemblies. Three of these specimens were 2D subassemblies (C1C3), to which a reversed cyclic lateral load and column axial force were applied, and the remaining specimens were 3D subassemblies (C4C9) and were subjected to reversed cyclic lateral forces in two directions under constant column axial force. The subassemblies were
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1066

W. WANG ET AL.

Tf Td Td

hs

Td

Td Tf

Figure 2. Design assumption for outer diaphragm.

approximately one-half size scale models of the preliminary design of joints for a prototype 20story building. The parameters varied in the study including the loading direction of lateral force (biaxial, uniaxial), the conguration of subassembly (interior, exterior), diameterthickness ratio for the tubular column (dc /tc = 39, 25), the ratio of outer diaphragm width to beam ange width (h s /bf = 0.71, 0.43, 0.41, 0.26, 0.23), and the weld type between column and outer diaphragm (completely penetrated welds, llet welds from both sides). It should be noted that the specimens, except for C1, were designed to have the h s /bf ratio less than 0.7 predicted by Equation (3) in order to investigate the potential feasibility of smaller width of outer ring diaphragm because this is more desirable for architectural appearance in practice. Moreover, the specimens with the weak panel conguration (i.e. Specimens C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5) were designed to develop yielding primarily in the panel zone to examine their failure modes and inelastic behavior. The shear strength of the panel zone of the circular columns was computed according to the AIJ recommendations for 2D connections [11]. By increasing the thickness of the steel tube column, the specimens with the weak beam conguration (i.e. Specimens C6, C7, C8 and C9) were also designed to develop yielding primarily in the beams to investigate the performance of the panel zone in the weakbeamstrong-column system. The outer diaphragms were welded to the column using llet welds from both sides for Specimen C9, with each leg size 7 mm, and using complete joint penetration (CJP) single-bevel-groove welds for all other specimens. The beam anges were welded to the outer diaphragms using CJP single-bevel-groove welds. For CJP welds, backing bars were used and removed after welding. Gas metal arc welding with CO2 shielding was adopted to fabricate the welded connections of test specimens. Welding electrodes designated as E50 with a specied minimum CVN toughness of 80 J at 20 C were used. The material properties and thickness of the steel plates or tubes for the beam, column, and outer diaphragm are given in Table II. 2.2. Three-dimensional testing system for beamcolumn connections Figure 3 shows the conguration and loading condition for the interior and exterior subassemblies. A 3D testing system was designed in order to simulate the bidirectional seismic lateral loading. In this test setup, as can be shown in Figure 4, the test specimen was idealized as pinned at both the top and the bottom of the column. The pinned connections were achieved using 3D spherical plain bearings. The column bottom bearing was xed on the foundation. The horizontal movement of the specimen at the top and the bottom was prevented by two orthogonal braces attached to the L-shaped strong reaction wall, respectively. Two sets of servo hydraulic actuator pairs were available for cyclic loading in this test, identied as JB and JS, respectively. JB actuator pair, capable of applying maximum 1000 kN compression or 500 kN tension, delivering an antisymmetrical vertical loading at west and east beam ends. The maximum stroke of JB is 250 mm. JS, with a capacity of 500 kN compression or 300 kN tension, served as anti-symmetrical vertical loading at north and south beam ends. The maximum stroke of JS is 300 mm. As is known, for a 3D beamcolumn subassembly under cyclic loading, the exural deformation in one plane will result in the beam torsion in the other orthogonal plane. If it is constrained, additional twisting moment will be induced on the beam. This can be avoided by designing the details of cyclic loading apparatus at the beam ends as shown in Figure 5(a). The beam section was clamped by two stiffened steel plates through four threaded rods. Spherical bearings were then set between
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Table I. Summary of outer ring diaphragm beam-to-column subassemblies (in mm).


Weld type between column and diaphragm h s /bf 0.71 0.43 0.26 0.43 0.26 0.41 0.41 0.23 0.23 dc /tc 39 39 39 39 39 25 25 25 25 CJPW CJPW CJPW CJPW CJPW CJPW CJPW CJPW BFW

Spec 3509 3509 3509 3509 3509 35014 35014 35014 35014 300175812 300175812 300175812 300175812 300175812 220110812 220110812 220110812 220110812 3025 3025 3025 3025 3025 3025 3025 3025 3025 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 125 75 45 75 45 45 45 25 25 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 12 12

Joint type hs ts

Column (circular tube)

Beam (H shape)

Column length, H

Beam length, L

Constant axial force 0.27Npc 0.27Npc 0.27Npc 0.27Npc 0.27Npc 0.27Npc 0.27Npc 0.27Npc 0.27Npc

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Interior (2D) Interior (2D) Interior (2D) Interior (3D) Interior (3D) Interior (3D) Exterior (3D) Interior (3D) Interior (3D)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Note: Npc is the axial yield strength of CHS columns; CJPW means complete joint penetrated welds; BFW means llet welds from both sides.

1067

1068

W. WANG ET AL.

Table II. Material properties.


Specimen C1C5 Steel type CHS tube Beam ange Beam web Outer diaphragm CHS tube Beam ange Beam web Outer diaphragm t (mm) 9 12 8 14 14 12 8 12 f y (N/mm2 ) 464 389 509 420 348 422 328 422 f u (N/mm2 ) 632 537 601 550 558 550 454 550 E s (N/mm2 ) 2.05105 2.05105 2.07105 2.06105 2.09105 2.07105 1.99105 2.07105 (%) 32 27 24 28 30 27 26 27

C6C9

N North PWE PNS PWE West PWE PNS South L L East

N North PNS H East H PWE

West PWE

East

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3. Subassembly congurations and loading conditions: (a) interior (2D); (b) interior (3D); and (c) exterior (3D).

Figure 4. Overview of test setup.

steel plates and top or bottom ange of the beam. A PTFE plate with friction coefcient of 0.03 was used for contacting surface of the spherical bearing. The basic idea behind this detailing is to alleviate the friction due to the compression between loading apparatus and the beam. As a result, the beam twisted along its axis more freely in the test (Figure 5(b)). This approach was taken so that all the bearings could be reused. In addition, a load cell was mounted between the actuator and the loading apparatus to monitor the actual loading value. During the test, the beam tips were braced laterally to prevent excessive out-of-plane displacements. 2.3. Loading procedure At the beginning, a constant axial compression force equal to 0.27Npc was applied on the top of the specimen by a hydraulic jack and maintained throughout the test. This axial load level of
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

1069

Spherical bearing

Threaded rod Beam PTFE plate Beam

Spherical bearing

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Details of cyclic loading apparatus at the beam ends: (a) before test and (b) during test.

the column is determined according to the maximum capacity of the vertical reaction frame. The alternately repeated vertical loads, P, were then synchronously applied at beam ends by servo actuators. For 2D interior subassemblies (C1C3), each load step started with the west beam going up whereas the east beam went down (see Figure 3(a)). This uniaxial cyclic loading program assumes that the seismic load is input within the westeast plane. For 3D interior subassemblies (C4C6 and C8C9), each load step started with the west beam and north beam going up whereas the east beam and south beam went down (see Figure 3(b)). For 3D exterior subassemblies (C7), each load step started with the north beam going up whereas the east beam went down (see Figure 3(c)). Considering the maximum numbers and loading capacities of servo actuators that can be offered by the laboratory, this biaxial cyclic loading program assumes that the seismic load is input simultaneously in two directions, i.e. major loading direction along the westeast plane and minor loading direction along the northsouth plane. The loading ratio of PWE in the westeast plane to PNS in the northsouth plane is 1:0.75, which was realized by setting parallel connection of two sets of actuator pairs with different maximum loading capacities to the oil pump. The loading protocol was based on a load history that consists of stepwise increasing deformation cycles similar to the SAC loading protocol [12]. The deformation parameter used to determine the loading history was the interstory drift angle, R, dened as the beam tip deection divided by the beam span. The interstory drift was applied in each principal direction, with the resultant at 37 having a magnitude equal to the drift in either principal direction multiplied by 1.25.

2.4. Measurements The beam end displacement of the subassemblies, and the diagonal displacement of the shear panels were measured by displacement transducers. Readings from the diagonal displacement transducers at the panel zone were used to determine the shear deformation . Strain gauges were installed to track the yielding process of the outer diaphragms, shear panels, beams and columns. The vertical cyclic force at the beam end, P, was acquired through the load cell. As shown in Figure 6, for each loading plane, the interstory drift, and the story shear force, Q, can be related to and P by the following equations: = 2 H/L = H/L
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(for interior subassembly) (for exterior subassembly)

(4) (5)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1070

W. WANG ET AL.

Q P
R R

P
R

Figure 6. Equivalent transformation from forcedisplacement relationship at beam end to story sheardrift relationship at column top.

Q = P L/H

(6)

Thus, the vertical forcedisplacement relationships at two beam ends can be equivalently expressed as the story shear force versus story drift angle relationship of one column, which makes the test results for 2D and 3D subassemblies more intercomparable.

3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Yield mechanisms and failure modes Ductile behavior are observed in all test subassemblies and the tests proceeded in a smooth and controlled fashion. Readings from strain gauges showed that they differed in yielding sequence for key components of the connection. For 2D interior specimens, C1 was observed to yield in the shear panel rst. Local yielding in the shear panel occurred at the center of the tube wall, and then spread to the entire panel zone and the adjacent column section. Next, local yielding occurred in the outer diaphragm. C2 was observed to rst yield locally in the shear panel and the outer diaphragm almost at the same time and then spread to the adjacent column section. C3 yielded in the outer diaphragm rst. After that the shear panel and the adjacent column were found to yield simultaneously. No beam yielding was observed during the tests because the moment carrying capacity of the beam was designed to be much stronger than the shear capacity of the panel zone, as shown in Table III. It can be concluded that 2D specimens exhibited a strong-beamweak-panel yield mechanism. For 3D specimens, they were divided into two different groups in terms of yield mechanism. C4 and C5 showed similarities to C2 and C3 of 2D specimens, where yielding is observed mainly in the panel zone, in the outer diaphragm and in the column near the shear panel. However, with increased lateral displacement, C6, C7, C8 and C9 developed signicant yielding in the beam and the outer diaphragm and nally formed a plastic hinge. No obvious shear deformation of the panel zone was observed during these tests. These specimens failed in a weak-beamstrong-panel mode. The failure modes varied for different test parameters. Generally, the failure mode mainly depends on the tube wall thickness of the column, the width of the diaphragm and the loading direction. Table III and Figure 7 show all the failure modes of connection specimens with 2D conguration. The four observed failure modes are: excessive shear deformation of panel zone (Figure 7(a)), occurred in C1 and C3; local buckling of column wall (Figure 7(b)), occurred in C1, C2 and C3; weld crack between the column and the diaphragm (Figure 7(c)), occurred in C1; and the doglegged deection (Figure 7(d)), occurred in C2. Table III and Figure 8 present all the failure modes of the connection specimens with 3D conguration. The ve kinds of failure modes identied are: shear buckling of panel zone (Figure 8(a)), occurring in C4 and C5; local buckling of column wall (Figure 8(a)), also occurring in C4 and C5; local distortion of the outer diaphragm (Figure 8(b)), occurring in C5; weld cracking between the column and the diaphragm caused by
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Copyright

Table III. Summary of test results (in kN).


Calculated value Beam Plastic strength Q bp Yield strength Q py Ultimate strength Q pp Maximum load Q max Rmax Panel zone Q max /Q bp 0.84 0.85 0.80 0.70 0.67 1.09 1.00 1.07 1.07 Failure modes Figure 7(a), (b), (c) Figure 7(b), (d) Figure 7(a), (b) Figure 8(a), (c) Figure 8(a), (b), (c) Figure 8(d) Figure 8(d) Figure 8(d) Figure 8(d)
BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Specimen Yield strength Q by 279 255 243 255 255 319 243 243 304 126 126 158 63 63 79 122 122 153 122 122 153 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 235 218 195 185 125 223 167 117 204 138 105 173 63 47 79 129 101 164 132 95 163

C1 C2 C3 C4(WE) C4(NS) C4(37 ) C5(WE) C5(NS) C5(37 ) C6(WE) C6(NS) C6(37 ) C7(WE) C7(NS) C7(37 ) C8(WE) C8(NS) C8(37 ) C9(WE) C9(NS) C9(37 )

243 222 211 222 222 278 211 211 264 110 110 138 55 55 69 106 106 133 106 106 133

0.091 0.067 0.069 0.072 0.068 0.099 0.062 0.043 0.075 0.048 0.024 0.054 0.041 0.019 0.045 0.076 0.033 0.083 0.051 0.027 0.058

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1071

1072

W. WANG ET AL.

Figure 7. Typical failure modes of specimens with two-dimensional conguration: (a) excessive plastic shear deformation of panel zone; (b) local buckling of column wall; (c) weld crack between column and diaphragm; and (d) doglegged deection.

Figure 8. Typical failure modes of specimens with three-dimensional conguration: (a) local buckling of column wall and shear buckling of panel zone; (b) local distortion of outer diaphragm; (c) weld crack between column and diaphragm; and (d) fracture at the junction between diaphragm and beam ange.

local kinking (Figure 8(c)), occurring in C4 and C5; fracture at the junction between the diaphragm and the beam ange (Figure 8(d)), occurring in C6, C7, C8 and C9. It can be clearly seen that the specimens with thicker column walls led to yielding primarily in the beams so that the required width of outer diaphragm can be greatly reduced. Differences in failure modes of C3 and C5 can be attributed to loading directions. In Specimen C3, shear buckling of panel zone was prevented by stiffening effect of two webs perpendicular to the loading direction. But for Specimen C5, shear buckling occurred in the panel zone because no such effect existed in the resultant loading plane. 3.2. Seismic loading resistance Resistances from all yield mechanisms and failure modes need to be compared and evaluated to control connection behavior. However, resistances associated with these modes and mechanisms may not be directly comparable because they occur at different locations. Therefore, the predicted resistances must be adjusted for their location by equilibrium methods. In this study, the comparison is conducted for forces at the top of the column. The test results are summarized in Table III, in which the strengths are all expressed in terms of the story shear. A method of calculating the strength of circular tube connection panels is available in the AIJ literature [11], but the scope of application of this design formula does not include the 3D subassemblies investigated in this study. The shear yield strength of a steel tube panel, Vpy , which is used in allowable stress design against moderate earthquakes, is given by an equation that takes into consideration the axial stress of the steel tube panel, using the von Mises yield criterion: Vpy = fy (dc tc )tc 1n 2 2 3 (7)

For the limit state design against a severe earthquake, the ultimate strength is considered to be 1.27 times the design yield shear strength. fy Vpp = 2(dc tc )tc 1n 2 3 where n is axial compression ratio.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

(8)

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

1073

West-east plane

West-east plane

West-east plane

Q (kN)

(a)

R (rad)

(b)

Q (kN)

R (rad)

(c)

Q (kN)

R (rad)

West-east plane North-south plane

West-east plane North-south plane

West-east plane North-south plane

Q (kN)

Q (kN)

(d)

R (rad)

(e)

R (rad)

(f)

Q (kN)

R (rad)

West-east plane North-south plane

West-east plane North-south plane

West-east plane North-south plane

Q (kN)

Q (kN)

(g)

R (rad)

(h)

R (rad)

(i)

Q (kN)

R (rad)

Figure 9. Story shear versus story drift angle response for the connections: (a) C1; (b) C2; (c) C3; (d) C4; (e) C5; (f) C6; (g) C7; (h) C8; and (i) C9.

3.3. Hysteretic behavior The story shear versus story drift relationships of the subassemblies are shown in Figure 9. For 2D specimens, Figure 9(a)(c) show the hysteretic curves for the uniaxial loading direction (westeast plane). For 3D specimens, Figure 9(d)(i) show the hysteretic curves for the major loading direction along the westeast plane in solid lines and minor direction along the north-south plane in dotted lines, respectively. It is obvious that these specimens developed different extents of plasticity in two directions, consistent to the loading ratio as planned. The curves of the subassemblies with weak panel connection (C1C5) are of a fatter shape with full and stable hysteretic loops, indicating large energy absorption. The cyclic responses were rst represented by a steady increase of strength up to the peak force. After maximum strength was reached, rapid loss of lateral strength was not observed. Instead, the reduction in strength was slight and gradual with the increase of drift amplitude. In comparison, the hysteretic curves of the subassemblies with weak beam connection (C6C9) exhibited a noticeable shuttle-like shape with stable but not very full cyclic behavior. After the specimens were monotonically subjected to nal large deformation, a sudden drop in the strength occurred, corresponding to the fracture at the junction between the diaphragm and the beam ange (see Figure 8(d)). It can be concluded that the weak panel connections had better energy dissipating capacity than the weak beam connections. The shear forcedeformation (Vp p ) responses in the major loading plane of the panel zone for the specimens of both the weak panel and weak beam congurations are given in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. The panel zone of the specimens with the weak panel connection showed no deterioration in shear resistance up to a deformation p over 0.04 rad, and provided appreciable deformation capacity. However, the panel zone of the specimens with the weak beam connection only achieved a deformation p of 0.02 rad. Also plotted on the same gures are the predicted shear yielding forces, calculated using Equations (4) and (5). For 2D specimens C1C3, it is clear
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1074
2500 2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 10 Eq. 7 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 Eq. 8 6 8 10 2500

W. WANG ET AL.

2500

West-east plane

2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 10

West-east plane

2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 Eq. 8 2000 10 2500 10

West-east plane

Eq. 7 8 6 4 2 0 2 4

Eq. 7 8 6 4 2 0 2 4

Eq. 8 6 8 10

(a)

p(102 rad) 2500 2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 10 Eq. 7 8 6 4 2

(b)
West-east plane Coupled shear

p(102 rad) 2500 2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 Eq. 8 2000 10 2500 10 Eq. 7 8 6 4

(c)
West-east plane Coupled shear

p(102 rad)

Eq. 8 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

(d)

p(102 rad)

(e)

p(102 rad)

Figure 10. Panel zone sheardeformation results for weak panel zone specimens: (a) C1; (b) C2; (c) C3; (d) C4; and (e) C5.

2500 2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 10 Eq. 7 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 Eq. 8 6 8 10

2500

2500

West-east plane Coupled shear

2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 10

West-east plane Coupled shear

2000 1500 V p(KN) 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 8 10 2500 10

West-east plane Coupled shear

Eq. 7 8 6 4 2 0 2 4

Eq. 8 6

Eq. 7 8 6 4 2 0 2 4

Eq. 8 6 8 10

(a)

p(102 rad)

(b)

p(102 rad)

(c)

p(102 rad)

Figure 11. Panel zone sheardeformation results for weak beam specimens: (a) C6; (b) C8; and (c) C9.

from Figure 10 that Equation (5) reasonably predicts the strength for connections with different out diaphragm widths. Equation (4) closely predicts strength at the onset of inelastic panel zone deformation for connections with different diaphragm widths. These equations, on the other hand, seems not to be applicable for prediction of panel shear strength in the major loading plane for 3D specimens C4 and C5. If shear forces from two decoupled orthogonal directions parallel to the beams are coupled and plotted against shear deformation in the major plane, as shown in gray lines of Figures 10(d)(e) and 11, then Equations (4) and (5) seem to be on the conservative side and still acceptable for predicting the strengths of tubular panel zone. Table IV summarizes the ratios of the story drift angle caused by panel zone shear deformation, Rp , to the total story drift angle R for each specimen when the maximum story drift was reached. From the table, the percentages of drift angle contributed by the panel zone are 7090% for Specimens C1C5 and 3846% for Specimens C6C9. It shows that the beam contributed the most story drift to the structural system with thick-wall column to beam connections, whereas the panel zone contributed the most drift to the structural system with thin-wall column to beam connections. This undoubtedly led to different energy dissipating mechanisms. 3.4. Ductility evaluation and energy dissipation Table III lists the maximum story drift angle of each specimen. The total rotational capacity of all specimens in both major loading plane and coupled loading plane exceeded 0.04 rad. For special moment resisting frames, the AISC Seismic Provisions [13] requires a total story drift capacity for connections of 0.04 rad prior to degrading to 80% of the nominal beam capacity. Hence, based on
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

1075

Table IV. Drift angle percentage contributed by the panel zone at maximum story drift.
Specimen C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C8 C9 Rp /R (%) 80.6 71.1 90.7 90.0 82.3 38.0 36.1 45.7

Q B

F A

O C E

Figure 12. Illustration of equivalent damping coefcient h e . Table V. Equivalent damping coefcient of all specimens.
Specimen C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 he 0.437 0.399 0.440 0.366 0.445 0.291 0.303 0.291 0.278

a comparison of specimen response with AISC Seismic Provisions, all connections are observed to have good ductility and are suitable for seismic resistant application. The capacity of structural connections to dissipate energy when subjected to seismic loads is as important as their strength or ductility in the evaluation process. The equivalent damping coefcient h e , as expressed in Equation (9), is a normalized value to evaluate the energy dissipation of one hysteresis loop, as shown in Figure 12. The calculated h e for the last completed loop of the specimens is given in Table V. It should be noted that the area of the hysteresis loop stated in Equation (6) has been calculated by integration and, therefore, represents the energy absorbed by the specimen. he =
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1 area(ABC+CDA) 2 area(OBE+ODF)

(9)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1076
1.8 1.2 0.6 Q/Qpy 0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8 -6 -4 -2 0 R /Ry 2 4 6
C1 C2 C3

W. WANG ET AL.

1.8
C4

1.8
C6 C5

1.2 0.6 Q/Qpy

1.2 0.6 Q/Qpy 0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8

C8

0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8 -6 -4 -2 0 R/ Ry 2 4 6

-6

-4

-2

0 R /Ry

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 13. Effect of outer diaphragm width: (a) 2D weak panel connection; (b) 3D weak panel connection; and (c) 3D weak beam connection.

1.8 1.2 0.6

C5 C6

Q/Qpy

0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8

-6

-4

-2

0 R/ Ry

Figure 14. Effect of column tube thickness.

It can be observed that the h e values for C1C5 are obviously higher than C6C9 on average. In this case, the thinner the column tube, the higher the percentage of energy dissipation contributed by the panel zone becomes. Therefore, the weak panel connections can be deemed to have better energy dissipating capacity than the weak beam connections, having the same tendency as in the previous section. 3.5. Effects of different parameters on the connection behavior Figure 1317 shows the envelopes of the normalized story shear force and normalized story drift angle, which are presented here to help compare the effects of different test variables. For 3D specimens, only the envelopes for the major loading direction along the westeast plane are plotted here. The story shear force, Q, is normalized by the AIJ design yield shear strength of a circular tube joint panel, Q py , expressed in terms of story shear. The measured story drift angle, R, is normalized by the story drift angle at initial yield, Ry , representing the ductility index of the specimens. 3.5.1. Effect of outer diaphragm width. Figure 13(a) shows a comparison of the behavior of the 2D weak panel subassemblies, C1, C2 and C3, with diaphragm widths of 125, 75 and 45 mm, respectively. It was found that a larger width of the outer diaphragm may lead to larger strength and better ductility. Figure 13(b) shows a comparison between 3D weak panel subassemblies, C4 and C5, with diaphragm widths of 75 and 45 mm, respectively. Figure 13(c) shows a comparison between 3D weak beam subassemblies, C6 and C8, with diaphragm widths of 45 and 25 mm, respectively. Similar effect was observed, and the difference was quite small. This can be attributed to the fact that either panel zone failure or beam failure controlled connection behavior.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

1077

1.8
C2

1.8
C4

1.2 0.6 Q/ Qpy 0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8 -6

1.2 0.6 Q/ Qpy 0.0 -0.6 -1.2

C3 C5

-4

-2

(a)

0 R/ Ry

-1.8 -6 -4 -2

(b)

0 R/ Ry

Figure 15. Effect of loading direction: (a) h s = 75 mm and (b) h s = 45 mm.

1.8 1.2 0.6


C6 C7

Q / Qpy

0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8

-6

-4

-2

0 R / Ry

Figure 16. Effect of subassembly conguration.

1.8 1.2 0.6


Q /Qpy
C8 C9

0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8

-6

-4

-2

0 R/ Ry

Figure 17. Effect of welding type between column and outer diaphragm.

3.5.2. Effect of column tube thickness. Figure 14 shows the envelopes of C5 and C6, which had different column wall thicknesses. C5, with smaller column tube thickness, shows more ductile behavior than C6. The additional shear deformation capacity of the panel zone can be attributed to this improved ductility.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1078

W. WANG ET AL.

3.5.3. Effect of loading direction. Figure 15(a) and (b) shows the comparison of envelopes between subassemblies C2 versus C4, and C3 versus C5. C4 and C5 were the 3D subassemblies loaded simultaneously in the major and minor directions. It is observed that bidirectional loading may reduce the strength in the decoupled loading plane. However, better ductility can also be achieved. If story shear forces from two loading planes are coupled, the strengths of C4 and C5 would be increased to be higher than that of C2 and C3, respectively. 3.5.4. Effect of subassembly conguration. Figure 16 shows the comparison of envelopes between interior subassembly, C6, and exterior subassembly, C7. It was found that the ultimate lateral load decreased signicantly with exterior subassembly. However, the ductility was almost same for two specimens. 3.5.5. Effect of welding type between column and outer diaphragm. Figure 17 shows the envelopes of subassemblies C8 and C9, which were studied in order to understand the effect of welding type between the column and the outer ring diaphragm. Good agreement can be observed, indicating that llet welding from both sides of the diaphragm, which is preferable from the of construction standpoint, can be used instead of complete penetration welds especially for weak beam connections.

4. DESIGN IMPLICATIONS 4.1. Design philosophy considering effect of panel zone yielding For structural design of circular tubular column-to-beam connections with outer diaphragms, the effect of panel zone yielding on connection performance is often an issue of concern. Tests has shown that panel zone yielding provided considerable ductility in inelastic cyclic deformation, and recent building codes have increasingly emphasized utilizing this ductility in seismic design. Figure 18 shows the maximum total story drift rotation achieved in the tests as a function of the maximum shear force in the panel zone, Q pmax , normalized by Q pp from Equation (8), expressed in terms of the story shear. Specimens with large Q pmax /Q pp ratios are those specimens that have large amounts of panel zone shear yielding and strain hardening, and it can be observed that these specimens generally develop more plastic deformation than that of the specimens with less panel zone yielding. Moreover, it can also be observed that the specimens, which do not develop the AIJ panel zone shear capacity, also develop large story drift (greater than 0.04 rad). In order to provide a comparison between initiation of the yield mechanism level for beam exure and panel zone yielding, Figure 19 plots the maximum total story drift rotation achieved
0.10 0.08 0.06
Specimens which do not develop AIJ panel zone shear capacity Specimens with relatively large ductility Specimens with limited ductility Specimens which develop AIJ panel zone shear capacity

Rmax
0.04 0.02 0.00 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1.0 Qmax /Qpp

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 18. Total rotation as a function of normalized shear force.


Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

1079

0.10 0.08 0.06


Rmax
Specimens with initial yield as flexure of beam Specimens with initial yield in panel zone

Significant rotational capacity Limited rotational capacity

0.04 0.02 0.00 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Qby /Qpy

Figure 19. Total rotation as a function of relative beam exure and panel zone yielding.

in the tests, as a function of the story shear force associated with initiation of exural yielding, Q by , divided by that associated with the panel zone shear yield force, Q py . Specimens with a Q by /Q py ratio less than 1.0 develop exural yielding of the beam before panel zone yielding occurs. Specimens with ratios greater than 1.0 experience panel zone shear yielding before exural yielding occurs. Again the test data show that specimens yielding in beam exure rst, generally, have smaller ductility than do specimens yielding rst in panel zone shear. The largest rotational capacities are achieved with specimens that have maximum Q by /Q py ratio. This leads to a design philosophy that the excessive panel zone yield deformation occurring before beam exural yielding will provide the greatest potential for connection ductility. Although excessive large yield deformation of panel zone signicantly increased demands for the weld toughness or even led to the weld fracture between the diaphragm and the column, the ring diaphragm stiffened connections in this program, unlike the conventional welded-ange-weldedweb connection, demonstrated excellent ductility hardly with any decrease in strength. The reason can be attributed to the tying action formed by the outer diaphragm plate as whole. The design equation based on this philosophy can be expressed as follows: Mby hb L L dc H h b H fy (dc tc )tc 1n 2 2 3 (10)

4.2. Design considerations for the width of outer diaphragm Determining the width of critical section using Equation (3) may be conservative for the design of outer ring diaphragm, since all specimens except C5 did not fail in this component. In fact, axial forces from the beam ange were resisted not only by the diaphragm, but also by the diaphragm and the column. Experimental stress analyses also have veried this force distribution mechanism. It suggests that smaller width of outer ring diaphragm may be adopted to satisfy the requirement by the architectural appearance in practice. However, further research should be carried out in the future to provide reasonable width value for the outer diaphragm. In particular, as discussed in Section 3.1, local distortion of outer diaphragm occurred in Specimen C5 but not in Specimen C6, although they have same diaphragm width. This distinction implies that the width of outer diaphragm can be designed even smaller in weak beam connections than in weak panel connections, because beams usually fail before large plastic deformation develops throughout the diaphragm for weak beam connection. In this case, it is also recommended that the junction between diaphragm and beam ange should be set at a certain distance away from the critical section of the beam in order to prevent possible premature fracture caused by the welding defects and high weld toughness demand.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1080

W. WANG ET AL.

5. CONCLUSIONS An innovative 3D testing system for beamcolumn connections has been designed and the seismic behavior of steel beam to circular hollow section column connections stiffened by outer diaphragms was studied based on the cyclic loading tests on nine specimens with 2D or 3D conguration. The main ndings can be summarized as follows: (1) Failure modes were mainly dependant on the column wall thickness. Specimens with a weak panel connection (thin walls) and those with a weak beam connection (thick walls) failed in signicantly different modes. (2) All connection subassemblies behaved in a ductile manner. However, in contrast with weak beam connections, weak panel connections demonstrated better seismic performance and ductility. A design philosophy considering panel zone yielding before beam exural yielding is proposed. (3) Compared with unidirectional loading, bidirectional loading may reduce the connection strength in the decoupled loading plane but increase the connection strength and ductility in the coupled loading plane. Although the application scope of current tubular panel zone provisions is intended to only include 2D connection subassemblies, it also gave reasonably conservative estimates for coupled shear resistance of 3D connection subassemblies. (4) Axial forces from the beam ange were resisted together by the diaphragm and the column. It was therefore inferred that small width of outer ring diaphragm can be adopted to satisfy architectural requirements. This is especially true for weak beam connections, since beams usually fail before plastic deformation fully develops throughout the outer diaphragm. (5) Fillet welding from both sides of the diaphragm, which is preferred by construction companies, may be adopted as a replacement of complete penetration welds in weak beam connections.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The presented work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Grant No. SLDRCE 09-B-02, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 51008220 and Shanghai Pujiang Program. Any opinions, ndings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reect the views of the sponsors. Technical help from the China Northwest Building Design Research Institute is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES 1. Kang CH, Shin KJ, Oh YS, Moon TS. Hysteresis behavior of CFT column to H-beam connections with external T-stiffeners and penetrated elements. Engineering Structures 2001; 23:11941201. 2. Nishiyama I, Fujimoto T, Fukumoto T, Yoshioka K. Inelastic forcedeformation response of joint shear panels in beamcolumn moment connections to concrete-lled tubes. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004; 130(2): 244252. 3. Azizinamini A, Schneider SP. Moment connections to circular concrete lled steel tube columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004; 130(2):213222. 4. Fukumoto T, Morita K. Elastoplastic behavior of panel zone in steel beam-to-concrete lled steel tube column moment connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 2005; 131(12):18411853. 5. Wu LY, Chung LL, Tsai SF, Lu CF, Huang GL. Seismic behavior of bidirectional bolted connections for CFT columns and H-beams. Engineering Structures 2007; 29:395407. 6. Wang WD, Han LH, Uy B. Experimental behaviour of steel reduced beam section to concrete-lled circular hollow section column connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2008; 64:493504. 7. Shin KJ, Kim YJ, Oh YS. Seismic behaviour of composite concrete-lled tube column-to-beam moment connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2008; 64:118127. 8. Ting LC, Shanmugam NE, Lee SL. Box-column to I-beam connections with external stiffeners. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1991; 18:209226. 9. Shanmugam NE, Ting LC. Welded interior box-column to I-beam connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 1995; 121(5):824830. 10. Kumar SRS, Rao DVP. RHS beam-to-column connection with web openingexperimental study and nite element modeling. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006; 62:739746. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

BIDIRECTIONAL SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

1081

11. Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Recommendations for the design and fabrication of tubular truss structures in steel. Tokyo, Japan, 2002. 12. SAC. SAC protocol for fabrication, inspection, testing, and documentation of beamcolumn connection tests and other experimental specimens. SAC Report SAC/BD-97/02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA, 1997. 13. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC, Chicago, 2005.

Copyright

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:10631081 DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Оценить