Experimental analysis and mechanical modeling of T-stubs with four bolts per row

ABSTRACT The behavior of steel structures is significantly affected by the connections between the steel members. For this reason, special attention to the prediction of the joint rotational behavior is devoted by Eurocode 3 which provides the well-known component method. In EC3, starting from the results of several researches, the formulations for the characterization of the behavior of T-stubs with two bolts per row are given, but with reference to T-stubs with four bolts per row, even though they are present in many actual structural situations, the limited number of experimental tests and analytical models has not led yet to the codification of this component in the code. In this work, starting from the results of three experimental tests on T-stub with four bolts per row, carried out at the laboratory on materials and structures of the University of Coimbra, a FE model in ABAQUS has been set up in order to analyze the yield line patterns corresponding to the different collapse mechanisms. Subsequently, with reference to the yield line shape different from that of T-stub with two bolts per row, the effective lengths have been revaluated applying an energy approach. The definition of the effective width for all the possible collapse mechanisms allowed to set up a proposal for determining the resistance of T-stubs with 4 bolts per row consistent with the approach provided by Eurocode 3. The model accuracy has been verified by means of a comparison with the results provided by a numerical analysis.

[1]  Ian Burgess,et al.  Numerical simulation of bolted steel connections in fire using explicit dynamic analysis , 2008 .

[2]  Michel Bruneau,et al.  Ductile design of steel structures , 1997 .

[3]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Cyclic Modeling of Bolted Beam-to-Column Connections: Component Approach , 2011 .

[4]  Luís Simões da Silva,et al.  Design of Steel Structures: Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings , 2010 .

[5]  J. M. Reinosa,et al.  Axial stiffness prediction of non-preloaded T-stubs: An analytical frame approach , 2010 .

[6]  Gianvittorio Rizzano,et al.  Full strength design of column base connections accounting for random material variability , 2013 .

[7]  Ana M. Girão Coelho,et al.  Characterization of the ductility of bolted end plate beam-to-column steel connections , 2004 .

[8]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Rotational behaviour of column base plate connections: Experimental analysis and modelling , 2014 .

[9]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Experimental analysis and modelling of bolted T-stubs under cyclic loads , 2008 .

[10]  Jean-Pierre Jaspart,et al.  APPLICATION OF EUROCODE 3 TO STEEL CONNECTIONS WITH FOUR BOLTS PER HORIZONTAL ROW , 2010 .

[11]  Luís Simões da Silva,et al.  Experimental assessment of the ductility of extended end plate connections , 2004 .

[12]  Daniel Grecea,et al.  Performance criteria for MR steel frames in seismic zones , 2004 .

[13]  Gianvittorio Rizzano,et al.  A theoretical model for predicting the rotational capacity of steel base joints , 2013 .

[14]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Random material variability effects on full-strength end-plate beam-to-column joints , 2007 .

[15]  James A. Swanson,et al.  BOLTED STEEL CONNECTIONS: TESTS ON T-STUB COMPONENTS , 2000 .

[16]  G. Saxcé,et al.  Plastic Limit Analysis of Plates, Shells and Disks , 2011 .

[17]  Chanakya Arya,et al.  Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures , 2018, Design of Structural Elements.

[18]  Luís Simões da Silva,et al.  Calibration of model parameters for the cyclic response of end-plate beam-to-column steel-concrete composite joints , 2009 .

[19]  J.Ch. Ermopoulos,et al.  Analytical modelling of column-base plates under cyclic loading , 1996 .

[20]  William McGuire,et al.  High Strength Bolted Moment Connections , 1965 .

[21]  M. Latour,et al.  Experimental analysis on friction materials for supplemental damping devices , 2014 .

[22]  Charalampos Baniotopoulos,et al.  Semi-Rigid Joints in Structural Steelwork , 2000 .

[23]  Robert E. Melchers,et al.  Moment‐Rotation Curves for Bolted Connections , 1986 .

[24]  Andrew J. Zekany,et al.  Experimental Investigation of Dogbone Moment Connections , 1998 .

[25]  Jean-Pierre Jaspart,et al.  Etude de la semi-rigidité des noeuds poutre-colonne et son influence sur la résistance et la stabilité des ossatures en acier , 1991 .

[26]  Riccardo Zandonini,et al.  Experimental analysis and modelling of semi-rigid steel joints under cyclic reversal loading , 1996 .

[27]  Helena Gervásio,et al.  Reliability assessment of the post-limit stiffness and ductility of steel joints , 2004 .

[28]  P. Zoetemeijer,et al.  A Design Method for the Tension Side of Statically Loaded, Bolted Beam-to-Column Connections , 1974 .

[29]  G. A. Frazier,et al.  Treatment of hourglass patterns in low order finite element codes , 1978 .

[30]  Jean-Pierre Jaspart,et al.  Steel column base classification , 2008 .

[31]  Federico M. Mazzolani,et al.  Theory and Design of Seismic Resistant Steel Frames , 1996 .

[32]  Carlos Rebelo,et al.  Extension of the Component Method to End-Plate Beam-to-Column Steel Joints Subjected to Seismic Loading , 2009 .

[33]  A. Kozłowski,et al.  Resistance and stiffness of T-stub with four bolts , 2008 .

[34]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Cyclic behaviour of bolted joint components , 1998 .

[35]  Jean-Pierre Jaspart,et al.  Contributions to recent advances in the field of steel joints. Column bases and further configurations for beam-to-column joints and column bases , 1997 .

[36]  Gianvittorio Rizzano,et al.  Experimental Behavior and Mechanical Modeling of Dissipative T-Stub Connections , 2012 .

[37]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Experimental Analysis of Bolted Steel Beam-to-Column Connections: Component Identification , 2011 .