t-stub connection component tests james a swanson and roberto t leon school of civil and...
TRANSCRIPT
T-Stub ConnectionComponent Tests
James A Swanson and Roberto T Leon
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Ga.
http://www.ce.gatech.edu/~sac/
SAC Subtask 7.03
Tests on Bolted ConnectionsSAC Subtask 7.03
Tests on Bolted Connections• Synthesis of existing data• Testing:
– Individual T-stubs and angles– Full-scale exterior-type connections
• Interpretation• Design Recommendations• Further testing
• Synthesis of existing data• Testing:
– Individual T-stubs and angles– Full-scale exterior-type connections
• Interpretation• Design Recommendations• Further testing
ApproachApproach
• Identify and quantify individual failure modes
• Assess influence of monotonic vs. cyclic loading
• Develop simplified models
• Calibrate with advanced FEM
• Provide design aids (?)
• Identify and quantify individual failure modes
• Assess influence of monotonic vs. cyclic loading
• Develop simplified models
• Calibrate with advanced FEM
• Provide design aids (?)
size of T-section or clip angle
size and number of bolts:
beam flange thickness
type of bolt
VariablesVariables
InstrumentationInstrumentation
A - relative slip
B - stem uplift
C - bolt uplift
D - stem elongation
E - overall elongation
G - instrumented bolt
A - relative slip
B - stem uplift
C - bolt uplift
D - stem elongation
E - overall elongation
G - instrumented bolt
EEDD
CC
GG
BB AA
T-Stub Spring Model
1
2
3 45
6
4) Shear Bolts
5) Bearing Deformation
6) Connection Slip
1) Tension Bolts
2) Tee Flange
3) Tee Stem
TA-01 P/Including Post Fracture Data
Deformation (in)
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lo
ad (
kip
)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Deformation (mm)-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Lo
ad (
kN)
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Group 3 - P/
Deformation (in)
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Lo
ad (
kip
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Deformation (mm)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Lo
ad (
kN)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
TA-01TA-02TA-03TA-04
Group 3 - P/Uplift
Deformation (in)
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Lo
ad (
kip
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
TA-01TA-02TA-03TA-04
Deformation (mm)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Lo
ad (
kN)
TA-05 vs TA-07 P/
Deformation (in)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lo
ad (
kip
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
TA-05TA-07
Deformation (mm)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Lo
ad (
kN)
Group 1 Test Results
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8"
Tension Bolt Gage (in)
Ult
ima
te L
oa
d (
kip
)
Actual Estimate Design
TA-03 P/Bolt Force #3
Total Applied Load (kip)
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Bo
lt F
orc
e (k
ip)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Total Applied Load (kN)
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Bo
lt F
orc
e (k
N)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
SAC Test FS-03SAC Test FS-03
W21x44 beam
W14 x 145 column
T same as TD-01
7/8 in. A490 bolts
W21x44 beam
W14 x 145 column
T same as TD-01
7/8 in. A490 bolts
SAC FS-03: Initial crack between last line of boltsSAC FS-03: Initial crack between last line of bolts
Conclusions• The spring model should work well in predicting
stiffness characteristics.
• Net section fracture and block shear (after
extensive yielding) are the most desirable failure
modes because of their ductility.
• Component testing can provide a more
economical means of testing than conventional
full scale testing.