PHD Ferrario PDF

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Strutturale
Facolt di Ingegneria
Ph.D student: Eng. Fabio Ferrario
Analysis and modelling

of the seismic behaviour
of high ductility steel-concrete
composite structures
Tutor: Prof. Eng. Oreste S. Bursi

Cotutor: Prof. Eng. Andr Plumier
Febbraio 2004
Universit degli Studi di Trento

Universit degli Studi di Brescia
Universit degli Studi di Padova
Universit degli Studi di Trieste
Universit degli Studi di Udine
Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia
Ph.D. student: Eng. Fabio Ferrario
ANALYSIS AND MODELLING

OF THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF HIGH DUCTILITY
STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Tutor: Prof. Eng. Oreste S. Bursi

Co-tutor: Prof. Eng. Andr Plumier
February 2004
UNIVERSIT DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO

Dottorato di Ricerca in Modellazione, Conservazione e Controllo delle Strutture
(XVI ciclo)
Prof. Oreste S. Bursi
Analysis and Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of High Ductility

Steel-Concrete Composite Structures
Fabio Ferrario
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering
Via Mesiano 77 - 38050
University of Trento - ITALY
Phone number: +39 0461 882572
Fax number:
+39 0461 882567
E-mail:
fabio.ferrario@ing.unitn.it
Esame finale: 4 marzo 2004
Commissione esaminatrice:
Prof. Andr Plumier, Universit de Lige; Belgium
Prof. Oreste S. Bursi, Universit degli Studi di Trento, Italia
Prof. Alessandro De Stefano, Universit degli Studi di Torino, Italia
Analysis and Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour

of High Ductility Steel-Concrete Composite Structures
Fabio Ferrario
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering
University of Trento
Via Mesiano 77 38050 ITALY
Phone number: +39 0461 882572
Fax number: +39 0461 882567
E-mail: fabio.ferrario@ing.unitn.it
ABSTRACT
In this thesis theoretical, experimental and numerical aspects and applications

concerning the seismic behaviour of high ductility steel-concrete composite
structure are analysed.
The interest has been focused on the capability of framed structures to dissipate
seismic energy by means of inelastic deformations. The basic design parameter in
this approach is the ductility that should be considered as a conceptual framework
in the Performance-Base Seismic Engineering (PBSE). PBSE has been developed
encompassing the full range of seismic engineering issues to be referred to design
of structures for predictable and controlled seismic performance within established
levels of risk.
The attention has been focalised on different solutions of steel and steel-concrete
composite beam-to-column joints assuring the necessary ductility that can be
obtained not only through careful study of building morphology, structural schemes
and construction details, but also through the rational use of materials. Three
specific and related topics have been analyzed and detailed analyses and
experimental tests on substructures have been performed in order to ensure large
inelastic deformations and the necessary energy dissipation under earthquake
strong motion. The results aiming at qualifying the dissipative and rotational
capacities of a particular typology of beam-to-column joints are then illustrated and
discussed. The objective of this study is to provide designers with precise rules
regarding constructional solutions suitable to each scheme and to the associated
design methodologies necessary for evaluating their performances.
Keywords: Low-cycle fatigue, ductility, innovative beam-to-column joint design, lifesafe condition.
Ai miei genitori
RINGRAZIAMENTI
Nello scrivere la pagina di ringraziamento penso sia comune a tutti

avere la paura di escludere qualcuno che in maggior o minore misura ha
contribuito a rendere questo periodo un momento della propria vita unico
ed irripetibile.
Le prime persone, che meritano il mio pi sincero e sentito Grazie,
sono sicuramente i miei genitori per laffetto ed il sostegno che hanno
saputo darmi in questi anni.
Ringrazio il prof. Oreste S. Bursi, relatore della tesi, che mi ha seguito
con disponibilit e pazienza fornendomi preziose indicazioni in riferimento
alla valutazione dei risultati sperimentali e di alcuni delicati aspetti teorici. A
lui va un ringraziamento particolare per la fiducia riposta e per la possibilit
concessami di lavorare in unesperienza indimenticabile.
Un ringraziamento particolare va al prof. Andr Plumier,
dellUniversit di Liegi, correlatore della tesi, per i numerosi e preziosi
consigli nelle lunghe discussioni avute nel suo ufficio. Ricordo con grande
piacere le chiacchierate sulle sue esperienze di vita, sui giri in bicicletta e
sui sogni di navigatore dei mari. Sicuramente il suo esempio sar per me
un punto di riferimento nel voler diventare ingegnere, ma soprattutto uomo
di spessore.
Ringrazio, poi, tutti coloro che in questi tre anni mi sono stati vicini
come colleghi di lavoro ma soprattutto come amici. Un sentito
ringraziamento va a tutti gli studenti, dottorandi e giovani ricercatori che ho
incontrato e con i quali ho avuto la fortuna di collaborare, sia allUniversit
di Trento, sia allUniversit di Pisa, sia allUniversit di Liegi. Anche se non
vi nomino, voglio che sappiate che non vi ho dimenticato.
Infine, per ultimo, voglio ringraziare Colui che ha avuto il merito pi
grande in questo lungo cammino! Aver tracciato il mio percorso e avermi
dato la possibilit di percorrerlo stato un segno indelebile del fatto che mi
vuoi bene! Ti ringrazio per avermi fatto assaporare una delle Avventure pi
stupende della mia vita!
Fabio Ferrario
Trento, febbraio 2004
INDEX
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1
1.2
ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK ................................................................................3
1.2.1
Seismic behaviour of bolted end plate beam-to-column steel joints...............3
1.2.2
Seismic response of partial-strength composite joints ...................................4
1.2.3
Seismic behaviour of RC columns embedding steel profiles ..........................5
1.3
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................6
2 DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES......................................... 7
2.1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................7
2.2
DUCTILITY IN SEISMIC DESIGN ................................................................................8
2.2.1
First developments of ductility concept..........................................................8
2.2.2
Modern design concepts of ductility...............................................................9
2.2.3
Ductility definition .......................................................................................11
2.3
THE PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN ..........................................................14
2.3.1
Performance objectives (POs)......................................................................14
2.3.2
Performance Levels......................................................................................16
2.4
REQUIRED DUCTILITY CONCEPT ............................................................................20
2.4.1
Non-linear static pushover (NSP) analysis ..................................................24
2.4.2
Non-linear dynamic procedure (NDP).........................................................31
2.5
AVAILABLE DUCTILITY CONCEPT ..........................................................................34
2.6
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................37
3 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END PLATE BEAM-TO-COLUMN STEEL

JOINTS...................................................................................................................................... 40
3.1
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................40
3.2
THE COMPONENT METHOD ....................................................................................42
INDEX
3.3
SEMI-RIGID PARTIAL-STRENGTH EXTENDED END PLATE CONNECTION ................. 44
3.4
THE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME CARRIED OUT AT THE DIMS ........................... 46
3.4.1
Material properties...................................................................................... 50
3.4.2
Fracture mechanics-based characterization ............................................... 51
3.4.3
Testing equipment and measuring apparatus.............................................. 53
3.4.4
Testing procedure........................................................................................ 56
3.5
MAIN RESULTS AND PRELIMINARY SEISMIC ASSESSMENT .................................... 58
3.5.1
Isolated Tee stubs ........................................................................................ 58
3.5.2
Coupled Tee Stubs ....................................................................................... 61
3.5.3
Complete Joints ........................................................................................... 63
3.6
VALIDATION OF THE COMPONENT METHOD .......................................................... 69
3.7
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 75
3.7.1
FE Models of the ITS connections............................................................... 75
3.7.2
FE Models of the CJ specimens................................................................... 81
3.7.3
Parametric analyses .................................................................................... 85
3.8
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 94
3.9
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 96
4 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRENGTH COMPOSITE JOINTS ...............100
4.1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 100
4.2
THE ECOLEADER-ECSC JOINT PROJECT............................................................. 101
4.3
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ................................................... 102
4.4
SEISMIC DESIGN OF THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ............................................... 107
4.5
SEISMIC DESIGN OF THE COMPOSITE JOINT ......................................................... 110
4.5.1
Concrete slab resistance............................................................................ 111
4.5.2
Column web panel shear resistance .......................................................... 115
4.5.3
Joint rotational capacity evaluation.......................................................... 120
4.6
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS .......................................................... 122
4.7
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ............ 122
4.8
CYCLIC TESTS OF FULL-SCALE COMPOSITE JOINT SUBASSEMBLAGES ................. 127
4.8.1
Test set-up and procedure ......................................................................... 127
4.8.2
Specimen behaviour and test results ......................................................... 130
4.8.3
Validation of the analytical model............................................................. 136
4.8.4
3D finite element (FE) model .................................................................... 142
4.9
NUMERICAL ANALYSES OF THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE .................................... 150
4.9.1
4.10
ii
Pushover vs. incremental dynamic analysis results................................... 151
PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTS ON THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ................................ 160
4.10.1
Testing apparatus and instrumentation ..................................................... 161
4.10.2
Results of the PsD test n 1........................................................................ 163
INDEX
4.10.3
Results of the PsD test n 2 ........................................................................163
4.10.4
4.10.5
4.10.6
Results of the cyclic test .............................................................................167
4.11
CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................170
4.12
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................171
5 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC COLUMNS EMBEDDING STEEL PROFILES ..... 174
5.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................174
5.2
THE INERD PROJECT..........................................................................................175
5.3
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ....................................................179
5.3.1
Materials and mechanical properties.........................................................179
5.3.2
Load combinations .....................................................................................181
5.3.3
3D frame modelling....................................................................................184
5.3.4
Design of the reinforced concrete columns ................................................187
5.3.5
Design of the fully encased composite columns .........................................190
5.4
DESIGN OF BEAM-TO-COLUMN JOINTS ................................................................196
5.4.1
Strength of the Inner Elements ...................................................................197
5.4.2
Strength of the Outer Elements ..................................................................202
5.5
THE EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAMME ..............................................................208
5.5.1
Design of the reduced section of the specimen to be tested........................208
5.5.2
Test set-up and test programme .................................................................211
5.5.3
Global test instrumentation ........................................................................213
5.5.4
Local test instrumentation ..........................................................................214
5.5.5
Test procedure and loading history............................................................216
5.6
RESULTS OF THE TESTS .......................................................................................222
5.6.1
RCT5 Specimen ..........................................................................................222
5.6.2
COT9-COT10 Specimens ...........................................................................223
5.6.3
COT11-COT12 Specimens .........................................................................227
5.6.4
Comparison of the experimental results and comments.............................227
5.7
NUMERICAL ANALYSES AND VALIDATION OF THE MECHANISMS .........................230
5.7.1
FE Model of the specimens ........................................................................230
5.7.2
Steel web panel shear mechanism verification...........................................232
5.7.3
Concrete compression strut mechanism verification..................................235
5.7.4
Concrete compression field mechanism verification..................................237
5.7.5
Calibration of the mechanisms...................................................................238
5.8
CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................240
5.9
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................242
iii
INDEX
6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES.................................244
iv
6.1
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 244
6.2
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES ........................................................ 245
6.2.1
Seismic behaviour of bolted end plate beam-to-column steel joints.......... 245
6.2.2
Seismic response of partial-strength composite joints .............................. 247
6.2.3
Seismic behaviour of RC columns embedding steel profiles ..................... 248
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
In the seismic design of framed structures the dissipation of input seismic energy
plays a fundamental role. The basic parameter in this approach is ductility,
considered as the ability of a structure to undergo serious plastic deformations
without losing strength. In design practice it is generally accepted that steel is an
excellent material for this purpose due to performance in terms of ductility. But the
recent earthquakes of Mexico City (1985), Loma Prieta (1989), Northridge (1994)
and Kobe (1995) have seriously compromised this idyllic image of steel as a
perfect material for seismic areas. A series of factors contributes to the poor local
ductility of steel structures. With regard to resistance these factors are the
discrepancies between real and design yield stress, the value of through thickness
resistance of steel, the need for requirements on toughness of the base and weld
material and the effect of strain rate. With regard to the action effect, other factors
contributed to a bad ductility: the past underestimates of needed plastic rotations,
the existence of 3D stress states created in welded connections of high beams, the
consideration of wrong stress distributions in beam ends, a bad design of
connections and the influence of the composite character of beams.
Aiming at making up for this lack, the world of civil structural research is moving to
give designers constructional rules that allow to design high-ductility structures in
seismic areas. An important evidence of these research activities is that the
verification of structure ductility must be quantified at the same level as the
strength and stiffness. It must be recalled that, in that concept, specific elements of
the primary lateral force resisting system are chosen and suitably designed and
detailed for energy dissipation under severe imposed deformations. The critical
regions of these members, often termed plastic hinges or dissipative zones, are
1. INTRODUCTION
detailed for inelastic behaviour. All other structural elements are protected against
actions that could cause failure by providing them with strength greater than that
corresponding to the development of the maximum feasible strength in the plastic
hinge regions. The following features characterise the procedure:
potential plastic hinge regions within the structure are clearly defined and
designed to have dependable strengths and ductility;
potential brittle regions, or those components not suited for stable energy
dissipation, are protected by ensuring that their strength exceeds the
demands originating from the overstrength of the plastic hinges.
To highlight the concept of capacity design, the chain shown in Figure 1.1 is often
considered (Plumier, 2000). As the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest
link, one ductile link may be used to achieve ductility for the entire chain. The
nominal tensile strength of the ductile link is subject to uncertainties of material
strength and strain hardening effects at high strains. The other links are presumed
to be brittle, but their failure can be prevented if their strength is in excess of the
real strength of the ductile weak link at the level of ductility envisaged. Correct
application of the capacity design principle thus requires knowledge of the material
properties, both of the plastic and neighbouring zones, and the evaluation of the
stresses and strains, which must be sustained by the material of the plastic zones.
It is clear now that pre-Northridge or Kobe design was characterised by
weaknesses in the evaluations made either on the side of resistance or on the side
of action effect.
Figure 1.1. Principle of capacity design
Solutions assuring the necessary ductility can be obtained not only through careful
study of building morphology, structural schemes and construction details, but also
through the rational use of materials. Steel-concrete composite structures, owing to
their high capacity for prefabrication and rational use of the materials, seem able to
provide high levels of performance in terms of ductility and dissipation energy,
while at the same time containing construction costs. However, the adoption of
such structural solutions in design practice has been precluded to date by the lack
of suitable constructional solutions. In fact, Eurocode 8 (prEN 1998-1, 2002) sets
forth general principles for designing composite structures for seismic areas and
1. INTRODUCTION
imposes precise constructional and performance guidelines; however it does not

furnish adequate information on the use of the various structural schemes, or on
the associated constructional solutions and design methodologies, for which it
often refers designers to codes and regulations regarding non-earthquake-resistant
structures. Thus, it is necessary to conduct systematic studies of structural
schemes by analysing their constructional requirements as well as their
performance in terms of ductility and dissipative capacity. Such analysis must
provide designers with precise rules regarding the constructional solutions suitable
to each scheme and to the associated design methodologies necessary for
evaluating their performances.
1.2
Organization of the work
On the basis of the aforementioned developments in earthquake design, in this

thesis the attention will be focused on new solutions assuring the necessary
ductility, which can be obtained not only through careful study of building
morphology, structural schemes, and construction details, but also through a
rational use of materials. The attention will be focused on detailed analyses, design
and tests of beam-to-column joints that can ensure the necessary ductility by their
plastic deformations, and then the necessary energy dissipation under earthquake
strong motion. Three main topics are analyzed and briefly introduced below.
1.2.1
Seismic behaviour of bolted end plate beam-to-column steel joints
The study conducted in the first year of the research activity is part of a research
programme which has a two-fold purpose: (i) to analyse the seismic performance
of partial strength bolted extended end plate joints with fillet welds, which represent
an alternative to fully welded connections for use in seismic force resisting moment
frames; (ii) to verify the feasibility of the mechanical approach adopted for joints
undergoing monotonic loading in a low-cycle fatigue regime, whereby the
properties of a complete joint are understood and obtained by assembling the
properties of its component parts. The experimental investigation clearly showed
that failure of connections and components always happened due to initiation and
stable growth of microcracks at the weld toe. These issues represent fundamental
aspects of research and code developments on the seismic design of beam-tocolumn extended end plate joints, and they are the issues explored by this the
1. INTRODUCTION
research: (i) mechanical and metallurgic characterization of the connection material

in order to estimate fracture toughness parameters like the inelastic crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD); (ii) development of adequate numerical models
taking into account the initiation and subsequent crack growth as well as the
cyclically stable stress-strain curve; (iii) parametric study on some design
parameters which influence the fracture resistance of steel bolted extended plate
connections. More specifically, the effects of the weld-to-base metal yield strength
ratio, the residual stress influence, and the end plate yield-to-ultimate strength ratio
have been determined through detailed two- and three-dimensional non-linear
finite element analyses of isolated Tee stub connections and complete joints.
1.2.2
Seismic response of partial-strength composite joints
This research activity is part of a ECOLEADER Project (3D Full-Scale Seismic

Testing of a Steel-Concrete Composite Building at Elsa, 2004), in which the
University of Trento plays the role of technical coordination. The project was
partially conducted jointly with an ECCS Project (Applicability of Composite
Structures to Sway Frames - 7210-PR-250 Project). In order to evaluate the
feasibility and effectiveness of the composite constructions with partial-strength
beam-to-column joints and partially encased columns in earthquake-prone regions,
the study aims at calibrating design rules affecting the aforementioned components
and the participation of the concrete slab in the relevant transfer mechanisms. The
results of this project led to improved design procedures for composite
constructions (Section 7, Part 1 of Eurocode 8, 2002). On the basis of
constructional considerations and of the favourable seismic behaviour of both the
column web panel and the end plate connection of the previous activity, the
composite solution adopted in the tested structure relies on plain steel columns.
Cyclic and Pseudo-Dynamic (PsD) tests have been conducted on a virtually fullscale steel-concrete composite 3D structure with two-storey two-bay layout.
Pseudo-dynamic tests were performed in order to evaluate the performance of the
structure in terms of complex hysteretic behaviour under earthquake-like loading.
Moreover, new performance-based seismic design guidelines require that steelconcrete composite buildings be analysed by using non-linear static pushover
analyses or non-linear dynamic analyses in order to control local and global
performances. For this reason, experimental data of beam-to-column joints
performed with the ECCS Project were then used to validate 3D model assembled
with the ABAQUS code and 1D composite frame set up with the IDARC-2D code.
The 3D model is used to analyse the local behaviour of composite members and
1. INTRODUCTION
joints whilst 2D model allows the behaviour of moment resisting composite frames
to be understood.
1.2.3
Seismic behaviour of RC columns embedding steel profiles
This last research activity, conducted in the third year of the Ph.D. course, is part of
another European Project titled Two Innovations For Earthquake Resistant Design
- INERD Project, that deals with the improvement of the resistance and ductility of
reinforced concrete (RC) structures using the performance of structural steel
profiles.
The general objective is to establish a new standard constructional rule able to
improve the seismic safety of reinforced concrete structures, without great changes
to traditional constructional practice. This rule consists in promoting one specific
construction measure for lower storeys of reinforced concrete structures, by which
steel profiles would be encased in RC columns in order to provide them with a
basic reliable shear and compression resistance. The introduction of this new
concept is justified by the fact that the main safety problem for RC structure is the
soft storey failure, that is a localization of buildings seismic deformations and
rupture in one or two lower storeys as a consequence of the major discrepancy
existing between design assumptions and real requirements. The proposed idea is
to use encased steel sections as ductile fuses able to dissipate the energy of the
earthquake in the lower storeys of buildings in a cyclic way.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.3
References
Bursi O.S., Caramelli S., Fabbrocino G., Molina J., Salvatore W., Taucer F.
(2004): 3D Full-scale seismic testing of a steel-concrete composite building at
ELSA. Contr. No. HPR-CT-1999-00059. Eur Report, European Community.
Plumier A. (2000): General report on local ductility. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 55, 91107.
prEN 1998-1:2002: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1:
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings - Draft n5.
2.1
DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES
Introduction
Engineers have recognized the need to take into account the plastic design in the
design of framed structures subjected to seismic actions. Regarding the seismic
design, the interest is focused on dissipation of input seismic energy. The basic
design parameter in this approach is ductility, considered as the ability of the
structure to undergo serious plastic deformations without losing strength. In design
practice it is generally accepted that steel is an excellent material for this purpose
objectives due to performance in terms of ductility. But in the last decades
specialists have recognized that the so-called good ductility of steel structures may
be, in some particular conditions, only a dogma, which disagrees with reality. In
fact, the recent earthquakes of Mexico City (1985), Loma Prieta (1989), Northridge
(1994), and Kobe (1995) have seriously compromised this idyllic image of steel as
a perfect material for seismic areas. In some cases the performance of steel joints
and members was very bad and large damage was produced, showing that the
present design concepts are not sufficient in special conditions.
Aiming at making up for this lack, modern codes for building in seismic areas allow
to design high-ductility structures
and to provide designers
with some
constructional rules considering whose fulfilment is suppose to assure a good

ductility. But the above mentioned bad behaviour of steel structures has shown that
this conception is not proper and the verification of structure ductility must be
quantified at the same level as the strength and stiffness.
In fact, in the conventional practice for non-seismic loads, structures are designed
only according to demands of strength and rigidity, which correspond to a good
structural performance. The strength checking, including stability, is related to the
ultimate limit state, assuring that the force level developed in the structure remain
2. DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES
in the elastic range, or some limited plastic deformations can occur in agreement
with the design assumptions. The rigidity check is generally related to the
serviceability limit state, for which the structure displacements must remain within
certain limits, which assure that no damage occurs in non-structural elements.
Although it is recognized that damage is also due to deformations, strength
checking plays the leading role in designs for conventional loads. Conversely, in
case of earthquake design, a new demand must be added to the two previous
ones, that is the ductility demand. The performance of a structure under strong
seismic actions relies on its capacity to deform beyond the elastic range, and to
dissipate seismic energy through plastic deformations. So, the ductility check
controls whether the structure is able to dissipate the given quantity of seismic
energy considered in structural analysis or not (Gioncu and Mazzolani, 2002).
2.2
2.2.1
Ductility in seismic design

First developments of ductility concept
The preliminary design concepts were conceived after the severe earthquakes at
th
the beginning of the 20 century. The great builder Gustave Eiffel had the intuition
to model the earthquake forces by means of an equivalent wind load. The city of
San Francisco was rebuilt after the 1906 great earthquake using a 1.4 kPa
equivalent wind load. It was not until after the Santa Barbara earthquake in 1925
and the Long Beach earthquake in 1933, that the concept of lateral forces
proportional to the mass was introduced into practice. The buildings have been
designed to withstand lateral forces of about 7.5 percent for rigid soil and 10
percent for soft soil of their dead load. This rule was a consequence of the
observation that the great majority of well designed and constructed buildings
survived strong ground motions, even if they were designed only for a fraction of
the forces that would develop if the structure behaved entirely linearly elastic
(Fajfar, 1995). In 1943, the Los Angeles city code recognized the influence of
flexibility of structures, and considered the number of structure levels in design
forces. The San Francisco recommendations were the first ones where the
influence of the fundamental period of the structure was introduced with a relation
stating that the seismic forces are inversely proportional to this period (Bertero,
1992, Popov 1994).
These preliminary concepts are based on grossly simplified physical models,

engineering judgment and a number of empirical coefficients. Influenced by
conventional design concepts, earthquake actions are considered as static loads
and the structures as elastic systems. This simple concept has been the standard
design methodology for several decades, well understood by structural engineers
because relatively easy to implement. These are the reasons for the success of
this design approach, even if, in some cases, it may lead to inadequate protection
(Krawinkler, 1995). Because of this limits new concepts have been developed.
2.2.2
Modern design concepts of ductility
The beginning of the modern design concepts can be fixed in the 1930s, when the
concepts of response spectrum and plastic deformation were introduced into
earthquake engineering. The first concept considering the elastic response
spectrum was used by Benioff in 1934 and Biot in 1941. Linear elastic response
spectra provide a reliable tool to estimate the level of forces and deformations
developed in the structures. In 1935 Tanabashi proposed an advanced theory,
which suggested that the earthquake resistance capacity of a structure should be
measured by the amount of energy that the structure can absorb before collapse.
In term used nowadays, this energy can be interpreted as the dissipated energy
through the ductility of the structure.
The first attempts to combine these two aspects, the response spectrum and the
dissipation of seismic energy through plastic deformations, was made by Housner
(1997), who made a quantitative evaluation of the total amount of energy input that
contributes to the building response, using the velocity response spectra in the
elastic system. Moreover, assuming that the energy input, responsible for the
damage in the elastic-plastic system, is identical to that in the elastic system
(Akiyama, 1985). Housner verified his hypothesis by examining several examples
of damage. So, his method proposed a limit design type analysis to ensure that
there is sufficient energy-absorbing capacity to give an adequate factor of safety
against collapse in the event of extremely strong ground motion. Velestos and
Newmark conducted the first study on the inelastic spectrum in 1960. They
obtained the maximum response deformation for the elastic-perfectly plastic
structures. Since its first application in seismic design, the response spectrum has
become a standard measure of the demand of ground motion. Although it is based
on a simple Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDoF) linear system, the concept of the
response spectrum has been extended to Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom (MDoF)
systems, non-linear elastic systems and inelastic hysteretic systems. The utility of
the response spectrum lies in the fact that it gives a simple and direct indication of
9
the overall displacement and acceleration demands of earthquake ground motion

for structures having different period and damping characteristics, without the need
to perform detailed numerical analyses. A new concept was proposed in 1960 by
Newmark and Hall, by constructing spectra based on accelerations, velocities and
displacements, in short, medium and long period ranges, respectively. This
concept remained a proposal until after the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes,
when the importance of the velocity and displacement spectra was recognized.
More recently, another methodology based on the drift spectrum of a continuous
medium in opposition to the concepts of discrete medium has been elaborated for
structures situated in near-field region of an earthquake (Iwan, 1997). This concept
is based on the observation that the ground motions in near-field regions are
quantitatively different from that commonly used for far-field earthquake regions.
For near-field earthquakes, the use of the equivalence of MDoF systems with only
SDoF gives inaccurate results, because the effects of the higher vibration modes
are ignored. Therefore, a new direction of research works for ductility of structures
in near-field regions began to be explored.
Moreover, the recent technological computer advances permit static and dynamic
analyses in elastic and elasto-platic ranges and allow to obtain more refined
results, using the design spectra in current design, with a more correct calibration
of the design values. At the same time, a time-history methodology can be applied
for important structures using a recorded accelerograms and the behaviour of the
structures under seismic actions can be evaluated in a more precise way,
according to the spectrum methodology.
Recently, this concept has been criticized because large deformations, such as
those necessary for the building components to provide the required ductility, are
associated to strong earthquakes with local buckling, cracking and other damage in
structural and non-structural elements, with a very high cost of repair after each
event. In order to minimize this damage, a new approach in seismic design has
been developed, mainly based on the idea of controlling the response of the
structure, by reducing the dynamic interaction between the ground motion and the
structure itself. This concept is very different from the conventional one, according
to which the structure is unable to behave successfully when subjected to load
conditions different fro the ones it has been designed for. The control of the
structural response produced by earthquakes can be obtained by various means,
such as modifying rigidities, masses, damping and providing passive or
counteractive forces (Housner et al, 1997). This control is based on two different
approaches, either the modification of the dynamic characteristic or the
modification of the energy absorption capacity of the structure. In the first case, the
structural period is shifted away from the predominant periods of the seismic input,
10
thus avoiding the risk of resonance occurrence. In the second case, the capacity of
the structure to absorb energy is enhanced though appropriate devices which
reduce damage to structural elements (Mele and De Luca, 1995).
These response control systems are used to reduce floor response and interstorey
drift. The reduction of floor response and of inter-storey drift may ensure seismic
safety and decrease the amount of construction materials, reduce damage to nonstructural elements and increase design freedom; but there are some limitations in
the use of these systems:
there are situations where more than one source are depicted in the same
region and, generally, these sources have different characteristics. It is
very difficult to design a control system, which has a variable response as
a function of the ground motion type;
it is not technically possible to design a control system, which assures that

the structure remains elastic during a strong earthquake. An open question
is the behaviour of a structure when it falls in the inelastic range. The
development of plastic hinges could in fact reduce the difference in period
between fixed base and isolated schemes, reducing the effectiveness of
the isolators and leading to fast deterioration of the dynamic response. In
some cases, a sudden increase of damage is observed at some level of
acceleration;
in case on near-filed ground motion, as the energy content and velocity are
very high, the required isolator displacements are very large and very often
exceed available displacements of isolators. These cases result in a high
impact load to the isolated portion of building (Iwan, 1995).
when the vertical displacements are very high (as for near-filed zones), the
efficiency of devices for response control is disputable.
Thus, even in cases of response control, the ductility control remains a very
important method for preventing any unexpected behaviour of a structure during
severe earthquakes.
2.2.3
Ductility definition
Before the 1960s the ductility notion was used only for characterizing the material
behaviour, after Bakers studies in plastic design and Housners research works in
earthquake problems (1997), this concept was extended to the level of structure
and associated with the notions of strength and stiffness of the whole structure. But
after years of use this concept continues to be an ambiguous parameter. In the
practice of plastic design of structures, ductility defines the ability of a structure to
undergo deformations after its initial yield without any significant reduction in
11
ultimate strength. The ductility of a structure allows prediction of the ultimate

capacity of a structure, which is the most important criterion for designing
structures under conventional loads. In the practice of earthquake resistant design
the term ductility is used for evaluating the seismic performance of structures, by
indicating the quantity of seismic energy, which may be dissipated through plastic
deformations. The use of this concept of ductility gives the possibility to reduce
seismic design forces and allows the production of some controlled damage in the
structure, also in case of strong earthquakes. The following ductility types are
widely used in literature (see Figure 2.1):
material ductility, or axial ductility, which characterizes the material plastic

deformations;
cross-section ductility, or curvature ductility, which refers to the plastic

deformations of cross-section, considering the interaction between the
parts composing the cross-section itself;
member ductility, or rotation ductility, when the properties of member are

considered;
structure ductility, or displacement ductility, which considers the behaviour

of the whole structure.
Figure 2.1. Ductility types
12
A very important value in seismic design is the ductility limit. This limit is not
necessarily the largest possible energy dissipation, but a significant changing of
structural behaviour must be expected at ductilities larger than this limit. Two
ductility limit types can be defined:
available ductility, resulting from the behaviour of structures and taking into
account
its
information,
material
properties,
cross-section
type,
gravitational loads, degradation in stiffness and strength due to plastic

excursions, etc;
required ductility, resulting from earthquake actions, in which all factors

influencing these action are considered: magnitude, ground motion type,
soil influence, natural period of the structure versus ground motion period,
number of important cycles, etc.
Ductility of a structure is provided by satisfying the limit state criterion:
Da
F Dr
( 2.1 )
where Da is the available ductility determined from the local plastic deformation and
Dr, is the required ductility obtained from the global plastic behaviour of a structure.
The partial safety factors m for available ductility and F for required ductility must
be determined considering the scatter of data with a mean plus one standard
variation and the uncertainties in available and required capacities. Values of
m=1.3 and F=1.2 are proposed (Gioncu, 2000) for this check, if the ductility is
obtained by deformation ductility (see Figure 2.2). If the available ductility results
from fracture, a greater value for F must be used (i.e. F =1.5). This check must be
included in a performance based seismic design.
Figure 2.2. Deformation and fracture ductilities
13
2.3
The performance based seismic design
During recent earthquakes, including those of California and Japan, structures in

conformity with modern seismic codes performed as expected; and, as expected,
the loss of lives was minimal. However, the economic loss due to sustained
damage was substantial. Earthquakes in urban areas have demonstrated that the
economic impact of physical damage, loss of function and business interruption
was huge and damage control must become a more explicit design consideration.
A promising approach to such needed development is the performance-based
engineering (PBE); its application to significant seismic hazards is commonly
known as performance-based seismic engineering (PBSE). An important phase of
performance-based seismic engineering is the performance-based seismic design
(PBSD), that is defined as identification of seismic hazards, selection of the
performance levels and performance design objectives, determination of site
suitability,
conceptual
design,
numerical
preliminary design,
final
design,
acceptability checks during design, design review, specification of quality

assurance during the construction and of monitoring of the maintenance and
occupancy (function) during the life of the building." (Bertero and Bertero, 2002).
Therefore, a comprehensive performance based design involves several steps:
selection of the performance objectives;
definition of multi-level design criteria;
specification of ground motion levels, corresponding to the different design

criteria;
consideration of a conceptual overall seismic design;
options for a suitable structural analysis method;
carrying out comprehensive numerical checking.
2.3.1
Performance objectives (POs)
A conceptual framework for the performance base seismic design has been
developed encompassing the full range of seismic engineering issues to be
referred to design of structures for predictable and controlled seismic performance
within established levels of risk. The first step is the selection of the performance
design objectives (POs). These objectives are selected and expressed in terms of
expected levels of damage resulting from expected levels of earthquake ground
motions (SEAOC, 1995). POs will range from code minimum requirements (usually
based on fully operational under minor earthquake ground motions and on life
14
safety under a rare earthquake ground motion) to fully operational in a maximum

credible (capable or considered) earthquake ground motion.
A PO is a coupling of expected performance levels with levels of seismic ground
motions. A performance level represents a distinct band in the spectrum of damage
to the structural and non-structural components and contents, and also considers
the consequences of the damage to the occupants and functions of the facility.
Four discrete performance levels are identified in Figure 2.3, which gives a table
that define them in terms of the various components of the building. The seismic
hazard at a given site is represented as a set of earthquake ground motions and
associated hazards with specified probabilities of occurrence. For instance, the
term rare earthquake refers to a set of potential earthquake ground motions that
can produce a defined level of damage with a specific mean annual frequency (e.g.
475 years return period for standard buildings). The set of earthquake ground
motions will vary not only for different seismic regions but also from site to site
within a region because of variations in site conditions (topography and soil profile).
Note that the return period, TR, and the exceeding probability in N years, pN , are
two different ways of expressing the same concept and they are related by:
p1 =
1
,
TR
pN = 1 (1 p1 )N
( 2.2 )
where p1 is the annual probability of exceedance. The validity of these equations

assumes that earthquake occurrences are independent events. This is not strictly
correct, but the above relations are widely used to simplify the discussion of
probability.
Figure 2.3. Recommended minimum seismic performance design

objectives for buildings after Bertero and Bertero (2002)
15
Performance objectives (POs) typically include multiple goals for the performance
of the constructed building: for example that it will be fully operational in the 43year-event, that it offers life safety in the 475-year-event, and it will not collapse in
the 970-year-event. The selection of POs sets the acceptability criteria for the
design. Design criteria are rules and guidelines, which must be met to ensure that
the usual three major objectives of design, i.e. performance of function, safety,
economy, are satisfied. The performance levels are keyed to limiting values of
measurable structural response parameters, such as drift and ductility (monotonic
and cumulative), structural damage indexes, storey drift indexes, and rate of
deformations such as floor velocity, acceleration and even the jerk (in case of
frequent minor earthquake ground motions). When the performance levels are
selected, the associated limiting values become the acceptability criteria to be
verified in later stages of the design. Note that once the limit value of the parameter
has been selected for a particular earthquake hazard level, in order to completely
define the design criteria it is still necessary to define the acceptable conditional
probability of going beyond that limit state (failure probability).
2.3.2
Performance Levels
A building can be subjected to low, moderate, or severe earthquakes. It may cross

these events undamaged, it can undergo slight, moderate or heavy damage, it may
be partially destroyed or it can collapse. These levels of damage depend on the
earthquake intensities. Low intensity earthquakes occur frequently, moderate
earthquakes more rarely, while strong earthquakes may occur once or maximum
twice during the life of the structure. It is also possible that no devastating
earthquake will affect the structure during its life. In these conditions, the checks,
required to guarantee a good behaviour of a structure during a seismic attack,
must be examined in the light of a multi-level design approach. The structure
design procedure on the basis of multi-level criteria is not a new concept. Under
gravity, live, snow, wind loads, the limit state design considers the service and
ultimate levels. In the case of seismic loading, the declared intent of building codes
is to produce buildings capable of achieving the following performance objectives
(Fajfar, 1998):
to resist minor earthquakes without significant damage;
to resist moderate earthquakes with repairable damage;
to resist major earthquakes without collapse.
However, as a rule, the majority of codes considers explicitly only one performance
objective, defined as protection, in cases of rare major earthquakes, of occupants
16
against injury or death. Criteria for structure checking to minor or moderate

earthquakes that may occur relatively frequently in the life of the building are not
specified explicitly. A review of 41 codes elaborated all over the world shows that
38 are based on just one level, the principal design being concentrated on strength
requirements (Bertero, 1997). So, the first step in the performance basic design
philosophy is to define an acceptable level of damage due to an earthquake, and
this is the purpose of the design code.
Performance-based seismic engineering, elaborated by the Vision 2000 Committee
of SEAOC (1995) and ATC (1995), consists of a selection of appropriate systems,
layout and detailing of a structure, and of non-structural components and contents
so that, at specified levels of ground motion and defined levels of reliability, the
structure will not be damaged, beyond certain limit states. The performance levels
have been defined for four levels as a combination of damage to structure and to
non-structural elements, building facilities and required repairs.
1. Near collapse level: collapse prevention is directly related to the prevention
of casualties and of damage to the contents of buildings. The structure can
undergo serious damage during the major earthquakes, but it must be
standing after the ground motion.
2. Life safe level: the casualties in a building are usually caused by the
collapse of the building components during an earthquake. The evaluation
of the number of casualties as an economic damage in an optimisation
process, as suggested in some studies, poses very difficult ethical
problems.
3. Operational level: a distinction is made between structural damage which
cannot be repaired and damage which can be repaired. Irreparable
damage is a specific subject for individual engineering judgement of
experts. The damage refers both to structure and to non-structural
elements.
4. Fully operational level: in some cases the value of the business is more
important than the value of the buildings themselves and the interruption of
this activity is intolerable. If the owner of a building wishes to avoid the cost
of interruptions, it is necessary to fulfil more than the minimum requirement
of design codes. By using stronger and stiffer designs, it is possible to
reduce or even eliminate, the interruption of the building function after a
strong earthquake, but this results in a more expensive structure.
These limit states are presented in Figure 2.4, as a function both of the structure
and of non-structural elements. In the seismic load-top sway displacement curve,
17
there are three very significant points: the limit of elastic behaviour without any
damage, the limit of damage with major damage and, finally, the limit of collapse,
for which the structure is at the threshold of breakdown. By taking different limit
states for the structure and for non-structural elements, some multi-level
approaches are possible.
Figure 2.4. Performance levels
A verification at three performance levels has been proposed by different

researchers (Gioncu and Mazzolani, 2002):
1. Serviceability limit state (SLS) for frequent earthquakes; the corresponding
design earthquake is called a service earthquake. This limit state imposes
that the structure, together with non-structural elements, should suffer
minimum damage and the discomfort for inhabitants should be reduced to
a minimum. Therefore, the structure must remain within the elastic range
or it can suffer unimportant plastic deformations;
2. Damageability limit state (DLS) for occasional earthquakes: this limit state
considers an earthquake intensity which produces damage in nonstructural elements and moderate damage in a structure, which can be
repaired without great technical difficulties;
18
3. Survivability-ultimate limit state (ULS) for earthquakes which may rarely

occur represents the strongest possible ground shaking. For these
earthquakes, both structural and non-structural damage are expected, but
the safety of inhabitants has to be guaranteed. In many cases damage is
so substantial that structures are not repaired and demolition is the
recommended solution.
Although it is recognized that the ideal methodology would use four or three levels
for design, today current European Code methodologies and seismic design
philosophy can be based on just two levels (Eurocode 8, 2002):
1. Serviceability limit state, for which structures are designed to remain
elastic, or with minor plastic deformations and the non-structural elements
remain undamaged or have minor damage;
2. Ultimate limit state, for which structures exploit their capability to deform
beyond the elastic range, the non-structural elements being partially or
totally damaged.
In the Eurocode 8, the accelerations corresponding to the serviceability limit state
are given as a fraction of the corresponding ones for the ultimate limit state.
Generally, this methodology cannot assure controlled damage, also because the
determination of this relationship is not clearly assigned in the code.
When the number of performance levels is discussed, one must recognize that the
use of four levels is the most rational proposal and that two levels represent the
minimum acceptable option. Since it is questionable to ask design engineers to
perform too much verification, it seems more rational to introduce no more than
three levels of verifications: serviceability, damageability and ultimate (survivability)
levels. To achieve these levels of verifications, the seismic design problem is laid
out through required-available formulation. Currently, the required-available pairs
of three mechanical characteristics considered in seismic design are:
Required rigidity < Available rigidity
( 2.3 )
Required strength < Available strength
( 2.4 )
Required ductility < Available ductility
( 2.5 )
The rigidity verification is a problem of the serviceability level, the strength

verification is related to the damageability level and ductility verification is a
19
problem of survivability. Other verifications at each level are only optional or not
necessary, as a function of building importance or earthquake intensities. The
relationship between performance levels and the other parameters of structureseismic design are:
for serviceability level, under frequent low earthquakes, the strategy calls
for the elastic response of a structure. The lateral deformations are limited
for the interstorey drift limits, given for the non-structural elements. Due to
their integrity, interaction structure-non-structural elements must be
considered. The basic verification refers to the structure rigidity and the
strength verification (condition to elastic behaviour) is only optional;
for damageability level, under occasional moderate earthquakes, an

elasto-plastic analysis must be performed. The basic verification refers to
the structure member strengths, verifications for rigidity or ductility being
optional. The non-structural elements are partially damaged, so the
analysis must consider only the structure behaviour, without any interaction
with non-structural elements;
for ultimate (survivability) level, under rare severe earthquakes, a kinematic

analysis, which considers the behaviour of possible formed plastic
mechanisms, must be performed. The basic verification refers to the
ductility, the strength verification being only optional. The design strategy
refers to the control of the formation of a pre-selected plastic mechanism
and the rotation capacities of plastic hinges. Non-structural elements are
completely damaged.
2.4
Required ductility concept
The required ductility is directly influenced by ground motions (source, distance

from source, site conditions) and structural systems (foundations, structure types,
non-structural elements). The control of ductility demand requires, firstly, attention
to be given to some important aspects:
i.
Seismic macro-zonation, which is an official zoning map to country scale,

based on a hazard analysis elaborated by geologists and seismologists.
This map divides the national territory into different categories and
provides each area with values of earthquake intensities, on the basis of
design spectra. At the same time, this macro-zonation must characterize
the possible ground motion types, as a surface or deep source an
20
interplate or intraplate fault, etc. Ductility demands vary depending on each

ground motion type.
ii.
Seismic micro-zonation, which considers the possible earthquake sources

at the level of region or town, on the basis of common local investigation.
The result of these studies is a local map indicating the position and the
characteristic of the sources, general information about the soil conditions
and design spectra. It is very useful to accompany the time-history
accelerograms with very precise indications about the place where they
have been recorded (directions, distance from epicentre, soil conditions,
etc.). Recordings such as magnitude, distance from source, attenuation
and duration are directly involved in ductility demand.
iii. Site condition, established through the examination of the stratification

under the proposed structure site. This is a very important step, because
dramatic changes of earthquake characteristic within a few hundred meter
distance are not unusual during an earthquake. These differences are
mainly caused by the difference in soil conditions. For soft soil the ductility
demand is more important than for rigid soil.
Differently from the past, when the developed design methods was based on
simple hypotheses because the reduced number of records during severe
earthquakes, today several measurements of ground motions for different distance
from the sources and on different site conditions are available thanks to a large
network of instrumentation all over the world,. This situation allows to underline a
new very important aspect, which was previously neglected in the current concept:
the difference in ground motion between near-field and far-field earthquakes. The
near-field region of an earthquake is the area, which extends for several kilometres
from the projection on the ground surface of the fault rupture zone. Since in the
past the majority of ground motions were recorded in the far-field region, the
current concept refers to this earthquake type only. The great amount of damage
during the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes is due to the fact that these towns are
situated in a near-field region. Thus, ground motion recorded in far-field regions
cannot be used to describe in proper manner the earthquake action in near-field
regions. The differences, as presented in Figure 2.5, consist in:
the direction of the propagation of the fault rupture has the main influence
for near-field regions, the local site stratification having a minor
consequence. On the contrary, for far-field regions, soil stratification for
travelling waves and site conditions are of first importance;
in near-field regions, the ground motion has a distinct low-frequency pulse

in acceleration time history and a pronounced coherent pulse in velocity
21
and displacement history. The duration of ground motion is very short. For
far-field regions, the records in acceleration, velocity and displacement
have the characteristic of a cyclic movement with a long duration;
the velocities in near-field regions are very high. During the Northridge and
Kobe earthquakes, velocities with values of 150-200 cm/sec were recorded
at the soil level, while for far-field regions these velocities did not exceed
30-40 cm/sec. Therefore, in case of near-field regions the velocity is the
most important parameter in design concept, replacing accelerations,
which are a dominant parameter for far-field regions;
the vertical components in near-field regions may be greater than the

horizontal components, due to the direct propagation of P waves, which
reach the structure without important modifications due to soil conditions,
their frequencies being far from the soil frequencies.
Figure 2.5. Near-field vs. far-field ground motion features

after Gioncu and Mazzolani (2002)
22
As a consequence of the above-mentioned differences in ground motions, there

are some very important modifications in the design concepts:
in near-field regions, due to the very short periods of ground motions and
to pulse characteristic of loads, the importance of higher vibration mode
increases, in comparison with the case of far-field regions, where the first
fundamental mode is dominant. For structures subjected to pulse actions,
the impact propagates through the structure like a wave, causing large
localized deformation and/or important interstorey drifts. In this situation
the classic design methodology based on the response of a single-degree
of freedom system characterized by the design spectrum is not sufficient to
describe the actual behaviour of structures. Aiming at solving this problem,
a continuous shear-beam model is proposed and the design spectrum is
the result of the shear strain, produced by the inter-storey drift. (Iwan,
1997).
due to the concordance of the frequencies of vertical ground motions with

the vertical frequencies of structures, an important amplification of vertical
effects may occur. At the same time, taking into account the reduced
possibilities
of
plastic
deformation
and
damping
under
vertical
displacements, the vertical behaviour can be of first importance for

structures in near-field regions. The combination of vertical and horizontal
components produces an increase in axial forces in columns and, as a
consequence, increases in second order effects.
due to the pulse characteristic of the actions, developed with great velocity
due to the lack of important restoring forces, the ductility demand may be
very high. So, the use of inelastic properties of structures for seismic
energy dissipation must be very carefully examined. At the same time, the
short duration of the ground motions in near-field regions is a favourable
factor. A balance between the severity of ductility demand, due to pulse
action, and the effect of short duration must be analyzed.
due to the great velocity of the seismic actions, an increase in yield

strength occurs, which means a significant decrease of the available
ductility. The demand-response balance can be broken due to this
increasing demand, as an effect of the impulse characteristic of loads,
together with the decreasing of the response, owing to the effect of high
velocity. The need to determine ductility as a function of the velocity of
actions is a pressing challenge for research works.
if it is impossible to take advantage of the plastic behaviour of structures, at

this high velocity, it is necessary to consider the variation of energy
dissipation through ductile fracture. The fact that many steel structures
23
were damaged by fracture of connections during the Northridge and Kobe

earthquakes without global collapse, gives rise to the idea that the local
fracture of these connections can transform the original rigid structure into
a structure with semi-rigid joints. The positive result of the weakening is the
reduction of the seismic actions at a level, which can be supported by the
damaged structure, taking into account that the duration of an earthquake
is very short. This is not the case of far-field earthquakes, for which the
effect of long duration can induce the collapse of the structure.
Required ductility on the other hand is associated with the global behaviour of the
structure, which is a function of members of plastic hinges as well as of the amount
of plastic rotation they undergo. For the plastic analysis of a moment resisting
frame, the methods available to the designer are either monotonic static non-linear
analyses, i.e. pushover type, or dynamic time-history analyses. Of course the last
ones are more effective, but they require special computer programs, which are not
available to all design offices. At the same time, time-history methods are large
computation time consumer and they are very expensive. The pushover methods,
if the conditions of load and local behaviour are properly designed, may provide
sufficient information on the expected behaviour for design purposes.
2.4.1
Non-linear static pushover (NSP) analysis
The purpose of the pushover analysis is to evaluate the expected performance of a

structural system by estimating its strength and deformation demands in design
earthquakes by means of a static inelastic analysis, and comparing these demands
to available capacities at the performance levels of interest (Krawinkler and
Seneviratna, 1998). The evaluation is based on an assessment of important
performance parameters, including global drift, interstorey drift, inelastic element
deformations (either absolute or normalized with respect to the yield value),
deformations between elements, and element and connection forces (for elements
and connections that cannot sustain inelastic deformations). The inelastic pushover
analysis can be viewed as a method for predicting seismic force and deformation
demands, which takes into account in an approximate manner the redistribution of
internal forces occurring when the structure is subjected to inertia forces that can
no longer be resisted within the elastic range of the structural behaviour.
The pushover analysis is expected to provide information on many response
characteristics that cannot be obtained from an elastic static or dynamic analysis.
The following are examples of such response characteristics:
the realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements, such as axial

force demands on column, force demands on brace connections, moment
24
demands on beam-to-column connections, shear force demands in deep

reinforced concrete beams, shear force demands in unreinforced masonry
wall piers, etc;
estimates of the deformation demands for elements that have to deform

inelastically in order to dissipate the energy imparted to the structure by
ground motion;
consequences of strength deterioration of individual elements on the
identification of the critical regions in which the deformation demands are
behaviour of a structural system;

expected to be high and that have to become the focus of detailing;
identification of strength discontinuities in plan and elevation that will lead

to changes in the dynamic characteristic in the inelastic range;
estimates of the interstorey drifts that account for strength or stiffness

discontinuities and that may be used to control damage and to evaluate Pdelta effects.
Clearly, this benefits come at the cost of additional analysis effort, associated with
incorporation of all important elements, the modelling of their inelastic loaddeformation characteristic, and the execution of incremental inelastic analysis,
preferably with a three-dimensional (3D) analytical model. At this time adequate
analytical tools for this purpose ere either cumbersome or not available, but several
good tools are under development, primarily through the recent publication of the
FEMA 273 document (1997), that includes extensive recommendations for loaddeformation modelling of individual elements and for acceptable values of force
and deformation parameters for performance evaluation. Based on the capacity
spectrum method originally developed by Freeman et al. (1975) and Freeman
(1978), the NSP procedure could be summarized in the following steps (Chopra
and Goel, 1999):
1. Develop the relationship between base shear Vb and roof (N
th
floor)
displacement uN, depicted in Figure 2.6, commonly known as pushover

curve.
uN
Vb
Pushover Curve
Vb
uN
Figure 2.6. Development of a pushover curve
25
2. Convert the pushover curve to a capacity diagram, see Figure 2.7, where
N
1 =
j =1
N
m j j1
1*
m j j21
j =1
m j j1
j =1
N
( 2.6 )
m j j21
j =1
th
th
and mj = lumped mass at the j floor level, j1 is the j -floor element of the
*
fundamental mode j, N is the number of floors, and M1 is the effective

modal mass for the fundamental vibration mode.
A=
Pushover Curve
Vb
M1*
Capacity Diagram
Vb
uN
D=
uN
1 N1
Figure 2.7. Conversion of a pushover curve to a capacity diagram
3. Convert the elastic response (or design) spectrum from the standard
pseudo-acceleration A versus natural period TN format to the A-D format,
where D is the deformation spectrum ordinate, defined as
D=
TN2
4 2
( 2.7 )
4. Plot the demand diagram and capacity diagram together and determine the
displacement demand as illustrated in Figure 2.8. Involved in this step are
dynamic analyses of a sequence of equivalent linear systems with
successively updated values of the natural vibration period Teq and
equivalent viscous damping eq. To define the above-mentioned quantities
we have to consider an inelastic SDoF system with bi-linear forcedeformation relationship on initial loading. The stiffness of the elastic
branch is k and that of the yielding branch is k.
26
5% Demand
Diagram
Demand Point
Demand Diagram
Capacity Diagram
D
Figure 2.8. Determination of a displacement demand
The yield strength and yield displacement are denoted by fy and uy,
respectively. If the peak (maximum absolute) deformation of the inelastic
system is umax, the ductility factor is defined as
umax
uy
( 2.8 )
For the same bi-linear system, the natural vibration period of the equivalent
linear system with stiffness equal to the secant stiffness ksec is
Teq = TN
( 2.9 )
1 +
where TN is the natural vibration period of the system vibrating within its
linear elastic range (u < uy). Moreover, the most common method for
defining an equivalent viscous damping is to equate the energy dissipated
in a vibration cycle of the inelastic system and of an equivalent linear
system. Based on this concept, it can be shown that the equivalent viscous
damping ratio is (Chopra, 1995)
eq =
1 ED
4 ES
( 2.10 )
where the energy dissipated in the inelastic system is given by the area ED
2
enclosed by the hysteresis loop and Es = ksecum /2 is the strain energy of

27
the system with stiffness ksec. Substituting the expressions of Ed and Es in

Eq. (2.10) on gets:
eq =
2 ( 1)(1 )
( 2.11 )
(1 + )
The total viscous damping of the equivalent linear system is
eq = + eq
( 2.12 )
where is the viscous damping ratio of the bilinear system vibrating within
its linearly elastic range (u < uy).
For elasto-perfect plastic systems, = 0 and both Eqs. (2.9) and (2.11)
reduce to
Teq = TN
eq =
2 1
( 2.13 )
Eqs. (2.9) and (2.11) are plotted in Figure 2.9 where the variation of Teq/TN
and eq vs. is shown for four values of . For yielding systems, viz. > 1,
Teq is longer than TN
and eq > 0. The period of the equivalent linear
system increases monotonically with for all .. For a fixed , Teq is

longest for elasto-plastic systems and is shorter for systems with > 0. For
= 0, eq increases monotonically with but not for > 0. For the latter
case, eq reaches its maximum value at a value, which depends on ,
and then decreases gradually.
5. Convert the displacement demand determined in Step 4 to global (roof)
displacement and individual component deformation and compare them to
the limiting values for the specified performance goals.
28
4
3.5
3
=0
2.5
eq
0.05
0.1
0.2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
(a)
0.7
0.6
=0
0.5
eq
0.4
0.05
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
(b)
Figure 2.9. Variation of period and viscous damping of an equivalent

linear system vs. ductility
29
Approximations are implicit in the various steps of this simplified analysis of an

inelastic MDoF system. Implicit in Steps 1 and 2 is a lateral force distribution
assumed to be fixed, and based only on the fundamental vibration mode of the
elastic system; however, extensions to take into account higher mode effects have
been proposed. Implicit in Step 4 is the belief that the earthquake-induced
deformation of an inelastic SDoF system can be estimated satisfactorily by an
iterative method requiring analysis of a sequence of equivalent linear SDoF
systems, thus avoiding the dynamic analysis of the inelastic SDoF system.
Both force distribution and target displacement are based on the assumption that
the response is controlled by a single shape vector (the fundamental mode) and
that the mode shape remains unchanged after the structure yields. Parameter
studies have shown that for frame and wall structures with a first mode period of
less than 2 seconds this assumption is rather accurate for elastic systems and
conservative (overestimates the MDoF displacement) for inelastic systems.
In all cases, the determined target displacement becomes the base line for
predicting the inelastic displacement demand, which needs to be accomplished
with due consideration to the hysteretic characteristic of the equivalent SDOF
system. The effects of yield strength, strength and stiffness degradation, pinching
during hysteretic loops, P-delta incremented forces caused by gravity loads acting
on the deformed configuration of the structure can be taken into account through
cumulative modification factors applied to the elastic displacement demand. The
loop illustrated in Figure 2.10 assumes that stable relationships can be found
between the spectral displacement demand at the first mode period of the structure
and the system and element deformation demands (Gupta and Krawinkler, 2000),
using the following definitions:
MDoF modification factor, MDOF, a factor that relates the elastic spectral
displacement demand at the first mode period of the structure to the elastic
roof drift demand of the MDoF structure, neglecting P- effects.
Inelasticity modification factor, INEL, a factor that relates the elastic roof
drift demand to the inelastic roof drift demand, neglecting P- effects.
P- modification factor, P, a factor that takes into account the effect of P on the inelastic roof drift demand.
Storey drift modification factor, ST, a factor that relates individual storey
drift demands to the roof drift demand.
Element deformations modification function, a function that relates storey

drift demand to element plastic deformation demands.
30
Figure 2.10. Process for simplified demand estimation Gupta

and Krawinkler (2000)
However, such satisfactory predictions of seismic demands are mostly restricted to

low- and medium-rise structures in which the inelastic action is distributed
throughout the height of the structure (Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998; Gupta
and Krawinkler, 2000). None of the invariant force distributions can take into
account the contributions of higher modes to response, or for a redistribution of
inertia forces because of structural yielding and the associated changes in the
vibration properties of the structure. To overcome these limitations, several
researchers have proposed adaptive force distributions that attempt to follow more
closely the time-variant distributions of inertia forces [Fajfar and Fischinger, 1988;
Gupta and Kunnath, 2000]. While these adaptive force distributions may provide
better estimates of seismic demands, they are conceptually complicated and
computationally demanding for routine application in structural engineering
practice. Attempts have also been made to consider more than the fundamental
vibration mode in pushover analysis.
2.4.2
Non-linear dynamic procedure (NDP)
Under the non-linear dynamic procedure (NDP), design seismic forces, their
distribution over the height of the building, and the corresponding internal forces
and system displacements are determined by using an inelastic dynamic analysis
(IDA). The concept was mentioned as early as 1977 by Bertero, and has since
been cast in several forms in the work of many researchers. Recently, it has also
31
been adopted by U.S. guidelines (FEMA Reports) and European Code (EC8,
2002) as the state-of-the art method to determine the global collapse capacity. The
IDA study is now a multi-purpose and widely applicable method and its objectives,
only some of which are evident in Figure 2.11, include (Vamvatsikos and Cornell,
2001):
1. thorough understanding of the range of response or demands versus a
range of potential levels of a ground motion record;
2. better understanding of the structural implications of rarer/more severe
ground motion levels;
3. better understanding of changes in the nature of the structural response as
the intensity of ground motion increases, e.g. changes in peak deformation
patterns with height, onset of stiffness and strength degradation and their
patterns and magnitudes;
4. producing estimates of the dynamic capacity of the global structural
system;
5. finally, given a multi-record IDA study, understanding how stable or
variable all these items are from one ground motion record to another.
Figure 2.11. An example of information extracted from a single-record

IDA study of a T1=4 s, 20-storey steel moment-resisting frame with ductile
members and connections, including global geometric nonlinearities (P
) subjected to the El Centro (1940) record after Vamvatsikos and Cornell

(2001)
32
The basis, modelling approaches, and acceptance criteria of the NDP are similar to
those of the NSP. The main exception is that the response calculations are carried
out using a time-history analysis. With the NDP, design displacements are not
established using a target displacement, but are determined directly through
dynamic analysis using ground motion histories instead. Calculated responses can
be highly sensitive characteristics of individual ground motions; in fact, when
subjected to different ground motions, a model will often produce quite dissimilar
responses that are difficult to predict a priori. Therefore, it is recommended to carry
out analyses with more than one ground motion record. This variability also leads
to the need for statistical treatment of multi-record IDA output in order to
summarize the results and in order to use them effectively in a predictive mode, as
for example in a PBE context. In accordance with Eurocode 8 (2002), depending
on the nature of the application and on the information actually available, the
description of the seismic motion may be made by using artificial accelerograms
and recorded or simulated accelerograms. Artificial accelerograms shall be
generated so as to match the elastic response spectra for 5% viscous damping ( =
5%). The duration of the accelerograms shall be consistent with the magnitude and
the other relevant features of the seismic event underlying the establishment of ag.
When site-specific data are not available, the minimum duration Ts of the stationary
part of the accelerograms should be equal to 10 s. Recorded accelerograms or
accelerograms generated through a physical simulation of source and travel path
mechanisms may be used, provided that the samples used are adequately
qualified with regard to the seismogenetic features of the sources and to the soil
conditions appropriate to the site, and their values are scaled to the value of agS for
the zone under consideration. The suite of artificial and recorded or simulated
accelerograms should observe the following rules:
a. a minimum of 3 accelerograms should be used;
b. the mean of the zero period spectral response acceleration values
(calculated from the individual time histories) should not be smaller than
the value of agS for the site in question;
c.
in the range of periods between 0,2T1 and 2T1 where T1 is the fundamental
period of the structure in the direction where the accelerogram will be
applied no value of the mean 5% damping elastic spectrum, calculated
from all time histories, should be less than 90% of the corresponding value
of the 5% damping elastic response spectrum.
The seismic motion, represented in terms of ground acceleration time-histories and

related quantities (velocity and displacement) shall consist of three simultaneously
acting accelerograms. The same accelerogram may not be used simultaneously
33
along both horizontal directions. Since the numerical model takes into account
directly effects of the material inelastic response, the calculated internal forces will
be reasonable approximations of those expected during a design earthquake.
2.5
Available ductility concept
In an effort to develop methods based on ductility it is clear that the evaluation of

the inelastic response is required. For moment resisting frames (MRFs), inelastic
deformations correspond to the formation of plastic hinges at localized positions
(Gioncu, 200). Available ductility is therefore associated with the rotation capacity
of plastic hinges. The design philosophy must consider that inelastic deformations
occur in one or more of the three components of a node i.e. beam or column ends,
connections and panel zones (Figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12. Components of a frame node
Modern codes impose that plastic deformation must occur only at beam ends and
column bases, without considering joint panels, even if it is well-known that these
show a stable behaviour under plastic shear deformations (Eurocode 8, 2002). But
in reality the required conditions (the joint capacity must be 30% stronger than the
adjacent members) do not assure the elastic behaviour of joints and as a
consequence, the panel zone can be in some cases the weakest component of a
joint. Results of the so called weak panel zonestrong column system (WPSC),
34
are that panel zones are designed to be the weakest element of the node and
inelastic deformations are expected to occur in panel zones.
The ductility of members is another reason for dispute between the code provisions
and researchers, concerning the use of ductility determined at the level of crosssection (as in Eurocode 3, 2000) or the necessity to use the ductility of members
as proposed by Gioncu and Mazzolani (2002). Code provisions are particularly
qualitative and therefore this procedure is inadequate for a methodology in which
the available ductility is compared with the required one. The basic requirement for
plastic analysis is that large rotations (theoretical infinite) be possible without
significant changes in the resistant moment. But these theoretical large plastic
rotations may not be achieved because some secondary effects occur. Flexuraltorsional instability, local buckling or brittle fracture of members usually imposes
the limitation to plastic rotation. A proper available ductility must be determined
taking into account that the members and joints belong to a structure with a
complex behaviour. But this is a very difficult task owing to the great number of
factors influencing the behaviour of actual members and joints. The problem of
evaluating the rotation capacity has recently been of primary interest, as witnessed
by the numerous published papers, presenting different methods which can be
classified as theoretical methods, based on the use of FEM, or integrating the
moment-curvature relationship; approximate methods, based on the use of the
collapse plastic mechanism; and empirical methods, based on statistical analysis
of experimental tests.
Joint ductility depends on the importance of all component behaviours. For welded
joints ductility is given by the plastic shear deformation, by crushing of web of joint
panel or weld fracture, while for bolted joints ductility results from plastic
deformations up to fracture of the column flanges, connection elements, i.e. end
plates, or by fracture of bolts or welds as summarized in Figure 2.13.
Recent great seismic events have shown that the concentration of inelastic
phenomena into joints leads to a brittle fracture of welds. Therefore, in the last
period great efforts were devoted to the definition of adequate different detailing of
joints able to provide a more satisfactory behaviour. New types of joint have been
proposed, based on the idea of moving the plastic hinge away from the columnbeam interface, in the field where the welding or bolts do not govern the node
behaviour. This solution can be obtained by weakening the specific beam near to
the connection by trimming the beam flanges, i.e. the dogbone solution proposed
by Plumier (1994) or by strengthening the specific beam near to the connection by
adding vertical ribs or cover plates. The weakening of the beam offers the
possibility of reducing the dimensions of columns, while strengthening requires an
increase of these dimensions, showing the superiority of the dogbone solution.
35
Figure 2.13. Joint collapse type after Gioncu and Mazzolani (2002)
Due to the relevant number of influencing parameters, a macroscopic view of the

joint obtained by subdividing it into individual basic components has proved to be
most appropriate. This approach, which allows to determine the local strength and
rotation capacity, is known as the component method (Eurocode 3, 2001) The
assumption considered in this method allows us to determine the overall rotation
as the sum of the all components and the node ductility by the ductility of the
weaker component (see Figure 2.14).
Figure 2.14. The component methodology
36
2.6
References
Akiyama H. (1985): Earthquake-resistant limit-state design for buildings.
University of Tokio Press.
ATC Applied Technology Council (1995): Guidelines and commentary for
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. ATC Report 33.03, Redwood City,

California.
Bertero R.D. and Bertero V.V. (2002): Performance-based seismic
engineering: the need for a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach.

Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, 627652.
Bertero V.V. (1992): Major issues and future directions in earthquake
resistant design. In 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Madrid, 19-24 July 1992, Balkema, Rotterdam, 6407-6444.
Bertero V.V. (1997): Performance-based seismic engineering: a critical
review of proposed guidelines. In Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next

Generation of Codes, (Eds. P. Fajfar, H. Krawinkler), Bled, 24-27 June 1997,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1-31.
Chopra A. K. (1995): Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. Chapters 3, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Chopra A.K. and Goel R.K. (1999): Capacity-demand-diagram methods for
estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDoF systems. Report

No. PEER-1999/02 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College
of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Fajfar P. (1995): Design spectra for new generation codes: Eurocode 8
achieves the half-way mark. In 10th European Conference on Earthquake

Engineering (Ed. G. Duma), Vienna, 28 August 2 September 1994, Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 4, 2969-2974.
Fajfar P. (1998): Trends in seismic design and performance evaluation
approaches. In 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris,

6 11 September 1998, Balkema, Rotterdam, Invited Lectures, 237-249.
Fajfar P. and Fischinger M. (1988): N2- A method for non-linear seismic
analysis of regular structures. In 9th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Tokio-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 5, 111-116.
FEMA 273 (1997): HEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Freeman S. A., Nicoletti J. P., and Tyrell J. V. (1975): Evaluations of
existing buildings for seismic risk - A case study of Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard.
Bremerton,
Washington.
Proceedings
of
1st
U.S.
National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Berkeley, 113-122.

37
Freeman S. A. (1978): Prediction of response of concrete buildings to
severe earthquake motion. Publication SP-55, American Concrete Institute,

Detroit, MI, 1978, 589-605.
Gioncu V. (2000): Framed structures. Ductility and seismic response.
General Report. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 55, 125154.
Gioncu V. and Mazzolani F.M. (2002): Ductility of seismic resistant steel
Structures. Spon Press, London, 1-40.

Gupta A., Krawinkler H. (2000): Estimation of seismic drift demands for
frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 29,

1287-1305.
Housner G.M. et al (1997): Structural control: past, present and future.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 123, No. 9, 897-971.
Iwan W.D. (1995): Near-field considerations in specification of seismic
design motion of structures. In 10th European Conference on Earthquake

Engineering (Ed. G. Duma), Vienna, 28 August 2 September 1994, Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 1, 257-267.
Iwan W.D. (1997): Drift spectrum: measures of demand for earthquake
ground motions. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 4, 397-404.

Krawinkler H. (1995): New trends in seismic design methodology. In 10th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Ed. G. Duma), Vienna, 28
August 2 September 1994, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, 821-830.
Krawinkler H. and Seneviratna G.D.P.K. (1998): Pros and cons of a
pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Journal of Engineering

Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, 452-464.
Newmark N.M. and Hall W.J. (1969): Seismic design criteria for nuclear
reactor facilities. Proc. 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Santiago, Chile, 2 (B-4), 37-50.
Mele E. and De Luca A. (1995): State of the art report on base isolation
and energy dissipation. In Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas,

Stessa 94, (Eds. F.M. Mazzolani and V. Gioncu), Timisoara, 26 June 1 July
1994, E&FN Spon , London, 631-658.
prEN 1993-1 (2001): Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1:
General rules for buildings. CEN, European Committee for Standardization.

PrEN 1998-1 (2002): EC8 Final Draft. Design of Structures for earthquake
resistance. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Draft No. 5.

Plumier A. (1994): Behaviour of connections. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 38, 95123.
Popov E.P. (1992): Development of U.S. codes. Journal of Constructional
Research, Vol. 29, 191-207.
38
SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee (1995: Performance-based seismic
engineering. Report prepared by Structural Engineers Association of California,

Sacramento, CA.
Vamvatsikos D. and Cornell C.A. (2001): Incremental dynamic analysis.
Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, 491514.
Velestos A. and Newmark N.M. (1960): Effect of inelastic behaviour on
response of simple system to earthquake motions. Proc. 2th World Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Tokio, Japan, 855-912.
39
SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END PLATE

BEAM-TO-COLUMN STEEL JOINTS
3.1
Introduction
In high seismic risk areas such as California and Japan, steel-framed buildings
have frequently been employed because of their excellent performances in terms
of strength and ductility. Nevertheless, a large number of entirely unexpected
severe brittle cracks of welded beam-to-column connections were found in the
recent Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes (Bertero et al., 1994,
Kuwamura, 1998). The failures raised many questions regarding the validity of
design and construction procedures used for these connections at the time. Since
the earthquake, several extensive analytical and experimental studies have been
conducted to investigate the various aspects believed to be associated with the
failure observed in the pre-Northridge connection and to improve connection
performance. The majority of the thorough investigations established that
premature cracking in welded steel connections resulted from a combination of
factors, such as high strain demands coupled with large inherent flaws and stress
risers, overreliance on low-toughness materials, deficient field welding and
insufficient quality control.
As a result of poor performance of flange-welded moment connections, end plate
moment connections may represent, especially in Europe, an alternative to welding
in seismic regions. But because of limited cyclic testing of moment end plate
connections, extensive research has been initiated. In the framework of a research
programme conducted by the Department of Mechanical and Structural
Engineering of the University of Trento and sponsored by a MIUR-PRIN project
devoted to the analysis of semi-rigid beam-to-column connections, the presented
study has a two-fold purpose:
40
3. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END PLATE BEAM-TO-COLUMN STEEL JOINTS
analysing the seismic performance of partial strength bolted extended end

plate joints with fillet welds, which represent an alternative to fully welded
connections for use in seismic force resisting moment frames;
verifying in a low-cycle fatigue regime the feasibility of the mechanical

approach adopted for joints undergoing monotonic loading, whereby the
properties of a complete joint are understood and obtained by assembling
the properties of its component parts.
The study was limited to one basic connection geometry representative of a typical
European design, viz. bolted extended end plate connections with overmatching
fillet welds, as depicted in Figure 3.1. However, different design parameters,
among which the end plate thickness and the bolt diameter, were addressed. A
series of tests on connection substructures and subassemblages subjected both to
monotonic and cyclic displacement regime was carried out. These results allow the
component
method
to
be
appraised.
Also
mechanical
and
metallurgic
characterization test data of the connection material are collected.
Figure 3.1. Bolted extended end plate beam-to-column joint
On the basis of the experimental results and the data collection, inelastic finite
element (FE) analyses carried out by means of the ABAQUS code (Hibbitt,
Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., 2001), both on isolated Tee Stub (ITS) connections and
on Complete Joints (CJ) have been performed. Therefore, both FE models were
calibrated and the stress and strain state of the aforementioned connections was
simulated both in the monotonic and in the cyclic displacement regime. Finally,
some design parameters which influence the fracture resistance of steel bolted
41
extended plate connections have been analysed. In detail, the effects of the weldto-base metal yield strength ratio, the end plate yield-to-ultimate strength ratio and
the residual stress influence have been determined through detailed two- and
three-dimensional non-linear finite element analyses. Such analyses conducted in
the monotonic regime permitted fracture toughness demands in terms of
performance indices to be evaluated. In addition, the analyses provided insights to
develop a better intuitive understanding of fracture in the aforementioned
connections.
3.2
The component method
Design of MR frame with semi-rigid partial strength joints is one of the major
developments in the structural design of steel and composite steel-concrete
buildings.
The importance of joint action has been perceived since the beginning of the last
century. However, only in the 80'
s the tools available to the practitioners, and in
particular the structural analysis programs, made the new methodology ready for
practical use. Since then a number of research studies were carried on worldwide,
aimed at building up the necessary knowledge to develop design tools ranging
from general criteria to specific methods and rules for joints and frames (Bjorhovde
et al,1988; Narayanan, 1988; Bjorhovde et al, 1992; Colson, 1992; Lorenz et al,
1993; Wald, 1994; Bjorhovde et al, 1996; Maquoi, 1999; Easterling and Leon,
2002).
All the key facets of the problem were investigated via experimental, numerical and
theoretical analysis, including the behaviour of a wide range of joint types, the
design models to approximate joint response and the influence of joint action on
frames performance. Design criteria as well as specific recommendations were set
up and included in Codes (Eurocode 3, 2001) and design aids were developed in
order to make the new philosophy accepted in practice.
Following the recommendation included in Eurocode 3 (2001), it is possible to
classify the joint by stiffness or by strength. Depending on the stiffness, a joint can
be classified as rigid, nominally pinned or semi-rigid on the basis of particular or
general experimental evidence or significant experience of previous satisfactory
performance in similar cases or by calculations based on test evidence. A rigid joint
shall be so designed that its deformations have no significant influence on the
distribution of the internal forces and moments in the structure or on its overall
42
deformation. A nominally pinned joint shall be designed so that it cannot develop

significant moments, which might adversely affect members of the structure, and
should be able to transmit the forces calculated in the design and accept the
resulting rotations. A joint that does not meet the criteria for a rigid joint or a
nominally pinned joint shall be classified as a semi-rigid joint.
Depending on the strength, a joint can be classified as full-strength, nominally
pinned or partial strength by comparing its moment resistance with the moment
resistances of the connected members. The design resistance of a full-strength
joint shall not be inferior to the members connected. A full-strength joint should be
so rigid that, under the design loads, the rotations at the necessary plastic hinges
do not exceed their rotation capacities. A nominally pinned joint shall be capable of
transmitting the calculated design forces, without developing significant moments,
which might adversely affect members of the structure. The rotation capacity of a
nominally pinned joint should be sufficient to enable all the necessary plastic
hinges to develop under design loads. The design resistance of a partial-strength
joint shall be not be less than that necessary to transmit the calculated design
forces and moments, but may be less than that of connected members. The
rotation capacity of a partial-strength joint, which occurs at a plastic hinge location,
shall not be inferior to the capacity needed to enable all the necessary plastic
hinges to develop under the design loads.
A vital requisite of any design approach incorporating joint response as a key
parameter, is the capability of enabling adequate approximation of the whole
beam-to-column joint response in terms of stiffness, strength and rotation capacity.
As regard to this aspect, many of the traditional methods were developed with the
sole purpose of determining the connection resistance capacity. Furthermore, the
complexity of the stress state in the nodal zone makes the range of application of
most methods rather limited (Nethercot & Zandonini, 1988). An attempt to
overcome these difficulties, and to provide a general and comprehensive tool is
given by the so-called component model, which identifies the various elemental
joint components, and builds up the overall response of the joint on the individual
response of these components (Eurocode 3, 2001). The advantages of this
approach, schematically shown in Figure 3.2, are multi-faceted: (i) the attention of
research and design is focussed on the elemental components, whose behaviour
is easier to be determined (either experimentally or numerically) and modelled; (ii)
the range of applicability is potentially unlimited, and actually bounded only by the
range of geometrical and/or mechanical data, on which the component model is
based; (iii) the response of the joint can be controlled in design through the control
of the critical component(s), i.e., of the component(s) governing the key aspect of
the behaviour for the limit state considered.
43
A number of validation and calibration studies were carried out in the last decade,
and design criteria and recommendations were developed and included in the
Eurocodes 3 (2001) and Eurocode 4 (2002).
6 7 4
1. - Column web panel in shear

2. - Column web in compression
3. - Beam flange in compression
4. - Bolts in tension
5. - Column web in tension
2 3
6. - Column flange in bending

7.- End plate in bending
Figure 3.2. Mechanical model of the EC3 - Design of joints
A similar development, as to the novel importance of joints in design, took place in

earthquake engineering. The possible role of joints in the energy dissipation
mechanism was in fact recognised and the potential of semi-continuous frames in
seismic areas investigated. Design approaches based on conceptual design were
also proposed for steel as well as for composite frames. The limits of the traditional
approaches in appraising the joint response become even more evident when
cyclic loads are considered. A clear need for catching stiffness and strength
deterioration, and possible pinching effects associated with buckling and fracturing
of components and with the increase of lack-of-fit due to plastic deformations (in
particular in bolted connections), makes the requirements to be met by prediction
models more strict than in the case of static loading. The peculiar features listed
above for the component method make it a fairly appealing solution for modelling
joints also in seismic analysis. In particular, it should be stressed that it would allow
to concentrate on the cyclic response of individual components, which can be
investigated in a far more simple and economic way than the response of the
whole joint.
3.3
Semi-rigid partial-strength extended end plate connection
Extended end plate as well as flush end plate connections allow to realize joints
covering a rather wide range of strength and stiffness. In many instances they also
possess an adequate rotation capacity for plastic design. The complexity of the
44
response - influenced by the geometrical and mechanical parameters defining the

key structural components, i.e. the end plate, the bolts, the column flange and web,
the column panel zone - makes the experimental analysis vital research tool.
Numerous studies were also devoted to the simulation of joint behaviour through
numerical methods, in particular FE analysis with interesting results, which
complemented the test outcomes permitting their extension to a larger range of
cases of practical interest (Nethercot & Zandonini, 1988; Bose et al, 1996; Bursi
and Jaspart, 1997; Bursi and Jaspart, 1998; Bahaari and Sherbourne, 2000).
Despite important continuous advances in FE analysis, which enable more and
more refined approximations, the reliability of the results is still remarkably affected
by the importance of localised effects, e.g., the evolution of plate-contact area, boltplate interaction, low ductility of the Heat Affected Zones (HAZ) near welds, etc.
Besides, the associated burden makes this approach unfeasible in design practice,
and its cost efficiency remains rather low even for research purposes. However,
the knowledge of the behaviour of end plate connections under static loading was
more than adequate to develop and validate design models, which meet the recent
demand of semi-continuous frame design.
An extended end plate connection consists of a plate with bolt holes drilled or
punched, and shop welded to a beam section. The connection is completed in the
field when the beam end is bolted to a column. The extended end plate connection
is termed extended because the plate extends above or below the flange that will
be in tension under monotonic loading. In the case of extended end plate devoted
to seismic design, the end plate is extended above and below beam flanges.
The behaviour of this type of connection under cyclic loading has been
investigated, though at a lower extent than for the static case, and the main
features clearly identified, including the stiffness and strength deterioration, the
dependence on the loading history, and the typical modes of failure (Ghobarah et
al, 1990; Ghobarah et al, 1992; Bernuzzi et al, 1996; Kukreti and Biswas, 1997;
Adey et al, 1998). On the one hand, the increasing degree of complexity of the
phenomena involved with respect to the monotonic case is apparent, like also the
higher difficulty in setting up a model capable of approximating the hysteretic
behaviour under any type of loading history, with the accuracy level required in
seismic design (Deng et al, 2000). On the other hand, recent studies pointed out
that moment resisting semi-continuous steel frames can possess a satisfactory
seismic performance at competitive cost (Nader & Astaneh, 1991), which
underlines once more the lack of simplified, yet reliable, design criteria and joint
models. Such a limited knowledge hampers the practical use of semi-rigid frames
in seismic areas, despite they are accepted by recent Codes (AISC, 1997 and
Eurocode 8, 2002).
45
3.4
The experimental programme carried out at the DIMS
The study intends to discuss the main outcomes of research work related to the
experimental analysis of the cyclic behaviour of end plate joints and their Tee-stub
components, conducted by the Department of Mechanical and Structural
Engineering (DIMS) of the University of Trento. This study aims at developing joint
models enabling their seismic response to be captured in all its aspects, including
the damage initiation and evolution up to and at failure. The results of the extensive
experimental analysis were evaluated in terms of the main behavioural parameters
of interest in seismic design. They were then used to appraise the component
method, because of the particular interest in the extension of the model to the
cyclic range. Within a plane frame, an exterior joint connecting an IPE beam with
an HE exterior column is considered. In accordance with the Eurocode 3, the key
component, on which the attention is focussed, is assumed to be the Tee stub.
Along this line, isolated Tee stubs (ITS), Complete Tee stubs (CTS) and Complete
Joints (CJ) have been tested. The overall programme consists of 36 tests on three
sets of specimens of different complexity in terms of number of components
involved: the first set of specimens is illustrated in Figure 3.3a and comprises 10
Isolated Tee Stub connections assumed to be the elemental components of end
plate connections.
The basic geometrical characteristics of ITS connections are collected in Columns
2 of Table 3.1 while the corresponding bolt diameters are gathered in Column 3.
The second 8 specimens coupling a Tee stub with a column section as depicted
schematically in Figure 3.3b. These specimens reflect both the behaviour of ITS
and of column components. Relevant properties of CTS specimens are collected in
Table 3.2. Moreover, ITS and column stubs are coupled to generate different
typical thickness over bolt diameter ratios. The third set includes 18 complete
beam-to-column joints. Specimens are illustrated schematically in Figure 3.3c while
the corresponding geometrical properties are reported in Table 3.3. Specimens
were designed to achieve a partial strength and ductile behaviour through plasticity
both at the beam-to-column connection and at the column web panel.
The parameters investigated where:
the joint geometry in terms of: end plate thickness 12 and 18mm, bolt
diameter, 16, 20 and 24 mm, column section, i.e. HEA180 and 280,
HEB180 and 280;
the loading history: 7 histories depicted in Figure 3.4 were considered in

addition to the monotonic loading.
46
c)
120
2000
520
1000
105
180
120
300
b)
230
180
120
150
75 75
a)
IPE 300
t
180
105
Figure 3.3. (a) Isolated Tee stub; (b) Coupled Tee stub; (c) Complete Joint
Specimen
TM-1
TC-1
TM-2
TC-2
TM-3
TC-3
TM-4
TC-4
TC-5
TC-6
tp
Bolt diameter
(mm)
(mm)
12
16
12
16
12
20
12
20
18
20
18
20
18
24
18
24
25
20
25
24
Displacement
test procedure
Monotonic
SDTP - 2
Monotonic
SDTP - 2
Monotonic
SDTP - 2
Monotonic
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
Table 3.1. Properties of Isolated Tee Stubs
Specimen
C1B1-1
C1B2-1
C1A1-2
C1A2-2
C1B1-3
C1B2-3
C1B1-4
C1A2-4
tp Bolt diameter
(mm)
(mm)
12
16
12
16
12
20
12
20
18
20
18
20
18
24
18
24
Column
HEB180
HEB280
HEA180
HEA280
HEB180
HEB280
HEB180
HEA280
tcf
(mm)
14
18
9.5
13
14
18
14
13
Displacement
test procedure
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
SDTP - 2
Table 3.2. Properties of Coupled Tee Stubs
47
Specimen
JA1-2A
JA1-2B
JA1-2C
JA1-2D
JA1-2E
JA1-2E
JA1-2M
JA1-2R
JB1-3A
JB1-3B
JB1-3C
JB1-3D
JB1-3E
JB1-3F
JB1-3M
JB1-3R
JB1-4
JA2-4
tp Bolt diameter
(mm)
(mm)
12
20
12
20
12
20
12
20
12
20
12
20
12
20
12
20
18
20
18
20
18
20
18
20
18
20
18
20
18
20
18
20
18
24
18
24
Column
HEA180
HEA180
HEA180
HEA180
HEA180
HEA180
HEA180
HEA180
HEB180
HEB180
HEB180
HEB180
HEB180
HEB180
HEB180
HEB180
HEB180
HEA280
tcf
(mm)
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
Displacement
test procedure
SDTP - 1
SDTP - 1
SDTP - 3
SDTP - 4
SDTP - 5
SDTP - 6
Monotonic
SDTP - 7
SDTP - 1
SDTP - 1
SDTP - 3
SDTP - 4
SDTP - 5
SDTP - 6
Monotonic
SDTP - 7
SDTP - 1
SDTP - 1
Table 3.3. Properties of Complete Joints
All bolts are 8.8 grade bolts preloaded to the 40% of the actual yield strength in
order to roughly simulate the condition corresponding to the pretension induced by
hand tightening up to the snug tight condition. The geometries of the components
(Tee stubs, bolts and column section) are coupled in such a way to cover a range
of relative component stiffness (Tee stub thickness to bolt diameter for the isolated
Tee stubs and Tee stub thickness to column flange thickness for the coupled Tee
stubs and full joint specimens) of significance for practical interest.
48
20
10
10
SDTP-1
(ECCS,1986)
8
6
4
-20
20
10
0
10
8
a)
-2
-4
SDTP-2
-6
-8
b)
CYCLE NUMBER
6
4
2
0
e/ey+
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
-6
d)
-10
-8
CYCLE NUMBER
20
SDTP-6
16
12
0
-2
-8
-12
f)
-16
CYCLE NUMBER
SDTP-7
-6
-8
CYCLE NUMBER
-4
-4
-10
e)
-10
e/ey+
e/ey+
SDTP-5
10
CYCLE NUMBER
10
-8
c)
-10
SDTP-4
e/ey+
e/ey+
e/ey+
-10
SDTP-3
-20
g)
CYCLE NUMBER
Figure 3.4. Controlled displacement test protocols: a) and b) Variable amplitude cycles in
accordance with the ECCS Procedure (1986); c) Constant amplitude cycles; d), e) and f)
Large amplitudes cycles superimposed upon constant amplitude cycles; g) Random
amplitude cycles.
49
3.4.1
Material properties
Particular attention was paid to the mechanical and fracture-related properties of

the structural components and of the fasteners (welds and bolts). The relevant
results of tension coupon tests conducted on samples from end plates, bolts,
profiles and fillets of weld are collected in Table 3.4.
Component
IPE 300
HEA 180
HEB 180
HEA 280
HEB 280
Flange
Web
Flange
Web
Flange
Web
Flange
Web
Flange
Web
End Plate
End Plate
End Plate
Weld Met.
Weld Met.*
Bolt
Bolt
Bolt
t
(mm)
10.2
7.1
9.4
6.0
13.8
8.3
12.4
8.6
16.7
10.6
12.5
18.0
25.8
5.4
5.4
16
20
24
y
(%)
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.23
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.11
0.19
0.18
0.52
0.43
0.42
u
(%)
43.58
40.88
38.99
37.14
43.61
43.01
34.61
31.64
34.61
45.39
43.65
22.14
31.44
26.76
3.9
2.59
4.50
6.25
u/y
272.4
240.5
216.6
206.3
363.4
253.0
203.6
137.6
216.3
453.9
335.8
138.4
285.8
140.8
21.7
5.0
10.5
14.9
fy
fmax fmax/fy
(MPa) (MPa)
307
471
1.53
328
477
1.46
317
471
1.49
373
494
1.32
292
478
1.64
316
493
1.56
413
528
1.28
428
545
1.27
266
440
1.65
270
462
1.71
260
442
1.70
318
441
1.39
262
434
1.66
355
489
1.38
441
528
1.20
813
890
1.10
888
948
1.07
816
882
1.08
*Specimen with flaws
Table 3.4. Mechanical Properties of Specimens
The strength properties of structural elements are in satisfactory accordance with

the nominal values for S275 steel, whose yield strength fy and ultimate tensile
strength fu are equal to 275 and 430 MPa respectively (Eurocode 3, 2001). The
material performance generally meets the Codes requirements both for strength
and deformation capacity: the ultimate elongation eu is greater than 20% and the
ultimate material ductility (eu/ey) achieves fairly high values. However, as far as
strength limitation are concerned, in a few cases fy/ fy,nom was beyond the limit of 35
per cent allowed by Eurocode 8 (2002) recommendation on the material
overstrength. Moreover, the strength fmax/fy ratio very often exceeds the value of
50
1.25 specified by the seismic provisions of AISC (1992) and therefore, hardening of
cyclic stress-strain curve is expected.
The performance of structural joints under recent strong earthquakes pointed out
the significant importance of weld design and execution. Therefore, beam stubs
were connected to end plates by means of fillet welds, executed with special care
by licensed welders. The welding technology was Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW)
with Metal Active Gas (MAG) shielding and no preheating. A filler metal was
selected, characterized by a nominal yield stress fy equal to 420 MPa and a
nominal ultimate strength fu of about 520 MPa, respectively. This deliberate
strength overmatch by the filler metal aimed at shifting the expected failure planes
to the base metal adjacent to the weld. The test values of the yield and ultimate
tensile strength for the weld metal samples extracted from virgin specimens comply
well with the nominal ones as reported in Table 3.4.
3.4.2
Fracture mechanics-based characterization
A series of laboratory tests was carried out to characterize the end plate material in
its different microstructural states. As a matter of fact owing to the filler metal and
the uneven temperature distribution, a welded joint is a compound of three different
metallurgical regions: the fusion zone, the heat affected zone (HAZ), and the
unaffected base metal. The HAZ is the area adjacent to the fusion zone, where the
material has undergone a thermal cycle that alters the microstructure of the base
material, though the temperature is too low to determine fusion.
The microstructural characterization was performed by means of the optical
microscope in order to determine the microstructural state in the different zones.
Then, Vickers hardness measurements were carried out on different regions of the
specimens highlighted by etching. Such results are reported in Table 3.5
A further important characteristic in seismic design is the material toughness, in
particular in the HAZ. In order to meet this requirement filler material was selected
with nominal toughness, as obtained through a Charpy V-Notch impact energy test
(ASTM, 1988) greater than 70 J at -20 C and 50 J at -40 C.
A series of Charpy impact tests was then carried out to characterize the notch
toughness values both of base metal and of weld metal in two different directions.
Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5 collect sample values extracted along (L) and
orthogonally (T) the rolling-mill direction as shown schematically in Figure 3.5.
More specifically, one may observe that large differences exist between the
relevant impact energy values. This trend may be explained recalling that along the
rolling-mill direction, the material microstructure is an aligned multi-layered
structure with ductile behaviour made up of ferrite and perlite.
51
Specimen
JA1-2**
JB1-3**
JA1-2B**
JB1-3B**
TC-2*
TC-2**
TC-3*
TC-3**
* Virgin
CVN J @ 20 C
Material
75
294
91
232
24
75
27
83
67
107
79
105
78
124
82
246
Weld (W)
End Plate (EP)
W
EP
W
EP
W
EP
W
EP
W
EP
W
EP
W
EP
HV (daN)
152
244
103
>300
196
198
223
205
259
180
234
188
151
151
143
139
288
133
297
159
241
180
297
130
** Failed
Table 3.5. Fracture Properties of Specimens
W = Weld
EP = End Plate
L = Longitudinal
T = Transversal
EP-T
HAZ
W-L
EP-L
Figure 3.5. Locations and sample for Charpy VNotch Impact Energy Test
Therefore, more energy dissipation capacity can be provided. Moreover, the impact
energy tests show that both the base metal and the weld metal are endowed with
satisfactory CVN levels at room temperature, viz. with values higher than the
minimum ones established by design codes. As the above impact tests were
instrumented, we could track the evolution of the applied load in addition to the
total absorbed energy. This allows identification of the various deformation and
fracture process stages. More specifically, the crack initiates after considerable
plastic deformation of the specimen. After an initial unstable propagation, it
52
propagates in a stable way converting a large part of the absorbed energy into
plastic work.
Both the material characterization and the specimen failure mechanisms pointed
out the need of fracture mechanics tests in order to define the fracture toughness
of the base material in the elastic-plastic regime. These tests, performed according
to the ASTM E 813-89 code (1989), permitted the determination of the critical value
J1c, viz. the change of the elastic-plastic work per unit crack extension at the onset
of stable crack extension. Moreover, the critical value of the crack tip opening
displacement (CTOD), in agreement with ASTM E 1290-93 code (1993) was
measured. It provides a unique estimate of localized plastic strain. The samples
used to determine J1c embodied a mechanical notch that was sharpened with a
fatigue pre-crack induced by a constant amplitude sinusoidal loading. The multiplespecimen technique was adopted being the specimens drawn from the end plate
normal to the weld bead. After fatigue pre-cracking, the specimens were subjected
to a displacement controlled three-point bending test up to the crack extension. A
2
value of J1c equal to 115 kJ/m was obtained in accordance with literature data
(SAC Background Reports, 1997). In addition, the critical value of the crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) was measured. In detail, the crack mouth opening
displacement was detected through a displacement gauge, by means of quasistatic bending tests on a pre-cracked specimen. A value of 0.31 mm was obtained,
showing a good correlation with the corresponding J1c value. As a matter of fact,
the J1c value can be converted into the CTOD index through the following
relationship:
J1c = m y CTOD
( 3.1 )
where m is the so-called constraint factor. It is worthwhile to emphasize that CTOD

values computed through the correlation in Equation (3.1) are approximate owing
to the inherent variation of toughness properties of materials in building
construction.
3.4.3
Testing equipment and measuring apparatus
All specimens were tested in a rigid reaction frame, illustrated in Figure 3.6. In
detail, ITS specimens were connected directly to the rigid counter-beam of the
frame while a column stub was attached to the counter-beam in order to test CTS
specimens as illustrated in Figure 3.6a. The loading arrangement relevant to CJ
specimens is depicted in Figure 3.6b. The column is kept horizontal and hinged at
both ends at the distance of 2000 mm while the horizontal loading is applied at the
53
beam top. Displacements were applied to the free end of the specimen by means
of a servo-controlled hydraulic actuator while a jack imposed an axial load of 300
530
kN to one column end.

Actuator
Load Cell
Reaction
Frame
F,
2970
Specimen
Hydraulic Actuator
a)
Specimen
Jack
G
N=300kN
b)
530
Reaction
Frame
530
530
5060
Figure 3.6. Test set-up and boundary condition for: a) Isolated Tee stubs and
coupled Tee stubs specimens; b) Complete Joint specimens.
H
I
B B
A
HC
D(E)
D(E)
I
D
a)
H
F
H
b)
I
Figure 3.7. Details of the measuring apparatus for a Complete

Joint
For brevity, only the instrumentation used in the CJ specimens is illustrated in

Figure 3.7. It allows to detect the overall joint displacements as well as the
contributions of the various components. In detail, displacement transducers
(LVDTs) enabled detection of the following average quantities:
1. Connection uplift (LVDTs A);
54
2. Connection uplift measured on the beam web at 20 mm above the end

plate (LVDTs B);
3. Lateral displacements measured on the beam flange in the web plane
(LVDTs C);
4. Column flange movement along the end plate edge (LVDTs D);
5. Column web movement along the beam flange (LVDTs E);
6. Bottom column flange displacements located at 20 mm from the column
web plane (LVDTs F);
7. Displacements of the column ends (see LVDTs G in Figure 3.6).
We note that all the above measurements are taken with respect to a reference
frame. Moreover, four LVDTs H were adopted to measure the vertical movement of
bolts, while the bolt shank elongation was detected by means of LVDTs I as
illustrated in Figure 3.7b. The calibration of LVDTs I by means of companion bolts
tested under a universal machine allowed also bolt forces to be detected. As a
result, the prying forces that were developed at the end plate-column flange
interface were estimated indirectly in a rather accurate fashion.
Joint components can be characterized directly by means of LVDT measurements
while the joint behaviour of CJ specimens can be summarized in moment-rotation
relationships. In detail, the joint rotation reads
= b f r
( 3.2 )
in which b represents the rotation of the beam at the end plate level as illustrated
in Figure 3.8, f denotes the elastic deformation of the column while r denotes any
rigid rotation of the column owing to the flexibility of the equipment supporting the
column. Such a rigid rotation was detected by means of LVDTs G illustrated in
Figure 3.6b. Besides the joint rotation defined in Eq. (3.2), the measuring
apparatus allows the following rotations to be estimated:
conn = b c
( 3.3 )
= c f r
( 3.4 )
viz. the connection rotation con and the shear deformation of the column web
panel, respectively.
55
M col,t
V col,t
N col,t
f
c
b
V beam
N beam
M beam
N col,b
V col,b
M col,b
Figure 3.8. Definition of rotations for a Complete
Joint
3.4.4
Testing procedure
Predefined representative displacement histories are usually applied in order to

characterize the behaviour of specimens under hysteretic loading. The problem of
the displacement pattern arises especially under seismic loading, as unique fatigue
relationships are strictly valid only for constant-amplitude displacement reversals.
Real structures, however, seldom conform to this ideal as they can be subjected to
multitude of displacement patterns of varying degrees of complexity. In these
instances, probability-density curves able to characterize random-amplitude
displacements should be employed. In order to reduce the problem complexity, a
heuristic approach is adopted in this study, applying to the specimens several
displacement histories lying between the extremes of constant-amplitude and
random-amplitude displacement reversals.
In order to define conveniently displacement patterns, a conventional elastic limit
+
state characterized by the displacement ey and the corresponding force Fy can be

defined on the first part of each non-linear response envelope obtained from
monotonic tests as depicted in Figure 3.9, schematically. The tri-linear
approximation of each curve, is determined on the basis of best-fitting and of the
equivalence of the dissipated energy between the actual non-linear response and
+
the idealized tri-linear approximation up to (emax , Fmax ). Then, the linear elastic
+
response with slope Ke and the linear strain-hardening response with slope Kh
56

+
define the coordinates (ey , Fy ), of concern for the serviceability limit state.
+
Imposing the condition F = Fy = Fu the ultimate displacement capacity eu can be

+
evaluated. Being Fu < Fmax , this definition implies a certain level of strength
degradation. Such procedure can also be applied to the non-linear forcedisplacement envelope of the cyclic response of a specimen and therefore, the
+
ultimate displacement ductility factor eu /ey can be evaluated also in a cyclic

regime.
(Fmax+,emax+)
(Fy +,ey +) (F e )
+ +
p , p
Kh+
(Fu+ ,eu+ )
+
e,r
Envelope
Trilinear approx.
Bilinear approx.
(Fe +,ee +)
Ke+
e
Figure 3.9. Bi- and tri-linear fits of a force-displacement envelope
To acquire comprehensive sets of information from the specimens, the so-called

Complete Testing Procedure proposed by the European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork (ECCS Procedure, 1986) was used. This sequential
displacement test protocol SDTP-1, which is illustrated in Figure 3.4a, is adopted to
acquire data on the specimen capacity such as the maximum strength, ultimate
+
displacement ductility eu /ey , maximum absorbed energy, etc. A variant of this

procedure, labelled SDTP-2, and suitable to ITS and CTS is depicted in Figure
3.4b. The procedure SDTP-3 illustrated in Figure 3.4c, is characterized by a set of
+
equi-amplitude constant displacements at 6e y, in agreement with the Cumulative

Damage Testing Program (1992). This procedure provides the basis for developing
fatigue-life relationships. Moreover, additional test protocols were conceived to
investigate the displacement sequence effects on cumulative damage. In
particular, the SDTP-4-SDTP-6 test protocols illustrated in Figure 3.4d-f, are
characterized with large displacement reversals reproducing seismic pulses
superimposed upon constant amplitude displacement fluctuations. Finally, the
SDTP-7 test protocol is plotted in Figure 3.4g and was derived from simulations on
steel frames exposed to an artificial accelerogram matching the Type 1 elastic
response spectrum suggested in Eurocode 8 (2002) for subsoil class A. This type
of displacement sequence provides a convenient benchmark for compare random
57
amplitude testing. The different loading histories considered are built up to

appraise the influence on the cyclic joint response, and in particular on the damage
evolution, of different sequences of cycle amplitudes, simulating some features of
the seismic input. Tests were carried out quasi-statically. Therefore, an increase in
the ductility capacity compared to equivalent specimens loaded dynamically would
be expected, considering that fracture toughness of steel decreases with the strain
rate growth. However, tests on welded beam-to-column connections performed by
Suita et al. (1998) pointed out the equivalence between quasi-static and dynamic
tests with regard to ductility. Moreover, the strength as well as the absorbed energy
is larger for dynamic loading than for quasi-static loading confirming that quasistatic test procedures lead to a conservative appraisal of these key parameters.
3.5
Main results and preliminary seismic assessment
The results of the study are briefly presented in this section, focused on the
experimental outcomes and their first assessment in the perspective of seismic
design. The three sets of tests are here considered separately. The significance of
these results in view of the validation of the component method is dealt with in
Section 3.6.
3.5.1
Isolated Tee stubs
The applied load versus the upward displacement curves of the Tee stub web
represent an important overall indicator of the specimens behaviour to be
associated with the failure mode in order to understand the influence of the
parameters investigated, i.e., the plate thickness, the bolt diameter and their ratio.
Figure 3.10 illustrates a typical Tee stub response with reference to the case of 12
mm end plate thickness t and 20 mm diameter bolts. Both the monotonic and cyclic
responses are plotted, showing that the envelope of the latter one lies very close to
the monotonic curve for a first significant portion of the loading process.
Progressive strength deterioration, associated to the increase of end plate plastic
deformations and damage at the weld toe, is then occurring. As illustrated in Figure
3.11, at the ultimate limit state the TM-2 specimen was characterized by a collapse
mechanism with four yield lines located at the bolt-holes and at the weld toes in
accordance with Mode 1 failure (Eurocode 3, 2001). The corresponding specimen
58
subject to cyclic loading, TC-2, experienced premature plate fractures at a hot spot
of plastic strain concentration located at weld toes.
REACTION FORCE (kN)
500
375
250
125
0
-125
-250
-375
TM-2
TC-2
-500
0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
10
Figure 3.10. Experimental response of TM-2 and TC-2

Isolated Tee stubs
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.11. Collapse mechanism for (a) the TM-2 specimen; (b) TC-2 specimen
As a result, cyclic loading reduces significantly both the ultimate strength and the
displacement ductility factors. Close observation of the plate failure reveals that
brittle fracture evolved in three sequential phases: i) the initiation of a ductile crack
at the steel surface owing to plastic strains; ii) a stable growth of a ductile crack in
59
the plate thickness; iii) a sudden propagation of the crack in a brittle fracture mode.
However, the test indicates that the fillet welds performed well and were able to
develop the required cyclic strength.
Similar considerations apply to the specimens with plate thickness equal to 18 mm.
As expected, the specimen TM-3 was characterized by a Mode 2 failure according
to Eurocode 3, with two yield lines located at the weld toes, whilst specimen TC-3
failed by plate fracture close to the weld toes following the same sequence
described above for the TC-2 specimen.
REACTION FORCE (kN)
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
TM-3
TC-3
-800
0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
10
Figure 3.12. Experimental response of TM-3 and TC-3

Isolated Tee stubs
A comparative assessment of the hysteretic performances of TC-2 and TC-3

specimens can be based on the relation between the mean energy ratio (i.e., the
ratio between the absorbed energy, averaged on three cycles, and the energy
dissipated per complete cycle by an equivalent elastic-plastic oscillator) and the
maximum ductility e/ey (ECCS, 1986). Such a comparison pointed out that: (i)
owing to the Mode 1 failure pattern which involves four yield lines, the TC-2
specimen is able to absorb greater amounts of energy also at smaller ductility
+
ratios; (ii) the ultimate displacement ductility factor e u/e
(see Figure 3.9) are 73
and 53 for the TC-2 and TC-3 specimen, respectively. Thereby, the TC-2 specimen
performs better both in terms of absorbed energy and of ductility, as illustrated in
Figure 3.13.
60
RELATIVE ENERGY
0.5
TC-2
TC-3
eu/ey
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100 120 140
PARTIAL DUCTILITY
160
Figure 3.13. Relative dissipated energy vs. partial

ductility for the TC-2 and TC-3 Isolated Tee stubs
3.5.2
Coupled Tee Stubs
Different inelastic mechanisms were observed in coupled Tee stub tests,

associated with different relative stiffness and strength of the relevant components:
the Tee stub, the column flange and the bolts. The total thickness of the connected
parts; i.e. column flange and Tee stub plate, also seems to affect the response.
Figure 3.14a compares the responses of specimens C1A1-2 and C1A2-2, different
for the column section, which is a HEA180 in the former and a HEA280 in the latter
test. It is apparent that specimen C1A1-2 is characterized by large energy
absorption and displacement ductility, due to the extensive plastic deformation
occurring in both the Tee stub with t = 12mm and the column flange with tf = 9.5
mm. Failure was attained by brittle fracture of the Tee stub weld toes after crack
propagation. The C1A2-2 specimen has a thicker column flange, i.e. tf = 13mm,
which caused inelastic phenomena to concentrate in the Tee stub only. This results
in lower displacement ductility and energy absorption, while pinching phenomena
appear in last cycles. As to the corresponding two 18 mm plate thickness
specimens (see Figure 3.14b), specimen C1B1-3 with a HEB180 column section
with tf = 14mm experienced inelastic phenomena in the sole column flange, which
resulted in a limited energy absorption and maximum displacements capability,
while in the specimen C1B2-3 with a HEB280 profile and tf = 18mm plastic
phenomena occurred both in the Tee stub and in the column flange, enabling
61
larger displacement ductilities to be achieved; pinching phenomena appeared in

the last cycles, when brittle failure developed at the weld toes of the tee stub.
REACTION FORCE (kN)
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
C1A1-2
C1A2-2
-400
0
12
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
15
(a)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
700
525
350
175
0
-175
-350
-525
C1B1-3
C1B2-3
-700
0
1.5
4.5
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
7.5
(b)
Figure 3.14. Experimental response of (a) C1A1-2 and

C1A2-2; (b) C1B1-3 and C1B2-3 Coupled Tee stubs
Pinching somehow depends on the relative thickness of the connection plate to the
column flange, and increased with the increase of this ratio. However, all the
coupled Tee stub specimens showed less important pinching than the isolated
corresponding isolated Tee stubs. On the one hand, the C1A1-2 specimen, which
62
is associated with the coupling of two thin elements with relatively heavy bolts,
showed the best performance in terms of mean energy ratio. On the other hand,
the coupling of a thick Tee stub with a column flange of similar thickness like the
C1B2-3 specimen ensues the lowest energy ratio.
3.5.3
Complete Joints
On the basis of the results of the coupled Tee stub tests, attention is focused on
joints JA1-2 and JB1-3, which appear to be more adequate in terms of seismic
design requirements. In this subsection the monotonic tests will be discussed as
well as the cyclic tests adopting the ECCS displacement procedure (1986). The
subsequent set of tests adopting the different procedures shown in Figure 3.4
aimed at providing data for the calibration of damage models considered but will
not be discussed in this study. Both the monotonic and the cyclic moment rotation
response relative to the Complete Joint endowed with a 12 mm end plate thickness
coupled with the column of HEA180 profile, i.e. JB1-2M and JB1-2A specimen,
respectively are illustrated in Figure 3.15.
REACTION MOMENT (kNm)
120
90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90
JA1-2A
JA1-2M
-120
-75
-50
-25
25
50
75
ROTATION (mrad)
100 125
Figure 3.15. Experimental response of JA1-2M and

JA1-2A Complete Joints
Similar behavioural features were observed for the joint JB1-3A, and for the twin
specimens JA1-2B and JB1-3B (see Figure 3.16). These joints exhibited failure at
weld toes in the end plate part outside the beam section owing to fragile crack
propagation, as illustrated in Figure 3.17. This indicates a satisfactory behaviour of
the fillet welds. The monotonic response is characterized by inelastic phenomena
63
activated in the end plate, the column flange and the column web panel in shear.
With regard to the cyclic response, one can observe that total rotations of CJ reach
values higher than 45 mrad, implying a suitable ductile behaviour for high ductile
(class H) structures in seismic applications (Astaneh-Asl, 1995; Eurocode 8, 2002).
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
JB1-3A
JB1-3M
-200
-75
-50
-25
25
50
75
ROTATION (mrad)
100 125
Figure 3.16. Experimental response of JB1-3M and

JB1-3A Complete Joints
Figure 3.17. Fracture of an end plate in a Complete Joint
The percentage of the energy dissipated by the different component of the joint is
reported in Figure 3.18. The most ductile components are:
64
the column web panel in shear (component 1 of Figure 3.2;
the column flange in bending (component 6);
the end plate in bending (component 7).
ENERGY ABSORBTION (KJ)
It is evident that the contribution of the column web panel is significant in all cases.
! #
$!
! "
! #
Figure 3.18. Percentage of energy dissipated by the components
The mean energy ratios as well as the ultimate ductility ratios indicate a
satisfactory cyclic performance. All joint components can reach mean energy ratios
higher than 0.5, while ultimate rotational ductilities j,u/j,y range from 8 to 21. The
results for the component 6 (column flange in bending) and for the component 7
(end plate in bending) of the specimens JA1-2 and JB1-3 are illustrated in Figure
3.19. Joint JA2-4, which also reached plastic rotations greater than 30 mrad, was
characterized by a mean energy ratio below 0.5.
As far as the joint classification is concerned, it is important to underline that the
Eurocode 3 (2001) permits a classification valid only for monotonic loads. In this
study this approach is taken into account for an extension under seismic loading
history. The response envelopes lie within the semi-rigid range of Eurocode 3 for
unbraced frames, when typical beam lengths ranging from 4 to 8 m are taken into
account.
65

1
RELATIVE ENERGY
RELATIVE ENERGY
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
JB1-3 (Component 6)
JB1-3 (Component 7)
JA1-2 (Component 6)
JA1-2 (Component 7)
0
0
10
12
14
16
PARTIAL DUCTILITY
18
(a)
10 12 14 16 18 20
PARTIAL DUCTILITY
(b)
Figure 3.19. Relative dissipated energy vs. partial ductility for the components 6 and 7 of:
(a) JA1-2 and (b) JB1-3 Complete joints
According to stiffness, a joint can be classified as:
rigid: its deformations has no significant influence on the distribution of the

internal forces and moments in the structure or on its overall deformation.
Numerically we obtain:
i) for moment resisting unbraced frames:
2
3
if
if
2
< m 1,0
3
m 25
25 + 4
7
( 3.5 )
( 3.6 )
ii) for braced frames:

2
3
if
if
2
< m 1,0
3
( 3.7 )
m 8
20 + 3
7
( 3.8 )
whit:
m
66
M
M pl ,Rd
( 3.9 )
E s Ib
Lb M pl ,Rd
( 3.10 )
where:
Mpl,Rd
beam plastic moment;
Ib
moment of inertia of the beam;
Lb
beam length;
Es
steel Young modulus.
nominally pinned: it cannot develop significant moments, which might

adversely affect members of the structure
Numerically we obtain:
if
0,5
if
0,5
m 0,25
( 3.11 )
( 3.12 )
semi-rigid: a joint, which does not meet the criteria for a rigid joint or a
nominally pinned joint, shall be classified as a semi-rigid joint.
The aforementioned formulas are represented in the following Figure 3.20.
Rigid Joint
1
2/3
Semi-rigid Joint
0,25
_
1
Pinned Joint
0,5
Figure 3.20. Classification of the Joint in accordance with Eurocode 3
According to strength, a joint can be classified as full-strength, partial strength or

nominally pinned by comparing its moment resistance with the moment resistances
of the connected members. In detail:
67
Full strength joint:
m 1
( 3.13 )
Partial strength joint:
0,25 m 1
( 3.14 )
Nominally pinned joint: m 0,25
( 3.15 )
Furthermore, all the considered joints can be classified as partial strength joints, as
illustrated in Figure 3.21 for the JA1-2 specimen endowed with an end plate
thickness of 12 mm and in Figure 3.22 for the JB1-3 specimens endowed with an
end plate thickness of 18 mm.
1.2
Limit = 35 mrad
1
M/Mpl,Rd
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
JA1-2A
JA1-2B
JA1-2M
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
/(Mpl,RdL b/Es Ib)
1.2
Figure 3.21. Classification of the JA1-2 Complete

Joint for Lb = 8m
68

1.2
Limit = 35 mrad
1
M/Mpl,Rd
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
JB1-3A
JB1-3B
JB1-3M
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
/(Mpl,RdL b/Es Ib)
1.2
Figure 3.22. Classification of the JB1-3 Complete

Joint for Lb = 8m
3.6
Validation of the component method
The complete set of measured parameters provides detailed information on the

responses of the various components to the applied displacement history. These
data enable a quantitative appraisal of the role played by each component, pointing
out the effect of relative stiffness and strength of the components associated with
geometry and material of the specimen. The attention is hence focused on the use
of these data in order to for check the general validity of the joint model by
component with reference to the approximation of the cyclic response.
A first appraisal can be achieved by comparing the response of the same individual
component as part of different specimens (isolated Tee stub, coupled Tee stub and
complete joint). Such a comparison is somehow difficult because of the type of
displacement history adopted, which determines the amplitude of the inelastic
cycles as a multiple of the elastic limit displacement. As this parameter depends on
the specimen, a direct comparison of cyclic responses related to different
specimens is not feasible. However, reference can be made to the maximum and
minimum values of parameters such as forces and displacements, ductility indices
and absorbed energy.
69
The end plate represents an important component for the joints considered. The
end plate responses of the isolated Tee stub TC-2 and Complete Joint JA1-2A are
plotted in Figure 3.23. As mentioned above, the testing procedure imposes
different cycle amplitudes and affects the number of cycles at failure. However, the
collapse mode is the same, i.e., by plate fracturing, and the evolution of the
hysteretic behaviour has similar features. A comparison between the maximum
force and displacement shows an overestimate of the first parameter of 7% and an
underestimate of the second of 13% with reference to the Tee stub response. The
influence of the interaction between the different components in the joint appears
to be limited. The same comparison between the joint JB1-3 and the corresponding
Tee stubs TC-3 shows similar results, as evidenced in Figure 3.24.
REACTION FORCE (kN)
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
TC-2
JA1-2A (ENDPLATE)
-400
0
Figure
3.23.
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Comparison
of
the
10
experimental
response of the Tee stub TC-2 and the End plate of

the Complete Joint JA1-2A
A more accurate appraisal of the responses of the elemental components can be

obtained if reference is made to key parameters, such as the initial elastic stiffness
and the plastic failure strength, which characterize the envelope of the cyclic
response. A conventional elastic stiffness Ke, a plastic failure strength Fp and an
ultimate displacement ductility factor eu/ey were determined by the bi- and tri-linear
approximations of the envelope curve, traced on the basis of best-fitting and
dissipated energy-equivalence criteria. Values of the elastic stiffness Ke relevant to
the components of joints JA1-2 and JB1-3 and to the corresponding isolated and
coupled Tee stubs are presented in Table 3.6.
70
REACTION FORCE (kN)
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
TC-3
JB1-3 (END PLATE)
-800
0
Figure
3.24.
1.5
4.5
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Comparison
of
the
7.5
experimental
response of TC-3 and End plate of JB1-3A Complete

Joint
EXPERIMENTAL
Ke (kN/mm)
Component
EUROCODE 3
Ke,code (kN/mm)
Ke
Ke,code
1
6
7
TC-2
C1A1-2
JA1-2A
JA1-2B
JA1-2M
TC-2
C1A1-2
JA1-2
TC-2
C1A1-2
JA1-2
----1393
--744
795
248
334
1979
205
236
428
206
633
2539
----378
--776
378
685
776
378
----3,7
--1,0
2,1
0,3
0,5
4,4
Component
TC-3
C1B1-3
JB1-3A
JB1-3B
JB1-3M
TC-3
C1B1-3
JB1-3
TC-3
C1B1-3
JB1-3
----3003
--1417
2363
266
869
2507
286
568
345
256
1093
1931
----1020
--3790
1020
796
3790
1020
----2,9
--0,4
2,3
0,3
0,2
1,6
1
6
7
EXPERIMENTAL
Fp (kN)
Component
1
6
7
Component
1
6
7
EUROCODE 3
Fp,code (kN)
Fp
Fp,code
TC-2
C1A1-2
JA1-2A
JA1-2B
JA1-2M
TC-2
C1A1-2
JA1-2
TC-2
C1A1-2
JA1-2
----234
--184
201
193
226
264
235
229
258
279
228
257
----146
--326
146
288
326
146
----1,6
--0,6
1,4
0,8
0,7
1,8
TC-3
C1B1-3
JB1-3A
JB1-3B
JB1-3M
TC-3
C1B1-3
JB1-3
TC-3
C1B1-3
JB1-3
----417
--322
359
344
388
417
352
422
423
469
379
402
----396
--564
396
346
564
396
----1,1
--0,6
0,9
1,1
0,7
1,0
Components: 1. Column web panel in shear; 6. Column flange in bending; 7. end plate in bending
Table 3.6. Elastic stiffness ke and plastic failure strength f p of joint components
The elemental components, which give the most significant contribution, have been
considered. Joints JA1-2 and JB1-3 have been selected for their satisfactory
performance and as representative of joints with thin and thick extended end plates
respectively. Differences among the stiffness of the same elemental components
71
as part of different specimen are noticeable. However, it has to be noted that the
initial stiffness is very sensitive to boundary conditions and lack of fit. Table 3.6
also gathers the elastic stiffness Ke,code computed in accordance with Eurocode 3
(2001). The stiffness ratios Ke/Ke,code lie in a wide range, with the level of accuracy
of the EC3 models being generally unsatisfactory.
With regard to the experimental plastic failure strength Fp, defined in accordance
with the tri-linear approximation of the response envelope, the differences for the
same component in different specimens are more limited than the ones for the
elastic stiffness. However, they are still remarkable. Such differences are a
consequence of the interaction, which affects the location and evolution of plastic
zones. With regard to the Eurocode 3 prediction model, the plastic strength (Fp,code)
was computed using measured material properties and no resistance factors.
These strength values are also collected in Table 3.6. The Eurocode
underestimates significantly the strength of thin end plates, while it tends to
overestimate, even remarkably, most of the other components. This seems to
depend mainly on the coupling effects among different components, which is not
considered in the code. Moreover, non-seismic codes do not consider the
development of low cycle fatigue phenomena, which lead to initiation and
propagation of cracks, and affect the yield lines sequence.
A further comparison relevant to the absorbed energy was limited to the 6th
elemental component column flange in bending and to the 7th elemental
component end plate in bending, which dissipate most of the energy within the
connection. The comparison is performed with reference to the relation between
the mean energy ratio and the displacement ductility in the i-th cycle (ECCS,
1986).
The elemental component column flange in bending for component parts and joints
embodying a thin (12mm) extended end plate showed similar mean energy ratios
approaching values of about 0.7 in the coupled Tee stubs and in the complete
+
joints, but ultimate positive partial ductilities e u/e
vary between 13 and 23, with
the higher value related to the coupled Tee stubs. With reference to the 7th
component, the ultimate partial ductility ranges from 9 (Complete Joint) to 13
(Isolated Tee Stub), while the mean energy ratios vary between 0.6 (Isolated Tee
Stub) to 0.8 (Coupled Tee stub). A similar comparison for the 6th and 7th
elemental components in joints embodying thick extended end plate of t =18 mm
+
shows even greater differences of ultimate displacement ductility factors e u/e
and maximum values of the mean energy ratios. An evaluation of these results
leads to consider the component method not sufficiently accurate for approximating
the cyclic response, at least for the joint configuration considered in the study. The
extension of this model in seismic analysis does not seem straightforward, when
72
based on elemental components as defined in the Eurocodes. An alternative within

the same philosophy was then explored employing macro-components, as the
coupled Tee stubs, which take into account the influence of the key components in
the compression and tension zone of the joint as well as of their interactions. The
schematic model of the joint is represented in Figure 3.25.
The responses of joints JA1-2A and JB1-3A were simulated by means of this
model and compared with the connection experimental responses, modified to
achieve consistency. Figure 3.26 shows such a comparison for the joint JA1-2A.
The overall agreement all over the response is quite good, and is confirmed by the
curves of the cumulated energy illustrated in Figure 3.27. According to these first
results, the macro-component model appears a viable tool for approximating the
cyclic response of end plate joints.
Figure 3.25. Macro-component method
73
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
JA1-2
MC Model
-100
-60 -48 -36 -24 -12
12 24 36 48 60
ROTATION (mrad)
Figure
3.26.
Comparison
between
the
macro-
component model and the joint response (JA1-2

specimen)
CUMULATED ENERGY (kJ)
60
50
40
30
20
10
JA1-2
MC Model
0
0
12
24
36
48
ROTATION (mrad)
60
Figure 3.27. Energy absorption of the macrocomponent model and of the modified joint
74
3.7
Numerical analysis
In this section, the inelastic finite element (FE) analyses carried out by means of
the ABAQUS 5.8 code (Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., 2001) both on isolated
Tee Stub (ITS) connections and on Complete Joints (CJ) are discussed. Therefore,
both FE models were calibrated and the stress and strain state of the
aforementioned connections was simulated both in the monotonic and in the cyclic
displacement regime. Finally, some design parameters which influence the fracture
resistance of steel bolted extended plate connections are commented upon. In
detail, the effects of the weld-to-base metal yield strength ratio, the end plate yieldto-ultimate strength ratio, and the residual stress influence have been determined.
3.7.1
FE Models of the ITS connections
Non-linear FE analyses of the tested Isolated Tee-Stubs were carried out both in a
monotonic and in a cyclic loading regime. As a matter of fact, 3D finite element
analyses of bolted connections are very demanding from a computational
standpoint because contact problems as well as low-cycle fatigue phenomena
need to be simulated. Hence, 2D models endowed with eight-node CPS8 plane
stress elements were adopted to reduce the computational expense. Specimen
symmetry permitted the modelling of only one half of the specimen.
2D models exploited FE layers to reproduce the end plate and additional FE layers
to simulate the bolt shank. The pre-stressing condition was introduced in the model
imposing a stretching of the bolt shank, in order to entail a final average shank
stretch equal to 0.065 mm, similar to the one detected during testing.
Welding-induced residual stresses develop unavoidably in the welds and in the
base metal owing to thermo elasto-plastic deformation. Therefore, an idealised
stress magnitude/distribution as the one highlighted in Figure 3.28 has been
introduced. Such distribution of residual stresses, which takes into account the
presence of the crack, was proposed by Monahan on the basis of experimental
tests performed by Porter Goff and Payne (1985). More specifically, such
distribution assumes that part of the residual stresses is released as the low-cycle
fatigue crack penetrates the end plate, and that the remaining residual stress is
somehow redistributed throughout the uncracked ligaments. Clearly, tensile
stresses at the top and bottom end plate thickness are balanced by compression
stresses. Such distribution has been imposed to the mesh through several trials in
order to achieve equilibrium, compatibility and the proper stress magnitude
required.
75
tp
a/tp =0.13
+
1/4
1/2
1/4
11
1/2
y/tp
3/4
3/4
-fy
+ fy
Figure 3.28. Transverse residual stress distribution

in a cracked plate
Moreover, different mechanical properties are assigned to the base metal, the weld
metal and the HAZ. Two-node gap contact elements are located below the end
plate surface to cater for the unilateral contact condition imposed by the rigid
counterbeam. In the finite element model, the gap between the bolt shank and the
hole, about 1 mm, was modelled too. Hence, the contact between the shank and
the end plate is modelled by using contact surfaces whilst the contact between the
end plate and the nut is reproduced through gap elements. Moreover, the friction
between the end plate and the column flange is neglected because its effects on
the force-displacement response of this connection type are not significant (Bursi
and Jaspart, 1998).
At the weld toe where stress concentrations are expected, a refined FE mesh is
adopted. A crack endowed with a length of 0.26 mm (small-to-moderate root
76
defect) was modelled at the weld toe in order to investigate the behaviour of
cracked connections. More specifically, cracking is studied through contour integral
evaluation in order to infer J values. Therefore, focused meshes are set to induce
the singularity at the crack tip and the crack propagation is not traced. Sharp
cracks have to embody singular strain fields at the crack tip for fracture mechanics
evaluations. Therefore, three nodes of the same side of eight-node isoparametric
elements (CPS8) have the same geometric location at the crack tip to produce a
1/r strain singularity field. The FE mesh used for the ITS connections is illustrated
in a. A detail of the mesh with a spider web configuration is reported in b where the
innermost ring of elements degenerate to triangles, as described above. As the
large-strain zone is very localised, sharp cracks adopted in the onset of cracking
method are modelled using small-strain assumptions, and therefore large
deformations are ignored. The FE analyses account for material nonlinearities
using the von Mises yield criterion. Isotropic hardening is assumed for the
analyses. In the analysis the measured stress-strain properties of the materials
obtained by tensile test were used. The elastic modulus and the Poissons ratio
were assumed as E=210000 and =0.3, respectively.
Convergence studies on elastic and inelastic models have been conducted to
evaluate and arrive at the final mesh for the finite element models. The finite
element model was verified by comparing the measured experimental responses
with the predicted response.
The ITS connections endowed with end plate thickness of 12 mm and 18 mm,
subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading respectively, have been simulated. A
typical deformed configuration at failure is reported in Figure 3.30. It is possible to
observe two different meshes relevant to the bolt shank and to the plate around the
hole, respectively. Moreover, an attentive reader may observe how the crack with a
fixed length of 2.34 mm exhibits a width increase at the tip. As a matter of fact, the
nodes at the crack tip are untied in order to generate the singularity by means of
inelastic elements.
The reaction force vs. the controlled displacement relevant to the TM-2 specimen
is illustrated in Figure 3.31a, where the numerical simulations are compared to the
experimental response. One may observe that experimental data and numerical
prediction are in a good agreement. The numerical simulation relevant to the cyclic
regime of the ITS TC-2 connection and the experimental response are reported in
Figure 3.31b. Only a few significant displacement cycles are simulated in order to
reduce the computational effort. The specimen yield strength is well captured as
expected owing to the use of the isotropic strain-hardening model.
77
(a)
BOLT
WELD BEAD
CRACK
INTERFACE
(b)
Figure 3.29. (a) 2D FE model of isolated Tee stub; (b) details of the spider
web mesh
Figure 3.30. Deformed configuration of TM-3 specimen with the onset of

cracking method (magnification factor 1)
78
450
a)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Experiment
Numerical model
50
0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
500
b)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
Experiment
Numerical model
-500
-600
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 3.31. Experimental and predicted force vs.

displacement
of: (a) TM-2 specimen; (b) TC-2
specimen
Nonetheless, the simulation overestimates the response at large displacements

owing to the lack of strength degradation.
It is possible to make similar consideration for the ITS TM-3 and TC3 specimens.
The experimental reaction force vs. the controlled displacement relevant to the ITS
TM-3 specimen is illustrated in Figure 3.32a, whereas the numerical simulation of
79
the TC-3 joint relevant to the cyclic regime with the isotropic strain-hardening
model and the experimental response are reported in Figure 3.32b. Experimental
data and numerical prediction are in a good agreement; this indicates a satisfactory
behaviour of the numerical models employed.
REACTION FORCE (kN)
800
a)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Experiment
Numerical model
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
800
b)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
Experiment
Numerical model
-800
-1000
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

displacement
specimen
80
of: (a) TM-3 specimen; (b) TC-3
3.7.2
FE Models of the CJ specimens
Non-linear FE analyses of the tested Complete Joints were carried out both by 2D
and 3D models in a monotonic loading regime. As a matter of fact, 3D finite
element analyses of bolted connections are very demanding from a computational
standpoint. Hence, 2D models endowed with eight-node CPS8 plane stress
elements were adopted to reduce the computational expense. For completeness
some analyses have been repeated with 3D FE models, as 2D models tend to
average stresses along the joint width.
In a way similar to the models used for the Isolated Tee Stubs, 2D models of the
CJ specimens exploited FE layers to reproduce the end plate and additional FE
layers to simulate the bolt shank. Both the specimens endowed an end plate with
flange thickness of 12 mm and 18 mm are modelled. The models include details
such as boltholes and bolts; surface-to-surface contact elements are used to model
the surface interaction, neglecting friction, which has a negligible effect on the joint
response (Bursi and Jaspart, 1998). Moreover, constraint equations are introduced
to make the bolt heads continuous with the end plate. Bolt pre-tensioning is applied
by prescribed displacements at the end of the bolt shank, in order to entail a final
average shank stretch equal to 0.065 mm, similar to that detected during testing.
These displacements are held constant throughout the loading. Welding-induced
residual stresses develop unavoidably in the welds and in the base metal owing to
thermo elasto-plastic deformation. Therefore, an idealised stress distribution as the
one highlighted in Figure 3.28 has been introduced. One more time, at the weld toe
where stress concentrations are expected, a refined FE mesh is adopted. A crack
endowed with a length of 0.26 mm (small-to-moderate root defect) was modelled at
the weld toe in order to investigate the behaviour of cracked connections. More
specifically, cracking is studied through contour integral evaluation in order to infer
J values. The model is shown in Figure 3.33 and represents the JA1-2 CJ
specimen, endowed with a 12 mm end plate thickness coupled with the column of
HEA180 profile.
Keeping the above-mentioned characteristics of the 2D model, a very complex 3D
model of the specimen was performed in order to investigate the real stress and
strain distribution along the width of the joint. With a view to confirming the
hypotheses of 2D analyses, one of the main objectives that it was be obtained with
the 3D model was increased accuracy in the computed local stress-strain state of
the beam flange region due to weld residual stress and high gradients of stresses,
where the connection has the highest fracture potential. The realised model is
reported in Figure 3.34 and it represents the JB1-3 CJ specimen, endowed with an
18 mm end plate thickness coupled with the column of HEB180 profile. It is
81
characterized by reduced integration twenty-node solid elements (C3D20R in the

ABAQUS library).
Figure 3.33. 2D FE model of a complete joint JA1-2
Figure 3.34. 3D FE model of a complete joint JB1-3
82
Both the 2D and 3D FE analyses account for material non-linearities through

classical plasticity based on the Von Mises yield criterion. Isotropic hardening is
assumed for the analyses. The measured stress-strain properties of the different
materials (column flange, column web, end plate, beam flange, beam web and
bolts) obtained by tensile test were used. Elastic and inelastic convergence studies
have been conducted to evaluate and arrive at the final mesh for the finite element
models. The finite element model was verified by comparing the measured
monotonic and cyclic response of specimens with the predicted monotonic
response (see Figure 3.35). As far as it concerns the cyclic test, the envelope
curve of the experimental tests was found and compared to the curve found using
the finite element model. Experimental data and numerical prediction are in a very
good agreement. The specimen yield strength is well captured as expected;
moreover the numerical simulation captures very well the hardening branch of the
experimental response, both in term of strength and stiffness; this indicates a
satisfactory behaviour of the numerical models. It is important to underline that the
3D numerical model seems to be more efficient by comparison with the
experimental data. This means that the model is able to capture the 3D effects in
terms of stress and strain distribution that have a significant effect on the global
175
175
150
150
REACTION FORCE (kN)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
response of the joint.
125
100
75
50
25
0
Experemintal
Numerical 2D model
25
50
75
100 125 150 175 200
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
125
100
75
50
25
0
Experemintal
Numerical 3D model
25
50
75
100 125 150 175 200
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 3.35. Experimental and predicted force vs. displacement of JB1-3 specimen
Moreover, the deformed configuration and the shear stress distribution in the steel
joint can be estimated, for instance, through the plot of Figure 3.36. The 3D model
allows the distribution of shear stresses in the panel zone to be appraised. As a
result, high von Mises stresses approach values in a large zone of the web panel.
83
Figure 3.36. Von Mises stress distribution on the deformed joint configuration
High tensile residual stresses are known to promote brittle fracture and fatigue; and
for fatigue problems, the residual stresses appear as mean stresses imposed on
the exterior damage-inducing stress cycles. Thereby, both the magnitude and the
distribution of residual stresses need to be included to accurately estimate weld
fatigue life (Zhang and Dong, 2000). In a view to confirming the hypotheses of 2D
analyses, a sub-model shown in Figure 3.37 was developed to obtain increased
accuracy in the computed local stress-strain state of the beam flange region of the
connection due to weld residual stress, where the connection has the highest
fracture potential. Figure 3.37 depicts a substructure composed of 9314 DC3D20
elements of the JB1-3 joint, which was subjected to a total effective thermal input
of 10.08 kW according to the parameters of Table 3.7, with a total arc efficiency
equal to 0.9. The displacement results of the global model are used for the
boundary conditions around the perimeter boundary of the sub-model.
Solid wire
Arc voltage
Welding current
Arc travel speed
(1,2 mm diameter)
(V)
(A)
(mm/s)
AWSA5.18R70S-6
32
350
Table 3.7. Welding parameters adopted for partial fillet welds
The distribution of residual stresses provided by the substructure along the flange
thickness is reported in Figure 3.38, for three different flange sections. One may
observe the variability of longitudinal stresses along the flange width; moreover,
the distribution of residual stresses exploited in the 2D model, is inaccurate only at
the top surface of the end plate.
84
Figure 3.37. 3D substructure of the JB1-3 joint used for the single-
RESIDUAL STRESS (MPa)
pass weld
300
200
100
0
-100
2D Model
3D Simulation (x = 0,16L)
-200
-300
0
10
12
FLANGE THICKNESS (mm)
14
16
18
Figure 3.38. Transverse residual stress distribution
3.7.3
Parametric analyses
The parametric analyses presented in the foregoing investigate the influence of

some design parameters on the fracture resistance of bolted steel component
parts. In detail, the effects of the weld-to-base metal yield strength ratio, of the
residual stress influence and of the end plate yield-to-ultimate strength ratio are
determined through 2D and 3D non-linear finite element analyses of ITS and CJ
connections, respectively. Furthermore, as noted above, the parametric study is
85
conducted for monotonic loading conditions only. As in prior analytical studies on

welded moment connections performed by El-Tawil et al. (1998), it is assumed that
the conclusions drawn from this study are qualitatively applicable to cyclic
conditions.
In order to reduce the computational effort, the onset of cracking method is
considered in the models. Hence, the J-integral is adopted to characterize the
energy release associated with the crack growth. As sharp cracks are considered,
see Figure 3.29b, an accurate evaluation of the contour integral is obtained.
Toughness demands are quantified in the analyses by means of the CTOD index,
that represents the tearing at the crack tip. In detail, the CTOD is determined in the
analyses evaluating the J-integral and converting it into the CTOD value by means
of Eq. (3.1).
To evaluate and compare the different analyzed connection configurations for
ductile fracture potential, a rupture index is computed at different locations of the
connection. Others [6] have used the same approach in analytical connection
studies. The rupture index (RI) is defined as:
p
RI =
exp 1.5
m
eff
( 3.16 )
where p, y m and eff are, respectively, the equivalent plastic strain, yield strain,
hydrostatic stress, and equivalent stress (also known as von Mises stress). The
rupture index was motivated by the research of Hancock and MacKenzie (1976) on
the equivalent plastic rupture strain of steel for different conditions of stress
triaxiality. The process of ductile fracture initiation is caused by high tensile triaxial
stresses (i.e., high tensile hydrostatic stress) that result in damage accumulation
through microvoid nucleation and coalescence. The ratio of hydrostatic stress-tovon Mises stress (
m/ eff)
that appears in the denominator of (16) is called the
triaxiality ratio (TR). High triaxiality can cause a large reduction in the rupture strain
of a material, thereby limiting its ductility (Lemaitre, 1996). For instance, a value of
triaxiality ratio in the range 0.75 < m/eff < 1.5 may cause a large reduction of the
ultimate strength in metals, whereas a triaxiality ratio m/eff > 1.5 entails fragile
behaviour Thus, locations in a connection with higher values for RI have a greater
potential for fracture. The ratio of equivalent plastic strain-to-yield strain that
appears in the numerator of (1) is called the plastic equivalent strain (PEEQ) index.
This index is a measure of the local inelastic strain demand, and is also useful in
comparing the different analyzed configurations. The PEEQ index is computed by:
86
PEEQ Index =
2 p p

3 ij ij
( 3.17 )
where ij are the plastic strain components.

The triaxiality ratio and PEEQ index are also computed at different locations of the
connection to provide additional means of comparing the analyzed connection
configurations. The locations determined to have the highest fracture potential in
the different analyzed configurations are in the weld toe region, near the interface
of the weld metal and base metal.
Weld matching effects

Analyses with different weld matching conditions were carried out to investigate the
joint response in terms of toughness demand. In detail, two models have been
analysed: the first with overmatching welds characterized by mechanical properties
very close to those of the experimental specimens; the second with matching
welds in which the mechanical properties of welds are equal to those of the end
plate material. Analyses with this different weld-matching conditions were carried
out for:
the TM-2 specimens. The Tee stub models are designated ITS2-1 and ITS2-2,
respectively, and the corresponding mechanical properties are collected in
Table 3.8. A crack length equal to 1.30 mm has been considered in order to
maximize the effect of residual stresses when included.
the TM-3 specimens. The Tee stub models are designated ITS3-1 and ITS3-2,
Table 3.8. A crack length equal to 2.34 mm has been considered in order to
maximize the effect of residual stresses when included.
the JB1-3 specimen. The CJ models are designated CJ3-1 and CJ3-2,
Table 3.8. The same crack length of the TM3 specimen, equal to 2.34 mm, has
been considered.
For brevity, only the results of one specimen will be illustrated. The reaction force
vs. the applied displacement for the TM-3 specimen is reported in Figure 3.39a.
However differently from the overall behaviour, the corresponding CTOD demands
are similar until a total displacement of 0.35 mm (see Figure 3.39b), from which the
CTOD demand increases rapidly for the ITS3-1.
87
For the joint configuration under exam, the matching weld condition, viz. the ITS3-2
case, appears to be the most beneficial in terms of fracture toughness demand.
fy
fu
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
Base metal
210000
265
600
Weld Metal
220000
520
640
Base metal
210000
265
600
Weld Metal
210000
265
600
Specimen
ITS2-1
ITS2-2
ITS3-1
ITS3-2
CJ3-1
CJ3-2
Material
Base metal
210000
307
517
Weld Metal
220000
520
640
Base metal
210000
307
517
Weld Metal
210000
307
517
Base metal
210000
307
517
Weld Metal
220000
520
640
Base metal
210000
307
517
Weld Metal
210000
307
517
Table 3.8. Parameters of the constitutive laws for TM-2, TM-3 and
JB1-3 models
1
700
(b)
(a)
0.8
500
CTOD (mm)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
600
400
300
0.6
0.4
CTODc
200
0.2
100
ITS3-1
ITS3-2
ITS3-1
ITS3-2
0
0
0.5
1.5
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
2.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 3.39. Predicted force and CTOD vs. displacement of TM-3 specimens with
overmatching (ITS3-1) and matching (ITS3-2) welds
This behaviour can be explained through the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ)
distributions highlighted in Figure 3.40. During the loading process, identified by
the two displacement levels (L1) and (L2), the yielded material in the weld metal
corresponding to the ITS3-2 condition shields the crack tip from a stress increase.
88
Therefore, the CTOD demand at the crack tip is low. The aforementioned effect is
less marked in the overmatching weld condition ITS3-1.
(L1)
(L2)
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.40. Equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) distribution of TM-3 specimens at two levels
of applied displacements: (a) overmatching weld (ITS3-1); (b) matching weld (ITS3-2)
700
600
J (kJ/m2)
500
400
300
200
J1
J5
100
J10
J15
0
0
10
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 3.41. Values of J-integral for different contours

as functions of the applied displacement
89
Similar results are obtained for the TM-2 and JB1-3 specimens. In order to verify
the quality of these analyses, the values of J-integral for different paths 1, 5, 10
and 15 are plotted in Figure 3.41 as a function of the applied displacement with
reference to the specimens ITS2. More specifically, 1 represents the J-integral
computation from the first ring of elements abutting the crack tip whilst 15
corresponds to the path surrounding all the elements of the spider web mesh
illustrated in Figure 3.29b. The values of J1, J5, J10, and J15 agree with each
other entailing path independence at the given applied displacement. It is
worthwhile to recall that the estimate provided through the first ring of elements
surrounding the crack tip does not provide high accurate results (Bursi et al, 2002).
Residual stress effects

Rapid uneven heat removal in welded connections entails large welding-induced
residual stresses that can influence the joint behaviour in several ways. A detailed
investigation of these effects for welded beam-to-column moment connections can
be found in (Zhang et Dong, 2000). For the ITS connections of 12 mm thickness,
an idealised residual stress pattern like the one highlighted in Figure 3.28 has been
used, assuming a crack length equal to 1.30 mm and considering an overmatching
weld. Relevant results are reported in Figure 3.42a and Figure 3.42b: results show
clearly that the presence of residual stresses increases the toughness demand.
1
350
300
250
CTOD (mm)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
0.8
200
150
0.6
0.4
CTODc
100
0.2
50
W/o residual stresses

With residual stresses
W/o residual stresses

With residual stresses
0
0
0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
(a)
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
(b)
Figure 3.42. (a) Predicted force vs. displacement and (b) CTOD vs. displacement of TM-2
specimens with and without residual stresses
The same idealised residual stress pattern has been used also for the ITS
connections with 18 mm thickness with a crack length equal to 2.34 mm and for the
90
CJ connection with 18 mm thickness with the same crack length. The results are
then compared. The maximum CTOD required along the end plate width close to
the weld toe predicted both by 2D and 3D analyses is depicted in Figure 3.43. The
3D analysis reveals a significant gradient across the width of the flange with a peak
value in correspondence with the web. The CTOD ratio between 3D and 2D FE
models is around 16 per cent.
0.50
0.45
CTOD (mm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
2D Simulation
3D Simulation
0.05
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
FLANGE WIDTH (mm)
140
160
180
Figure 3.43. 2D versus 3D CTOD distribution at the weld toe for a crack
depth of 2.34 mm
Yield-to-ultimate stress ratio effects

The plastic hinge region in a steel structure decreases as the yield-to-ultimate
strength ratio y/u increases. In fact, a smaller yielded region imposes greater
inelastic strain demands to achieve a specified plastic deformation. Since the
production of American structural steel has resulted in steel with much higher ratios
(Frank, 1997), recently published specifications from AISC (1997) recognized this
effect and limited the yield-to-ultimate strength ratio to 0.85. A similar limitation is
required by Eurocode 3 (2001), when plastic analysis has to be performed.
In order to study the yield-to-ultimate strength ratio effect on the joint configuration
with 12 mm and 18 mm thickness, two strength ratios for the end plate material
have been considered. More specifically, for the TM-2 specimen, y/u has been
chosen to be 0.45 and 0.90 whilst the corresponding specimens are designated
ITS2-45 and ITS2-90, respectively. However, two crack lengths equal to 1.30 mm
and 2.86 mm have been considered for the specimen ITS2-45 and ITS2-90,
respectively, to take account of the increase of crack-initiation threshold with the
reduction of a strain hardening amount (Barsom and Rolfe, 1987). The reaction
force vs. the controlled displacement of the TM-2 model is shown in Figure 3.44a,
91
whilst the corresponding CTOD demand is illustrated in Figure 3.44b. From the
above-mentioned plots, one may observe that at large displacements, the condition
in which y/u tends to 0.90, viz. ITS2-90, is the most favourable from a fracture
mechanics standpoint.
300
(a)
REACTION FORCE (kN)
250
L1
L2
200
150
100
50
ITS2-45
ITS2-90
0
0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
1
(b)
L1
CTOD (mm)
0.8
L2
0.6
0.4
CTODc
0.2
ITS2-45
ITS2-90
0
0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure
3.44.
Predicted
force
and
CTOD
vs.
displacement of TM-2 specimens at y/u=0.45 and
y/u=0.90
92
On the other hand, the corresponding strain distributions highlighted in Figure 3.45
indicate that the end plate yield zone is smaller for the specimen labelled ITS2-90.
Therefore, a balance between the two opposite requirements has to be found.
(L1)
(L2)
Figure 3.45. Equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) distributions of TM-2 specimens at two levels
of applied displacements: (a) y/u=0.45 (ITS2-45); (b) y/u=0.90 (ITS2-90)
As far as the ITS connections with 18 mm thickness is concerned, two strength

ratios y/u for the end plate material equal to 0.60 and 0.90 have been considered
and the corresponding specimens are called ITS3-60 and ITS3-90, respectively.
Again, to take into account that the crack-initiation threshold increases with a
strain-hardening reduction, two crack lengths equal to 2.34 mm and 4.95 mm have
been chosen for the specimen ITS3-60 and ITS3-90, respectively. Similar results
are obtained, as shown in Figure 3.46.
So far we have estimated critical states both in 2D and 3D models through the use
of a critical value of the CTOD, which amounts to 0.31 mm for the joints under
examination. It is possible to define critical stress states through the use of
response indices, which do not require a crack modelling. One of these indices is
the Rupture Index related to the stress triaxiality ratio m/eff, where m defines the
hydrostatic stress and eff is the von Mises stress. Several FE analyses were
conducted to estimate this index at the weld toe. 2D simulations confirm that end
plates with y/u = 0.6 exhibit a favourable value of the triaxiality ratio of about
0.49, implying a ductile behaviour. The corresponding 3D analyses yield a
maximum triaxiality ratio sampled at the weld toe in the middle of the end plate of
93
about 0.62; such value does not entail a limited ductility of the joints or a high
potential for crack initiation.
1
L1
CTOD (mm)
0.8
L2
0.6
0.4
CTODc
0.2
ITS3-60
ITS3-90
0
0
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 3.46. Predicted CTOD vs. displacement of TM-3

specimens at y/u=0.60 and y/u=0.90
3.8
Conclusions
A general test programme was presented, comprising partial strength bolted

extended end plate joints with fillet welds and component parts, which represent an
alternative to fully welded connections for use in seismic force resisting moment
frames. The main results indicate that partial strength bolted extended end plate
connections are suitable for use in seismic moment resisting frames. They
represent an alternative to fully welded connections, as together with the column
web panel yielding, they can exhibit favourable ductility and energy dissipation
properties.
As far as the understanding of the low-cycle fracture behaviour of ITS, CTS, and
CJ connections is concerned, experiments and numerical analyses under
monotonic and cyclic loading have provided insights in order to develop rules able
to reduce fracture in the aforementioned connection components. The main
conclusions of this study follow.
94
i.
When proper consideration is given to material selection and detailing,

extended end plates show a cyclic performance adequate for seismic
design. The considered joints exhibit a plastic rotation greater than 35
mrad; therefore, they can be classified as ductile in accordance to
Eurocode 8 (2002). In detail, test results on isolated bolted Tee stubs as
well complete extended end plate bolted joints have shown that the overall
behaviour of the specimens under investigation is governed by the material
endowed with the lowest strength, viz. the base metal, in which yielding
occurs, effectively. In fact, the weld metal persists in the elastic regime
while the contiguous zones are weakened owing to the sharp thermal
treatments and to structural as well as shape discontinuities.
ii.
Component cyclic tests enable identification of the failure mode. Moreover,

they allow the Code requirements on the rotational capacity of the joint to
be checked. Moreover, the mechanical models provided by the Eurocodes
to determine the stiffness and strength characteristics of the individual
components showed little agreement with the experimental data.
iii. A component model, which approximates the cyclic response of the joints
on the basis of the responses of the elemental components, does not
seem to possess sufficient accuracy. Conversely, the use of macro-
components, incorporating some of the interaction effects among

elemental components, appears to be more adequate.
iv. The simulations relevant to isolated Tee stub and Complete Joint
connections indicate that the numerical model with isotropic hardening rule
is able to capture both the monotonic and the cyclic responses but is not
able to reproduce properly stiffness and strength degradation.
v.
A number of parametric analyses have been performed by considering

fractures initiating from weld-root defects by means of the onset cracking
method. Conclusions drawn from the models indicate that:
a. fracture driving force demands are reduced by using fillet welds
matching the end plate material;
b. welding-induced residual stresses increase the fracture demand;
c.
connections with y/u = 0.9 exhibit reduced fracture driving force

demands but also limited plastic regions. The yield-to-ultimate strength
reduction must comply with the requirements of plastic analysis.
Besides, the study is currently concentrating on the damage evolution aspect both
for the components and the joint. The availability of adequate damage assessment
methods is a pre-requisite to the development of reliable hysteretic models for
research as well for design purposes.
95
3.9
References
Adey B.T., Grondin G.Y. and Cheng J.J.R. (1998): Extended End Plate
Moment Connections under Cyclic Loading. J. of Construct. Steel Res.,

Elsevier Applied Science, UK, 46:1-3, 435-436.
AISC (1992): Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago,
USA.
AISC (1997): Shape Material ASTM A572 Gr. 50 with Special
Requirements. Tech. Bull. N. 3, Chicago.

Astaneh-Asl A. (1995): Seismic design of bolted steel moment-resisting
frames. In Steel Tips, Structural Steel Education Council, Moraga, Calif., p.

82.
ASTM E 813-89 (1989). Standard Test Method for J1c, a Measure of
Fracture Toughness. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia; 646660.

ASTM E 1290-93 (1993): Standard Test Method for Crack-Tip Opening
Displacement (CTOD) Fracture Toughness Measurement. Philadelphia:

Annual Book of ASTM Standards; 866-875.
ATC (1992): Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel
structures for buildings. Rep. No. ATC-24, Applied Technology Council,

Redwood City, CA.
Bahaari M. R. and Sherbourne A.N. (2000): Behavior of eight-bolt large
capacity end plate connections. Computers & Structures, Pergamon Press,

UK, 77, 315-325.
Barsom JM. and Rolfe ST. (1987): Fracture and Fatigue Control in
Structures Applications of Fracture Mechanics. Prentice-Hall.

Bernuzzi C., Zandonini R. and Zanon P. (1996): Experimental analysis and
modelling of semi-rigid steel joints under cyclic reversal loading. J. of

Construct. Steel Res., Elsevier Applied Science, UK, 38:2, 95-123.
Bertero V.V., Anderson J.C. and Krawinkler H. (1994): Performance of
Steel Building Structures During the Northridge Earthquake. Rep. No.

UCB/EERC-94/04. California: University of California, Berkeley.
Bjorhovde R., Brozzetti J. and Colson A. (1988): Connections in Steel
Structures: Behaviour, Strength & Design. Elsevier Applied Science,

London, UK, 395.
Bjorhovde R. et al. (1992): Connections in Steel Structures II: Behaviour,
Strength & Design. AISC, Chicago, USA, 464.
96
Bjorhovde R., Colson A. and Zandonini R. (1996): Connections in Steel
Structures III: Behaviour, Strength & Design. Pergamon Press, London,

UK, 594.
Bose B., Sarkar S., and Bahrami M. (1996): Extended end plate
connections: comparison between three-dimensional non-linear finite

element analysis and full scale tests. Structural Engineering Review,
Pergamon Press, UK, 8:4, 315-328.
Bursi O.S. and Jaspart J.P. (1997): Calibration of a finite element model for
isolated bolted end plate steel connections. J. of Construct. Steel Res.,

Elsevier Applied Science, UK, 44:3, 225-262.
Bursi O.S. and Jaspart J.P. (1998): Basic issues in the finite element
simulation of extended end plate connections. Computers & Structures,

Pergamon Press, UK, 69, 361-382.
Bursi O.S., Ferrario F. and Fontanari V. (2002): Non-linear Analysis of the
Low-cycle Fracture Behaviour of Isolated Tee Stub Connections.

Computers and Structures, 80, 2333-2360.
Colson A. (1992): First State of the Art Workshop, EU Project COST C1:
Semi-rigid
Behaviour
of
Civil
Engineering
Structural
Connections.
European Commission, Belgium, 582.

Deng C.G., Bursi O.S. and Zandonini R. (1998): Analysis of Moment
Resisting Steel Connections under Reversed Cyclic Loading. Proc. of the

Fourth Int. Conf. on Computational Structures Technology, Edinburgh, UK.
ECCS (1986): Recommended Testing Procedure for Assessing the
Behaviour of Structural Steel Elements under Cyclic Loads. ECCS
Publication n 45.
El-Tawil S., Mikesell T., Vidarsson E. and Kunnath, S.K. (1998): Strength
and ductility of FR welded-bolted connections. Report No. SAC/BD-98/01,

SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
Easterling, S.W. and Leon R.T. (2002): Connections in Steel Structures IV:
Behaviour, Strength & Design. AISC, Chicago, USA, 473.

European Committee for Standardization (2001): Eurocode 3: Design of
Steel Structures. Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
European Prestandard ENV 1993-1-1, Belgium.
composite steel and concrete structures, Part 1.1 General rules and rules
for buildings. European Prestandard prEN 1994-1-1, CEN/TC250/SC4
N259, Belgium.
97
Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic

Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Prestandard ENV 1998-1;
Frank K.H. (1997): The Physical and Metallurgical Properties of Structural
Steels. Report No SAC 95-09. California: Applied Technology Council,

Redwood city, 1997.
Ghobarah A., Osman A. and Korol R.M. (1990): Behavior of extended end
plate connections under cyclic loading. Engineering Structures, 12:1, 1527.

Ghobarah A., Korol R.M. and Osman A. (1992): Cyclic behavior of
extended end plate joints. J. Struct. Engr., ASCE, USA, 118:5, 1333-1353.
Hancock J.W. and MacKenzie A.C. (1976): On the mechanisms of ductile
failure in high-strength steels subjected to multi-axial stress states. Journal

Mech. Phys. of Solids; 24, 14769.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc. (2001): ABAQUS - Users Manual.
Version 6.2. Vol. 1-3.
Kukreti A.R. and Biswas P. (1997): Finite element analysis to predict the
cyclic hysteretic behavior and failure of end plate connections. Computers

& Structures, Elsevier Science Ltd., UK, 65, 127-147.
Kuwamura H. (1998): Fracture of Steel During an Earthquake: State of the
Art in Japan. Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No 4-6, 310-322.

Lemaitre J. (1996): A course on damage mechanics. Berlin: Springer
Verlag.
Lorenz R.F., Kato B. and Chen W.F. (1993): Semi-rigid Connections in
Steel Frames. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Mc Graw Hill,
USA, 318.
Maquoi R. (1999): Control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering
structural connections. Proc. of the International Conference, EU Project

COST C1, Publication EUR 18854 EN, Belgium, 579.
Monahan C.C. (1985): Early fatigue crack growth at welds. Computational
Mechanics Publications, Southampton, UK.
Nader M.N. and Astaneh-Asl A. (1991): Dynamic behavior of flexible, semi-
rigid and rigid steel frames. J. of Construct. Steel Res., Elsevier Science
Ltd., UK, 18, 179-192.
Nethercot D. and Zandonini R. (1988): Methods of prediction of joint
behaviour Beam-to-column connections, Structural Connections

Stability and Strength. Ed. R. Naranayan, Elsevier Applied Science,
London, UK, 23-62.
98
SAC Joint Venture. Interim Guidelines (1995): Evaluation, Repair,
Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures.

Report No. SAC-95-02, FEMA 267, August.
SAC Joint Venture. Background Reports (1997): Metallurgy, Fracture
Mechanics, Welding, Moment Connections and Frame System Behaviour.

Report No. SAC-95-09, FEMA 288, March.
Wald F. (1994): Second State of the Art Workshop, EU Project COST C1:
Semi-rigid
Behaviour
of
Civil
Engineering
Structural
Connections.
European Commission, Belgium, 561.

Zhang J. and Dong P. (2000): Residual Stresses in Welded Moment
Frames and Implications for Structural Performance. Journal of Structural

Engineering, 126:306-315, 2000.
99
SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRENGTH

COMPOSITE JOINTS
4.1
Introduction
In seismic design practice, the possibility of relying appreciably on dissipation

effects translates into seismic design actions lower than those called for in brittle
structures, which can count on elastic resources alone. In turn, lower design
actions, which standards provide through higher values of the behaviour factor,
allow for lower design values of plastic resistance, and therefore smaller structural
sections and lower weights as well. The savings in terms of structural weight, when
coupled with sufficient ease of execution, may render ductile structures very
competitive in seismic areas. Solutions assuring the necessary ductility can be
obtained not only through careful study of building morphology, structural schemes
and construction details, but also through the rational use of materials.
Composite construction design, which represents a good compromise in term of
strength and ductility solution, has been increasingly used over recent decades
(USA, Japan and some European countries) mostly in office buildings, commercial
buildings, parking areas and bridges. However, despite the advantages it presents,
composite construction is still scarcely used in seismic design.
The main reasons could possibly be the lack of experience, skilled workers and
appropriate equipment on the one hand and the non-existence of codes for the
design of these structures on the other hand. In fact, Eurocode 8 (prEN 1998-1,
2002) sets forth general principles for designing composite structures for seismic
areas and imposes precise constructional and performance guidelines; however it
does not provide adequate information on the use of the various structural
schemes, or on the associated constructional solutions and design methodologies,
for which it often refers designers to codes and regulations regarding nonearthquake-resistant structures.
4. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRENGTH COMPOSITE JOINTS
When analysing the possible structural solutions, it becomes immediately evident

that the use of composite columns and beams, by stiffening the structural elements
and therefore significantly limiting second-order effects, can allow the erection of
buildings of considerable height without the need to use bracings. This advantage,
combined with the introduction of partial strength joints, guarantees the formation
of global dissipative frame mechanisms for seismic loadings, and it avoids
unwanted storey or local mechanisms. If associated to suitable constructional
solutions, such structural types can undoubtedly provide significant advantages in
terms of both economy and performances (Braconi et al., 2003).
Clearly, the choice of such structural systems in current design practice cannot
leave out the preliminary evaluation and mechanical definition of the different
possible connection types and the associated structural details.
The present study illustrates the results of a European research (Ecoleader-ECSC
joint Project) aimed at evaluating the rotational and dissipative capacities of a
particular type of connection between a concrete partially encased column and a
steel-concrete composite beam. The design of the connection, successively
verified on the basis of experimental substructure tests, has been conducted by
extending to the inelastic range the method described in Section 8 of Eurocode 4
(Bursi et al, 2003). From the obtained knowledge on connection and member
response, a numerical model of the prototype structure has been developed to
examine its seismic behaviour through non-linear static (push-over) and dynamic
analyses. Simulated ground motion time histories that match the design response
spectrum were used in the dynamic analyses. This analytical work permitted to
predict the performance of the frame and to propose an appropriate magnitude
level of ground motion for the pseudo-dynamic tests on a full-scale model of a
frame building expressly designed using the connections and structural details
suggested by the results of the analyses.
4.2
The Ecoleader-ECSC joint project
The objective of the Ecoleader-ECSC joint project is to develop an experimental

database on the behaviour of low-rise steel-concrete composite structures with
partial strength semi-rigid connections subjected to gravity and lateral loads. In
particular, information was needed on the behaviour of the beam-to-column joints
and the structural overstrength exhibited by composite frames. Moreover, in order
to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the composite construction with
101
semi-rigid partial-strength beam-to-column joints and partially encased columns in

earthquake-prone regions, the project aims at calibrating design rules affecting the
aforementioned components and the participation of the concrete slab in the
relevant transfer mechanisms. Another objective of the project was also the
development of non-linear mechanical models combined with smooth hysteretic
and damage models of composite members, joints and frames capable of
reproducing the experimental response. As a matter of fact, it is intended to
calibrate damage models for members and connections and correlate the damage
obtained at the inter-storey levels with the damage obtained at the members and
connections.
A basic construction typology was selected for the study that includes regular
composite beams connected to partially encased composite columns with partially
restrained end plate connections. Within the project, a prototype 2-storey, 4-bay
structure was designed to obtain representative dimensions, member sizes and
connection details to examine the seismic behaviour of the structural system.
Pseudo-dynamic testing of a full-scale specimen including 3 of the 5 frames of the
prototype structure will be conducted in 2003 at the JRC ELSA Unit in Ispra (Italy)
to examine its seismic response.
4.3
Description of the prototype structure
The prototype structure considered for this study is shown in Figure 4.1. It is a 2storey, 12.0 m x 12.0 m x 7.0 m structure, which includes five two-bay moment
resisting frames with unequal spans (5 m + 7 m). All five moment resisting frames
are identical and one frame is illustrated in Figure 4.2. In the direction
perpendicular to the moment resisting frames, simply supported secondary beams
are used at column lines to link the frames together and lateral resistance is
provided by two concentrically braced steel frames located along the exterior walls.
Only the behaviour of the structure in the direction parallel to the moment resisting
frames (X direction in Figure 4.1) is considered herein. The frame to be tested at
Ispra only includes the three interior moment resisting frames, along with the
secondary beams and the transverse cross bracing.
The columns are partially encased composite columns, which guarantee significant
structural efficiency with respect to static, seismic loads and fire resistance. They
are fixed at their base and continuous over the full height of the structure. The steel
profiles are HEB260 and HEB280 for the exterior and interior columns,
102
respectively. As shown in Figure 4.3, longitudinal ( 12) and transversal ( 8)

reinforcing steel was provided in the concrete portions of the columns and shear
studs are used to ensure composite action between the concrete and the steel
shapes. The spacing of the stirrups and shear studs varies along the column
height. At the base and near the beam-column joints, the stirrups are spaced at 50
mm for both column types. Elsewhere, the spacing is increased to 150 mm. No
concrete is used at both floor levels over the depth of the beams.
Main moment resisting frames
3.5 m
3.5 m
Secondary beams
Figure 4.1. Three-dimensional view of the prototype structure

+7.0
HEB 260
IPE 300
HEB 280
HEB 260
3500
IPE 300
7000
+3.5
HEB 260
IPE 300
HEB 280
HEB 260
3500
IPE 300
Figure 4.2. Elevation of a typical 2D Moment Resisting Frame
Photos on Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 show details of the column bases. The base
plate is 40 mm thick and measures 400 mm x 600 mm. It is connected to the
103
foundations by means of 6 anchor bolts made with 32 hooked reinforcing steel

bars with their upper ends being threaded. A 150 mm long stub made of a HEB140
profile is welded under the base plate to transfer the horizontal shear to the
foundation in the direction parallel to the loading. Base plate stiffeners are installed
on each side of the columns to improve fixity about the column strong axis. They
are made of 12 mm thick plates that extend over a height of 250 mm. The distance
between the underside of the base plate and the top of the first floor slab is 3500
Figure 4.3. 2.3 Details of the column bases: a) cross-section of the exterior columns;
b) cross-section of the interior columns; c) longitudinal cross-section and side view
Figure 4.4. Details of the column bases during fabrication of the

Ispra test frame
104
Figure 4.5. Column base plate during fabrication of the Ispra test
frame
The beams of the moment frames (see Figure 4.6) are made of IPE300 sections
that act compositely with the 150 mm thick concrete slab. The slab is poured on a
55 mm deep trapezoidal composite steel deck (Brollo EGB210 profile). The flutes
of the deck are spaced at 150 and are oriented perpendicular to the direction of the
moment frames. Shear studs arranged in pairs are used at every rib to ensure
composite action with the beams. The shear connection degree between the steel
profile and the concrete slab is full. For the prototype structure, the slab extends
500 mm beyond the exterior column lines in both directions.
Figure 4.6. Details of the floor slab/beam assembly
The beam-to-column joint has been designed so as to provide adequate structural

performances both under monotonic and cyclic loading. To this aim, a relatively
105
thin end-plate connection, illustrated in Figure 3, has been chosen, which

guarantees predictable and efficient performance for seismic actions. The details of
an exterior beam-to-column joint are illustrated in Figure 4.7. The connections are
partially restrained, or semi-rigid, extended end plate connections. On the basis of
constructional considerations and of the favourable seismic behaviour of the
column web panel, the solution adopted relies on naked steel columns. In detail,
the reinforced concrete encasement is interrupted in the connection, as shown in
Figure 4.7. A pair of stiffening plates, set horizontally and welded to the column,
guarantees full exploitation of the web panel'
s inelastic resources. Additional 12
transverse and longitudinal reinforcing steel is placed in the floor slab at joint
locations so that the slab participates to the transfer of bending moments between
the columns and the beams.
270
Critical Length
150
Seismic steel rebars
135
Main
beam
220
Steel Column
Seismic steel
rebars
Figure 4.7. Details of the beam-column at the exterior joints
The transverse beams are IPE240 sections and simple shear connections are
used at their ends. No shear studs are welded to the beams, so that their
contribution to the lateral resistance in the direction of loading is negligible. The
transverse lateral bracing is an X-bracing made with L50x100x8 angles, as shown
in Figure 4.8.
The specifications for the structural materials are:
106
Structural steel: Class S235 (fy = 235 MPa, fu = 360 MPa,
Concrete: Class C25/30 (fc = 25 MPa)
Reinforcing Steel: Class B450-C (fy = 450 MPa, fy/fu < 1.35,
= 28%)
u
= 7.5%)
IPE 240
IPE 240
50
x1
00
x8
x8
00
x1
50
HEB 260
HEB 260
HEB 260
3500
7000
IPE 240
IPE 240
50
x1
00
x8
x8
00
x1
50
HEB 260
HEB 260
HEB 260
3500
Figure 4.8. Elevation of the frames perpendicular to the

direction of loading (Ispra test frame)
4.4
Seismic design of the prototype structure
The seismic design of the prototype structure, carried out by the research groups
of the Universities of Pisa and Trento, has been executed by using the rules
included in the following standards:
prEN 1991-1-1:2001 Actions on structures, Part 1-1: general actions,
prEN 1992-1:2001 Design of concrete. Part 1: general rules and rules for
densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings - Final Draft, July 2001;
buildings Draft n 2, January 2001;
prEN 1993-1-1:2001 Design of steel structures. Part 1.1: general rules
prEN 1994-1-1:2001 Design of composite steel and concrete structures.
Draft n 2, 2001;
Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings Draft n 3, March 2001;
prEN 1998-1:2002 Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1:

general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings Draft n5, January
2002.
107
University of Pisa acts as responsible of the design and execution of the 3D tests
in the framework of the ECSC project 7210-PR-250 Applicability of composite
structures to sway frames, coordinated by RWTH, Aachen, while University of

Trento is the coordinator of a Ecoleader-Jrc project for access to the ELSA
infrastructure entitled Cyclic and PsD testing of a 3D steel-concrete composite
frame.
Only the main aspects that are relevant to the seismic resistance of the moment
resisting frames in the direction of loading are summarised herein.
The uniformly distributed gravity dead load at both floors, wD, was taken equal to
4.68 kPa, including the weight of the floor slab-steel deck assembly (3.18 kPa) and
an additional dead load of 1.5 kPa (mechanical equipments, finishes, etc.). The
weight of the beams and columns must be added to these values: IPE300 beams =
0.42 kN/m, IPE240 beams = 0.31 kN/m, HEB260 partially encased columns = 2.33
kN/m, and HEB280 partially encased columns = 2.67 kN/m. A uniformly distributed
imposed live load, wL, of 5.0 kPa was assumed at both levels.
The design seismic loads at each level, Fi, were determined by using the simplified
modal response spectrum analysis method:
Fi = Fb
zi mi
i
( 4.1 )
( zi mi )
where Fb is the seismic base shear, and zi and mi are respectively the height from
the base and the masses at each level. The seismic base shear is given by:
Fb = Sd (T1 ) W
( 4.2 )
where Sd(T1) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at the fundamental period of
vibration of the building for translational motion in the direction considered, T1, W is
the total weight of the building, and
is a corrective factor. The equations and the
values of the soil parameter, S, and the reference periods TB, TC, and TD that are
required to construct Types 1 and 2 design spectra are given for different subsoil
conditions. For this project, the following key parameters were adopted:
Type 2 spectrum
Peak ground acceleration, ag = 0.40 g
Subsoil Class A (Rock site, or alike, with Vs,30 > 800 m/s)
Behaviour factor, q = 6.0 (Concept a, Structural ductility Class S dissipative

composite structure, with assumed multiplier u/1 = 1.2)
108
For these conditions, S = 1.0 and the reference periods TB, TC, and TD are
respectively equal to 0.05 s, 0.25 s, and 1.2 s. The period T1 for the structure was
calculated with the formula: T1 = 0.05H
0.75
, with H = 7.5 m (total structure height),
giving T1 = 0.22 s. The value of Sd (0.22 s) = 0.167.

The seismic weight at each level includes the total gravity loads and the following
fraction of the imposed live load: 48% at the first level (= 0.8, 2i = 0.6) and 60%
at the second level ((= 1.0, 2i = 0.6). The resulting total seismic weight, W,
including the weight of the structural members is given in Table 4.1. In this
calculation, the weight of a 3.5 m and a 1.75 m long column segments were
applied respectively at the first and second levels. Assuming rigid diaphragm
response, the seismic weight was divided equally between the 5 moment resisting
frames, resulting in W = 552 kN/frame. The parameter
in Eq. (4.2) is equal to
0.85 because T1 < 2 TC. Substituting these values, the base shear, Fb, is equal to
78.2 kN per frame. In Table 4.1, the base shear force was distributed at each level
using Eq. (4.1) and assuming m i = W i/g.
z
wd
ewL
(m)
(kPa)
7.0
3.5
Level
W / Frame
F / Frame
(kPa)
TOTAL W
(KN)
(kN)
(kN)
3.94
3.00
1398
280
52.6
3.94
2.40
1361
272
25.6
2759
552
78.2
Table 4.1. Calculation of the seismic weights and seismic loads (torsion excluded)
The design was performed only for one of the interior moment resisting frames.
Accidental torsion was included in the design and the most critical frames are
those located at 3.0 m from the center of the structure. For these frames, an
amplification factor, , equal to 1.15 (= 1.0 + 0.63.0/12.0) was used. Therefore, the
final seismic loads were: 60.5 kN and 29.4 kN at levels 1 and 2 with a total base
shear of 89.9 kN. In the design of the frames, these loads were combined with the
total gravity dead load and 60% of the imposed live loads.
109
4.5
Seismic design of the composite joint
For moment resisting frame structures, the maximum structural ductility is attained
through the formation of global mechanisms (Gioncu et al., 2002). To this end, it is
necessary to foresee sufficient overstrength of the columns satisfying the relation:
MRc 1.3
MRb
( 4.3 )
where
MRc
is the sum of moments corresponding to the development of the

design values of the resisting moments of the columns;
MRb
is the sum of moments corresponding to the development of the

design values of the resisting moments of the partial strength
joints.
The ductile behaviour of the joints is guaranteed by defining an appropriate

hierarchy of resistance for each component. In this respect, with reference to
sagging moments, the end-plate and the column flange under bending as well as
the column web panel in shear have to be considered ductile components;
whereas the concrete slab under compression and the bolts under tension are
assumed to be brittle.
With regard to hogging moments, the steel rebars under tension and, once again,
the end-plate and the column flange under bending, as well as the column web
panel under shear are considered ductile components; while the column web panel
and the beam flanges under compression are assumed to be brittle. Brittle failure
of the bolts in tension before yielding of the end plate and/or of the column flange
can be easily averted by satisfying the following relation:
t 0.36 d
fub
fy
( 4.4 )
where t is the thickness of the end plate or of the column flange; d and fub are the
nominal diameter and ultimate tensile stress of the bolts, respectively; and fy the
yielding stress of the base materials of the considered component (prEN 1993-1,
2000). For the remaining components, we applied the capacity design according to
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3, respectively. It is also necessary to ensure that the joint
possesses adequate resistance and rotational capacity.
110
Component
(1)
(2)
(3)
---
FRd .2 1.3FRd .1
(+)
FRd .1 = FRd
.3
FRd .2 1.3FRd .1
---
FRd .2 1.3FRd .3
(+)
FRd
.3 = FRd .1
FRd .2 1.3FRd .3
---
End plate and column

flange in bending (1)
Concrete slab in
compression (2)
Web panel in shear (3)
Table 4.2. Joint capacity design for sagging bending moment
Component
(1)
(2)
(3)
---
FRd .2 1.3FRd .1
(+)
FRd .1 = FRd
.3
FRd .2 1.3FRd .1
---
FRd .2 1.3FRd .3
(+)
FRd
.3 = FRd .1
FRd .2 1.3FRd .3
---
Reinforcing bars and I

bolt-row in tension (1)
Beam flange in
compression (2)
Web panel in shear (3)
Table 4.3. Joint capacity design for hogging bending moment
As far as resistance is concerned, particular attention must be paid for the

definition and calculation of the strength of the concrete slab in compression
(component 2 in the Table 2) and of the column web panel in shear (component 3)
4.5.1
Concrete slab resistance
Eurocode 8 Annex C (2002) contains some formulas that refer to the design of the
slab and of its connection to the steel frame in moment resisting frames in which
beams are composite T-beams comprising a steel section with a slab. The Annex
has been developed and validated experimentally in the context of composite
moment frames with rigid connections and plastic hinges forming in the beams; it is
clearly stated that the expressions in the Annex have not been validated for cases
with partial strength connections in which deformations are more localised in the
joints. According to this Annex two conditions have to be fulfilled to ensure that a
high ductility in bending is obtained:
early buckling of the steel part shall be avoided;
early crushing of the concrete of the slab shall be avoided.
The first condition imposes an upper limit on the cross-sectional area AS of the
longitudinal reinforcement in the effective width of the slab. The second condition
imposes a lower limit on the cross-sectional area AT of the transverse
reinforcement in front of the column.
111
Under sagging bending moments, composite T sections can be ductile if the

crushing of the concrete is avoided. The buckling failure of the steel walls normally
does not control the ultimate limit state of composite beams under sagging bending
moments, because of the connections between the upper flange and the concrete.
To avoid concrete failure under sagging bending moment, the proportions of a
composite steel-concrete section must be such that the steel on the bottom side
yields before the concrete strain c at the top of the section are too high; for
reinforced concrete elements submitted to cycling loading, this is deemed to be
-3
satisfied when c < 210 , when the strains s in steel are high enough to obtain the
required local ductility . Under earthquake loading at the connection of beam to
column, a sagging bending moment on one side, and a hogging bending moment
on the other side, are transmitted to the column. This implies one transfer of forces
from the steel part of the composite section, which takes place through steel
connecting elements and for which a design practice does exist, and another
transfer of two forces Fsc and Fst from the slab. Fsc is the resulting compression
force in the slab, on the sagging moment side, while Fst is the resulting tension
force of the re-bars, on the hogging moment side (Plumier et al, 1998).
The transfer of the compression force Fsc from the slab to the column can be
realised through two mechanisms, as illustrated in Figure 4.9.
AS/2
(1)/2 FRd2
= 45
bc
FRd1
FRd1
hc
/2 FRd2
FRd2
(1)/2 FRd2
AS/2
/2 FRd2
AT
Figure 4.9. Two basic mechanisms of force transfer from the slab to the column
Mechanism 1 is the direct compression of concrete on the flange of the column.

Mechanism 2 is a truss with two compressed struts and one steel tie in tension.
This mechanism can be developed only when the column cross-section has some
concave zones or special connecting devices on the sides. The design resistance
of these two mechanisms can be estimated in a way similar to the one used in the
design of reinforced concrete structure.
The design resistance FRd1 of Mechanism 1 is simply:
112
FRd 1 = fcd tslab bc
( 4.5 )
where fcd is the strength of the concrete in compression, tslab is the thickness of the
concrete slab and bc is the column width. FRd1 is a rather concentrated force, which
is spread through the width of the slab and induces a transverse tension force Ft1,
which requires transverse anti bursting reinforcements. The spreading of this force
approximately takes place on a distance equal to the half effective width beff of the
slab and generates a transverse tension force Ft1, which can be computed explicitly
if beff is defined. Under seismic action l0 =0.7
is a reasonable estimate for the
length l0 of the beam between two points of moment reversal. Then according to
Eurocode 4 we obtain:
beff = 2 be = 2 (0.7 ) / 8 = 0.175
( 4.6 )
The section of the steel needed for Ft1 should be realized with several re-bars
spread in a zone width equal to 0.6beff, starting at a distance hc of the column
flange, as illustrated in Figure 4.10. Normally, the amount of the required re-bars is
low and effectively already covered by the reinforcements needed for the gravity
and live load resistance.
Figure 4.10. The spreading of FRd1 and rebars As1 required by mechanism 1
113
For Mechanism 2, assuming an inclination = 45 of the concrete struts, we have

that the resistance of a compressed concrete strut, Fccs is equal to:
Fccs = fcd tslab bs 0.6 fcd tslab
hc
( 4.7 )
The resistance of the mechanism 2 results the sum of the component of two
compressed struts in the direction of the force transferring in the column.
FRd 2 = 2
Fccs
= 0.6 fcd tslab hc
( 4.8 )
As Mechanism 2 is not intended to be the dissipative mechanism, an overstrength

factor must be introduced; we must also taken into account the fact that the
concrete resistance fcd usually considered in Eurocode 2 for compressed struts is
a safe side value. With an overstrength factor of 1.2 we obtain the formula
contained in the current version of the Eurocode 8 (2002):
FRd 2 = 0.7 fcd tslab hc
( 4.9 )
Because Ft2 is equal for geometry to the resistance FRd2/2, the section As2 of the
steel re-bars into the main beam should comply with:
AS 2
FRd 2
2 fyd ,T
( 4.10 )
These re-bars should be spread in a zone width equal to the dimension of the
column flange as illustrated in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11. Re-bars As2 required by mechanism 2
114
The transfer of the compression force from the slab, on the sagging moment side,
can only take place through the two mechanisms described above. The highest
resistance FRd offered at a beam-to-column connection can be estimated as the
sum of FRd1 and FRd2:
FRd = FRd 1 + FRd 2 = (bc + 0.7 hc ) tslab fcd
( 4.11 )
Then, the effective width of concrete in the connection zone is, at the most:
beff ,conn = bc + 0.7 hc

In general beff,conn << beff =0.175
( 4.12 )
so that beff,conn 0.5 beff. As the highest sagging
bending moment in the beam under earthquake action is precisely developed in

the connection zone, this result means that:
the connection zone is the critical zone in which the highest strains are
developed in both the concrete and the steel of the composite section;
the plastic moment of the composite beam in that section should be

computed considering an effective width beff,conn. As a consequence, the
plastic neutral axis of the composite section is lower in the beam end
section than in the mid-span section and it is practically impossible that the
ratio between the steel and the concrete strains is such that ductility criteria
for the composite section can be verified.
Considering the above evaluations, it can be concluded that it is impossible to

develop a reliable composite plastic hinge at the end of the beams for sagging
bending moments. Without other force transfer, the concrete in the beam-tocolumn connection zone will necessarily be crushed around the column after
relatively low plastic rotations.
4.5.2
Column web panel shear resistance
The panel zone is the portion of the column contained within the beamcolumn
joint. When a moment frame is subject to lateral loads, high shear forces develop
within the panel zone. The resulting deformations of the panel zone can have an
important effect on the response of the frame in both the elastic and inelastic
ranges of frame behaviour (Tsai and Popov, 1988; Kim and Engelhardt, 1995).
Numerous tests have been performed in the past three decades to investigate the
loaddeformation behaviour of the joint panel using connection subassemblies
Some significant observations from these tests are (Kim and Engelhardt, 2001):
115
Joint panel zones often develop a maximum strength that is significantly

greater than the strength at first yield. This additional strength has been
attributed to strain hardening and to contributions of the column flanges in
resisting panel zone shear forces. Large inelastic panel zone deformations
are typically required in order to develop the maximum panel zone
strength.
Panel zone deformations can add significantly to the overall deformation of

a moment resisting frame, for both elastic and inelastic ranges of
behaviour.
Panel zone stiffness and strength can be increased by the attachment of

web doubler plates to the column within the joint region. The effectiveness
of doubler plates is affected by the method used to connect them to the
column.
In the inelastic range, panel zones can exhibit very ductile behaviour, both
for monotonic and cyclic loading. Experimentally observed hysteresis loops
are typically very stable, even at large inelastic deformations.
Current US building code provisions (AISC, 1997; FEMA 350, 2000) permit the
formation of plastic hinges in the panel zones of steel moment frames under
earthquake loading. Thus, rather than forming plastic flexural hinges only in the
beams or columns, a primary source of energy dissipation in a steel moment frame
can be the formation of plastic shear hinges in the panel zones. Consequently, an
accurate analytical model is needed to predict the response of the panel zone in
order to predict accurately the response of a steel moment frame under earthquake
loading,. The traditional center-to-center line representation of the frame must be
modified to include panel zone deformation in frame analysis.
Several researchers, including Krawinkler et al. (1971) and Wang (1988) proposed
relationships between panel zone shear force V and panel zone deformation for
monotonic loading. These relationships have been used as the basis of
mathematical models for non-linear rotational springs representing the panel zone.
Krawinklers V relations have been adopted in several building codes (ICBO,
1997; AISC, 1997) as a basis for computing the shear strength of panel zones.
However, it was pointed out by Krawinkler that a new model might be needed for
joints with thick column flanges since his V relations were derived from
experimental and analytical results for panel zones with relatively thin column
flanges. Wang also showed that Krawinklers V relations may overestimate panel
zone shear strength for panel zones with thick column flanges.
The mathematical model for strength and stiffness calculations is shown in Figure
4.12. It consists of an elastic-perfect plastic shear panel surrounded by rigid
116
boundaries with springs at the four corners. These springs simulate the resistance
of the elements surrounding the panel zone, in particular the bending resistance of
the column flanges.
zeq
Kpl
dc
Figure
4.12.
Mathematical
model for the web panel in

shear
If we use the mathematical model proposed by Krawinkler, it is possible to

calculate the elastic stiffness of the web panel as follows:
K el = Gel (Hc tcf ) tcw
( 4.13 )
where Gel is the elastic shear modulus; Hc is the column height; tcf and tcw are he
thickness of the column flange and of the column web, respectively. This equation
is valid until < y: this value is achieved when the shear force at general yielding is
equal to:
Vy = (Hc tcf ) tcw
fy,cw
( 4.14 )
The f y,cw is the yield strength of the column web calculated adopting the HenkyVon Mises yield reduction criterion, when the column axial force is not negligible.
The strength of the column web can be computed by means of the following
relationship:
fy,cw
= fy ,cw 1
Sd ,col
fy ,cw
( 4.15 )
117
where Sd, col is the average normal stress in the panel zone. In the current Draft of
Eurocode 3 (2001), the influence of the normal stress due the column axial force
is approximately accounted for by means of a reduction coefficient equal to 0,9. In
particular, the codified value of the reduction factor is on the safe side up to a
column axial load equal to 45% of the column squash load.
After yielding, the rotational stiffness of the web panel zone can be attributed to the
bending of the column flanges. It is computed as:
K pl ,1 =
24 EIfc
5 tfc zeq
( 4.16 )
where Ifc is the inertia moment of the column flanges:
Ifc =
bc tfc3
12
( 4.17 )
We obtain:
k pl ,1 = 1.04 Gel bc
tcf2
zeq
( 4.18 )
If it is assumed that the post-elastic stiffness of the joint Kpl,1 is valid for a range
= 3y, the strength Vpl,1 of the joints at an angle of distortion equal to 4y is then
given:
Vpl ,1 = kel y + k pl ,1 3 y
( 4.19 )
At an angle of distortion equal to 4y it is possible to assume that strain hardening

in the web panel in shear begins. The strain hardening branch stiffness Kpl,2 is
suggested as follows:
k pl ,2 = Gsh (hc tcf ) tcw
( 4.20 )
where Gsh is the strain hardening shear modulus that can be assumed equal to Gsh
= 1/100 Gel.
The column web panel must withstand the shear stresses acting when the global
frame mechanism arises, that is, it must support that. In accordance with Eurocode
118
3 (2001), in frame web panels of beam-to-column connections the following

assessment is permitted:
Vwp , Ed
Vwp , Rd
1, 0
( 4.21 )
where
Vwp,Ed is the design shear force in the web panel due to the action effects,
taking into account the plastic resistance of the adjacent dissipative zones in
beams or connections;
Vwp,Rd is the shear resistance of the web panel according to J 3.5.1 of Annex C
of the Eurocode 3. It is not required to take into account the effects of the
stresses of axial force and bending moment on the plastic resistance in shear.
The shear resistance of the columns, in dissipative zones, should be
determined on the basis of the structural steel section alone, unless special
details are provided to mobilize the shear resistance of the concrete
encasement.
A possible system of internal actions that the panel zone of an interior beam-tocolumn connection may have to withstand is shown in Figure 4.13. Under this
system of forces, shear deformation of the web panel zone occurs. A key
simplification in this analysis is that the beam moments are replaced by an
equivalent couple, with the forces acting at mid-depth of the beam flanges.
Figure 4.13. Internal actions of an interior beam-to-column joint
Under the assumption, the effective shear force in the web panel Vwp,Ed of an
interior column at the structure collapse in the seismic design situation can be
calculated as follows:
119
Vwp , Ed ,eff =
M pl , Rd ,conn
z eq
M + pl , Rd ,conn 2 M gravity
z + eq
Vc
( 4.22 )
where:
-
M pl,Rd,conn is the ultimate strength of the connection for hogging bending

moments;
M
pl,Rd,conn
is the ultimate strength of the connection for sagging bending
moments;
-
M graity is the bending moment, due to dead loads;

-
z eq is the equivalent lever arm in the connection for hogging moment;

+
eq
is the equivalent lever arm in the connection for sagging moment;
Vc is the average shear force at collapse in the web panel equal to:
Vc =
Vcolumn,up + Vcolumn,botton
2
M pl , Rd ,conn + M pl , Rd ,conn
Hc
zeq + zeq+
( 4.23 )
where Hc is the height of the web panel.

In obtaining the shear forces in the column segments outside of the panel zone, it
is often assumed that:
(a) the zero-moment points are located in the middle section of the
columns;
(b) the equilibrium condition
4.5.3
M pl , Rd ,conn =
M column is satisfied.
Joint rotational capacity evaluation
With regard to rotational capacity, every joint must be able to develop the
necessary plastic rotation upon formation of a global mechanism. Eurocode 8
(2002) prescribes that the rotational capacity p of the plastic hinges, defined as p
= / 0.5 L, see Figure 4.14, should be greater than 35 mrad for structures of
ductility class H, and 25 mrad for ductility class M structures, with behavioural
coefficient q > 2. Such values must be obtained for cyclic loads with a reduction in
strength and/or stiffness of less than or equal to 20%, and must be corroborated by
experiments (prEN 1998-1, 2001).
The rotational capacity of the beam-to-column joint was computed using the
component method (Eurocode 4, 2001), suitably modified in order to take into
120
account inelastic phenomena. The design is such that the joint behaviour is
governed by ductile components: the end plate and column flange under bending;
the column web panel under shear; and the concrete-slab rebars under tension.
More specifically, in the case of hogging moment, the connection is governed by
the rebars under tension. In this case, the bond between rebars and concrete limits
the yielding between the cracks, so that the total elongation can be evaluated as
the sum of the strains of the rebars near the cracks (ECCS-109, 1999). Therefore,
the joint rotation results to be
U =
U ,S,Tot
( 4.24 )
DS + DR
where U,S,Tot is the total elongation capacity of the rebars, Ds is the height of the
steel profile and DR the distance between the edge of the upper flange and the
centroid of the steel reinforcements.
Conversely, in the case of sagging moment, the rotation of the joint is determined
by the capacities of the column flange and of the end plate on an experimental
basis (Bursi et al., 2002). As a result, the total rotation of the joint reads
U =
U ,S
( 4.25 )
DS + DC
where U,S is the total displacement of the T-stubs, Ds the height of the steel profile
and DC the distance between the edge of the upper flange of the steel profile and
the centroid of the concrete slab. The joint response is also governed by the
deformational capacity of the web panel under shear forces. Thus, in applying the
component method in order to account for such rotational capacity, we limited the
maximum rotation to 30 mrad.
0.5L
0.5L
Figure 4.14. Deformed configuration of a sub-frame
121
4.6
Mechanical properties of materials
Production standards set strict lower limits for the yield stress, but they leave to the
designer nearly complete freedom with regard to the upper limits. European
standard ENV 206 (1990) on concrete production does not, for instance, require,
on one hand, controls of the maximum resistance, just as in the case of EN 10025
(1993) for structural steels. Eurocode 8 (prEN 1998-1, 2002), on the other hand,
recommends that the actual yield stress of steel be such as not to modify the
localization of the plastic hinges considered during design. In the case of the
beam-to-column joints under study, all the materials were checked preliminarily.
The results, reported in Table 4.4, confirm the extremely wide scatter of the
resistance values that can, in practice, be obtained.
Design yield
strength
2
[N/mm ]
Measured yield
strength
2
[N/mm ]
BEAM FLANGE
(IPE300 S235)
235
370
Beam web
(IPE300 S235)
235
313
Column flange
(HEB280/260 S235)
235
341
Column web
(HEB280/260 S235)
235
300
End plate (S235)
235
383
Reinforcing bars
(B450C)
450
537
Concrete
(class 25/30)
25
35
Table 4.4. Design and actual yield strength
4.7
Seismic performance evaluation for the prototype structure
The principal objective of this project is the evaluation of the performance of the
composite construction with semi-rigid partial-strength beam-to-column joints and
partially encased columns in earthquake-prone regions. Performance is defined in
terms of probabilistic performance objectives. A performance objective consists of
122
the specification of a performance level and an acceptable low probability that

poorer performance could occur within a specific period of time. To evaluate a
performance objective, selection of a performance level of interest is required. The
performance levels can be, for example, the ultimate state limits or the service
state limits. A desired probability that damage in a period of time will be worse than
this performance level has to correspond for each selected level. Moreover an
average estimate of the ground shaking intensity at the probability of exceedance
identified in the performance objective definition has to be determined for each
probabilistic performance objective.
The performance of a building during an earthquake depends on many factors
including: the structures configuration and proportions, its dynamic characteristics,
the hysteretic behaviour of the elements and joints, the type of non-structural
components employed, the quality of materials and workmanship, the adequacy of
maintenance, the site conditions, and the intensity and dynamic characteristics of
the earthquake ground motion experienced. Consequently, seismic performance
prediction for buildings, either as part of a design or evaluation, should consider,
either explicitly or implicitly, all of these factors.
Therefore, a reliability-based performance-oriented approach, adopted by the SAC
project for design and evaluation, was taken in order to explicitly account for
uncertainties and randomness in seismic demand and capacities in a consistent
manner and to satisfy with defined reliability identifiable performance objectives
corresponding to various occupancies, damage states and seismic hazards.
Consistently with the Eurocode 8 (2002) and on the basis of the FEMA 302
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation for New Buildings and
Other Structures (BSSC, 1998a) and the FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (BSSC, 1997), two performance levels are
considered. These are termed Serviceability Limit State (S.L.S.) and Ultimate Limit
State (U.L.S.):
The Serviceability Limit State (named Immediate Occupancy (IO) level in

the FEMA Provisions) is defined as the post-earthquake damage state
where only minor structural damage has occurred with no substantial
reduction in building gravity or lateral resistance. Damage in this state
could include some localized yielding and limited fracturing of connections.
Damage is anticipated to be so slight that if it is not found during inspection
there is no cause for concern. For pre-Northridge buildings, fewer than
15% of the connections on any floor may experience connection fractures
without exceeding the IO level.
The Ultimate Limit State (named Collapse Prevention (CP) level in the
FEMA Provisions) is defined as the post-earthquake damage state, in
123
which the structure is on the verge of experiencing either local or total

collapse. Significant damage to the building has occurred, including
significant degradation in strength and stiffness of the lateral force resisting
system, large permanent deformation of the structure and possibly some
degradation of the gravity load carrying system. However, all significant
components of the gravity load carrying system must continue to function.
The probability that a building may experience greater damage than foreseen
depends on the vulnerability of the building and the seismic hazard to which it is
exposed. Vulnerability is related to the capacity of the building, which may be a
function of the global or interstory drift, plastic rotations or member forces. Ground
accelerations associated with an earthquake cause building response resulting in
global and interstorey drifts and member forces, all of which can be classified as
demands. If both the demand produced by ground motion and the capacity of the
structure to resist this demand could be predicted with certainty, the engineer could
design a building and have 100% confidence that the building would achieve the
desired performance objectives. Unfortunately, neither capacity nor demand can
be precisely determined because of uncertainties and randomness inherent in our
prediction of the ground motion, the structures response to this motion and its
capacity to resist damage, given these demands.
On the basis of the important advancements in performance evaluation, developed
under the SAC project, a procedure for associating a level of confidence with the
conclusion that the designed structure is capable of meeting the aforementioned
performance levels (S.L.S. or S.L.U.) has been performed. The procedure includes
the following steps:
i.
Determining the structure performance objective to be evaluated. This

requires the selection of one or more performance levels, that is, either S.L.S.
or U.L.S., and the appropriate hazard level, that is exceedance probability
desired for this performance. The NEHRP guidelines (BSSC, 1998)
recommend that design solutions provide a 90% level of confidence that the
building satisfy desired performance from a global perspective and a 50% level
of confidence that it satisfy the performance at a local level.
ii.
Determining the ground motion characteristics for the chosen performance

objective. The ground motion intensity for each performance level should be
chosen in order to have the same probability of exceedance as the hazard
level of the design objective. It is assumed that a peak ground acceleration,
p.g.a. equal to = 0.40 g should have the 90 % probability of not being
exceeded in 50 years for the U.L.S. According to a Poisson model, this
corresponds to a reference return period of 476.7 years; conversely a p.g.a. =
0.1 g should have the 90 % probability of not being exceeded in 10 years for
124
the S.L.S. According to a Poisson model, this corresponds to a reference

return period of 95.4 years.
iii.
Calculating the structural demand for the pre-selected earthquake

intensity. The demand parameters, such as the maximum interstory drift, are
computed using standard methods of structural analysis (Non-linear Pushover
analysis and Time-History analysis) taking into account possibly stiffness
deterioration and strength degradation of members and connections of the
structure (the effect of residual drift contributes about one-third to the loss in
frame stability, and the remaining two-third drop is due to stiffness/strength
degradation).
iv.
Determination of global and local collapse capacity, i.e. estimating the

capacity of the structure and of its components (maximum rotation, interstorey,
etc) for the defined limit states (damage and the collapse limit state).
Local Drift Capacity will be determined from cyclic tests of full-size connection
specimens conducted by the Laboratory of the University of Pisa. The cyclic
tests are used to determine load-deformation hysteresis behaviour of the
system and the maximum drift for which gravity loads may still be carried by
the girders. This gravity-induced drift limit is reached when a low-cycle fatigue
crack develops in the end plate or the load-deformation behaviour of the
moment connection has completely deteriorated. A standard test protocol,
based on the ECCS Procedure (1986) was used for the tests. The moment vs.
plastic rotation of a beam-column assembly representative of a single test is
shown in Figure 4.15. The hysteretic behaviour is characterized by gradual
strength degradation with increasing plastic rotation. For the specific
connection tested, it appeared that the shear-carrying capacity was reached at
a plastic rotation of about 0.06 radians. In order to use such data in the
reliability framework it is necessary to have several such tests, from which we
can obtain statistics on the likely distribution of important design parameters,
such as plastic rotation at peak load and plastic rotation at loss of capacity.
Statistics that must be obtained include the median value of the parameter and
the standard deviation of the logarithm of the values obtained from the testing.
Global Drift Capacity of the prototype building will then be determined using the
non-linear pushover analysis (NLP) or the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)
procedure that is based on the use of non-linear time-history analysis. It is
important that the analytical model used for determining the global drift
demand reproduces the major features of the measured response such as
sudden loss of strength. This means that the measured hysteresis behaviour
must be modeled reasonably well and the model must include all significant
components of building stiffness, strength and damping.
125
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-80
Experiment
-60
-40
-20
20
40
ROTATION (mrad)
60
80
Figure 4.15. Measured moment vs. rotation behaviour

of the connection
v.
Determining the demand-to-capacity ratio. Once calculated, the ratio

between the demand obtained from aforementioned frame analyses and the
obtained capacity allow to estimate the performance of the structure and of the
components, i.e. the probability that the structure or a component will have less
than a specified probability of exceedance of a desired performance level. The
EC8 code requirements impose two primary controls on the structural design:
minimum strength and minimum stiffness (as specified trough the deflection
limit). These two requirements are interrelated and competing. For instance, if
the stiffness of a structure is increased so that it meets the drift requirements,
then the period will shorten, which often results in a larger design base shear
and a correspondingly larger drift. Moreover, the strength and stiffness of the
building are coupled, and thus the minimum stiffness requirement adds
considerably to the system overstrength. The structural overstrength results
from a number of factors including internal force redistribution, code
requirements for multiple loading combinations, code minimum requirements
regarding proportioning and detailing, material strength higher than that
specified in the design, strain hardening, deflection, constraints on system
performance, member oversize and strain rate effect.
126
4.8
Cyclic tests of full-scale composite joint subassemblages
This Section presents results obtained from tests carried on three full-scale
composite beam-to-column joint subassemblages, which were replicas of parts of
the two-storey prototype structure. One monotonic test and one test in cyclic
regime both on an interior (CJ-INT) and an exterior (CJ-EXT) joint were conducted.
The steelwork connection consists of an extended end plate welded to the beam
end and bolted to the column flange. As illustrated in Figure 4.16 and Figure 4.17,
all the specimens had steel deck supported concrete slab acting compositely with
the beam and partially encased steel-concrete composite columns. Moment
rotation curves obtained from the tests are compared with those predicted by an
analytical model. Plastic analysis based on the theoretical developments of the
previous sections is used to develop the analytical model for the prediction of
moment capacity. A rotational spring model for the composite beam, as proposed
in revised Annex J of EC4, combined with a translational spring model for the steel
web panel, is used to assess the strength and the stiffness of the composite joints.
The model tends to over-predict the behaviour of the joint. To better understand
the transfer mechanism activated in the composite beam and in the web panel
numerical finite element (FE) analyses were carried out by means of the ABAQUS
code. The FE model was calibrated and the stress and strain state of the
aforementioned connections was simulated in the monotonic displacement regime.
4.8.1
Test set-up and procedure
The basic set-up included a test frame and a loading system (Figure 4.18). The
test frame was designed to be sufficiently stiff to minimize the lateral movement of
the system. The lower hinges were fastened directly to the test floor. The horizontal
displacement-controlled load was applied by a hydraulic jack at the upper end of
the composite column. The jack was mounted on the pedestal and was connected
to the column through a load cell. The height of the columns of the test specimens,
measured from the point of load application to the center of the hinge, was 3500
mm, which was the storey height of the prototype structure. This selection was
made by assuming that the points of contra-flexure occurred at the midheight of the
adjacent stories.
In order to characterize the behaviour of the specimens under hysteretic loading a
predefined representative displacement history was applied. The procedure follows
the ECCS recommendation n 45 (1986), as illustrated in Chapter 2. The
instrumentation of the specimens was designed to determine the applied loads, to
127
Figure 4.16. Dimensions and layout of the specimen CJ-INT
Figure 4.17. Dimensions and layout of the

specimen CJ-EXT
128
Figure 4.18. Test set-up for the interior joint CJ-INT
Figure 4.19.Global instrumentation for the specimen CJINT

check the reactions at the supports and to measure the deformation and internal
stresses of the specimens. By means of LVDT transducers and inclinometers,
positioned as illustrated in Figure 4.19, was possible to determine the global
deformed configuration. Moreover, in the zone of the joint, LVDT transducers (see
129
Figure 4.20) and strain gauges were positioned in order to investigate the transfer
mechanisms from the composite beam to the column; in detail the shear
deformation of the web panel and the strain distribution in the concrete slab and in
the reinforcing bars were well monitored.
Tc.sup
Ts.sup.sx
Ts.sup.dx
i
Td
2
a.
Td
Tb.inf.sx
ia .
1
Tb.sup.sx
Tb.sup.dx
Tb.inf.dx
Ts.inf.sx
Ts.inf.sx
Tc.inf
Figure 4.20. LVDT Transducer in the joint
4.8.2
Specimen behaviour and test results
The test results of the four specimens are shown as load-deformation

relationships. The number of peaks indicates the cycle numbers. The hysteresis
diagrams, characterizing the overall behaviour of the specimen and the behaviour
of its components, are as follows:
M- hysteresis diagram of the overall behaviour of the specimen;
M- hysteresis diagram of composite beam connection rotation;
V- hysteresis diagram of web panel zone distortion.
Interior Complete Joint CJ-INT

For this specimen both the monotonic and the cyclic test were performed. In the
following Figure 4.21, Figure 4.22 and Figure 4.23 the moment vs. plastic rotation
of a beam-column assembly, the moment vs. plastic rotation of the composite
beam connection and the shear vs. plastic distortion of the column web panel are
shown.
130
350
350
300
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-150-120 -90 -60 -30 0
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0
30 60 90 120 150
ROTATION (mrad)
15 30 45 60 75
ROTATION (mrad)
Figure 4.21. M- diagram of the overall behaviour of the CJ-INT specimen

350
CONNECTION MOMENT (kNm)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-60
-45
-30
-15
15
30
ROTATION (mrad)
45
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-20 -16 -12 -8
60
-4
12 16 20
ROTATION (mrad)
1000
1000
900
800
WEB PANEL SHEAR (kN)
Figure 4.22. M- diagram of composite connection rotation of the CJ-INT specimen
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTORTION (mrad)
-1200
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
10 20 30 40 50
DISTORTION (mrad)
Figure 4.23. V- diagram of web panel zone distortion of the CJ-INT specimen
131
The monotonic test shows clearly that, at an imposed global plastic rotation equal
to 15 mrad (interstorey drift equal to 2%), a marked and sudden loss of moment
resistance characterizes the positive branch of the joint behaviour. This is due to
the fact that the concrete in the beam-to-column connection zone has been
crushed around the column flange, as shown in Figure 4.24. From this point, the
behaviour of the joint is similar to that of a composite joint with not-restrained slab
(Lee and Lu, 1989; Ryan and Bitar, 2002). The loss of resistance is evident in the
diagram of connection response too.
Figure 4.24. Crushed concrete in the beam-to-column connection

zone around the column flange
From the re-assessment of data collection of the strain gauges in the slab and
imposing the equilibrium condition between beam and column actions, it was
possible to demonstrate that only the mechanism 1 was mobilized to react to the
column action. In Figure 4.25 it is possible to underline the correspondence during
the test between the maximum strength reached in the concrete slab (38 MPa) and
the loss of resistance of the specimen. Due to this unexpected phenomenon the
panel zone underwent very large shear distortions, but it did not show any sign of
distress. The web panel rotation alone represents more than the 65% of the total
joint rotation.
Under cyclic loading history, the specimen CJ-INT shows the same properties
illustrated in monotonic regime. Moreover, the hysteretic behaviour is characterized
by gradual strength degradation with increasing plastic rotation. However, the
specimen exhibited considerable reserve of strength and one can observe that
132
total rotations of CJ-INT reach values greater than 50 mrad both under sagging
and hogging bending moment, implying a suitable ductile behaviour for high ductile
(class H) structures in seismic applications (Eurocode 8, 2002).
CONCRETE STRESS (MPa)
50
45
Loss of resistance
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
25
50
75
100
125
ROTATION (mrad)
150
Figure 4.25. Concrete stress vs. global rotation in CJ-INT
Exterior Complete Joint CJ-EXT

Both the monotonic and the cyclic test were performed. In the monotonic test an
imposed displacement load that would produce compression in the concrete slab
was selected. The moment vs. plastic rotation of a beam-column assembly, the
moment vs. plastic rotation of the composite beam connection, and the shear vs.
plastic distortion of the column web panel are shown in the following Figures. The
joint behaviour, and in particular the contribution of the concrete slab in
compression, is very similar to that obtained for the interior joint CJ-INT. Also in this
case, as shown in Figure 4.26, the crushing of the concrete in compression around
the column flange brings about the loss of resistance in the global joint response.
The same phenomenon is evident in the behaviour of the connection (see Figure
4.27) and in the response of the column web panel (see Figure 4.28), that
distortion alone represents more than the 64% of the total joint rotation.
The behaviour of the exterior joint during the cyclic test resulted different from that
of the interior joint. Under hogging bending moment, the exterior portion of the
concrete slab in compression was able to absorb large plastic deformations with
formation of evident cracks at an inclination of 45 degree, as shown in Figure 4.29.
133
360
360
320
300
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
240
180
120
60
0
-60
-120
-180
-240
-300
-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
ROTATION (mrad)
15 30 45 60 75
ROTATION (mrad)
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
350
Figure 4.26. M- diagram of the overall behaviour of the CJ-EXT specimen
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
ROTATION (mrad)
10 20 30 40
ROTATION (mrad)
800
800
700
600
Figure 4.27. M- diagram of composite connection rotation of the CJ-EXT specimen
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTORTION (mrad)
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-20 -15 -10 -5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DISTORTION (mrad)
Figure 4.28. V- diagram of web panel zone distortion of the CJ-INT specimen
134
In the transfer of the forces from the concrete slab to the column under hogging
bending moment the longitudinal re-bars have played a relevant role. From the
analysis of the strain gauges data it resulted that the reinforcing bars deform
plastically.
Figure 4.29. Cracks at an inclination of 45 in the

exterior portion of the concrete slab
Moreover, the good behaviour of the composite section under hogging bending
moment is evident in the analysis of the response of the web panel too. In this case
the distortion of the panel zone is only the 19% of the total joint rotation, and the
transmitted shear force is smaller. This means that the connection worked well with
maximum rotation of about 50 mrad greater than those observed in the column
web panel.
135
4.8.3
Validation of the analytical model
The composite beam-to-column joint, named CJ type, is modelled using a

rotational spring to simulate the connections and a rectangular articulated polygon,
whose dimensions are represented in the Figure 4.30, with a non linear
translational spring simulating the column web panel.
CJ type Interior Joint

a = 280 mm
composite column
rigid truss
b = 382,8 mm
d = (a + b)
composite beams
1/2
CJ type Exterior Joint

a = 260 mm
b = 382,8 mm
d = d = (a + b)
1/2
Figure 4.30. Dimensions of rectangular articulated polygon
The mechanical properties of the rotational spring are obtained using the
Component Method according with ECCS - n109 Procedure (1999); for the
column panel in shear the Krawinklers model has been used. To model the
rotational spring of the connection in a way that closely reproduces the expected
behaviour, each component is modelled separately, taking account of the interior
moments and forces in the members acting at the periphery of the web panel. The
modelling of the actual behaviour of the connection is different in the case of
sagging or hogging bending moment. The basic components identified in this
design are given in Table 4.5, for sagging and hogging bending moment
respectively.
The design moment resistance Mj,Rd of this rotational spring is determined for
sagging bending moment from:
M j ,Rd =
F
j t , j ,Rd
zj
( 4.26 )
where:
Ft,j,Rd
is the effective design tension resistance of the bolt-row j;
zj
is the distance from the component j in tension to the center of the

compression.
136
The center of the compression is assumed to be in line with the mid-thickness of

the compression concrete slab (see Figure 4.31a).
MOMENT-ROTATION CHARACTERISTIC FOR SAGGING BENDING MOMENT
Concrete Slab in compression
Components in compression
Beam flange and web in compression

Column web in compression
Column web in tension
Components in tension
Beam web in tension

Bolt in tension
Column flange in bending
Components in bending
Interior end-plate in bending

Exterior end-plate in bending
MOMENT-ROTATION CHARACTERISTIC FOR HOGGING BENDING MOMENT
Components in compression
Beam flange and web in compression

Column web in compression
Column web in tension
Components in tension
Beam web in tension

Bolt in tension
Longitudinal slab re-bars in tension
Components in bending
Column flange in bending

Interior end-plate in bending
Table 4.5. The basic components identified in this design for sagging and hogging bending
moment
Moreover, the design moment resistance Mj,Rd of this rotational spring is

determined for hogging moment from:
M j ,Rd =
Ft , j ,Rd zi
( 4.27 )
137
where:
Ft,j,Rd
is the effective design tension resistance of the row of reinforcing

bars or bolts;
zj
is the distance from the component j in tension to the center of the

compression.
The centre of the compression is assumed to be in line with the mid-thickness of

the compression flange of the connected beam (see Figure 4.31b).
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.31. Moment resistance Mj,Rd calculation for: a) Sagging bending moment;
b) Hogging bending moment
Translational Spring
(F, )
Translational Spring
(F, )
Rotational Spring
(M, )
Rotational Spring
(M , )
kConnL
kkConnL
ConnR
Rotational Spring
(M , )
kkConnR
ConnL
kweb
kweb
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.32. Joint configuration for: (a) Exterior joint with HEB 260 Column; (b) Interior
joint with HEB 280 Column
The effective design tension resistance of a bolt-row is taken as the smallest

values of the tension resistances of the basic components (bolts in tension, column
web in tension, column web in bending, end-plate in bending, beam web in
138
tension). For the calculation of resistance, the actual values of the yield strength as
well as the elasticity modulus of the material are used.
The rotational stiffness of the spring is determined from the flexibilities of its basic
components, each represented by its stiffness coefficient kj obtained in according
with the Eurocode 3. Moreover, for ductile components an elastic-plastic stiffness
coefficient is used; conversely, for the other components only an elastic stiffness
coefficient is used. In Figure 4.32 the characteristics for the two single-sided and
double-sided
beam-to-column
joint
configurations
respectively are
shown.
Moreover, the moment-rotation relationship for both the two joint configurations are
shown in Figure 4.33: the calculated rotation capacity limits are in evidence in this
figure. These vertical limits in the rotation of the complete joints are due to both the
rotation capacity of the equivalent T-Stub that model the end-plate in bending (15
mrad), and the rotation capacity of the column web panel in shear (35 mrad), as
400
COMPLETE JOINT MOMENT (kNm)
illustrated in Section 3.5.3.
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-100 -75
-50
-25
25
50
ROTATION (mrad)
(a)
75
100
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-100 -75
-50 -25
25
50
ROTATION (mrad)
75
100
(b)
Figure 4.33. Moment-rotation relationship for the two joint configurations: (a) CJ-INT Joint;
(b) CJ-EXT joint
The analytical models are then compared with the experimental results. The
attention is hence focused on the use of these data for checking the general
validity of the joint model by component with reference to the approximation of the
monotonic and cyclic response.
With regard to the specimen CJ-INT the overall M- relationship is compared in
Figure 4.34. Under sagging bending moment the analytical model tends to
overestimate the experimental response and is not able to capture the loss of
resistance due to the crushing of the concrete slab in compression around the
column flange. Similar results are obtained under hogging bending moment, due to
139
the fact that, when the concrete slab is crushed, the joint loses its performance in
term of resistance. A detailed comprehension can be obtained by analysing the
response of the connection, under sagging and hogging bending moment.
In Figure 4.35 the experimental connection response of the CJ-INT specimen,

400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
Experimental
Analytical model
-300
-150-120 -90 -60 -30 0
30 60 90 120 150
ROTATION (mrad)
Figure 4.34. Comparison between experimental and

numerical joint response of the CJ-INT specimen
500
400
Experimental
Model with concrete
Model without concrete
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
ROTATION (mrad)
Figure 4.35. Comparison between experimental and

numerical (with and without concrete contribution)
connection response of the CJ-INT specimen
140
compared with the analytical prediction obtained from the model are shown. It is
evident that the theoretical and the experimental results do not agree closely. It is
interesting to underline that with a modified model in which the contribution of the
composite section is not taken into account, the analytical prediction agrees quite
well with the experimental results. This means that after the crushing of the
concrete the benefit composite action of the beam is lost and the joint behaves
simply as steel joint. Similar results are obtained for the exterior joint, as depicted
in Figure 4.36; however, different considerations have to be made.
360
300
240
180
120
60
0
-60
-120
-180
-240
Experimental
Analitical Model
-300
-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0
15 30 45 60 75
ROTATION (mrad)
Figure
4.36.
Comparison
between
experimental
and
numerical joint response of the CJ-EXT specimen
Under sagging bending moment, the analytical model is capable to predict

correctly the maximum strength of the connections, as shown in Figure 4.37, but it
is not able to predict the loss of strength due to the crushing of the concrete. Under
hogging bending moment the analytical model captures very well the behaviour of
the connection, in term both of stiffness and strength. The combination of the
response under sagging and of the response under hogging bending moment of
the specimen produces a different redistribution of force between connection and
web panel in shear, which the model is not able to reproduce. This fact can
explicate the differences in the global behaviour between experimental and
analytical results.
141
360
Experimental
Model with concrete
300
240
180
120
60
0
-60
-120
-180
-240
-300
-60
Figure
4.37.
-45
-30
-15
15
ROTATION (mrad)
Comparison
between
30
experimental
45
and
numerical connection response of the CJ-EXT specimen
4.8.4
3D finite element (FE) model
To better understand the stress state in the web panel zone and in the concrete
slab and therefore the activation of the transfer mechanisms idealized in Section
4.5.1, 3D finite element (FE) models of the composite joints have been developed,
such as the one depicted in Figure 4.38. On the basis of the experimental results
and the data collection, inelastic FE analyses carried out by means of the ABAQUS
code (2001) on the exterior tested complete joints (CJ-EXT) have been calibrated
and the stress and strain state of the aforementioned connection was simulated in
the monotonic displacement regime.
The model includes details such as all re-bars in the concrete slab, boltholes and
bolts; surface-to-surface contact elements are used to model the surface
interaction. Moreover, constraint equations are introduced to make the bolt heads
continuous with the end plate. Bolt pre-tensioning is applied by prescribed
displacements at the end of the bolt shank. These displacements are held constant
throughout the loading. The end of the beam and the bottom of the column in the
model have roller and pin boundary conditions, respectively.
The material models exploited for 3D elements are those available in the ABAQUS
code (2001). Elasto-plastic simulations of composite substructures are performed
142
by means of a macro-level approach for concrete fracture, in which plain concrete

is assumed to be an equivalent isotropic continuum. The material model for
concrete is developed within the framework of the theory of plasticity. Though it
does not predict explicitly crack initiation and evolution, as the companion model
based on the coaxial rotating crack formulation does, it is more doubtless robust
from a computational standpoint. In particular, the pressure-dependent DruckerPrager yield criterion formulated in stress space is adopted.
Figure 4.38. General view and details for the 3D Finite Element (FE) model
of the CJ-EXT specimen
143
The two material constants are linked to the Mohr-Coulomb constants, viz. the
cohesion and the angle of internal friction, by matching the fictitious tensile strength
ft and the biaxial compressive strength fbc of concrete according to transformation
formulae in Chen (1982). Moreover, a non-associated flow rule is exploited. The
strain-hardening behaviour of concrete is governed by means of the stress-strain
law of concrete in uniaxial compression or uniaxial tension, complemented with
appropriate post-peak softening rules. In detail, the tension-softening behaviour of
concrete related to its progressive fracturing or tension-stiffening behaviour owing
to the presence of reinforcements is reproduced with exponential decay curves
(Stevens et al, 1991). Confining effects owing to transversal reinforcements and
profiled-steel sheeting are considered in the compression regime by means of the
model of Mander et al. (1988). The concrete model does not embody the specific
fracture energy Gf, to overcome mesh-dependent results (Hilleborg et al, 1976).
However, as the concrete slab is moderately reinforced both in the longitudinal and
transversal direction, the mesh-dependency is small. Moreover, the FE analyses
account for steel nonlinearities using the von Mises yield criterion. Isotropic
hardening is assumed for the analyses. In the analysis the measured stress-strain
properties of the materials obtained by tensile test were used. The elastic modulus
and the Poissons ratio were assumed as E=210000 and =0.3, respectively.
Longitudinal rebars in the slab are assumed to be made with a hardening elastoplastic material and modelled using discrete two-noded beam elements for 3D
models. The discrete representation of the reinforcements is adopted because the
influence of bond-slip is of interest. Thereby, dimensionless bond-link elements are
adopted to connect concrete and steel nodes. In detail, the bond stress-slip relation
is modulated according to the law proposed in Stevens et al. (1991). Friction
between the structural steel and the concrete slab is not modelled because it has
little influence on the substructure responses. Elastic and inelastic convergence
studies have been conducted to evaluate and arrive at the final mesh for the finite
element models.
The reaction force vs. the controlled displacement is illustrated in Figure 4.39,
where the numerical simulations are compared to the envelope curve of the cyclic
experimental response. One may observe that experimental data and numerical
prediction are in a good agreement. Under sagging bending moment the specimen
yield strength is well captured as expected; moreover the numerical simulation
captures very well the hardening branch of the experimental response, both in term
of strength and stiffness; this indicates a satisfactory behaviour of the numerical
model. The model clearly shows the evolution of the distribution of the principal
stresses of compression in the slab for the specimen subjected both under sagging
and hogging bending moment.
144

100
REACTION FORCE (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Experimental
Numerical
-60
-80
-150 -120 -90
-60
-30
30
60
90
120
150
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

displacement of CJ-EXT specimen
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 4.40. Evolution of the principal stresses of compression in the slab under sagging
bending moment for a top displacement equal to: (a) 50 mm; (b) 75 mm; (c) 100 mm; (d)
125 mm
145
For sagging bending moment, as depicted in Figure 4.40, the localization of the
stresses in the front of the column flange is evident. Moreover, under hogging
bending moment, the model clearly shows the distribution of the stresses in the
slab, due to the transfer of forces from the reinforcing bars in tension to the partially
encased column. Such distribution explicates well the cracks in the concrete slab
observed during the test, as depicted in Figure 4.41.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.41. (a) Numerical distribution of the principal stresses of compression in the slab
under hogging bending moment; (b) cracks in the concrete slab due to the transfer of force
from the concrete slab to the column during the experimental test
Moreover, the model captures very well the deformed configuration of the joint,
with localization of plastic hinges in the flanges of the steel column, in
correspondence of the stiffeners and the yielding of the end plate in tension, as
depicted in Figure 4.42. Moreover, the stress concentration due to the mobilization
of the column web panel in shear is evident in the panel zone.
Figure 4.42. Plastic hinges in the flanges of the

steel column and yielding of the end plate in
tension
146
The strut and tie mechanisms to be activated in the slab depend on the joint
flexibility. The numerical analyses carried out under sagging bending moment have
evidenced the presence of high gradients of compression stresses in front of the
column flanges. It is impossible to appreciate the formation of the idealized
Mechanism 2, proposed in Section 4.5.1. In fact, in the portion of the concrete slab
around the column, the numerical model evidences tensile stresses that do not
permit the presence of an idealized concrete strut. This means that, under sagging
bending moment, the resistance of the composite connection depends only on the
resistance of the proposed Mechanism 1. The experimental loss of resistance of
the joint is due to the high level of stresses that the concrete slab should transmit
from the composite section of the beam to the column.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.43. Evolution of the compression stress distribution in the concrete slab due to: (a)
activation only of Mechanism 1; (b) Activation of Mechanisms 1 and 2
On the basis of the observations that have been brought to light, it is possible to
design some constructional details that permit the formation of the Mechanism 2 in
147
the concrete slab, with an increase of the global joint resistance and ductility. The
numerical model aims to calibrate the difference, in term of global response and
local stress distribution, between the experimental specimen and the improved
model. In fact, to better evidence the formation of Mechanism 2, the surfaces of the
concrete slab and of the concrete portion of the column have been merged by
means of constraint relation introduced in the numerical model. As depicted in
Figure 4.43, the improved model clearly shows a uniform distribution of the
compression stresses in the concrete slab with the increase of the imposed top
displacement; in detail, it is possible to evidence that for an imposed displacement
equal to 50 mm Mechanism 1 results completely activated in the frontal zone of the
column flange. Successively, Mechanism 2, formed by the idealized concrete struts
balanced by the transversal reinforcing bars, is put in action up to a top
displacement equal to 120 mm, in which both the mechanisms develop the
maximum permitted strength of the concrete. The reported results evidence that:
Mechanism 1 doesnt activate at the same time of Mechanism 2. This
only through constructional and designed details it is possible to activate
means that Mechanism 1 results more rigid than Mechanism 2;

Mechanism 2 in the transfer of forces from the concrete slab to the column;
the compression struts in the concrete slab of Mechanism 2 dont have, as
Applied force [kN]
assumed, an inclination of 45 degrees;

120
Mechanism 1 + 2
80
Mechanism 2
Mechanism 1
40
0
0
40
80
120
Displacement [mm]
Figure 4.44. Monotonic applied force vs. top-displacement of an exterior
joint under sagging bending: experimental response and numerical
response for different activations of Mechanisms 1 and 2.
Both mechanisms cause a stiffening and strengthening of the exterior joint as

illustrated in Figure 4.44. Finally, it is important to underline that the constraint
148
between concrete slab and column imposed in the model can be realized reality by
means of some designed rebars or stirrups, which connect the two portions of
concrete and permit the formation of the concrete struts due to presence of high
resistance in shear, directly by friction, indirectly by shear yielding of the rebars or
of the stirrups. The above-mentioned details are reported in Figure 4.45.
Figure 4.45. Detail in the concrete slab for activating Mechanism 2
149
4.9
Numerical analyses of the prototype structure
The behaviour of the prototype structure described above was simulated by means
of a 2D numerical model of the main frame. All the constitutive elements, i.e.
composite beams, composite partially encased columns, base joints, were
modelled by using their actual geometrical and mechanical characteristics.
Moreover, on the basis of the results obtained from the analyses of the tested
specimens, it was possible to calibrate the analytical model of the semi-rigid partial
strength joint, both for the exterior and for the interior configuration. As said before,
the composite beam-to-column joint is modelled using a rotational spring to
simulate the connections and a rectangular articulated polygon with a translational
spring simulating the column web panel. Due to the inaccuracy of the analytical
model obtained by applying the component method (Eurocode 3, 2001), the
experimental response was reproduced by means of a hysteretic Bouc-Wen model
with damage rules implemented in the program IDARC 2D (Valles et al, 1996): the
smooth hysteretic model of Sivaselvan and Reinhorn (1999). In Figure 4.46 a
scheme of the numerical model used for the simulations is represented.
242 mm
6748 mm
262 mm
4748 mm
242 mm
+6.85 m
402 mm
3098 mm
+3.35 m
402 mm
2760 mm
290 mm
0.00 m
Figure 4.46. Scheme of the numerical model used for the simulations
By means of this numerical model both the non-linear static pushover (NSP)
analysis and the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) have been conducted.
Hereinafter, the main results of these analyses will be discussed. The results of
these analyses in term of maximum plastic rotation at the joint, total amount of
dissipated energy and cumulated damage in the dissipative zones, have permitted
to choose the correct accelerogram to impose on the prototype structure in the
ELSA laboratory by means of the Pseudo-Dynamic (PsD) technique.
150
4.9.1
Pushover vs. incremental dynamic analysis results
Pushover analysis
As said in Chapter 2 Subsection 4, the purpose of the pushover analysis is to
evaluate the expected performance of a structural system by estimating its strength
and deformation demands in design earthquakes by means of a static inelastic
analysis, and comparing these demands to available capacities at the performance
levels of interest (Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998). By means of the numerical
model above described, which implements the non-linear behaviour of the
structural members of the prototype structure, the NSP analysis based on the
Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) and on the Performance Point Method
proposed in the Eurocode 8 (2002) and FEMA-273 (1997) were performed. As
explained in Chapter 2, the pushover analysis based on the CSM obtains the
performance point in the ADRS space (standard pseudo-acceleration Sa vs.
deformation spectrum Sd). Differently from this, the response curve based on the
EC8 and FEMA assumptions is determined by nonlinear static analysis of the
structure subjected to lateral forces with invariant distribution over the height but
gradually increasing values until a target value of roof displacement is reached
(Target Displacement). The floor displacements, storey drifts, joint rotations, plastic
hinge rotations, etc., computed at the target displacement represent the
earthquake induced demands on the structure. Three distributions of lateral forces
are specified in FEMA-273 (1997):
*
(a) uniform distribution: s j = m j (where j = 1, 2, N is the floor number);

*
(b) equivalent lateral force (ELF) distribution: s j = m jh j, where hj is the height of

the j-th floor above the base, and the exponent k varying linearly from the value
1 for fundament period T1 < 0.5 sec and the value 2 for T1 > 2.5 sec;
*
(c) SRSS distribution: s is defined by the lateral forces back-calculated from the
storey shears determined by response spectrum analysis of the structure,
assumed to be linearly elastic. This last distribution is not present in the
Eurocode 8 (2002) recommendations.
The lateral force profiles in static pushover analyses influence the structural
response. The first distribution represents the lateral forces that are proportional to
the vertical distribution of the mass at various levels. The use of the uniform load
shape may be justified in the light of a possible soft storey mechanism of irregular
buildings. If this mechanism occurs, the response will be controlled by a large drift
in the first storey. Therefore, this load distribution may give better predictions of the
overall response. On the other hand, the code lateral load shape represents the
forces obtained from the predominant mode of vibration. The inverted triangular
(code) and the rectangular (uniform) load shapes also represent the extreme cases
151
from the linear distribution point of view. Moreover, the third shape, calculated as
SRSS combinations of the load distributions is obtained from modal analyses of
the buildings. The choice of this load shape is made to take into consideration the
anticipated effect of higher modes of vibrations for moderate long period and
irregular structures, as well as for buildings with hybrid lateral resistance systems.
Another difference between the two approaches, i.e. the EC8 procedure and the
FEMA-273 procedure, is the evaluation of the target displacement. Following the
indication contained in the EC8 (2002), the capacity curve, which represents the
relation between base shear force and control node displacement, is determined
by pushover analysis for values of the control displacement ranging between zero
and the value corresponding to 150% of the target displacement. The target
displacement is defined as the seismic demand derived from the elastic response
spectrum in terms of the displacement of an equivalent SDoF system. The
procedure presented in the Annex B of the EC8 (2002) is articulated as follows.
i.
The MDoF system is firstly converted into an SDoF system. The following
relation between normalized lateral forces Fi and normalized displacements i
is assumed:
Fi = mi i
( 4.28 )
where m i is the mass in the i-th storey. Displacements are normalized in such a
way that n=1, where n is the control node (usually, n denotes the roof level),
*
so that Fn = mn . The mass of an equivalent SDoF system m is determined as:
m* =
mi i =
Fi
( 4.29 )
and the transformation factor is given by:
m*
=
mi i2
Fi
( 4.30 )
Fi 2
mi
*
The force F and the displacement d of the equivalent SDoF system are then
computed as:
F* =
152
Fb
d
*
, d = n
( 4.31 )
where Fb and dn are, respectively, the base shear force and the control node
displacement of the MDoF system.
ii.
Definition of the yield force F y, which also represents the ultimate strength of
the idealized system; it is equal to the base shear force at the formation of the
plastic mechanism. The initial stiffness of the idealized system is determined in
such a way that the areas under the actual and the idealized forcedeformation
curves are equal (see Figure 4.47).
Figure 4.47. Determination of the idealized elasto-perfectly

plastic force-displacement relationship (EC8, 2002)
Based on this assumption, the yield displacement of the idealized SDoF

*
system d y is given by:
E m*
d =2 d *
Fy
*
y
*
m
( 4.32 )
where E m is the actual deformation energy up to the formation of the plastic

mechanism.
*
iii. Determination of the period T of the idealized equivalent SDOF system,

determined by:
T = 2
*
m *d y*
Fy*
( 4.33 )
153
iv. Determination of the target displacement for the equivalent SDOF system with
period T* and unlimited elastic behaviour, given by:
T*
d =
2
*
et
Se
( 4.34 )
where Se(T ) is the elastic acceleration response spectrum at the period T . For
*
the determination of the target displacement d for structures in the short-period

range and for structures in the medium and long-period ranges different
expressions should be used as indicated below. The corner period between
the short- and medium period range is TC.
T * < TC :
If
d t* =
d et*
T
1 + (qu 1) C* d et*
qu
T
( 4.35 )
where qu is the ratio between the acceleration demands in the structure with
unlimited elastic behaviour Se and in the structure with limited strength.
qu =
( 4.36 )
Fy* m * S e , the response is elastic and d t* = d et* .
If
v.
S e m*
Fy*
Determination of the target displacement for MDOF system, given by:
dt = dt*
( 4.37 )
The target displacement corresponds to the control node. Moreover, the

relation between different quantities can be visualized in Figure 4.48 and in
Figure 4.49). The figures are plotted in acceleration - displacement format. The
*
period T is represented by the radial line from the origin of the coordinate
system to the point at the elastic response spectrum defined by coordinates
*
d =(T /2) Se and Se.
154
Figure 4.48. Relation between Se(T ) and d* for T < Tc
Figure 4.49. Relation between Se(T ) and d* for T > Tc
Incremental dynamic analysis

As said in Chapter 2, the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) technique consists of
a series of non-linear analyses of the structure for a ground motion that is
increased in amplitude, until instability of the structure is predicted. This analysis is
repeated for multiple ground motions, so that statistics on the variation of demand
and capacity with ground motion character can be attained. This procedure was
followed in doing this analysis as follows:
a.
Choice of a suite of accelerograms representative of the site and

hazard level.
b.
Performance of an elastic time history analysis of the building for one

of the accelerograms. Plotting of the point on a graph whose vertical axis is
the spectral ordinate for the accelerogram at the first period of the building
and horizontal axis is the maximum calculated drift at any story. Drawing of a
straight line from the origin of the axis to this point. The slope of this line is
155
referred to as the elastic slope for the accelerogram. Calculation of the slope
for the rest of the accelerograms using the same procedure and calculation
of the median slope. The slope of this median line is referred to as the elastic
slope, Se.
c.
Performance of a non-linear time history analysis of the structure

subjected to one of the accelerograms. Plotting of this point, called 1, on the
graph.
d.
Increase of the amplitude of the accelerogram and repeat step c. This

may be done by multiplying the accelerogram by a constant, which increases
the spectral ordinates of the accelerogram by 0.1g. Plotting of this point as
2. Repetition of step 4 until the structure will be a mechanism or the
maximum rotation capacity of the components will be reached. When this

condition is reached, i is the global drift capacity for this accelerogram.
e.
Choice of another accelerogram and repetition of steps c through d

this for each accelerogram. The median capacity for global collapse is the
median value of the calculated set of drift limits.
The factors that affect the curve of the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
are P- effects, increment used for the analysis, ground motions used, strain
hardening ratio, shifting of fundamental period due to non-linearity, higher
mode effects, and shifting of maximum story drift location.
The accelerograms employed are characterized by strong motion duration of 10

sec with rise and decay periods of 2,5 and 5,0 secs respectively as shown Table
4.6. The generation of the spectrum compatible accelerograms was done
according to the method provided by Clough and Penzien (1993). At the end of the
generation process, in order to remove the drift in terms of displacement and
velocity in all the accelerograms, the method of the linear baseline correction
proposed by Meskouris (2000) was applied.
tr [sec]
tsm [sec]
td [sec]
2,5
10,0
5,0
Table 4.6. Rise, decay and strong motion durations

employed for the generation of the accelerograms
The generated spectrum compatible accelerograms were three and they were
referred to as A-03, A-12 and A-14. It is important to underline that the
accelerogram employed for the pseudo-dynamic tests on the prototype structure
was sorted out basing on the possible values and localization of the damage
induced into the structure at the collapse limit state. The selection of the
accelerogram was done considering the following parameters:
156
the maximum rotation and local damage in the joints;
the local damage in the columns;
the value of the ratio between the input energy and the total hysteretic
energy dissipated.
After the elaboration of the numerical analyses, the accelerogram A-14 was
chosen because of the highest level of damage induced in the joints and the lower
values of damage in the columns. This last parameter was taken into account in
order to avoid dangerous global collapse due to the loss of stability at the base
level. The main characteristics of the accelerogram A-14 are reported in Figure
4.50.
5.00
12.00
4.00
10.00
3.00
2.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
Sa [m/sec2]
a [m/sec ]
1.00
6.00
-1.00
4.00
-2.00
-3.00
2.00
-4.00
0.00
0.00
-5.00
time [sec]
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
T [sec]
(a)
(b)
0.15
0.40
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.05
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
vel. [m/sec]
spost. [m]
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
-0.10
-0.05
-0.20
-0.10
-0.30
-0.15
-0.40
time [sec]
(c)
time [sec]
(d)
Figure 4.50. (a) Accelerogram A-14 employed for the analyses; (b) Elastic response
spectrum of the accelerogram A-14 with equal to 5%; (c) Integrated base
displacements after the application of the baseline correction; (d) Integrated base
velocity after the application of the baseline correction
Main results
The pushover and the incremental dynamic analysis was performed and then
compared. Hereinafter the main results are reported in Table 4.7, whereas the
obtained response curves are plotted in Figure 4.51. The uniform and triangular
curves of the pushover analysis represent the upper and lower limit of the
response curve obtained by the IDA (Antoniou et al, 2002). Moreover, in our case,
157
the curve that corresponds to lateral load proportional to the 1
st
modal shape
underestimates the response curve of the IDA in the zone with large non-linear
deformations; the curve obtained with a uniform load distribution overestimates the
IDA curve in the first zone of the structural response up to a peak ground
acceleration equal to 1.40g.
W = 564,64KN
1.40
1.80g
2.00g
1.40g
2,0 g
1,8 g
1,4 g
1.20
1.00
0.80
V/W
0.60
0,25 g
0.40
0.25g
0,10 g
0.10g
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
/H
Figure 4.51. Pushover vs. IDA curve obtained by the numerical analyses
IDA
EC8 pushover analysis

p.g.a.
First Modal
(mm)
Shear
0.10 g
Uniform
Shear
(kN)
(mm)
Shear
(kN)
(mm)
16.2
109.0
15.7
115.85
23.4
164.2
0.25 g
40.6
265.4
39.2
283.5
43.7
253.1
1.40 g
227.2
638.1
219.8
717.1
179.8
720.2
1.80 g
292.1
734.1
227.8
759.6
324.6
649.3
655.0
282.6
2.00 g
313.9
739.7
240.0
768.2
(kN)
Table 4.7. Pushover vs. IDA data obtained by the numerical analyses
On the basis of the numerical results it was possible to determine the behaviour
factor of the designed structure. Two different method were used:
158
The first one calculates the value of the behaviour factor as the ratio between
the p.g.a. at the ultimate limit state, and the p.g.a. at the first yielding of the
structure.
pgau
pga y
qdyna
( 4.38 )
The second one uses the results obtained from the non-linear static analysis
(pushover curve) and determines the value of the behaviour factor by means
the following formula:
( 4.39 )
qstat
where k represents the ductility factor, while is the overstrength factor

(Eurocode 8, 2002).
The two obtained values are reported in Table 4.8. One may observe that the
results are in a good agreement with the design behaviour factor q = 6 proposed by
the Eurocode 8 (2002). Nevertheless, in the same Table the calculated design
overstrength factor d is reported. This parameter is obtained by using the formula
pga y
d
pgad
con pgad
ag
qd
0, 40
6
( 4.40 )
where p.g.a.d is the design value of the base acceleration.
Dynamic analysis
Pushover analysis
Overstrength factor
p.g.a.y
p.g.a.u
qdyna
0.25g
1.54g
6.16
p.g.a.d
0.07g
p.g.a.y
0.25g
3.75
0.459
1.164
= 1 /1
2.533
Ductility factor d
d
3.11
qstat
7.89
Table 4.8. Values of the behaviour factor obtained from the analyses
159
The possible factors that have influenced the overestimation of the design
overstrength factor should be:
the partial safety factors used during the design of the structure;
the design action amplification for accidental torsional effects;
the interstorey drift limits that should be satisfied in the design;
the difference between the design strength and the actual strength value of the
materials;
4.10 Pseudo-Dynamic tests on the prototype structure

It is worthwhile to emphasize that quasi-static cyclic loading tests are no doubt the
most effective tests to acquire data on the capacity of the structure, such as the
maximum resistance and ductility. Nonetheless, to evaluate the performance of the
structure in terms of complex hysteretic behaviour under earthquake-like loading
pseudo-dynamic tests (PsD) are needed. Pre-test analyses of the specimen and
post-test comparisons will be performed.
Basing on the Performance Based Seismic Engineering (PBSE) method, the
values of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) employed for the pseudo-dynamic
tests were chosen, as reported in Table 4.9.
PsD Tests
PGA [g]
OBJECTIVES
0,10
Elastic Test
0,25
Serviceability Limit State: SLS
1,40
1,80
Ultimate Limit State: ULS (joints

maximum rotation equal to 35 mrad)
Collapse Limit State CLS
Table 4.9. Values of the PGAs for the pseudo-dynamic tests
1. Snap back PsD test with a value of acceleration equal to 0.1g was performed
to measure dynamic elastic properties of the frame, viz. eigenvalues,
eigenvectors and equivalent viscous damping as well as to verify the precision
of the PsD algorithm.
2. The objective of the second test was to lead the structure to the elastic limit, so
as provided by the EC8 for the structural Serviceability Limit State. As a result,
the basic vertical- and lateral force resisting system of the structure
substantially retain original strength and stiffness. Only limited structural
160
damage has occurred. Basing on the numerical results taken out from IDA and
from the Pushover analysis, the value of PGA employed for the 20%
Earthquake was estimated at 0.25g.
3. The 100% earthquake PsD test was conducted by applying the input
earthquake. So as provided by EC8, the minimum capacity in terms of plastic
rotation of the beam-to-column joints is equal to 35 mrad. For the estimation of
the PGA at the Ultimate Limit State, this last parameter was so considered.
From IDA and Pushover analysis the value of acceleration equal to 1.4g was
taken out. As a result, a significant amount of damage is inflicted to the
structures. As a matter of fact, an artificial accelerogram will provide more large
inelastic cycles for observation, but may damage the structure too much before
the cyclic test.
4. For the Near to Collapse test, the values of PGA - equal to 1.8g - were
calculated.
5. A final cyclic test is conducted according to the ECCS 45 (1986) procedure to
study a severe amount of damage in the members and connections in a
controlled and systematic way, which is not possible by means of earthquake
PsD tests.
4.10.1 Testing apparatus and instrumentation

Four actuators are needed (two for each storey) together with the relevant exterior
digital transducers (see Figure 4.52 and Figure 4.53). For the measurement of the
rotation capacity of the joints and the deformation of the structural element
(composite beam, partially encased column and connection) inclinometers, strain
gages and LVDTs will be used.
Hydraulic jacks
7000
Reaction wall
5000
3500
3500
Distributing frame
Figure 4.52.Lateral view of the 3D frame
161
Transducers
3000
3000
Hydraulic jack
Reaction wall
Distributing frame
Hydraulic jack
Figure 4.53. Plan view of the frame
Only two of the frames of the test structure, then referred to as exterior and interior
ones, were instrumented. Moreover, the interior and the exterior frames were
characterized by two different instruments arrangement. The locations of the
aforementioned instruments in the exterior and interior frame are shown in Figure
4.54 and Figure 4.55.
tr125-a
tr250-a
tr125-b
tr250-b
inc-a
tr125-c
inc-b
tr125-d
inc-c
Figure 4.54. Exterior beam-to-column joint measurement

equipment
162
inc-a
tr500-a
tr500-c
tr500-b
tr125-a
inc-b
tr125-b
inc-c
inc-d
tr125-c
tr125-d
inc-e
Figure 4.55. Interior beam-to-column joint measurement

equipment
4.10.2 Results of the PsD test n 1

The behaviour of the structure was essentially elastic and no damage could be
observed at the beam-to-column joints and at the base joints. Only at the bottom
storey some little cracks were present on the slab in the joint areas, all parallel to
the transverse beams and starting from the edges of the steel sections of the
columns. Due to the presence of the concrete blocks at the second level, cracking
developed in the transverse direction, mainly on the column line. At the first step of
the Spatial Model procedure the frequencies of the first and second mode have
values equal to 2.31 Hz and to 7.81 Hz, respectively. The mean value of the modal
damping is very low, equal to 1.03% for the first mode and to 0.69% for the second
one. The maximum interstorey drifts reached at the first and second level are 9.7
mm and 12.3 mm, respectively. These correspond to a value of about 0.35% of
the interstorey height.

The objective of the second test was to induce into the structure a first yielding with
no excessive damage. From a first visual inspection it could be observed that:
no damage occurred at the column base, no crashing or spalling of the

concrete and no local buckling in the steel flanges;
163
thin cracks developed transversally in the mortar under the base plates and in
the concrete blocks in line with the hocked rebars and the middle of the column
section;
there was no visible gap between the end plate and the column flange;
new cracks developed in the concrete slab.
The cracks induced into the slab were found to be more evident at the bottom
storey and in the exterior beam-to-column joints. Therefore, damage seemed to be
more pronounced on the exterior frames than on the interior ones, probably due to
a larger effective slab width of the first, combined with possible in-plane
deformations of the floor diaphragm at level 1. In the beam-to-column joint areas,
on the interior side of the columns, cracks developed mainly parallel to the
transverse beams in line with or in front of the interior columns, while, on the
exterior one, an inclined cracking pattern formed under hogging bending moment.
No spalling of the compressed concrete could be observed. At the column base no
damage developed, no cracking and no local instabilities could be observed. On
the contrary in the grout at the base joints some thin vertical cracks appeared in
the transverse direction, on the line of the hocked rebars.
From the experimental results it was possible to recognize, directly from the
measurement equipment, how the joints worked in terms of rotation. In Figure 4.56
the maximum rotation reached by the beam-to-column joints (web panels,
connections and global joints) are shown. The values of rotation of the web panels
and the connections are evaluated at the instant of maximum rotation in the joint.
+3.9 mrad
-1.4 mrad
+1.5 mrad
-0.5 mrad
+2.4 mrad
-0.9 mrad
+3.2 mrad
-3.6 mrad
+1.4 mrad
-5.8 mrad
+0.0 mrad
-1.7 mrad
+1.8 mrad
+0.5 mrad
+1.6 mrad
-3.4 mrad
+1.2 mrad
-1.9 mrad
+1.4 mrad
-4.1 mrad
+5.4 mrad
-2.0 mrad
+2.2 mrad
-0.3 mrad
+3.2 mrad
-1.7 mrad
+5.6 mrad
-2.9 mrad
+2.4 mrad
-6.5 mrad
-0.2 mrad
-1.4 mrad
+3.0 mrad
+2.2 mrad
+4.1 mrad
-10.1 mrad
+5.6 mrad
-12.1 mrad
-1.5 mrad
+2.0 mrad
+2.6 mrad
-5.1 mrad
A3
II
+0.4 mrad
-1.5 mrad
A2
A1
Figure 4.56. Maximum values of rotation reached by the beam-to-column joints of the
interior frame during the PsD test n2
164
Some remarks can now be made:
the joints of the interior instrumented frame, where only the web panels
reached the elastic limit while no connection yielded at this point, are lower
than the exterior ones;
the values of rotation are grater at the first level and on the column line 1.
The behaviour of the interior joints was quite elastic and no permanent rotation
could be recognized. Conversely, in the exterior frame, all the joints reached the
elastic limits. The main plastic mechanism started at about 12 sec, when probably
the main inclined cracks on the exterior part of the slab developed. Nevertheless,
the behaviour of the structure was essentially elastic and no damage could be
observed.

The objective of the third test was to simulate the Ultimate Limit State, trying to
make the joints rotate at least 35 mrad in the plastic range. From a first visual
inspection of the beam-to-column joints, so as for the previous test, the damage
was located more at the first level on the column line 1 and on the exterior frames.
In the beam-to-column joints at Level 1, shear yielding of the web panel at the
interior joints was observed, while at the exterior joints, under hogging bending
moment, a flexural behaviour of the beam end plates was noticed. After the test,
only little permanent deformations could be observed in the steel elements.
Figure 4.57. Rupture of the compressed concrete on the

interior side of the C1-I joint
165
The shape of the cracks on the slab was quite the same as in test n 2, even if their
extension increased and spalling of the compressed concrete at level 1 was
observed, as depicted in Figure 4.57. This last phenomenon was present only on
the interior side of the joints. Gaps between the steel column flanges and the
concrete slab were also observed at all joints, both the interior and the exterior
ones.
So as for the previous test, at the column base no damage developed, no cracking
and no local instabilities could be observed. Nevertheless, rotation at the base
joints under the bending moment transferred by the columns was observed during
the test. This was mainly due to the extension of the column anchor rods, and the
failure of the grout in compression. Because of the gap between the upper side of
the base plate and the nuts, it could be probably stated that yielding of the anchor
rods had occurred. After the test, cracking were also noticed in the concrete blocks
under the test structure.
While processing the experimental results, it was noticed that no beam-to-column
joint reached 35 mrad of plastic rotation. In Figure 4.58 the maximum rotations of
the joints are shown.
+30.2 mrad
-9.8 mrad
+10.3 mrad
-5.9 mrad
+19.9 mrad
-3.9 mrad
+28.7 mrad
-16.6 mrad
+21.5 mrad
-23.2 mrad
-0.7 mrad
-6.6 mrad
+6.5 mrad
-0.0 mrad
+20.9 mrad
-18.3 mrad
+15.5 mrad
-8.4 mrad
+22.2 mrad
-16.6 mrad
+30.4 mrad
-8.4 mrad
+11.6 mrad
-3.9 mrad
+18.8 mrad
-4.5 mrad
+30.1 mrad
-14.9 mrad
+22.1 mrad
-22.1 mrad
-4.3 mrad
-4.3 mrad
+3.7 mrad
+2.9 mrad
+24.0 mrad
-19.1 mrad
+6.7 mrad
-19.0 mrad
+17.3 mrad
-0.1 mrad
+26.4 mrad
-17.8 mrad
A3
II
+5.4 mrad
-9.9 mrad
A2
A1
Figure 4.58. Maximum values of rotation reached by the beam-to-column joints of the
exterior frame during the PsD test n3
Other remarks can now be made:
the maximum rotations of the joints at the first and second levels are quite the
same;
the joints on the span 1-2 of the interior frame rotated more than the exterior
ones, thanks to a higher contribute of the web panels;
166
on the exterior frame, the connection of the joint A1-I reached a value of
rotation, under hogging bending moment, equal to 19 mrad. The main reason
for this behaviour is the failure of the concrete on the exterior side, probably
due to local tensile stresses grown in a reduced effective width. The same
behaviour was observed in the tests conducted at the University of Pisa on the
joint substructures;
in all the other joints the web panel rotated more than the connections.
The displacements, the interstorey drifts, the restoring forces and the shear forces
at the two levels are shown in Figure 4.59, while the results in terms of frequencies
and modal damping are shown in the Figure 4.60. In this case the equivalent
damping reached higher values, due to the hysteretic behaviour of the structure.
The maximum value of the interstory drift is 110 mm while the maximum
displacement at the second level is 198 mm.

th
The objective of the 4 test was to simulate the Collapse Limit State. From the
visual inspection and the processing of the experimental results it could be
observed that the behaviour of the beam-to-column and the base joints was
comparable with that of the 3
rd
test. The only difference was the increase of the
values of the maximum rotations. At the base columns no cracking of concrete or

local buckling was seen. In this test the maximum value of the interstorey drift is
154 mm, which corresponds to a value of 4.43% of the height. The maximum
displacement at the second level is 266 mm.
4.10.6 Results of the cyclic test

As described in the previous paragraph, the cyclic test was performed by imposing
the displacements at the top storey and fixing the ratio between the reactions at the
two levels R1/R2. This factor was estimated by applying the spectral theory of the
equivalent static analysis. From the results of the last PsD test it was possible to
perform a calculation of the four elements of the stiffness matrix (as functions of
time) and, by imposing the same interstorey drifts at the two levels, it could be
observed how the ratio was equal to the one previously calculated. While on the
A1-I joint the cracks on the slab were similar to those seen after the PsD tests, on
the A3-I and C3-I joints the diagonal cracking at the exterior side started from the
interior corner and the middle of the columns.
167
Figure 4.59. Results in terms of displacements, interstorey drifts (I-S Drift),

restoring forces and shear forces at the two levels for the PsD test n3
168
Figure 4.60. Results in terms of modal frequencies, modal damping for the PsD test n3
169
From the processing of the experimental results it could be observed that the
beam-to-column joints rotated more at the first level. Some remarks can be made:
at the interior joints the web panels in shear contributed more than the
connections while on the contrary at the exterior joints the connections rotated
more;
the joints A1 and A3 (the exterior joints on the exterior instrumented frame)
worked quite in the same way as in the PsD tests.
Although we tested a composite structure the behaviour of all the joints was quite
symmetric. This phenomenon was probably due to the damage induced during the
PsD tests on the concrete slab.
4.11 Conclusions
The objective of this study has been the investigation of the seismic performance
of a realistic size moment resisting frame structure of high ductility class according
to Eurocode 8 (2002) under various levels of earthquake. Dissipative elements
were conceived to be partial strength beam-to-column joints and column base
joints at later stages. Some full-scale substructures, representing the interior and
exterior joints, have been subjected to monotonic and cyclic tests at the Laboratory
for Materials and Structures Testing of the University of Pisa in Italy.
Moreover, a new mechanical model of the partial strength beam-to-column joint
has been described. The model, which still relies on experimental data, is capable
of simulating the behaviour of the steel-concrete composite partial strength joints
subjected to monotonic loading. In detail, the model is capable of defining yielding
and failure evolution of different components. The component models of the slab
have indicated clearly that the compressive strut strength of the composite slab
bearing on the column flange depends on the shear stiffness of the column web
panel. Moreover, the activation of diagonal compressive struts on column sides
induced by transversal reinforcing bars is hindered by the direct bearing of the
compressive strut. Some force-displacement relationships provided by the
proposed mechanical model have been compared with analytical formulae and
current European standards. The principles set forth have then been applied to the
design of beam-to-column joints and columns of a full-scale frame structure that
has been built and subjected to pseudo-dynamic tests at the ELSA Laboratory of
the Joint Research Centre in Ispra. The construction of the full-scale structure
proved that the construction of steel-concrete composite structures with partial
strength beam-to-column joints and partially encased columns is highly efficient.
170
Pseudo-dynamic and cyclic test results confirmed that properly designed and
constructed partial strength beam-to-column joints and partially encased columns
without concrete in column web panels exhibit a favourable behaviour in terms of
energy dissipation, limited strength degradation and ductility.
4.12 References
AISC (1997), Seismic provision for structural steel buildings, Task Committee
113.
Braconi A., Caramelli S., Cioni P., Salvatore W. (2003): Earthquake-resistant
composite
steel-concrete
frames:
some
constructional
considerations.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Metal Structures, ICMS

2003.University of Miskolc, Hungary.
Bursi O.S., Ferrario F., Fontanari V. (2992): Non-linear Analysis of the Low-
cycle Fracture Behaviour of Isolated Tee Stub Connections. Computers and

Structures, 80, 2333-2360.
Bursi O.S., Lucchesi D, Salvatore W. (2003): Beam-to-column connections for
steel-concrete composite moment resisting frame designed for ductility class

H. To be presented in the Ninth International Conference on Civil and
Structural Engineering Computing. Egmond aan Zee.
Caramelli S., Salvatore W., Bursi O.S., Braconi A., Ferrario F. (2002): ECSC
Project 7210-PR-250 Ecoleader Project, Steel-concrete composite 3D Frame Design according to Eurocodes, University of Pisa and University of Trento.
Chen, W. F. (1982): Plasticity in reinforced concrete. McGraw-Hill, New York,
270.
Clogh R.W., Penzien J. (1993): Dynamics of Structures. Second Edition,
McGraw-Hill ed.
ECCS (1986): Recommended Testing Procedure for Assessing the Behaviour
of Structural Steel Elements under Cyclic Loads. ECCS Publication n 45.

ECCS (1999): Design of composite joints for buildings. N 109.
FEMA 273 (1997): HEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA 350 (2000): Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel
moment-frame buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Gioncu, V. and Mazzolani, F.M. (2002): Ductility of seismic resistant steel
Structures. Spon Press, London, 1-40.
171
Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorenson (2001): ABAQUS users manual version 6.2.4.
Pawtucket. R.I.
Hilleborg A., Moder M. and Peterson, P.E. (1976): Analysis of crack
formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and

finite elements. Cement and Concrete Research, 6, 773-782.
International Conference of Building Officials (1997) Uniform building code,
ICBO, Whittier, CA.

Kim K., Engelhardt, M.D. (1995): Development of analytical models for
earthquake analysis of steel moment frames. Report no. PMFSEL 95-2, Phil M.
Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX; 1995.
Kim K., Engelhardt, M.D. (2001): Monotonic and cyclic loading models for
panel zones in steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel research.

Elsevier. Article in press.
Krawinkler H. (1978): Shear in Beam-Column Joints in Seismic Design of
Steel Frames. Engineering Journal AISC Vol. 3.

Krawinkler H, Bertero V.V. and Popov E.P. (1971): Inelastic behavior of steel
beam-to-column subassemblages. Report No. EERC 71/07, University of

California, Berkeley, CA.
Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. (1998): Pros and cons of a
pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Journal of Engineering

Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, 452-464.
Lee S.J., Lu L.W. (1989): Cyclic Tests of Full-Scale Composite Joint
Subassemblage. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 115, n 8.

Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., Park, R. (1988): Theoretical stress-strain
model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114, 8,

1804-1826.
Meskouris K. (2000): Structural Dynamics: models, methods, examples. Berlin
: Ernsted.
prEN 1991-1-1:2001: Actions on structures, Part 1-1: general actions,
densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings - Final Draft.

prEN 1992-1:2001: Design of concrete. Part 1: general rules and rules for
buildings Draft n 2.
prEN 1993-1-1:2001: Design of steel structures. Part 1.1: general rules - Draft
n 2.
prEN 1994-1-1:2001: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part
1-1: general rules and rules for buildings Draft n 3.

general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings - Draft n5.
172
Ryan I., Bitar D. (2002): Applicability of Composite Structures to Sway
Frames. ECSC Contract n 7210-PR-250, CTICM.

Sivaselvan M.V., Reinhorn A.M. (1999): Hysteretic Model for Cyclic Behaviour
of Deteriorating Inelastic Structures. Technical Report MCEER-99-0018.

Stevens N. J., Uzumeri S. M., Collins M. P., Will G. T. (1991): Constitutive
model for reinforced concrete finite element analysis. ACI Structural Journal,
88, 1, 49-59.
Tsai K.C., Popov E.P. (1988): Steel beamcolumn joints in seismic moment
resisting frames. Report no. EERC 88/19, University of California, Berkeley,

CA.
University of Pisa et al. (2004): Applicability of Composite Structure to Sway
Frames, ECSC Project n. 7210-PR-250, Eur Report, European Community.

Valles R.E., Reinhorn A.M., Kunnath S.K., Madan A. (1996): IDARC2D
Version 4.0: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of Buildings.

Technical Report NCEER-96-0010.
Wang S.J. (1988): Seismic response of steel building frames with inelastic
joint deformation. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Lehigh

University, Bethlehem, PA.
173
SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC COLUMNS

EMBEDDING STEEL PROFILES
5.1
Introduction
On August 17, 1999, a Mw 7.4 earthquake occurred on the 1500-km-long North

Anatolian fault in north-western Turkey. The epicentre of the earthquake was near
Izmit, 90 km east of Istanbul (Figure 5.1). After this seismic event, the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center dispatched a Reconnaissance Team in
the region of the epicentre to learn first hand about the performance of the civil
infrastructure.
Figure 5.1. Map of affected region showing recorded peak ground

accelerations in circles (as percentage of acceleration of gravity)
The geographic region impacted by the earthquake was somewhat narrow banded,
centred on the fault and stretched from Istanbul in the west to Glyaka and Dzce
in the east. Damage to cocnrete construction was severe and widespread (Sezen
5. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC COLUMNS EMBEDDING STEEL PROFILES
et al., 1999; Aschheim, 2000; Scawthorn, 2000). Estimates for economic losses
were around 20 billion US dollars. The official death toll was over 17,200, with
some 44,000 people injured and thousands left homeless. Some 77,300 homes
and businesses were destroyed, and 244,500 were damaged. The majority of
deaths and injuries were in the cities of Kocaeli, Sakarya, and Yalova, as
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings behaved poorly during the
earthquake.
According to official estimates, more than 20,000 moment frame buildings
collapsed, and many more suffered moderate to severe damage. Three- to sevenstorey apartment buildings were hard hit, although many were constructed in the
past 20 years. These buildings were probably designed and detailed to comply with
the requirements of the building code (TS-500 code, 1975) and of the earthquake
Turkish code (1975) for construction in a first-degree seismic zone. Nevertheless,
the ductile reinforcement details described in the 1975 earthquake code were
rarely observed in buildings inspected after the August 17
th
1999 earthquake.
Moreover, many of the failures and collapses of engineered construction observed

by the reconnaissance team, and reported in Sezen et al. (1999), can be attributed
to the formation of soft first storeys as a result of differences in frame systems and
in-fill wall geometry especially between the first and upper stories; to the realisation
of non-ductile details; and to the utilisation of material of too poor quality in some
cases. It was clear that the Turkish earthquake code provisions were rarely
enforced for the engineering of commercial and residential construction. On the
basis of the aforementioned consideration, this last research activity, conducted in
the third year of the Ph.D. course, is part of another European Project (INERD
Project), promoted by the E.U. through the E.C.S.C. European Coal and Steel
Community and R.F.C.S. Research Fund for Coal and Steel, that deals with the
improvement of the resistance and ductility of reinforced concrete (RC) structures
using the performance of structural steel profiles.
5.2
The INERD project
The European INERD (acronym of Innovations for Earthquakes Resistant Design)

project consists in promoting one specific construction measure for lower storeys of
RC structures, by which steel profiles would be encased in the RC columns in
order to provide them with a basic reliable shear and compression resistance. The
general objective is to establish an innovative concept through new standard
175
design rules able to improve the global safety of reinforced concrete structure,
without great changes of the traditional constructional practice. The introduction of
this new concept can obviate the most frequent failure mode of RC buildings, the
so-called soft storey mechanism, which consists in a localisation of buildings
seismic deformations and rupture in the one or two lower storeys. The cause of the
manifestation of this mechanism is the surplus effort the columns at ground level
have to stand, basically due to a big difference in stiffness between the first and the
upper storeys. After some seismic events, experience on the spot provided
evidence of a collapse behaviour not predicted at the design stage for many RC
buildings. More precisely, some local brittle mechanisms occurred in the columns,
generating the complete collapse of most buildings: 90% of failures in Kocaeli 1999
Turkey earthquake were of this nature, as illustrated in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2. Collapse of building in Kocaeli Turkey earthquake (1999) due to softstorey mechanism
The dirty job is completed by the poor capacity of the reinforced concrete RC
columns to develop adequate ductile resources as plastic elongation and by the
difficulty in realising RC structures that behave in accordance with the Strong
columnWeak beam Principle. The first aspect is well known by the in field
engineers since the only ductile resource for concrete members, when subjected to
tensile and compressive stresses due to cycling loading, arises from the plastic
yielding of the steel re-bars; the concrete material alone showing typical brittle
failure. The second aspect may be fulfilled following the prescriptions stated by the
Capacity Design Principle built-in most Codes, which recommend the prevention of
any kind of global collapse by concentrating the hinges development in some
strategic points of the structure. In few words, the dissipating mechanisms are to
form in the beams and not in the columns or joints, providing ductility for beams
and a sort of over-strength for columns and joints. An explanation of this Soft
Storey Mechanism was pursued and the answer obtained, taking into account the
role played in practice by the in-fill walls combined with the usual weakening of the
lower storeys due to the presence of wide openings as generally requested by
176
contractors. The in-fills force the RC structure above the first storey to act as a rigid
body, thus the significant seismic forces and deformations shift in the columns of
the lowest storey where the in-elastic buckling take place (see Figure 5.3).
Considering also the low shear resistance belonging to RC members in general, it
is immediate to understand why the first storey columns fail when subjected to
cycling loading, generating the global structural collapse indeed.
In-fill walls
Earthquake
Plastic
Hinges
"Soft Storey"
BEFORE
AFTER
Figure 5.3. Sketch explaining the Soft Storey Mechanism
The proposed idea is to use encased steel section as ductile fuses able to
dissipate cyclically the energy of the earthquake in the lower storeys of buildings
which otherwise remain reinforced concrete buildings. The objective is to promote
safety for the people without too much changing the constructional practice of RC
structures. This way to set the problem is intended to be the most effective for an
easy gain in the structural reliability in those areas where the civil engineering
market mainly considers the use of cement, gravel and water
The research can be subdivided into a set of four operational tasks:
Task 1: definition by calculations of H steel sections able to substitute

reinforced concrete column of typical sizes, without working in a composite
way with concrete;
Task 2: definition, execution and analysis of tests aiming to set forward the
composite shear resistance of encased steel sections in zone of columns
submitted to cyclic plastic bending;
Task 3: definition of a computation method of the shear resistance of

composite columns submitted to cyclic bending;
177
Task 4: definition of design rules and preparation of a design tool for

practice: Tables of H steel sections able to substitute reinforced concrete
column of typical sizes, considering a minimum composite activation.
The seismic design of the columns embedding steel profiles, successively verified
on the basis of experimental tests, has been executed by using the rules included
in the following standards:
prEN 1991-1-1:2001 Actions on structures, Part 1-1: general actions,

densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings - Final Draft, July 2001;
prEN 1992-1:2001 Design of concrete. Part 1: general rules and rules for
buildings Draft n 2, January 2001;
prEN 1993-1-1:2000 Design of steel structures. Part 1.1: general rules

Draft n 2, August 2000;
prEN 1994-1-1:2001 Design of composite steel and concrete structures.

Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings Draft n 3, March 2001;
prEN 1998-1:2001 Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1:

general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings Draft n3, May
2001.
Moreover, the steel profiles for strong and weak axis bending have been chosen by
matching simple design criteria developed at the University of Liege. They should
aim to provide a simple constructional measure, which obviate the soft storey type
failure of a building. This constructional measure should:
provide ductility;
provide a column which, at the ultimate stage where concrete would be locally
crushed in plastic hinges, the steel section would provide enough axial strength
and a plastic moment and a stiffness similar to those of the reinforced concrete
column.
From the obtained knowledge on joint and member responses, a numerical FE

model of the beam-to-column joint sub-assemblage has been developed to
examine its seismic behaviour through non-linear analyses. This analytical work
permitted to predict the performance of the joint and to propose appropriate
analytical formulas for the estimation of the yield and ultimate strength both of the
columns and of the beam-to-column joint subjected to very high seismic shear
forces.
178
5.3
Description of the prototype structure
The prototype structure considered in this study is shown in Figure 5.4. It is a 5storey, 30.0m long x 12.0m wide x 21.0m high structure, which includes six equal
two-bay moment resisting frames with different bay length (5m and 7m), as
illustrated in Figure 5.4a. In the direction perpendicular to the main moment
resisting frames, simply supported secondary beams are foreseen at column lines
to provide a better out of plane resistance. The structure was thought as a moment
resisting (MR) type without core system, shear walls or other kinds of substructure
able to transfer downwards the horizontal forces when subjected to the seismic
load combinations and as having a core system resisting horizontal loads when
subjected to the static load combinations.
From a finite element analysis and design of this prototype structure the overall
geometrical and mechanical properties of the columns of the first floor will be
determined.
700
400
550
100
6000
6000
6000
6000
5000
6000
7000
n 260
n 302
(a)
n 309
(b)
Figure 5.4. (a) Plan and (b) lateral view of the building
5.3.1
Materials and mechanical properties
The material classes adopted in the design are:
Concrete:
Class C 25/30
The mechanical properties of the concrete used in the design are the same as
those reported in Table 3.1 of Eurocode 2. Wherever relevant, the beneficial
179
effects of the concrete confinement due to the presence of the stirrups are
taken into account (Mander, 1988). The concrete confinement results in a
modification of the effective stress-strain relationship: higher strength and
higher critical strains are achieved (see Figure 5.5). The other basic material
characteristics are considered as unaffected for the design.
Figure 5.5. Stress-strain relationship for confined concrete
Steel rebars:
Class B 450 C
Following the prescription reported in Section 5.3.2.(1) and 5.4.1.1.(3) of the

Eurocode 8 (2001), when considering critical parts of primary elements in
seismic design, reinforcing steel bars of class B and C as indicated in Table
3.3 of Eurocode 2 shall be used. Consequently, the following properties are
guaranteed:
Characteristic yield strength fyk:
450 MPa
k = (ft / fy)k:
1,15 < k < 1,35
Characteristic strain at maximum force euk (%):
> 7,5%
Structural Steel:
Class S 235
When the design of steel structural members is required, the use of Structural
Steel Class S 235 will be implied. Following the prescription of Eurocode 8
(2001), the possibility that the actual steel yield strength will be higher than the
value of the nominal yield strength is taken into account by a material over
strength factor ov equal to 1.25. In structural members designed with the
purpose of dissipating seismic energy, the value of the material yield strength
utilised during the erection of the building must not exceed fymax = 1.1.ov
times the yield strength defining the material steel grade: e.g., for S235 class
not higher than 320MPa. As an alternative way, it is allowed to determine the
actual yield strength of the material utilised for the structure, taking it as the
effective
value
in
the
design
verifications.
Having
considered
these
prescriptions we are to use a steel grade S235 with a fy = 355 MPa, value
180
guaranteed by tests carried out at the ProfilArbed laboratories. For an

economical design of the steel members we considered this upper limit. The
elastic modulus E is to be 210000 MPa.
5.3.2
Load combinations
In the present paragraph a base column of a five-storey building is designed for

each of the three different load combinations listed below:
1. Gravity Load Combination, designing the columns only according to Eurocode 2.
q1= 1(G GK,i)+QQK,1+2(Q 0QK,i)
( 5.1 )
2. Seismic Load Combination A, assuming the structural elements in the Low

Ductility Class designing the columns only according to Eurocode 2.
q2= 1(GK,i)+AE,d+1(2QK,i)
( 5.2 )
3. Seismic Load Combination B, assuming the structural elements in the Medium

Ductility Class, and for that reason designing the columns according to Eurocode 2
and Eurocode 8.
q3= 1(GK,i)+AE,d+1(2QK,i)
( 5.3 )
where:
GK,i
is the dead load
QK,1
is the imposed live load
QK,2
is the wind load
AE,d
is the horizontal seismic action: EEdx+0,3 EEdy.
G Unfavourable Q Unfavourable
1.35
1.5
G Favourable
Q Favourable
0.7
0.3
Table 5.1. Values of the coefficients for the load combinations
The uniformly distributed loads to be vertically applied to the structural members

have been calculated from the combinations above assuming typical values, found
181
in the design tables, for what concerns the material specific weights. A uniformly
distributed live load of 3.0 kPa was assumed at each storey level (mechanical
equipments, finishes, etc.). Different values of the dead and live loads were
calculated for the roof; in this case the live load is equal to 2.0kPa.
Subsequently, the horizontal seismic forces acting at each storey height according
to Eurocode 8 have been determined; being the structure regular both in plan and
in height (prEN 1998-1, 2001), it is allowed to carry out a simplified planar static
analysis, the so-called Lateral Force Method Analysis. The equivalent horizontal
seismic forces, represented as nodal forces acting at each storey height, have
been determined for the seismic study cases denominated above as A and B. For
the two load combinations we assumed the same peak ground acceleration, i.e.
0.20g, which implies that the construction site belongs to a low seismicity area.
Only the main aspects that are relevant to the seismic resistance of the moment
resisting frames in the direction of loading are summarised herein.
The design seismic loads at each level, Fi, were determined using the simplified
modal response spectrum analysis method:
Fi = Fb
zi mi
i
( 5.4 )
( zi mi )
where Fb is the seismic base shear, and zi and m i are respectively the height from
the ground level and the masses at each storey of the building. The seismic base
shear force is given by:
Fb = Sd (T1 ) W
( 5.5 )
where Sd(T1) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at the fundamental period of
vibration of the structure for translational motion in the direction considered, T1, W
is the total weight of the building, and
is a correction factor. The equations and
the values of the soil parameter, S, and the reference periods TB, TC, and TD that
are required to construct Types 1 and 2 design spectra are given below. For this
project, the following key parameters were adopted:
Type 1 spectrum;
Peak ground acceleration, ag = 0.20 g;
Subsoil Class A (Rock site, or alike, with Vs,30 > 800 m/s);
Behaviour factor, q = 1.5 for Ductility Class LOW and q = 3.9 for Ductility
Class MEDIUM.
Therefore, S = 1.0 and the reference periods TB, TC, and TD are respectively equal
to 0.15 sec, 0.5 sec, and 2.0 sec. The fundamental period T1 of the structure was
182
provided by linear analysis conducted in SAP2000 both for the x- and y-direction,
giving T1,x = 0.302 sec and T1,y = 0.267 sec. The inertial effects of the seismic
action are evaluated through the combination below:
W k = G k j + E I Q k j
( 5.6 )
Being:
E i = 2 i
with
1,0
for roof
0,8
for other storeys with correlated occupancies
0,3
for offices and residential buildings
=
2 I =
Thus:
I-V Storey
E 1-5 = 0,24
Roof
E Roof = 0,3
G1-5=
3561 KN
Groof=
2125 KN
Q1-5=
1011 KN
Qroof=
720 KN
W 1-5=
3804 KN
W roof= 2341 KN
W Tot = 5 W 1-5 + W roof = 21361 KN
is the total weight of the building
M = 2177 tons
is the total mass of the building
Hence, we can derive the total base shear force for each seismic design case and
the horizontal seismic forces acting at the different storey heights. The main results
of these calculations are reported in Table 5.2. Moreover, in order to cover
uncertainties in the location of masses and in the spatial variation of the seismic
motion, the calculated centre of mass at each floor i will be displaced from its
nominal location by an accidental eccentricity in each direction:
e1i = 0,05 Li
( 5.7 )
where e1i is the accidental eccentricity of storey mass i from its nominal location,
and Li is the floor-dimension perpendicular to the direction of the seismic action.
We obtain e1x equal to 1500 mm and e1y equal to 600 mm.
183
Design case: LOW DUCTILITY
Design case: MEDIUM DUCTILITY
Total base shear force = 8716 kN
Total base shear force = 3353 kN
Floor
Fx
Fy
Floor
Fx
Fy
level
(kN)
(kN)
level
(kN)
(kN)
477.0
477.0
180.0
180.0
933.0
933.0
359.0
359.0
1399.0
1399.0
539.0
539.0
1866.0
1866.0
718.0
718.0
2332.0
2332.0
897.0
897.0
Roof
1722.0
1722.0
Roof
633.0
633.0
Table 5.2. Lateral seismic forces obtained for the two ductility design cases
5.3.3
3D frame modelling
After a rough estimation of the geometry of all the structural elements by simplified
drafts and schematic diagrams, a simulation of the building behaviour was
implemented applying both vertical and horizontal forces to a 3D model drawn by
the finite element program SAP2000 (see Figure 5.6).
The contribution of a single masonry in-fill was taken into account by an equivalent
compression diagonal model endowed the following stiffness:
K w = 0.6
Ew w t cos 2
d
( 5.8 )
in which the value 0.6 accounts for the presence of openings, doors, etc. Two
different models have been considered:
the first one (see Figure 5.6a) in which the structure was modelled with the
masonry in-fill present on each floor of the building (Structure I);
the second one (see Figure 5.6b) in which the structure was modelled without
the masonry infill on the first floor. This case, named Pilotis Case (Structure II),
was considered with the purpose of maximizing the design action on the base
columns and of incrementing the second order effects (inter-storey drift
sensitivity). ). In fact, this model implements the aforementioned Soft Storey
situation.
From these analyses it was found that the most adverse conditions applied to three
representative base columns of the building labelled as n 260, n 302 and n 309
(as indicated in Figure 5.4); we also paid particular attention to how the masonry
184
wall stiffness modifies the re-distribution of the internal member actions going from
the top storey to the ground level.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.6. Building structures modelled by the SAP2000 program: a) structure with the
masonry infill present in each floor; b) Pilotis Case - structure without the masonry infill
at the first floor
For the assumed load combination, Static, Seismic A and Seismic B, all comes
down to the design of one column (taken with rectangular geometry) which
complies with the worst case of forces among those acting on the considered
elements (n 260, n 302 and n 309) for the load combination under exam.
Nonetheless, as the heaviest forces to be withdrawn arise from the seismic
combination A (Low ductility and behaviour factor q = 1,5), the column width and
depth were fixed in this case varying only the number and distribution of the
reinforcing bars in the others.
In order to have an approximate idea of the re-distribution of internal forces on the
structural members once loaded, some diagrams obtained from SAP2000 and
representing respectively the deformed shape, axial force and bending moment are
shown below.
Moreover, on the basis of the results obtained by applying the forces defined
according to the load combinations A and B to the structure and considering the
seismic wave load acting alternatively in the two directions of the 3D frame, it was
possible to verify the values of the inter-storey drift coefficients. The value of the
inter-storey drift is d r = q d e where de is the displacement of the considered point
in the structural system as determined by a linear analysis based on the design
response spectrum. The value of the inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient is equal
to:
185
P d
= tot r
Vtot h
( 5.9 )
where Ptot is the total weight above and at the considered floor system, according
to the equivalent seismic effect hypotheses; Vtot is the total shear force for the
considered floor system due to the seismic equivalent action; and h is the distance
between two adjacent floor systems. On the basis of the numerical simulations, the
frame results not sway for the Seismic combinations; therefore second-order
effects need not to be taken into account.
Figure 5.7. Output results from the SAP 2000 for the Static load combination
Figure 5.8. Output results from the SAP 2000 both for A and for B Seismic load
combinations
186
5.3.4
Design of the reinforced concrete columns
On the basis of the numerical simulation, the column section has been verified for
axial bending, compression and shear in both directions. The 2
nd
order effects
need not to be considered, being the columns not slender in plan ( < CR = 25). As
example, the M-N diagrams for designing the three rectangular columns
corresponding to the Static combination, the Seismic combination A and the
Seismic combination B are illustrated below (Figure 5.9, Figure 5.10 and Figure
5.11), respectively.
Diagram M-N
700
Diagram M-N
260 - COMB 1
260 - COMB 2
260 - COMB 3
302 - COMB 1
302 - COMB 2
302 - COMB 3
309 - COMB 1
309 - COMB 2
309 -COMB 3
600
500
M [KNm]
400
300
200
100
0
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
N [KN]
Figure 5.9. M-N diagram illustrating the column resistance for

the Static load combination.
Diagram M-N
1600
Diagram M-N
260 X
302 X
309 X
260 X (II)
302 X (II)
309 X (II)
1400
1200
M [KNm]
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
N [KN]
Figure 5.10. M-N diagram illustrating the column resistance

for the Seismic load combination A (Low)
187

Diagram M-N
900
Diagram M-N
260 X
302 X
309 X
260 X (II)
302 X (II)
309 X (II)
M-N(-30%)
800
700
600
M [KNm]
500
400
300
200
100
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
N [KN]
Figure 5.11. M-N diagram illustrating the column resistance

for the Seismic load combination B (Medium)
For the design of MEDIUM ductility members prescriptions from Eurocode 8 (2001)
have also been taken into account. This means a reduction of 30% in the resisting
moment MRd and an NSd axial force to be not greater than 0,65NRd. Besides, all
necessary prescriptions for both end sections of the primary columns to be
considered as critical regions have been matched (Eurocode 8, 2001).
Moreover, in accordance with the design rules of Eurocode 2 (2001) and Eurocode
8 (2001) the following details for the columns are chosen. Note that for the design
of MEDIUM ductility members also prescriptions of Eurocode 8 (2001) clause have
been taken into account.
Details of the concrete section designed for the Gravity load combination
Maximum longitudinal hoops spacing
300 mm
Maximum transversal hoops spacing
510 mm
Minimum shear reinforcement ratio w
0,0011
Concrete column depth
700 mm
Concrete column width
550 mm
Number of longitudinal rebars along major axis
Number of longitudinal rebars along minor axis
Longitudinal rebars diameter
16 mm
Longitudinal hoops spacing
300 mm
Hoops diameter
10 mm
Hoops arm number
Table 5.3. Geometrical properties of the cross section
188
In the critical region (in accordance with Eurocode 2):

LCR (critical regions length):
720 mm
Maximum hoops spacing in the critical regions: 180 mm
Details of the section designed for the Seismic load combination A
300 mm
300 mm
0,0011
700 mm
550 mm
25 mm
300 mm
Hoops diameter
10 mm
Hoops arm number
In the critical region (in according with Eurocode 2):

720 mm
Adopted hoops spacing in the critical regions:
180 mm
Details of the section designed for the Seismic load combination B
300 mm
300 mm
0,0011
700 mm
550 mm
20 mm
300 mm
Hoops diameter
10 mm
Hoops arm number
189
By considering the prescription both of Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8, within the

critical region the most restrictive of the following conditions should be satisfied.
Eurocode 2
720 mm
Hoops spacing in the critical regions:
180 mm
Eurocode 8: to satisfy plastic rotation demands and to compensate for loss of

resistance due to spalling of concrete cover
700 mm
Hoops spacing in the critical regions:
150 mm
5.3.5
Design of the fully encased composite columns
To ease and promote the utilisation of composite columns in seismic geographical

areas in order to obviate the Soft Storey type of building failure, the steel profiles
for strong and weak axis bending have been chosen by matching simple design
criteria developed at the University of Liege. This constructional measure should:
provide ductility;
maintain axial strength, (plastic) shear and moment resistance, and stiffness
similar to those of the RC column at the ultimate stage when concrete is locally
crushed.
The following design criteria have been defined, in order to allow the achievement
of the mentioned target.
1. The steel section should at least be able to take alone the design axial force of
the seismic loading case:
NRd > NSd (gG + qQ)
( 5.10 )
with:
g = 1
q = 0.3
2. The steel section alone (not acting composedly) should be able to substitute
the deficient concrete section:
190
MRd,steel > MRd,concrete
( 5.11 )
VRd,steel > VRd,concrete
( 5.12 )
Eq. (5.10) should entail the erection of composite columns, which resist more than
the dead load of the structure under severe seismic conditions providing enough
residual stiffness to minimise the risk of collapse. Moreover, criteria defined in 1
and 2 should provide a beneficial residual strength after the concrete crushing that
should lead to improved ductility.
3. The section profiles should not much modify the local stiffness EI of the single
RC columns (maximum modification level in the order of 10%) in order not to
change the distribution in stiffness of the entire concrete structure. In fact, a
change in the stiffness distribution may also signify a variation of the building
periods of vibration closely tied with the inertial forces, e.g. seismic forces.
4. The following ratio
rmajor / rminor = [MRd,comp/MRd,concrete]major / [MRd,comp/MRd,concrete]minor
( 5.13 )
should be close to 1 in order to achieve a suitable performance of the steel section

both along major axis bending and minor axis bending.
The steel section design is performed using the structural steel class S235 with a
value of fy = 355 MPa guarantied by ProfilArbed. The steel profile sections that
ensure the above mentioned design criteria were chosen considering this limit for
the structural steel yield strength.
For each load combination, Static, Seismic A and Seismic B, two steel cross
sections were chosen, being a HEM and a HEB type cross section. The choice fell
upon these two sections mainly for a matter of constructability of the specimens to
be tested. It is not to forget that the steel profiles are inserted in some critical and
tied up regions, e.g. the joint regions, with a quite high quantity of horizontal,
vertical and transversal reinforcing bars. Other types of cross section (IPE or UB
sections) did not give enough guaranties regarding the feasibility of the composite
joints. The resulting sections are reported hereinafter for the three design cases.
191
Details of the steel profile for the Gravity load combination (Design Case 1)
HEM 160
Major Axis
Minor Axis
NSd
3008,4
kN
NSd
3008,4
kN
MRd,conc
201,2
kNm
MRd,conc
154,8
kNm
VRd,conc
554,3
kN
VRd,conc
508,7
kN
NRd,steel
3132,07
kN
NRd,steel
3132,07
kN
MRd,steel
217,71
kNm
MRd,steel
105,05
kNm
VRd,steel
574,07
kN
VRd,steel
1422,79
kN
Asteel
9705
mm
Asteel
9705
mm
Asteel/Aconc
2,52%
Asteel/Aconc
2,52%
NPl,Rd,comp
10113,52
kN
NPl,Rd,comp
10113,52
kN
MRd,comp
778,89
kNm
MRd,comp
608,54
kNm
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
3,87
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
3,93
Table 5.6. Details of the HEM 160 steel profile
HEB 220
Major Axis
Minor Axis
NSd
3008,4
kN
NSd
3008,4
kN
MRd,conc
201,2
kNm
MRd,conc
154,8
kNm
VRd,conc
554,3
kN
VRd,conc
508,7
kN
NRd,steel
2938,11
kN
NRd,steel
2938,11
kN
MRd,steel
266,90
kNm
MRd,steel
127,12
kNm
VRd,steel
520,22
kN
VRd,steel
1311,74
kN
Asteel
9104
mm
Asteel
9104
mm
Asteel/Aconc
2,36%
Asteel/Aconc
2,36%
NPl,Rd,comp
9929,78
kN
NPl,Rd,comp
9929,78
kN
MRd,comp
778,19
kNm
MRd,comp
612,58
kNm
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
3,87
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
3,96
Table 5.7. Details of the HEB 220 steel profile
192
Details of the steel profile for the Seismic load combination A (Design Case 2)
HEM 280
Major Axis
Minor Axis
NSd
3992,9
kN
NSd
3152,3
kN
MRd,conc
963,07
kNm
MRd,conc
552,39
kNm
VRd,conc
711,8
kN
VRd,conc
534,4
kN
NRd,steel
7751,91
kN
NRd,steel
7751,91
kN
MRd,steel
957,21
kNm
MRd,steel
450,85
kNm
VRd,steel
1342,11
kN
VRd,steel
3541,70
kN
Asteel
24020
mm
Asteel
24020
mm
Asteel/Aconc
6,24%
Asteel/Aconc
6,24%
NPl,Rd,comp
16825,28
kN
NPl,Rd,comp
16091,10
kN
MRd,comp
2151,84
kNm
MRd,comp
1342,58
kNm
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
2,16
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
2,36
HEB 360
Major Axis
Minor Axis
NSd
3992,9
kN
NSd
3152,3
kN
MRd,conc
963,07
kNm
MRd,conc
552,39
kNm
VRd,conc
711,8
kN
VRd,conc
534,4
kN
NRd,steel
5828,45
kN
NRd,steel
5828,45
kN
MRd,steel
865,88
kNm
MRd,steel
333,05
kNm
VRd,steel
1129,14
kN
VRd,steel
2515,41
kN
Asteel
18060
mm
Asteel
18060
mm
Asteel/Aconc
4,69%
Asteel/Aconc
4,69%
NPl,Rd,comp
10033,85
kN
NPl,Rd,comp
9299,67
kN
MRd,comp
2042,2
kNm
MRd,comp
1256,90
kNm
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
2,30
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
2,28
193
Details of the steel profile for the Seismic load combination B (Design Case 3)
HEM 200
Major Axis
Minor Axis
NSd
2098,1
kN
NSd
1782,8
kN
MRd,conc
311,8
kNm
MRd,conc
239,1
kNm
VRd,conc
604,5
kN
VRd,conc
570,5
kN
NRd,steel
4237,41
kN
NRd,steel
4237,41
kN
MRd,steel
366,30
kNm
MRd,steel
174,31
kNm
VRd,steel
764,50
kN
VRd,steel
1919,16
kN
Asteel
13130
mm
Asteel
13130
mm
Asteel/Aconc
3,41%
Asteel/Aconc
3,41%
NPl,Rd,comp
7886,17
kN
NPl,Rd,comp
7887,17
kN
MRd,comp
925,12
kNm
MRd,comp
798,28
kNm
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
2,97
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
3,34
HEB 240
Major Axis
Minor Axis
NSd
2098,1
kN
NSd
1782,8
kN
MRd,conc
311,8
kNm
MRd,conc
239,1
kNm
VRd,conc
604,5
kN
VRd,conc
570,5
kN
NRd,steel
3420,91
kN
NRd,steel
3420,91
kN
MRd,steel
339,83
kNm
MRd,steel
160,85
kNm
VRd,steel
619,16
kN
VRd,steel
1520,43
kN
Asteel
10600
mm
Asteel
10600
mm
Asteel/Aconc
2,75%
Asteel/Aconc
2,75%
NPl.Rd,comp
10725,46
kN
NPl,Rd,comp
10725,46
kN
MRd,comp
944,57
kNm
MRd,comp
737,42
kNm
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
3,03%
MRd,comp/MRd,conc
3,08%
194
The ratio rmajor / rminor, that could estimate the performance of the different designed
rectangular sections along the major and the minor bending axis, are reported in
the following Table:
Load Combination
Gravity load
Combination (Case 1)
Seismic load
Combination A (Case 2)
Seismic load
Combination B (Case 3)
Profile
HEM 160
HEB 220
HEM 280
HEB 360
HEM 200
HEB 240
rmaior / rminor
0,98
0,98
0,92
0,90
0,89
0,98
Table 5.12. Value of the ratio rmajor / rminor for the used steel profiles
The cross sections designed following the simplified and aforementioned criteria,
are illustrated in the following Figure 5.12. The sections appear to be composite
concrete-steel sections despite not having been ordinarily designed like that.
These sections are representative of the column specimens to be tested soon
after.
Figure 5.12. Composite section for the designed rectangular columns
The steel contribution ratio satisfies the condition given in Eurocode 4:
0,2 < < 0,9with
As f yd
N pl , Rd
( 5.14 )
195
For rectangular concrete sections with the HEM and HEB profiles return the
following:
= 0,328
= 0,461
= 0,537
HEM 160
HEM 220
HEM 200
5.4
= 0,296
= 0,581
= 0,319
HEB 220
HEB 360
HEB 240
Design of beam-to-column joints
In the classic deflected shape of a structural frame subjected to lateral loading,

where the load distribution is characterized by inflection points near the midpoint of
the beams and columns, the maximum moments occurs at the joint. Such actions
are shown acting on an interior joint in Figure 5.13. Satisfactory response for the
frame requires the joint to transfer the large unbalanced beam and column
moments with reasonable deformations at both service and ultimate conditions.
M col,t
V col,t
N col,t
V beam,r
M beam,r
N beam,l
N beam,r
M beam,l
V beam,l
V col,b
N col,b
M col,b
Figure 5.13. Actions on an interior composite joint
By means of the adjustment of an analytical model proposed by Kanno and

Deieirlein (2000) and Chou and Uang (2002) it is possible to quantify the shear
resistance of the joint, consisting in the sum of different mechanisms activated in
the connection. Furthermore, it is true that, up to now, the European Codes dont
entirely cover the behaviour of the composite beam to column connections. In fact,
196
one of the goals of the InERD Project is to validate experimentally the joint
mechanisms providing the shear resistance. Hence, once the presumed Joint
Formulation had been derived, we were able to validate it thanks to the

experimental data obtained from the tests.
The inner joint region behaviour is associated with two modes of failure, i.e. Shear
and Bearing Failure and with the two correspondent resisting strengths in shear,
Vjoint,sp and Vjoint,hb, where Vjoint,sp is given by the sum of Vjoint,wsp and Vjoint,ccs. The
outer part of the joint deals with Shear and Bond Failure and with the associated
shear strengths Vjoint,ccf and Vjoint,bf. As a result, the joint inner and outer resistances
are evaluated as follows
Vjoint,inner = min {Vjoint,ps, Vjoint,hb}
( 5.15 )
Vjoint,outer = min {Vjoint,ccf, Vjoint,b}
( 5.16 )
Vjoint,ps = Vjoint,wps + Vjoint,ccs
( 5.17 )
and
where
5.4.1
Strength of the Inner Elements
Inner joint behaviour is characterized by two primary modes of failure. Panel shear
failure, see Figure 5.14a, is similar to the collapse typically associated with
structural steel or reinforced concrete joints; but in composite joints both structural
steel and reinforced concrete elements participate. The bearing failure, shown in
Figure 5.14b, occurs at a location of high compressive stresses and permits rigid
body rotation of the steel column within the concrete beam.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.14. a) Panel shear failure; b) Bearing failure
197
Steel web panel, as shown in Figure 5.15a, acts similarly in composite and
structural steel connections. The web is considered to carry pure shear stress over
an effective panel length ds, which is dependent on the location of the stiffeners in
the column or on the distribution of horizontal bearing stresses.
ds
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.15. a) Steel web panel mechanism; b) Concrete compression strut

mechanism
The shear resistance and the moment resistance for the steel web panel are
V j , wps = 0, 7
f ym ,d ,cw
3
min( Av ; tcw 0,8d s ) + V j , wps
( 5.18 )
M Rd , j , wps = V j , wps ( 0.8 d s ) if Av < tcw 0.8 d s
( 5.19 )
M Rd , j , wps = V j , wps ( hc tcf ) if Av > tcw 0.8 d s
( 5.20 )
Generally, lateral loads induced by seismic force govern composite connection

design. Under seismic loading, the structure dissipates energy trough several
cyclic of inelastic response. In steel structure, inelastic response can occur trough
plastic hinges, which, preferably, is limited to beam elements. For seismic design,
198
therefore, the composite connection and concrete column design strength should
not be less than forces developed by plastic hinging of the steel beam adjacent to
the connection.
Connection design strength is obtained reducing the nominal strength by a
resistance factor . Since a large data base does not exists for statistical analysis
of joint strength, the resistance factor is determined by calibration with relative
factor of safety in the allowable stress specification for steel structures (AISC
Specification, 1997). It practically corresponds to the inverse of the partial safety
factor M0 used in European practice (where =0.9 e M0=1.1).
In the presented formula the resistance factor proposed by the AISC
Specification (1997) is not directly take into account. The value of 0.7, that
multiplies the formula, is based on the following assumption:
The connections should have a greater reliability index (or factor of safety) than
structural members. Allowable stress values reflect a factor of safety for
connection that is 1.3 times greater than that for structural members;
When the column axial force is not negligible, the shear resistance of the
column web should be computed, by adopting the Hencky-Von Mises yield
criterion, by means of the following relationship:
Sd ,col
f yd , wc
f yd ,cw
( 5.21 )
where Sd,col is the average normal stress in the panel zone. In the current Draft
of EC3 (2000), the influence of the normal stress Sd,col due the column axial
force, is approximately accounted for by means of a reduction coefficient equal
to 0.9. In particular, the codified value of the reduction factor is on the safe side
up to a column axial load equal to 45% of the column squash load. The use of
the above equations, i.e. the use of a first yield criterion for evaluating the
panel zone shear resistance, should be preferred when the effect of the panel
zone deformation on frame stability is not considered in the structural analysis
(Liew and Chen, 1994) or when is desired to limit the panel zone behaviour to
the elastic range (Mazzolani and Piluso, 1996).
Thus, it is simple to obtain that 0.7 = 0.9 / 1.3.
For the calculation of the shear area in the web panel zone the minimum value of
two different contributions is take into account. Shear area Av proposed by EC3
that may be taken as:
Av = As ,tot 2 bcf tcf + ( tcw + 2 r ) tcf
( 5.22 )
199
Shear area calculated on the basis of the length jh, used to regulate the effective
length of the web panel and the distance between vertical resultant forces coupled
in the compression strut. It is proposed to use a fixed value of jh = 0.8ds based on
comparison with test data.
Moreover, experimental tests have demonstrated that the panel zone is able to
provide a significant post-yield resistance (Krawinkler, 1978). When the panel zone
has uniformly reached yielding, an additional increase in shear strength Vj,wps can
be attributed to the resistance in flexion of the elements surrounding the panel.
This resistance can be approximated by springs at the four corners whose stiffness
is that corresponding to rotations of the column flanges concentrated at each
corner. When the boundaries of the panel zone are assumed to be rigid, the postelastic stiffness of the joint, attributable to the four springs, is computed as:
4 M Pl ,cf , Rd
V j , wps = min
ds
4 1 bcf tcf2 f ym ,d ,cf bcf tcf2 f ym ,d ,cf

4
=
ds
ds
2 M Pl ,cf , Rd + 2 M Pl , st , Rd
ds
bcf tcf2 f ym ,d ,cf + bp tsp2 f ym ,d , s
( 5.23 )
2 ds
Where the steel column web is encased in concrete the design shear resistance of
the panel may be increased with the contribution of the inner concrete strut Vccs,
that is the design shear resistance of the concrete encasement to the web panel.
The concrete compression strut, shown in Figure 5.15b, is similar to the
mechanism used to model shear in a reinforced concrete connection. In composite
connections, the concrete compression strut could be mobilized in resisting the
connection shear either due to the presence of the horizontal stiffener plates
welded to the column or due to the friction and the flexural forces acting in the steel
column flange. In case of presence of the stiffener plates, the location and width of
these determine how effectively the concrete strut is mobilized. The shear
resistance and the moment resistance for the concrete compression strut are
V j ,ccs =
0.85 f ck
1
1
f 'cd Ac sen =

Ac sen
1.3
1.3
c
M Rd , j ,ccs = V j ,ccs ( 0.8 d s )
200
( 5.24)
( 5.25 )
For a single-sided joint, or a double-sided joint in which the beam depths are
similar, the design shear resistance of concrete encasement into the column web
panel depends by the following geometrical and mechanical parameters:
Ac = 0.8 ( hc 2 tcf ) cos ( bcf tcw )
= 0.55 1 + 2
= tan 1
N sd
1.1
N pl , Rd
hc 2 tcf
z
( 5.26 )
( 5.27 )
( 5.28 )
For connections with contact plates, the center of compression should be assumed
to be in line with the mid-thickness of the compression flange. For connections with
contact plates and only one row of reinforcement active in tension, the lever arm z
should be taken as the distance from the center of compression to the row of
reinforcement in tension. For connections with contact plates and two rows of
reinforcements active in tension the lever arm z should be taken as the distance
from the center of compression to a midway point between these two rows,
provided that the two rows have the same cross-sectional area. In the formulation
above, is a multiplier factor which accounts for the column axial load effects on
the joint shear resistance, following the prescriptions of Eurocode 2.
Bearing Failure
The horizontal bearing strength Vjoint,hb is determined through a standard Stress
Block model similar to that used for flexural strength calculation in reinforced
concrete members. The shear resistance and the moment resistance for the
concrete compression strut are calculated as follows:
V j ,hb =
f
1
0.85 ck ,c ac bcf
1.3
c
M Rd , j ,hb = V j ,hb ( hb ac )
( 5.29 )
( 5.30 )
To evaluate this resistance it is of primary importance to be able to guarantee an

adequate concrete confinement inserting a proper ties quantitative which enhances
the concrete performance. Confinement of concrete results in a modification of the
effective stress-strain relationship: higher strength and higher critical strains are
201
achieved (Mander, 1988). The other basic material characteristics may be

considered as unaffected for design. In the absence of more precise data, the
stress-strain relation with increased characteristic strength and strains may be
used, according to:
f ck ,c = f ck 1 + 5
2
f ck
f ck ,c = f ck 1.125 + 2.5
where
(=
3)
if
0.05 fck
2
f ck
if
> 0.05 fck
( 5.31 )
( 5.32 )
is the effective lateral compressive stress at the ULS due to
confinement. The value ac is the stress block depth equal to 0.58 hb/2.
5.4.2
Strength of the Outer Elements
Shear Failure
The concrete compression field mechanism, shown in Figure 5.16, consists of
several compression struts that act with horizontal reinforcement to form a truss
mechanism (often used for modelling shear in reinforced concrete beams). Shear
is transferred horizontally from the beam into the compression field through bearing
against the embedded steel column.
Figure 5.16. Concrete compression

field mechanism
202
The shear resistance of this mechanism was evaluated following the prescriptions
of prEN 1992-1, Final draft. In the latest version of Eurocode 2, for members not
subjected to axial forces and with transverse reinforcement, Vjoint,ccf, is evaluated as
the smaller quantity between the concrete compressive strength Vc and the tensile
strength of the transverse reinforcement Vs, where:
Vc = VRd ,max =
f ck
bcs 0.9 d
1
( cot + tan )
( 5.33 )
and
Vs = VRd , sy =
Asw f yk , w
0.9 d cot
s
s
where = 0.6 (1 - fck / 250);
( 5.34 )
is the angle between the concrete struts and the
column longitudinal axis and it should be chosen such that the condition 1< cot
<2.5 is satisfied; bcs is the effective width of the outer concrete strut equal to bcs =
bc - bcf - 2cc.
In the case of members subjected to axial compressive forces, the maximum
concrete shear resistance increases of the quantity c, defined as follows:
c = (1 + cp/fcd)
c = 1.25
c = 2.5 (1 - cp/fcd)
cp
for 0 <
cp
0.25 fcd
for 0.25 fcd <

for 0.5 fcd <
cp
cp
0.5 fcd
< 1.0 fcd
is the average concrete compressive stress (taken as positive) of the composite
column due to the design axial load obtained also considering the longitudinal rebars.
The transverse reinforcement in the connection region plays a primary role both for
the concrete confinement and to ensure the joint resistance. Precise guidelines are
contained in the Eurocodes. First of all, the ties diameter must be equal to or
greater than 6mm and not smaller than of the maximum re-bar diameter. The
maximum amount of transverse reinforcement Asw,max must reflect the conditions:
Asw,max f yd ,w
bw stie
1
f cd
2
( 5.35 )
Moreover, to allow the required plastic rotation, we need to verify for the confining
reinforcement in joints of primary seismic beams with columns (in joints of primary
importance for resisting the seismic actions), that:
203
wd 30 d sy , d
bc
0, 035
b0
( 5.36 )
with:
global confinement effectiveness factor, equal to = n s with,
for rectangular cross sections:
bi 2
6 b0 h0
n = 1
s =
wd
1 s
1 s
( 5.37 )
2 b0
( 5.38 )
2 h0
mechanical volumetric ratio of confining hoops within the critical
regions equal to:
Volume of the confining hoops f yd , w
Volume of concrete core

f cd
( 5.39 )
required value of the curvature ductility factor equal to:
2q 1
1 + 2(q 1)
if T1 Tc
Tc
T1
( 5.40 )
if T1 < T
N Ed
Ac f cd
normalized design axial force, equal to
sy,d
design value of tension steel strain at yield
bc
gross cross-sectional width
b0
width of confined core (to the centerline of the hoops)
h0
depth of confined core (to the centerline of the hoops)
for the critical regions of columns lcr, except as specified follows:

1. If beams frame into all four sides of the joint and their width is at least
three-quarter of the parallel cross-sectional dimension of the column, the
spacing of the horizontal confinement reinforcement in the joint may be
increased to twice that required, but not to exceed 150 mm.
204
2. At least one intermediate (between column corner bars) vertical bar shall
be provided at each side of a joint of primary seismic beams and columns.
In the absence of more precise information, the length of the critical region lcr may
be computed as follows:
lcr = max (hc ; lcl / 6 ; 450 mm)
( 5.41 )
Bond Failure
An idealization of the bond failure Vjoint,bf provided by the longitudinal reinforcing
bars acting in friction with concrete and embedded in the outer joint region is
shown in Figure 5.17. The bond failure occurs in the outer elements if the
compression and tension forces (due to moment equilibrium), along with the forces
mobilised in the concrete compression field, are greater than the strength of the
bond mechanism of a set of main longitudinal re-bars.
Figure 5.17. Bond failure mechanism
The shear resistance and the moment resistance for bond mechanism is calculated
as follows:
V j ,b =
1
f bd b xrb ,c
1.3
( 5.42 )
205
M Rd , j ,b = V j ,b d s
( 5.43 )
It is assumed that bond failure occurs in the outer elements when the sum of the
forces is equal to the bond strength of a set of main reinforcing bars.
Tcb + Ttb = Tbf
( 5.44 )
The bond failure strength should be calculated as follows:
Tbf = f bd b d s
( 5.45 )
The design value of the ultimate bond stress fbd for ribbed bars may be taken as:
fbd = 2.25 1 2 f ctd = 2.25 1 2
0.7 0.3 f ck 2 / 3
( 5.46 )
where:
1
is a coefficient related to the quality of the bond condition and the

position of the bar during concreting:
1,0
when good conditions are obtained;
0,7
for all other cases and for bars in structural elements built
with slip-forms, unless it can be shown that good bond
conditions exist;
is a coefficient related to the bar diameter equal to:

1.0
for
(132 - )/100
for > 32 mm
32 mm
Where not otherwise indicated in Eurocode 8, for frame systems the beam-tocolumn joints are required to have an increased moment resistance Mjoint,Rd in order
to enhance the ductile capacity of the columns avoiding, in this way, the local
formation of plastic hinges. Provided that, at the design stage, the plastic hinge
formation in the beams is envisaged, it is necessary in any case to take into
account the increase in the beam moment values in order to derive the design joint
forces. Focusing the attention on the behaviour of an internal beam-to-column joint
belonging to a frame free to deform in plane and subjected both to gravitational
206
and seismic loads, as depicted in Figure 5.18, it is possible to define the following
relations for the bending moments acting at the left and at the right of the joint.
Mp,left
M p,right - 2M g,right
Ms,left
Mg,left
Ms,left + Mg,left
Mg,right
=
Ms,right - Mg,right
Ms,right
Figure 5.18. Gravitational and seismic action in an interior joint
M left = M s ,left + M g ,left
( 5.47 )
M right = M s ,right M g , right
( 5.48 )
If it is assumed that during a seismic event the left bending moment of the beam
reaches the value of the bending plastic moment, as a consequence:
M p ,left = M s ,left + M g ,left
( 5.49 )
Moreover, if the same allowances for the beam bending moment acting on the right
side are made, we obtain:
M p ,right = M s ,right + M g ,right
( 5.50 )
Hence, combining Eqs (5.48) and (5.50), it is easy to obtain that the bending
moment acting on the right of the joint is equal to:
M right = M s ,right M g ,right = M p ,right 2 M g ,right
( 5.51 )
This equation underlines that the gravitational loads reduce the effects of the
seismic action in terms of bending moment acting at the joint. This beneficial effect
of the gravitational loads is not included in the Eurocode prescriptions.
Nevertheless, the AISC provisions (1997) approximately account for it by means of
a reduction coefficient equal to 0,8. Besides, it has to be noted that the column
shear reduces the total joint shear action at the beam-to-column joint position and
207
thus increases the shear joint strength. In accordance with these assumptions, for
the two seismic load combination (design case 2 and design case 3), we must
check that:
1.
Vj,Rd > Vj,Sd = 0,8 [(Mbeam,Rd,right + Mbeam,Rd,left) / ds Vc]
( 5.52 )
where Vc is the average shear force at collapse in the web panel equal to:
(Vcolumn,top + Vcolumn,bottom) / 2 = (Mcolumn,Rd,top + Mcolumn,Rd,bottom) / (Hc ds)
( 5.53 )
assuming that the zero-moment points are located in the middle section of the
columns the equilibrium condition
2.
M beam =
M column is satisfied.
Mj,Rd > 1,3 (Mbeam,Rd,right + Mbeam,Rd,left)
( 5.54 )
In view of the resistance evaluation, the following equations obtained from

equilibrium of forces in the joint panel zone are used:
5.5
Mj,Rd = Vjoint,inner dinner + Vjoint,outer douter
( 5.55 )
Vj,Rd = Mj,Rd / ds
( 5.56 )
The experimental test programme
5.5.1
Design of the reduced section of the specimen to be tested
For what concerns the laboratory experimentation feasibility, it was suggested to

test the specimens in scale. Hence, some geometrical and mechanical reducing
factors had to be applied to the section properties which include:
exterior geometrical dimensions of the concrete column (b and h);
amount of longitudinal reinforcing bars in the column (As,long);
amount of transverse reinforcing bars in the column (As, stirrup);
dimension of the steel profile.
Concerning the reduction of the steel profile two different possibilities were taken
into account. The steel profile may be reduced either in term of the cross area
As,steel or in term of plastic modulus W pl,steel. The first solution ensures that the axial
208
and shear resistance of the steel sections reduces of a half factor, while the
second one guarantees the resistance in bending to be half of that belonging to the
original section. Nevertheless, by diminishing the geometrical properties of the
concrete sections we obtained a reduction of the bending resistance equal to one
fourth of the original section. Hence, the assumptions made for the reduction of the
steel profile properties were not adoptable. Indeed, it was necessary to calculate
the reduced steel sections following the design criteria already presented in a
previous paragraph for the full-scale steel-concrete composite columns, and briefly
summarised below:
a. the steel section should at least be able to take alone the design axial force of
the seismic loading case;
b. the steel section alone (not acting composedly) should be able to substitute the
deficient concrete section;
c.
the sections have been chosen in order to not modify the local stiffness EI of
the columns and the total stiffness of the original concrete structure (maximum
level of modification of the order of 10%);
d. the sections have been chosen in order to achieve a favourable performance

both along their major axis bending and along their minor axis bending.
In the following Figure 5.19 the reduced composite column cross sections adopted
in the experiments at the University of Trento are shown.
Figure 5.19. Reduced sections for the composite columns to be tested
From these sections, corresponding to the respective load cases under study, we
extrapolated the scaled 3D composite columns to be analysed. Each cross
composite section generated four scaled samples, two with long steel profile (with
or without steel plates in the joint), and two with short steel profile in the critical
length (with or without horizontal steel plates) as illustrated in Figure 5.20.
Therefore, to each design category (static and seismic) belong four composite
samples plus another scaled sample without the encased steel profile. The latter
operating as a comparison trial for the others. Also four tests along minor axis were
209
planned. One reinforced concrete (RC) column and one composite (CO) column
both for the Static case and for the Seismic A case had to be analysed.
The stiffeners were considered with the aim of better understanding the behaviour
of the joint panel, i.e. the continuity horizontal plates were welded to the steel
profile at the height of the critical joint region to state whether their presence may
modify or not the load transfer between concrete and steel.
In order to ensure that the load transfer between concrete and steel are efficiently
mobilized in critical region of the composite column, an end plate welded at the end
of the steel profile was designed. The alternative and possible use of shear
connectors welded on the steel flanges in the critical zone was rejected, both to
allow for a simplified technical solution and to minimise the fabrication costs of the
samples under evaluation. The geometrical specifications for the design of the end
plate are highlighted in Figure 5.20.
Figure 5.20. Geometrical characteristic of the end plate and

stiffeners
It is to mention that the side beams were over-designed in respect of the column
(not responding to the Capacity Design principle) specifically to allow the study of
the joint and column behaviour. On the contrary, another research carried out at
the University of Lige, in the presence of a frame, which did not permit the full
frame deformation (due to the presence of a bracing system simulating the
masonry in-fills), saw the plastic deformation occurring in the column without the
210
chance of studying the mechanisms mobilised in the joint. Actually, this lastmentioned frame had the purpose of better reproducing the boundary condition of
a Soft Storey for a base column. Nevertheless, some other recent researches in
this field have demonstrated that the masonry in-fills play a role, contributing to the
overall structural stiffness, only in the very first phase of a seismic event.
5.5.2
Test set-up and test programme
The test configuration adopted at the University of Trento Laboratories is

represented in Figure 5.21. It is to be noted that the frame does not exactly
represent the Soft Storey configuration being free from the secondary forces
transmitted in a presence of masonry in-fills. Besides, the beams were overdesigned with respect to the columns not matching the Capacity Design philosophy
of Eurocode 8 (2001). In the previous chapters we already discussed the choices
made in relation to these issue. Nevertheless, this test configuration has the
advantage that the determination of the internal actions in the members is easier.
As a result, it is possible to catch the forces acting inside the joint in order to
compare the results and to work out the relevant parameters indispensable for an
excellent connection design under seismic loading.
Figure 5.21. Test configuration adopted in Trento
The final test programme is reported in the following Table 5.13, in which it is
possible to find all the characteristics of the specimens to be tested at the
211
University of Trento. It is important to highlight that the terms C1, C2 and C3 are
essentially three different configurations of the steel profile, that will be used during
the test; in detail, C1 is the configuration of the specimen with the steel profile
extended beyond the depth of the beam; C2 is the configuration of the specimen
with the steel profile at the level of the depth of the beam (not used in Trento); and
C3 is the configuration of the specimen with a short steel profile in the critical
length of the column.
PHASE
1
Low ductility
PHASE
2
Medium ductility
PHASE
3
Static
R.C.
RCT3
COT5
with
stiffeners
long (C1)
COMPOSITE
COT6
COT7
COT8
without
with
without
stiffeners stiffeners stiffeners
long (C1) short (C3) short (C3)
RCT5
COT9
with
stiffeners
long (C1)
COT10
COT11
COT12
without
with
without
RCT1
COT1
with
stiffeners
long (C1)
COT2
COT3
COT4
without
with
without
RCT2
COT13
with
stiffeners
long (C1)
COT14
with
stiffeners
long (C1)
strong axis
strong axis
strong axis
Static
PHASE
4
Weak
axis
Low
RCT4
ductility
Table 5.13. Test programme
For each specimen 2 cubes and 1 cylinder are necessary:

2 cubes for compressive strength
the day of the test
1 cylinder for tensile strength and modulus of elasticity
the day of the test
Moreover additional cubes and cylinders are made to obtain:

at 1 day
at 3 days
at 7 days
at 14 days
at 28 days
1 cylinder for tensile strength and modulus of elasticity
at 14 days
212
5.5.3
Global test instrumentation
Different types of instruments were used to determine the behaviour of the

specimens during the test, among them strain gauges, load cells, displacement
transducers, inclinometers, etc. Preliminary analyses of the specimen and loading
apparatus, by means of FE method, were conducted to estimate the
displacement/strain/force ranges to be used in selecting and calibrating
instruments. Hereafter the instrumentation that has been used in monitoring the
specimens is presented, according to the test set-up illustrated in Figure 5.21.
Load cells
Interior load cell located in the vertical actuator (Maximum capacity: 1000 kN in
compression, 650 kN in tension);
Interior load cell located in the horizontal actuator (Maximum capacity: 1000KN
in compression, 1000 KN in tension);
LC-1: exterior load cell located as hinge (Maximum capacity: 1000 kN);
LC-2: exterior load cell located as hinge (Maximum capacity: 1000 kN).
Displacement transducers
Interior LVDT located in the vertical actuator (Maximum capacity: 500 mm);
Interior LVDT located in the horizontal actuator (Maximum capacity: 500 mm);
DT500-Column: exterior digital transducer Heidenhein-USL500 (Maximum

capacity: 500 mm), located at the top of the column;
DT500-Beam: exterior digital transducer Heidenhein-USL500 (Maximum

capacity: 500 mm), located at the mid-height of the beam.
Digital Transducer 1
Digital
Transducer 2
Load Cell n 1
Load Cell n 2
Figure 5.22. Exterior digital transducer and exterior load cells in the specimen
213
Additional instrumentation
Moreover, exterior instrumentation was used to obtain adequate information on the
rotation of the column web panel and on the beam portion in the closeness of the
joint. In details the instruments are listed below (see Figure 5.23):
INCL5
INCL4
TG-S-UP
TR-500-40
(D)
TR-500-5D
(E)
INCL3
TR-500-2D
(B)
TR-500-1D
(A)
TR-500-60
(F)
TR-500-3D
(C)
INCL2
TG-S-DOWN
INCL1
Figure 5.23. Exterior instrumentation in the joint
Exterior LVDTs (Maximum capacity: 100 mm) located in the portion of the joint
as seen in the pictures;
Exterior inclinometers (INCL1-2-3-4 with maximum capacity of 14 degrees)

located in the portion of the joint. One more inclinometer (INCL5) located on
the force distributing steel beam at the top of the specimen to record the slope
variation during the test; by means of this measurement it is possible to obtain
the axial and shear load components (which vary during the test) originated by
the actuators and acting on the specimen;
Exterior omega () displacement transducer (TG-S-UP and TG-S-DOWN)

located on the top-bottom face of the concrete beam in proximity to the
connections; by means of this measurement it is possible to obtain information
about the deformation of the beam section during the test, and then, to
reproduce the bending moment acting at the joint.
5.5.4
Local test instrumentation
The local instrumentation (see the next Figure 5.24-Figure 5.26) was only applied
to the specimens COT6-7 of the Phase 1 and COT9-10 of the Phase 2. It consisted
of:
214
Linear strain gauges SG-1 to 10 stuck on the steel profiles as shown in Figure
5.24. By means of this measurement it is possible to understand when the joint
force transfer mechanism is activated in the portion of the steel profile. This
mechanism represents the shear force carried by the steel column web
behaving in an elastic-plastic regime.
SG-7-8-9-10
SG-4
SG-5
SG-6
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3
SG-4
SG-5
SG-6
Figure 5.24. Interior strain gauges located in the steel profile
Linear strain gauges SG-11 to 22 on the reinforcing bars and on the stirrups of
the column as shown in Figure 5.25. By means of these measurements it is
possible to understand when the force transfer mechanism is activated in the
concrete portion of the joint.
REBARS
SG-22
SG-21
SG-14
SG-13
SG-20
SG-19
SG-18
SG-17
SG-16
SG-12
SG-11
(a)
SG-15
(b)
Figure 5.25. Interior strain gauges located (a) in the rebars and (b) in the stirrups of the
concrete column
215
Strain gauges SG-23 to 26 on the reinforcing bars of the beam as shown at

Figure 5.26. All strain gauges are linear strain gauges. By means of these
measurements, coupled with those recorded by the transducer, it is possible
to obtain information about the deformation of the beam section in the
closeness of the joint during the test; and then, to reproduce the bending
moment acting in the joint.
SG-23-24
SG-25-26
Figure 5.26. Interior strain gauges

located in the rebars of the concrete
beam
5.5.5
Test procedure and loading history
The choice of a testing program and associated loading history depends on the
purpose of the experiment, type of test specimen, and type of expected failure
mode. The following testing procedures are intended as a reference, to produce an
adequate and, as much as possible, a unified way to carry out tests in order to
characterize the structural behaviour of structural component substructures.
The ECCS Procedure (1986) should help to verify the common design relationship
between a pseudo-static horizontal force and a specified ductility or displacement
given by Codes and Recommendations, such as, for instance the ECCS
Recommendations for Steel Structures in Seismic Zones. This procedure has been
chosen to set forward the characteristics of the element in that peculiar context.
The complete definition of the test also requires data on the combination of seismic
and non-seismic loads. The testing procedure may include preliminary classical
monotonic displacement increase tests or obviate them. In the first case, it is called
complete testing procedure; in the opposite case, it is called short testing

procedure. From the F-e curve recorded during the monotonic test, the
+
conventional limit of elastic range Fy and the corresponding displacement ey may

be deduced. In the present study case, Fy and ey are not known at the beginning of
216
the test because only a cyclic test is executed, that is a test with increase of
displacement. The principle is that a reference yield displacement ey value in the
form of an absolute value should be defined preliminarily and kept for all
specimens, in order to make possible a direct comparison. For composite columns,
the estimated interstorey drift angle y at yielding is 0,5% = 5 mrad. The drift angle
in the test is the displacement of the actuator divided by the height or length of the
part of the specimen, which may deform during the test. The height of column
which is free to deform is 3500 mm (storey height), i.e. from the actuator axis to the
hinge axis, then, ey = y x 3500 = 17,50 mm is the yield displacement (+ and -) at
the actuator (+ and -). The loading history is defined by the following sequences,
reported hereafter in Figure 5.27:
one cycle in the intervals:
ey+ /4, ey /4; 2 ey+ /4, ey /4; 3 ey+ /4, 3 ey /4; ey+ , ey ;
three cycles in the intervals:

+
2 e y , 2 e y ; 4 e y , 4 e y ; ; (2+2n) e y , (2+2n)
ey
with n = 1, 2, 3,
more cycles or more intervals may be used if necessary.
a)
e/ey+
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
Figure 5.27. Multiple-Step Test: adopted ECCS loading history
Due to the set-up configuration used by the laboratory of the University of Trento,
some calculations have been conducted in order to obtain the correct displacement
and force loading history to be applied to the horizontal and the vertical actuators,
respectively. During the test, because of the deformed configuration of the
specimen, the steel distributing frame modifies the inclination with respect to the
horizontal line in the un-deformed configuration. This means that, both the
horizontal and the vertical actuators modify their original inclination, producing a
217
modification in the actual applied horizontal displacement and vertical axial force.
Considering the geometry of the specimen and of the test set-up we obtain that:
the imposed displacement of the horizontal actuator is greater than the

horizontal displacement at the top face of the specimen, due to the angle
formed by the top steel distributing beam in the deformed shape of the
specimen. Obviously, this inclination depends on the specimen flexibility that
varies during the test due to damage in some portions of the specimen. A
priori, it is impossible to know correctly this aspect, even if we reconstructed

the displacement loading history by means of an elastic numerical model. We
have obtained that the ratio between the top displacement of the column and
the displacement of the horizontal actuator is given by a factor equal to 1.214;
moreover, the axial load imposed by the vertical actuator (assumed equal to
900 KN) must be maintained constant during the test. The top displacement of
the column x, imposed by the horizontal actuator, modifies the alignment
between the specimen and the vertical actuator (see the deformed
configuration in Figure 5.28). For this reason, only a component of the imposed
axial load is applied to the column.
Figure 5.28. Deformed configuration of the specimen and of the test

set-up during the test
Thus, a geometrical relation to maintain constant the axial load, as a function of the
top displacement of the column, was deduced
218
x ,actuator = x + Lhinge tan x + Lhinge
( 5.57 )
x = Hfloor tan Hfloor
( 5.58 )
Hence, combining the Eq. (5.57) with the Eq. (5.58) we obtain:
x,actuator = (Hfloor + Lhinge )

=
x,actuator
( 5.59 )
( 5.60 )
Lactuator
Ncolumn = Nactuator cos( + )
with
( 5.61 )
H floor
Combining the Eq. (5.60) with the Eq. (5.61) and expressing Nactuator in term of
Ncolumn we still get:
Nactuator =
Ncolumn
cos( + )
Ncolumn
cos +
Hfloor + Lhinge
Lactuator
Ncolumn
cos 1+
Hfloor + Lhinge
Lactuator
x
Hfloor
This relation produces a variation of the applied axial load that depends on the
amplitude of the column top displacement. Only at large displacements the value of
the imposed axial load varies significantly.
In order to investigate the forces acting on the frame system, an elaboration of the
main parameters is due. As main parameters are intended the bending moment M,
shear V, reaction forces and the values defining the deformed shape as rotations
and displacements s. Taking the origins of an hypothetical coordinate system xy at
both ends of the lateral beams, with the x-coordinate s1 and s2, as indicated in
Figure 5.29, we have the main parameters defined by:
Mc ( s2 ) = Vc s2
( 5.62 )
Vc ( s2 ) = RLC.dx cos (DEV )
( 5.63 )
Mc+ ( s1 ) = Vc+ s1
( 5.64 )
219
Vc+ ( s1 ) = RLC.sx cos (DEV )
( 5.65 )
RV = FVJ + RLC.dx cos (DEV ) RLC.sx cos (DEV )
( 5.66 )
RH = FHJ + RLC.dx sin (DEV ) RLC.sx sin (DEV )
( 5.67 )
Where M c, V c, M c, V c are the bending moments and shear forces acting in the
beams at the two sides of the frame system. RV and RH are the vertical and
horizontal reaction forces at the column base.
FVJ
Hspec,1
FHJ
ULVDT2
s2
s1
Hspec,2
DEV
RLC,sx
RV
Lcb,sx
RH
RLC,dx
Lcb,dx
Figure 5.29
The angle DEV represents the slope of the vertical pendulum during the test,
increasing with the horizontal displacement. Assuming the hypothesis of small
angles we can state that:
DEF =
U DT .beam
H spec.2
( 5.68 )
where UDT.beam is the specimen displacement given by the digital transducer

applied at the lateral concrete beam face.
220
The force reactions are measured by two load cells located under the extreme
faces of the concrete beams, whereas the specimen displacements, slopes, and
deformations are derived from the inclinometers (giving as measure absolute
angles in respect to the vertical axis) and from the digital displacement transducers
described above.
In order to understand the behaviour of the joint under cyclic loading, it is important
to underline the rotation capability of the panel zone. For this reason, the angular
distortion was monitored during the test through the measures of diagonal
transducers TR500-2D, TR500-1D fitting their values in the Krawinkler (1978)
equation:
conn = tg 1
(h j ) 2 + ( b j )
( UTR5002 D UTR5001D )
2 ( hj * bj )
( 5.69 )
Where hj and bj are the net height and breadth of the panel zone subjected to
shear given by hb-2cc and bc-2cc. UTR500 represent the diagonal LVDT joint
measures. In this manner it is possible to underline the panel energy absorption
and its performance in terms of ductility due to the plastic deformation.
The rotation of the beam in respect to the connection, conn, gives the relative angle
between the deformed joint panel and the concrete beam in the deformed shape.
The following equations, based on the measure of the horizontal displacement
transducers TR500 3O, 4O, 5O, 6O, can be utilised:
CONN .SX =
U TR 500 40 U TR 500 30
hj
( 5.70 )
CONN . DX =
U TR 500 50 U TR 500 60
hj
( 5.71 )
Another way to derive this quantities is to purify the measures from the vertical
inclinometers attached to the two sides of the concrete beam by the reading of the
horizontal inclinometer at the joint and adding the panel zone distortion, Equation
[6.17], where
panel =
connection:
CONN . DX = Incl3 Incl2 + panel
( 5.72 )
221
5.6
Results of the tests
As said before, the specimens belonging to the Static category have been
designed only with regard to the gravity loads, whereas the specimens belonging
to the Low Ductility and Medium Ductility categories have been designed both
considering the gravity loads and the equivalent horizontal seismic loads. The Low
Ductility and the Medium Ductility categories differ one from the other mainly for the
magnitude of the seismic forces applied to the original RC structure, depending on
the grade of ductility the designers are to attribute to it at the design stage.
Consequently, the specimens differ on the amount of longitudinal reinforcement, on
the spacing of stirrups placed in the critical zones of the main elements and on the
dimensions of the embedded steel profiles. For this reason, only an abridgement of
the results obtained from testing is hereafter illustrated along with some
commentaries. The comments can be extended to the other study cases.
The F- curves of five specimens belonging to the same study case are
represented. In detail, the specimens RCT5, COT9-COT10, and COT11-COT12 for
the medium ductility design case, according to the test programme illustrated in
Subsection 5.5.2, have been presented. The test conducted on the specimen RC-T
(sample without steel profile) is used as test control and reference for the other
tests of the same category. In fact, the behaviour of this specimen relies only on
the resistance and ductility of a reinforced concrete section. The previsions
obtained in the design of the specimens have been confirmed, as the tests have
shown that the specimen collapse has been caused by failure in the joint. The
global behaviour for each test will be shown below with some pictures that illustrate
clearly the problems occurred in the joints during the tests.
5.6.1
RCT5 Specimen
The test conducted on specimen RCT5 is used as test control and reference for
the other tests of the same category. As illustrated in Figure 5.30, the behaviour of
this specimen relies only on the resistance and ductility of a reinforced concrete
section. Once again, the curves above show the classical aspects of a RC column:
regular stiffness and resistance up to a 100110mm = 6ey displacement from
which the column loses very fast its mechanical properties (from the higher value
of 110kN to the lower of 70kN) anticipating the final failure at the beginning of
the first 8ey cycle. The column collapsed in a brittle way in the closeness of the
connection with some cracks and spalling of the concrete at the joint panel. The
joint region was rather deteriorated, as showed in the following Figure 5.31.
222

125
COLUMN SHEAR (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-200 -160 -120
-80
-40
40
80
120
160
200
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 5.30. Column shear force vs. top displacement relationship for
RCT5 specimen
Figure 5.31. RC T5 collapse above the joint region
5.6.2
COT9-COT10 Specimens
The tests conducted on specimens COT9 and COT10 were utilised to compare the
behaviour of the RC column with that of the strengthened samples through the
steel column in the C1 configuration (long steel profile). As illustrated in Figure
5.32, after a first portion of the test (6080 mm = 4ey), in which the stiffness and
223
resistance of the concrete section prevails, the specimen COT9 shows the typical
behaviour for steel section: large hysteresis cycles with constant level of stiffness
and modest loss of resistance. At the subsequent cycles (6ey, 8ey and 10ey), the
specimen reacts to the imposed top displacement with a force equal to 85%, 70%
and 35% of the maximum reached level (110 KN), respectively. One important
aspect is that COT9 showed wide hysteresis cycles with the resisted shear force.
125
COLUMN SHEAR (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-200 -160 -120
-80
-40
40
80
120
160
200
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
COT9 specimen
125
COLUMN SHEAR (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-200 -160 -120
-80
-40
40
80
120
160
200
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
COT10 specimen
224
The previsions were respected. We can state that the sample failed due to the
degraded joint mechanical properties and the test was stopped at the end of the
10ey cycles. Also the COT10 specimen (see Figure 5.33) was able to reach the
second 10ey cycle with a residual strength of 20kN and a good resource in
ductility thanks to the resistance and stiffness added by the steel profile. The
collapse interested the entire column length. It was caused by a longitudinal crack
that started from the joint region interesting the concrete cover thickness up to the
column top (concrete cover separation), as showed in the Figure 5.34.
(a)
(c)
(b)
(d)
Figure 5.34. Evolution of cracks and spalling of the concrete in the joint for a
top displacement varying equal to: (a) 4ey; (b) 6ey, (c) 8ey, (d) at collapse
225
In order to understand the behaviour of the joint under cyclic loading, it is important
to evidence the rotation capacity that the panel zone can carry out. As explained
before, the distortion of the panel zone was monitored during the test by means of
the LVDT TR500-2D e TR500-1D. The transducer measurements are combined by
the following formula (Krawinkler, 1978) to obtain the total distortion.
conn = tg 1
(hsp ) 2 + ( bsp )
( UTR5002 D UTR 5001D )
( 5.73 )
2 ( hsp + bsp )
where hsp e bsp are the design height and depth of the web panel in shear; UTR500
are the difference between the two measurement of the diagonal LVDT transducer.
As depicted in Figure 5.35, it is possible to underline that the behaviour of the
panel zone is characterized by large energy absorption and displacement ductility,
due to the extensive plastic deformation occurring. One can observe that total
distortions of the joint reach values greater than 35 mrad, implying a suitable
ductile behaviour for high ductile structures in seismic applications. Progressive
strength and stiffness deterioration is then occurring associated to the increase of
plastic deformations of the steel profile and damage in the concrete.
1250
JOINT SHEAR (kN)
1000
750
500
250
0
-250
-500
-750
-1000
-1250
-75
-60
-45
-30
-15
15
30
45
60
75
DISTORTION (mrad)
Figure 5.35. Joint shear force vs. distortion relationship for COT10
specimen
226
5.6.3
COT11-COT12 Specimens
The test conducted on specimen COT11, is the only one with available data
representing the C3 configuration for the Medium Ductility Case. The test finished
at the real begin of the 10ey cycle with a residual resistance of 40kN, after having
reached the maximum value of 95kN at 4ey. The failure occurred up to the middle
column height, again far from the joint, which appeared rather deteriorated. Also
the COT12 rupture confirmed this tendency of the other specimens belonging to
the configuration C3, i.e. to show a collapse far from the joint region before the
conventional end of test fixed at 10ey.
125
COLUMN SHEAR (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-200 -160 -120
-80
-40
40
80
120
160
200
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
COT11 specimen
5.6.4
Comparison of the experimental results and comments
In order to better understand the improvement in the behaviour of the specimens in

term of strength and ductility due to the use of the inserted steel profile is important
to compare the obtained results. A directed comparison is done in Figure 5.37, in
which the envelopes of the behaviour of the specimens in term of shear forcetop
displacement are reported. The reader can see clearly that the presence of the
steel profile increases the level of ductility for each level of the reached force. In
others words, the specimens COT9, COT10 and COT11 show a reserve of
strength for each imposed displacement greater than the reaction force exhibited
from the specimen RCT5. This difference has been summarized in Table 5.14.
227
125
COLUMN SHEAR (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
RCT5
COT9
COT10
COT11
-75
-100
-125
-200 -160 -120
-80
-40
40
80
120
160
200
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 5.37. Envelope of the specimen responses in term of shear force-top
displacement
IMPOSED
MAXIMUM REACTION FORCE
DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGE
(KN)
(%) OF THE REACTION FORCE
RCT5
COT10
COT11
COT 10 RCT 5
RCT 5
COT 11 RCT 5
RCT 5
ey
57,37
48,68
61,12
-15,2
8,15
2ey
79,16
77,77
93,35
-1,76
20,56
4ey
96,91
95,44
106,44
-1,52
11,39
6ey
81,61
84,75
97,72
3,85
22,97
8ey
68,95
66,46
84,54
-3,62
26,73
10ey
52,84
40,43
DISPLACEMENT
Table 5.14. Comparison in term of reaction force for the tested specimens
Another important index for the comparison of the behaviour of the specimens is
the accumulated energy, dissipated during the test. This index provides information
about the ductility of the specimen, as the comparison is made in terms of
absorbed energy for each level of imposed displacement; one may observe from
Figure 5.38, that the specimens with the inserted steel profile dissipate an amount
of energy that is double with respect to the dissipated energy of the reinforced
concrete specimen. Moreover, the two configurations C1 and C3 are not so
228
different in term of dissipated energy; this means that only the portion of the steel
profile in the web panel zone behaves in an inelastic range, whereas the other
portion of the column behaves elastically, with a little contribution to the absorbed
energy. This difference has been summarized in the following Table 5.15.
ACCUMULATED ENERGY (kJ)
700000
RCT5
COT9
COT10
COT11
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
-5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 -55 -60 -65 -70 -75 -80
DISTORTION (mrad)
Figure 5.38. Comparison in term of accumulated energy for the tested
specimens
ACCUMULATED ENERGY (KJ)

IMPOSED
DISPLACEMENT
e
2e
4e
6e
8e
RCT5
COT10
COT11
1244
1075
1135
DIFFERENCE OF THE
ACCUMULATED ENERGY (%)
COT 10 RCT 5
RCT 5
COT 11 RCT 5
RCT 5
1 cycle
2 cycle
3 cycle
3089
4705
5910
2592
3891
4815
2882
4908
6564
-16,1
-17,3
-18,5
-6,7
4,3
11,1
1 cycle
2 cycle
3 cycle
10612
15312
19008
8795
14477
19282
11355
19173
26032
-17,1
-5,5
1,4
7,0
25,2
37,0
1 cycle
2 cycle
3 cycle
24873
34685
43604
26432
38249
49249
34778
49915
64246
6,3
10,3
12,9
39,8
43,9
47,3
1 cycle
2 cycle
3 cycle
61747
82533
102310
80811
105833
129912
Table 5.15. Comparison in term of cumulated energy for the tested specimens
229
Summarizing, we can say that the tests conducted on specimens COT9 and
COT10 confirm to have a very similar behaviour regardless of the presence of the
continuity plates. Both samples reached or nearly reached the conventional end of
test. The important piece of information for COT11 and COT12 mostly concerns
the type of failures occurred to these specimens. Hence, we have to judge whether
the displacement level reached for the specimens belonging to the C3
configuration (normally 8ey) establish a sufficient amount of ductility or it simply
shift the problem from the joint to another cross column section (the weakest one).
In fact, the connection panel with short profile encased, showed a good resistance.
Nonetheless, it may cause the brittle failure of the column before the requested
time, necessary to resist a seismic event.
5.7
Numerical analyses and validation of the mechanisms
In this section, the inelastic finite element (FE) analyses carried out by means of
the ABAQUS code (2003) are discussed. Thereby, the FE models were calibrated
and the stress and strain state of the aforementioned joints was simulated in the
monotonic displacement regime. Finally, by means of the analysis results a
validation of the proposed analytical formulas have been determined. The
modification in the dimension of some geometrical and mechanical parameters,
obtained through the elaboration of the numerical evidences, has permitted to
match better the experimental resistance of the joint subjected to shear loads.
5.7.1
FE Model of the specimens
Non-linear FE analyses of the tested specimens were carried out in a monotonic

loading regime. The analyses have been developed with 3D FE models. The used
model is reported in Figure 5.39 and represents the specimen COT9, endowed
with an HEB 140 steel profile. It is characterized by reduced integration eight-node
solid elements (C3D8R in the ABAQUS library). The FE analyses account for
material non-linearities through classical plasticity based on the Von Mises yield
criterion. Isotropic hardening is assumed for the analyses. The new model
Concrete in ABAQUS code has been used. This model permits to define the
correct strain-stress curve of the concrete both in tension and in the compression.
Moreover, for cyclic loading history, it is possible to define a degradation law for the
stiffness characteristics. The measured stress-strain properties of the different
materials (column flange, column web, stiffeners, rebars in the beam and in the
230
column, concrete) obtained by test were used. Moreover, the confinement of the
concrete due to the presence of the stirrups in the region of the joint is implicitly
taken into account. As said in Subsection 5.3.1, the confinement results in a
modification of the effective stress-strain relationship: higher strength and higher
critical strains are achieved.
Figure 5.39. 3D numerical model of the COT9 specimen

Curva F-
150
media
numerica
cot9
cot11+
cot11-
125
Forza (KN)
100
75
50
25
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Ampiezza ciclo (ey)
Figure 5.40. Predicted vs. numerical response of the specimen COT9
231
Elastic and inelastic convergence studies have been conducted to evaluate and
arrive at the final mesh for the finite element models. The finite element model was
verified by comparing the measured cyclic response of specimen with the predicted
monotonic (see Figure 5.40). As far as concerns the cyclic test, the envelope curve
of the experimental tests was found and compared to the curve found using the
finite element model. Even if the model is not able to capture the loss of resistance
and stiffness due to the crushing of the concrete after a certain level of the
imposed displacement, the experimental data are in good agreement with the
numerical simulation. The elaboration of the numerical evidences has led to the
modification of some geometrical and mechanical parameters related to the
formulae and it has permitted to better figure out the experimental response of the
joint subjected to shear loading. Also the measurements obtained from the local
instrumentation by means of strain gauges helped in the understanding of the
activation and evolution of the resistance mechanisms, proposed in Section 5.4,
while testing.
5.7.2
Steel web panel shear mechanism verification
By means of a set of elements extracted in the web panel zone of the steel profile,
it was possible to monitor the evolution of the shear stress 13 at the increasing of
the imposed top displacement. As depicted in the following Table 5.16, and as
expected, the stress state of web panel increases during the test until it yields
uniformly for a top displacement equal to 6ey. From this point the concentration of
the stresses moves in the four corners of the steel web panel, where the stiffeners
are welded. In this moment the resistance of the panel zone in the steel profile is
given to the contribution of four plastic hinges that have been formed.
This hypothesis results confirmed analysing the experimental results obtained from
the strain gauges positioned in the web and in the flange of the steel profile in
correspondence of the stiffeners. The graphs below, deduced from the
experimental data (strain gauges), give explanation of the shear mechanisms
activated in the steel web, steel flanges and stiffeners. To obtain the shear strain
by the measurement the hypothesis that the principal stress 1 and 3 are aligned
with the axes of the steel column is made. As depicted in Figure 5.41, the
measured web strain increases uniformly up to a displacement equal to 4ey6ey
when it exceeds the steel yield strain. It is the central zone of the panel that
deforms most. It can be imagined the web stresses increasing during the test until
the panel zone yields uniformly for a top displacement equal to 6ey. From this point
on, concentration of stresses shifts to the four corners of the steel web panel in
correspondence of the stiffeners, and the resistance of the panel zone is given by
the contribution of these four local plastic hinges.
232
Set of elements
Imposed top displacement: ey
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
Global deformed
Imposed top displacement: 6ey
configuration
of the steel profile
77.5
77
76.5
76
75.5
75
74.5
74
73.5
73
72.5
72
71.5
71
70.5
70
69.5
69
68.5
Imposed top displacement: 10ey
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
Table 5.16. Steel web panel mechanism 13 stresses
In fact, as depicted in Figure 5.42, by means of the elaboration of the values of the
strain gauges positioned in the flange of the steel profile it is possible to evidence
that the deformation in the zone of the stiffeners is greater than that along the
flange. High plastic deformations, intended as local plastic hinges, are well
localised in these points where part of the shear forces are transmitted.
233
Nevertheless, it is of primary importance to point out that this behaviour was

encountered also in the specimens without the horizontal steel plates. Therefore,
the plastic hinges form at the four joint corners where the shear forces have to be
transferred, regardless of the presence of the stiffeners.
0.005
ey / 4
ey / 2
3/4 ey
ey
2ey
4ey
6ey
elastico
0.004
0.003
0.002
SG-7
0.001
SG-1
SG-4
0.000
0
90
180
SG-1
SG-7
SG-4
-0.001
Figure 5.41. Evolution of the measured strain in the web panel of the steel profile
75
ey / 2
3/4 ey
ey
2ey
4ey
6ey
elastico
60
45
SG-4
30
15
SG-5
0
0
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
-0.001
-0.0012
-15
SG-6
-30
-45
-60
-75
Figure 5.42. Evolution of the measured strain in the flange of the steel profile
234
-0.0014
5.7.3
Concrete compression strut mechanism verification
Where the steel column web is encased in the concrete, the design shear
resistance of the panel may be increased with the contribution of the inner concrete
strut Vccs that is the design shear resistance of the concrete encasement of the web
panel.
Set of elements
Evolution of the principal stresses of compression

-40.00
-35.00
-30.00
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
0.00
11
.4 3
11
.3 7
10
.2 3
9.0
9
7.9
4
6.8
0
5.6
4
4.5
0
3.3
7
2.5
0
1.9
2
1.
54
1.1
5
0.7
7
0.5
1
0.
34
0.
23
0.1
1
-5.00
/ey
Top displacement: ey
Top displacement: 2ey
Table 5.17. Concrete compression strut mechanism min,prin stresses
235
In composite connections, the concrete compression strut may be mobilised in

resisting the shear either due to the presence of the horizontal plates welded to the
column or simply due to friction and flexural forces acting in the steel column
flanges. By means of a set of elements extracted in the concrete between the
stiffeners and the web panel of the steel profile, it was possible to monitor the
evolution of the principal stresses of compression for different imposed top
displacement.
As evidenced in Table 5.17, with the increasing of the displacement imposed at the
top of the column, high stresses of compression are mobilized in the concrete strut.
For a displacement equal to 6ey all the concrete in the zone reached the value of
40 MPa that represent the maximum allowed compression strength. Nevertheless,
the effect of the confinement due to the presence of the steel profile and the
stiffeners permits to reach greater value for an amplification of the top
displacement. Finally, at an imposed displacement equal to 10ey the concrete in
the interior zone and around the joint is crushed. The numerical results are in a
good agreement with the experimental test, as evidenced in Figure 5.43.
Figure 5.43. Failure of the joint during the experimental tests
The shear resistance given by the concrete horizontally compressed by the

elements inside the column Vj,hbf, is determined through a standard Stress Block
Model. For a good development of the Horizontal Bearing Mechanism it is
important to provide a sufficient concrete confinement. The provided amount of
stirrups in the tested specimens seems to be adequate to this aim.
236
5.7.4
Concrete compression field mechanism verification
In the numerical model the stirrups in the column are not directly modelled; the
confinement effect is taken into account by a modification of the effective concrete
stress-strain relationship. Nevertheless, the activation of the concrete compression
filed is verified by means of the strain gauges positioned in the stirrups. As
evidenced in Figure 5.44, with the increase of the imposed top displacement the
stirrups were mobilised to transfer the shear forces into the joint. At elevated
displacements 8ey10ey, the transversal re-bars are subjected to high tensile
stresses that should equilibrate the compression struts in the outer concrete part of
the joint. The equilibrium of forces results satisfied by the tension and compression
stresses in the longitudinal re-bars, which transfer the relative component of the
compression strut into the column. The evolution of the tensile and compression
stress in the column is reported in Figure 5.45, and was obtained through the
elaboration of the numerical results. It is also possible to underline that, at elevated
imposed top displacements, the deformations of the longitudinal re-bars in the
panel zone increase due to the tensile and to the compressive forces transmitted
by the concrete.
500
SG-20
ey / 4
ey / 2
3/4 ey
ey
2ey
4ey
6ey
8ey
Elastic range
400
SG-19
SG-18
300
SG-17
200
SG-16
100
SG-15
0
-0,0005
0,0005
0,0015
0,0025
0,0035
Figure 5.44. Evolution of the measured strain in the stirrups of the column
The Bond Resistance Vjoint,bf is provided by the longitudinal reinforcing bars acting
in friction with concrete and embedded in the outer joint region. The bond failure
occurs in the outer elements if the compression and tension forces (due to moment
equilibrium), along with the forces mobilised in the concrete compression field, are
greater than the strength of the bond mechanism of a set of main longitudinal re237
bars. In Figure 5.45, the strain values measured by means of the strain gauges
stuck on the longitudinal re-bars of the column are reported. The augmentation of
the strains tied to the increase of the top displacement can be noted.
500
ey / 4
ey / 2
3/4 ey
ey
2ey
400
300
SG-14
200
100
SG-12
0
0.0000
-0.0003
-0.0005
-100
Figure 5.45. Strains of the longitudinal re-bars of the column
5.7.5
Calibration of the mechanisms
By means of the analysed numerical results it was possible to verify the activation
of the proposed shear transfer mechanism in the joint. Moreover, by means of a
detailed analysis of the stress and strain evolution obtained from the numerical
model it was possible modify in the proposed analytical formulas the values of
some geometrical and mechanical parameters.
In detail, the most important geometrical parameter that influences the shear
resistance of the joint is the depth of the joint itself, jh that is utilized both in the
interior mechanisms and in the exterior mechanisms evaluation.
By the analysis of the numerical results (see Figure 5.46) it was possible to
determine that:
for the steel web panel mechanism, the joint depth jh can be taken equal to
for the concrete compression strut, the joint depth jh can be taken equal to
the distance ds of the stiffeners welded to the column;

0.9ds the distance of the stiffeners welded to the column, due to the fact
that the center line of the compression results interior to the stiffeners;
for the concrete compression filed mechanism, the joint depth jh can be
taken equal to 1.1ds the distance of the stiffeners welded to the column,
due to the fact that the center line of the shear force results localized at the
level of the reinforcing bars in the beam.
238
ds
0.9ds
Figure 5.46. Modified joint depth after the numerical analyses
The differences between the analytical model, i.e. the equations previously
illustrated necessary to determine the single joint mechanism resistance, and the
experimental values obtained from the tests in terms of maximum average shear
force resisted at the joint region are introduced in the following Table 5.18.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
Inner Resistance
Mechanism
Vj,rd [kN]
PANEL ZONE
583
Outer Resistance
Mj,Rd
Mj,Rd
[kNm]
[kNm]
Vj,rd [kN]
Mechanism
230
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
COMPRESSION
66
134
47
1231
437
152
COMPRESSION
FIELD
STRUT
HORIZONTAL
BEARING
77
Mj,Rd,MINIMUM
194
BOND
Mj,Rd,MINIMUM
277
66
Mj,Rd,MINIMUM [kNm]
344
Vj,rd [kN]
Analytical Value
871
Experimental Value
915
Difference
4,8%
Table 5.18. Comparison between numerical and experimental results after the numerical
analyses
239
The analytical values obtained from the previous equations well agree with the true
joint shear resistances obtained from the experimental tests in the case that, an
increase in the shear resistance of the steel web panel (when subjected to high
cyclic strains) is allowed. Hence, in equation 5.18, the factor 1/3 is substituted by
a value equal to unity:
V j , wps = 0, 7
f ym,d ,cw
1
min( Av ; tcw d s ) + V j , swp
( 5.74 )
Note that, in this phase, the single mechanism resistance evaluated by means
of the analytical model, does not take into account the partial safety factor value
equal to 1,3 as prescribed by the Capacity Design Principle. Furthermore, the
resistance values are determined considering the real material strengths obtained
from specific tests conducted on concrete and steel samples. In fact, it is intended
to make a direct comparison to establish the precision of the proposed analytical
equations. Of course, at the design stage, it is necessary to account for all the
relevant safety factors as already foreseen in the equations previously presented.
By means of these modifications it was possible to calibrate the proposed
analytical formulas: a substantial increase in the accuracy of the predicted joint
shear resistance compared with that obtained from the experimental results. The
difference between the analytical and experimental results has been modified from
a 20% to a 5% of error, as reported in the Table.
5.8
Conclusions
This part of the Ph.D. thesis has been written with the intent of underlining the
importance of the studies conducted on Innovative Beam-to-Column Composite
Joints in order to provide the reinforced concrete structures of the necessary
amount of ductility in those critical zones usually strongly affected by the
occurrence of seismic events. The general recommendation is to reinforce some
strategic points of the building, as the joints of the 1
st
storey, allowing in this
manner to save the structure from a global collapse due to localised brittle type of
failures. Both the solutions studied, with long and short steel profile encased in the
concrete column, as expected, revealed to be effective in order to greatly improve
the performance of the concrete members in terms of strength and ductility at large
deformations. In fact, it can be stated that also the short steel profile stump is able
to guarantee an adequate amount of resistance and ductility at the joint critical
240
region, even if some inconveniences occurred in the column length between the
joint and the inflection point. It means that, a not accurate constructive process or
the presence of not envisaged extra forces in the column may lead to an
anticipated rupture in the absence of a full-length steel profile.
Having had the chance to go further into detail, also looking at the inside behaviour
of the beam-to-column joints, the mechanisms activated in the shear load transfer
were determined. The evidence is that the investigated solution with the continuity
plates (stiffeners) welded to the steel column at the joint region seems not to give a
substantial contribution in helping the load transfer at the beam-to-column joint.
Thus, as not influencing significantly the global response of the joint under study,
their usage in practice could be neglected also because of their remarkable effect
on the overall cost of the assemblage.
Wishing to point out a commentary about the weak axis bending behaviour of the
concrete frame structure, we underline the risk the building might run if the seismic
wave comes along the minor axis bending and the columns were not specifically
designed to withstand cyclic loads regardless the presence of the steel profile
encased in the column.
Finally, we can say that, at the moment, the new applications are concentrated on
the improvement of the analytical models to evaluate the shear resistance at the
connection by means of further numerical simulations by means of a FE program.
It may be also interesting to produce a procedure in order to evaluate the
behaviour of the one-sided type of joints starting from the conclusions drawn for
the two-sided type of joints considered in this research thesis.
241
5.9
References
ACI American Concrete Institute (1995): Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318-95). Farmington Hills, MI.

AISC (1997), Seismic provision for structural steel buildings, Task Committee
113.
Aschheim M, Gulkan P., Sezen H. (2000): Chapter 11: Performance of
Buildings, in Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999 Reconnaissance

Report. Earthquake Spectra. Supplement A to Volume 16, 237279.
Chou C.C., Uang C.M. (2002): Cyclic Performance Of A Type Of Steel Beam
To Steel-Encased Reinforced Concrete Column Moment Connection. Journal

of Constructional Steel Research 58, 637-663.
ECCS (1986): Recommended Testing Procedure for Assessing the Behaviour
of Structural Steel Elements under Cyclic Loads. ECCS Publication n 45.

ECSC Project 7210-PR-316 (2001): Earthquake Resistant Design: the INERD
Project.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc (2003): ABAQUS - Users Manual, Version
6.3. Vol.1-3, 2003.

Kanno R., Deierlein G.G. (2000): Design Model Of Joints For Rcs Frames.
Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV Proc. of Engrg. Found.
Conference, Banff, May 28 June 2, Banff, Alberta, 947-958.
Krawinkler H. (1978): Shear in Beam-Column Joints in Seismic Design of
Steel Frames. Engineering Journal AISC Vol. 3.

Mander J.B., Priestley M.J. N., Park R. (1988): Theoretical Stress-Strain
Model For Confined Concrete. Journal of Struct. Engrg., ASCE, vol. 114, No 8,
1804-1826.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (1975): Specification for structures to
be built in disaster areas. Government of Republic of Turkey.

Penelis G.G., Kappos A.J. (1997): Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures.
E & FN Spon, London.
prEN 1991-1-1:2001: Actions on structures, Part 1-1: general actions,
densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings. Final Draft, July 2001.
prEN 1992-1:2001: Design of concrete. Part 1: general rules and rules for
buildings. Draft n 2, January 2001.

prEN 1993-1-1:2000: Design of steel structures. Part 1.1: general rules. Draft
n 2, August 2000.
prEN 1994-1-1:2001: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part
1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. Draft n 3, March 2001.
242
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Draft n3, May 2001.
Scawthorn
C.R.
(2000):
Turkey
earthquake
of
August
17,
1999:
Reconnaissance Report. Technical Report MCEER-00-0001. Buffalo, N.Y.:

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University
of New York, NY. Editor. the Marmara.
Sezen H., Elwood K.J., Whittaker A.S., Mosalam K.M., Wallace J.W., Stanton
J.F. (2000): Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of the August 17, 1999
Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey Earthquake. PEER 2000/09. Technical Report.

Berkeley, CA.: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, CA. http://nisee.berkeley.edu/turkey.
Turkish Standards Institute (1985). TS-500 Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete. Ankara, Turkey.
243
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS
AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
6.1
Summary
Mainly focusing the attention in new solutions assuring the necessary ductility, that
can be obtained not only through careful study of building morphology, structural
schemes and construction details, but also through a rational use of materials, this
work constitutes an endeavour toward detailed analyses, design and tests of
beam-to-column joints. The analysis started from the theoretical investigation of the
so-called Performance-Based Seismic Engineering approach, that is defined as
identification of seismic hazards, selection of the performance levels and
performance design objectives, determination of site suitability, conceptual design,
numerical preliminary design, final design, acceptability checks during design,
design review, specification of quality assurance during the construction and of
monitoring of the maintenance and occupancy (function) during the life of the
building." (Bertero and Bertero, 2002). Therefore, a comprehensive performance
based design involves several steps:
selection of the performance objectives;
definition of multi-level design criteria;
specification of ground motion levels, corresponding to the different design

criteria;
consideration of a conceptual overall seismic design;
options for a suitable structural analysis method;
carrying out comprehensive numerical checking.
On this basis an extensive study has been carried out on three main topics that are
briefly summarized hereafter.
1.
Seismic behaviour of bolted end plate beam-to-column steel joints: this

research programme had a two-fold purpose: (i) to analyse the seismic
6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
performance of partial strength bolted extended end plate joints with fillet
welds, which represent an alternative to fully welded connections for use in
seismic force resisting moment frames; (ii) to verify in a low-cycle fatigue
regime, the feasibility of the mechanical approach adopted for joints
undergoing monotonic loading, whereby the properties of a complete joint
are understood and obtained by assembling the properties of its component
parts.
2.
Seismic response of partial-strength composite joints: in order to evaluate

the feasibility and effectiveness of the composite constructions with partialstrength beam-to-column joints and partially encased columns in earthquakeprone regions, the study aimed at calibrating design rules affecting the
aforementioned components and the participation of the concrete slab in the
relevant transfer mechanisms. The results of this project led to improved
design procedures for composite constructions (Section 7, Part 1 of EC8,
2002).
3.
Seismic behaviour of RC columns embedding steel profiles: this last

research activity was part of another European Project titled Two Innovations
For Earthquake Resistant Design - INERD Project, that deals with the
improvement of the resistance and ductility of reinforced concrete (RC)
structures using the performance of structural steel profiles. The general
objective was to establish a new standard constructional rule able to improve
the seismic safety of reinforced concrete structure, without great changes of
traditional constructional practice. This rule consists in promoting one
specific construction measure for lower storeys of reinforced concrete
structures, by which steel profiles would be encased in RC columns in order
to provide them with a basic reliable shear and compression resistance.
6.2
6.2.1
Conclusions and future perspectives
Seismic behaviour of bolted end plate beam-to-column steel joints
A general test programme was presented, comprising partial strength bolted

extended end plate joints with fillet welds and component parts, which represent an
alternative to fully welded connections for use in seismic force resisting moment
frames. The main results indicate that partial strength bolted extended end plate
connections are suitable for use in seismic moment resisting frames. They
represent an alternative to fully welded connections, as together with the column
245
web panel yielding, they can exhibit favourable ductility and energy dissipation
properties.
As far as the understanding of the low-cycle fracture behaviour of ITS, CTS, and
CJ connections is concerned, experiments and numerical analyses under
monotonic and cyclic loading have provided insights in order to develop rules able
to reduce fracture in the aforementioned connection components. The main
conclusions of this study follow.
vi. When proper consideration is given to material selection and detailing,
extended end plates show a cyclic performance adequate for seismic
design. The considered joints exhibit a plastic rotation greater than 35
mrad; therefore, they can be classified as ductile in accordance to
Eurocode 8 (2002). In detail, test results on isolated bolted Tee stubs as
well complete extended end plate bolted joints have shown that the overall
behaviour of the specimens under investigation is governed by the material
endowed with the lowest strength, viz. the base metal, in which yielding
occurs, effectively. In fact, the weld metal persists in the elastic regime
while the contiguous zones are weakened owing to the sharp thermal
treatments and to structural as well as shape discontinuities.
vii. Component cyclic tests enable identification of the failure mode. Moreover,
they allow the Code requirements on the rotational capacity of the joint to
be checked. Moreover, the mechanical models provided by the Eurocodes
to determine the stiffness and strength characteristics of the individual
components showed little agreement with the experimental data.
viii. A component model, which approximates the cyclic response of the joints
on the basis of the responses of the elemental components, does not
seem to possess sufficient accuracy. Conversely, the use of macro-
components, incorporating some of the interaction effects among

elemental components, appears to be more adequate.
ix. The simulations relevant to isolated Tee stub and Complete Joint
connections indicate that the numerical model with isotropic hardening rule
is able to capture both the monotonic and the cyclic responses but is not
able to reproduce properly stiffness and strength degradation.
x.
A number of parametric analyses have been performed by considering

fractures initiating from weld-root defects by means of the onset cracking
method. Conclusions drawn from the models indicate that:
a. fracture driving force demands are reduced by using fillet welds
matching the end plate material;
b. welding-induced residual stresses increase the fracture demand;
246
c.
connections with y/u = 0.9 exhibit reduced fracture driving force

demands but also limited plastic regions. The yield-to-ultimate strength
reduction must comply with the requirements of plastic analysis.
Besides, the study is currently concentrating on the damage evolution aspect both
for the components and the joint. The availability of adequate damage assessment
methods is a pre-requisite to the development of reliable hysteretic models for
research as well for design purposes. The confirmation of the above-mentioned
conclusions to the complete joints tested deserves further studies.
6.2.2
Seismic response of partial-strength composite joints
The objective of this study was the investigation of the seismic performance of a
realistic size moment resisting frame structure of high ductility class according to
Eurocode 8 (2002) under various levels of earthquake. Dissipative elements were
conceived to be partial strength beam-to-column joints and column base joints at
later stages. Some full-scale substructures, representing the interior and exterior
joints, have been subjected to monotonic and cyclic tests at the Laboratory for
Materials and Structures Testing of the University of Pisa in Italy. Experimental
results and three-dimensional finite element analysis of composite substructures
has allowed the composite joints to be calibrated; and some inelastic phenomena
characterizing their behaviour, such as the distribution of longitudinal stresses in
the composite slab around the composite columns and the distribution of stresses
in the column web panel and flanges to be understood. Moreover, analyses have
demonstrated the adequacy of three-dimensional finite element models based on
the smeared crack approach. The parametric analyses conducted both on exterior
and interior joints have revealed that the full activation of Mechanisms 1 and 2 in
the concrete slab causes a stiffening and strengthening of joints. This represents
the most favourable design situation also due to a substantial increase of the
effective breadth. Nonetheless, the aforementioned mechanisms have not the
same stiffness, exhibiting Mechanism 1 a greater stiffness than Mechanism 2.
Therefore, it is not easy to benefit from the strength of both mechanisms. For the
exterior joint the full activation of Mechanism 2 is the mot favourable design
situation, while for the interior joint Mechanism 1 seems to be more effective, owing
to the interaction phenomena between the two parts of the composite slab. The
quantification of the stiffness corresponding to the activation of Mechanism 1 and
of Mechanism 2 analysed in the parametric study performed in this work clearly
imposes further study. Simulation and implementation in FE codes of the
deteriorating behaviour of dissipative components of the joints, by means of robust
hysteretic models, deserves further studies.
247
Subsequently, a new mechanical model of the partial strength beam-to-column

joint has been described. The model, which still relies on experimental data, is
capable of simulating the behaviour of the steel-concrete composite partial strength
joints subjected to monotonic loading. In detail, the model is capable of defining
yielding and failure evolution of different components. The component models of
the slab have indicated clearly that the compressive strut strength of the composite
slab bearing on the column flange depends on the shear stiffness of the column
web panel. Moreover, the activation of diagonal compressive struts on column
sides induced by transversal reinforcing bars is hindered by the direct bearing of
the compressive strut. Some force-displacement relationships provided by the
proposed mechanical model have been compared with analytical formulae and
current European standards.
The principles set forth have then been applied to the design of beam-to-column
joints and columns of a full-scale frame structure that was built and subjected to
pseudo-dynamic tests at the ELSA Laboratory of the Joint Research Centre in
Ispra. The construction of the full-scale structure proved that the construction of
steel-concrete composite structures with partial strength beam-to-column joints and
partially encased columns is highly efficient.
Pseudo-dynamic and cyclic test results confirmed that properly designed and
constructed partial strength beam-to-column joints and partially encased columns
without concrete in column web panels exhibit a favourable behaviour in terms of
energy dissipation, limited strength degradation and ductility.
6.2.3
Seismic behaviour of RC columns embedding steel profiles
This part of the Ph.D. thesis has been written with the intent of underlining the
importance of the studies conducted on Innovative Beam-to-Column Composite
Joints in order to provide the reinforced concrete structures of the necessary
amount of ductility in those critical zones usually strongly affected by the
occurrence of seismic events. The general recommendation is to reinforce some
strategic points of the building, as the joints of the 1
st
storey, allowing in this
manner to save the structure from a global collapse due to localised brittle type of
failures. Both the solutions studied, with long and short steel profile encased in the
concrete column, as expected, revealed to be effective in order to greatly improve
the performance of the concrete members in terms of strength and ductility at large
deformations. In fact, it can be stated that also the short steel profile stump is able
to guarantee an adequate amount in terms of resistance and ductility at the joint
critical region, even if some inconveniences occurred in the column length between
the joint and the inflection point. It means that, a not accurate constructive process
248
or the presence of not envisaged extra forces in the column may lead to an
anticipated rupture in the absence of a full-length steel profile.
Having had the chance to go further into detail, also looking at the inside behaviour
of the beam-to-column joints, the mechanisms activated in the shear load transfer
were determined. The evidence is that the investigated solution with the continuity
plates (stiffeners) welded to the steel column at the joint region seems not to give a
substantial contribution in helping the load transfer at the beam-to-column joint.
Thus, as not influencing significantly the global response of the joint under study,
their usage in practice could be neglected also because of their remarkable effect
on the overall cost of the assemblage.
Wishing to point out a commentary about the weak axis bending behaviour of the
concrete frame structure, we underline the risk the building might run if the seismic
wave comes along the minor axis bending and the columns were not specifically
designed to withstand cyclic loads regardless the presence of the steel profile
encased in the column.
Finally, we can say that, at the moment, the new applications are concentrated on
the improvement of the analytical models to evaluate the shear resistance at the
connection by means of further numerical simulations by means of a FE program.
It may be also interesting to produce a procedure in order to evaluate the
behaviour of the one-sided type of joints starting from the conclusions drawn out
for the two-sided type of joints considered in this research thesis.
249

PHD Ferrario PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD Ferrario PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD Ferrario PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Strutturale

Ph.D student: Eng. Fabio Ferrario

Analysis and modelling

Tutor: Prof. Eng. Oreste S. Bursi

Universit degli Studi di Trento

Ph.D. student: Eng. Fabio Ferrario

ANALYSIS AND MODELLING

Tutor: Prof. Eng. Oreste S. Bursi

UNIVERSIT DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO

Analysis and Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of High Ductility

+39 0461 882567

Esame finale: 4 marzo 2004

Analysis and Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour

In this thesis theoretical, experimental and numerical aspects and applications

Nello scrivere la pagina di ringraziamento penso sia comune a tutti

ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK ................................................................................3

Seismic behaviour of bolted end plate beam-to-column steel joints...............3

Seismic response of partial-strength composite joints ...................................4

Seismic behaviour of RC columns embedding steel profiles ..........................5

2 DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES......................................... 7

DUCTILITY IN SEISMIC DESIGN ................................................................................8

First developments of ductility concept..........................................................8

Modern design concepts of ductility...............................................................9

Ductility definition .......................................................................................11

THE PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN ..........................................................14

Performance objectives (POs)......................................................................14

REQUIRED DUCTILITY CONCEPT ............................................................................20

Non-linear static pushover (NSP) analysis ..................................................24

Non-linear dynamic procedure (NDP).........................................................31

AVAILABLE DUCTILITY CONCEPT ..........................................................................34

3 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END PLATE BEAM-TO-COLUMN STEEL

THE COMPONENT METHOD ....................................................................................42

SEMI-RIGID PARTIAL-STRENGTH EXTENDED END PLATE CONNECTION ................. 44

THE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME CARRIED OUT AT THE DIMS ........................... 46

Fracture mechanics-based characterization ............................................... 51

Testing equipment and measuring apparatus.............................................. 53

MAIN RESULTS AND PRELIMINARY SEISMIC ASSESSMENT .................................... 58

Isolated Tee stubs ........................................................................................ 58

Coupled Tee Stubs ....................................................................................... 61

Complete Joints ........................................................................................... 63

VALIDATION OF THE COMPONENT METHOD .......................................................... 69

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 75

FE Models of the ITS connections............................................................... 75

FE Models of the CJ specimens................................................................... 81

Parametric analyses .................................................................................... 85

4 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRENGTH COMPOSITE JOINTS ...............100

THE ECOLEADER-ECSC JOINT PROJECT............................................................. 101

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ................................................... 102

SEISMIC DESIGN OF THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ............................................... 107

SEISMIC DESIGN OF THE COMPOSITE JOINT ......................................................... 110

Concrete slab resistance............................................................................ 111

Column web panel shear resistance .......................................................... 115

Joint rotational capacity evaluation.......................................................... 120

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS .......................................................... 122

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE ............ 122

CYCLIC TESTS OF FULL-SCALE COMPOSITE JOINT SUBASSEMBLAGES ................. 127

Test set-up and procedure ......................................................................... 127

Specimen behaviour and test results ......................................................... 130

Validation of the analytical model............................................................. 136