Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Lawrence D. Reaveley,
Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Chris P. Pantelides,
Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
122
his paper addresses the behavior of a specific looseplate welded connector under applied cyclic loading.
This type of connection is widely used in the United
States. Due to the limited number of tests performed, no
specific design parameters were considered in this study.
The objectives of this investigation were to:
(a) Quantify the performance of the connection in terms
of force-deflection and ductility.
(b) Check the validity of design values that are currently
used for loose-plate welded connections in hollow-core
precast concrete wall panel construction.
PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 1. Details of
hollow-core
wall panel.
Note: 1 ft = 0.3408 m.
LITERATURE REVIEW
During the last 40 years, several
studies have been carried out on a variety of wet and dry precast wall panel
connections. A wet connection is made
by cast-in-place concrete between the
precast concrete panels; a dry connection consists of steel embedded plates,
angles, or other steel elements that are
welded together by a steel plate.
The continuity of precast, prestressed double tee floors was investigated in a series of tests.1 Intermediate grade deformed bars were placed
across the supports, and concrete was
placed in the space between adjacent
ends of the double tees to form transverse diaphragms. The primary objective was to investigate the structural
soundness of the continuity connection, which was found to be adequate.
Additional testing was performed
to determine the flexural resistance of
cast-in-place insulated walls. Three
types of metal shear connectors be-
tween the concrete shells were included: a truss, a ladder, and an expanded metal shear connector. The
truss and ladder shear connectors were
found to be satisfactory.2
A variety of wet joints were studied to determine their ultimate shear
strength.3 The research proved that wet
joints used for vertical joints in panel
structures effectively resist high shear
forces. Although the joint installation
is labor intensive, the joint can be very
ductile if properly designed.
Originally, dry joints were mostly
composed of headed studs welded
to the back of a steel plate. In one
such headed stud connection,4 it was
found that shear loads are transmitted through the embedded plate to the
surrounding concrete by three distinct
mechanisms:
(a) Friction between the embedded
plate and concrete.
(b) Bearing of the end of the embedded plate on concrete.
(c) Interaction between studs and
concrete.
These headed stud connections provide good shear resistance, but have a
low ductile capacity.
The PCI-sponsored Precast Seismic
Structural Systems (PRESSS) research
program has taken the lead on research
and design recommendations for precast concrete structures in areas of
high seismicity. Among other topics,
the PRESSS program has performed
research on a variety of welded connections for precast wall systems. The
initial goal of the research was to develop ways of classifying and evaluating connection details.5
The National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST) investigated
the seismic performance of horizontal and vertical joint connections in
dissipation, these plates provided additional resistance by shear coupling between the structural walls. The structural response of the building under
simulated seismic loads was extremely
satisfactory.
The ability of precast double tee
floor diaphragm and wall systems to
perform adequately under in-plane
seismic forces has been studied in
terms of:
(a) The behavior of connections between double tees.
(b) The analytical modeling of connectors, diaphragm, and wall systems.
(c) The development of design
guidelines for double tee diaphragms
and wall systems.9
It was found that the interaction between shear and tension forces in a
flange connection between double tees
could be significant. The connectors
ductility should allow the diaphragm
to redistribute the force among individual connectors; this ensures that all
connectors reach their full strength.9
In an experimental study of 3/8 in.
(9.52 mm) stud-welded deformed bar
anchors subject to tensile loads, it was
found that a number of specimens
fractured at the weld. Based on the test
results, quality control procedures and
revised settings were recommended
for stud welding of deformed bar anchors.10
The strength and ductility of several tilt-up concrete wall panel connections were investigated in a se-
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Tests were performed by applying a
quasi-static cyclic load to three precast
hollow-core wall panels connected together with two loose-plate connectors
at each vertical joint. Ten wall panel
assemblies were tested, all using the
same loose-plate welded connection.
Description of Precast
Wall Panel Assemblies
PCI JOURNAL
Description of
Welded Connections
Two welded connections were located between panel pairs in vertical
joints. Each welded connection comprises two embedded angle assemblies and a loose plate. Each embedded angle assembly consists of a 11/2
x 2 x 1/4 in. (38 x 50.8 x 6.4 mm) x 6
in. (152 mm) long angle, with three 3/8
in. (9.5 mm) diameter weldable steel
deformed anchor bars. The bars are 12
in. (305 mm) long, and are stud welded
to the back of the angle as shown in
Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the details of the
embedded angle assemblies.
Each wall panel assembly consists
of three hollow-core wall panels joined
together with four welded connections.
Two welded connections are placed 3
ft (914 mm) from the top and bottom
of the wall panels in each vertical joint
found in between the wall panels, as
shown in Fig. 4.
The width of the loose plate varied in some wall panel assemblies.
Eight assemblies used 3 in. (76 mm)
wide plates, and two assemblies used
2 in. (51 mm) wide plates. Test results showed that the plate width had
no effect on the maximum force or
displacement sustained by the wall assemblies.
The loose plate was 1/ 4 to 3/ 8 in.
(6.4 to 9.5 mm) thick A36 steel, and
it was welded to the embedded angle
Fig. 4. Setup and instrumentation of typical wall assembly. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The tests revealed the following
characteristics for the connection studied in this research:
(a) The connection can resist relatively high shear loads.
(b) The connection possesses little
ductile capacity.
(c) The connection should be designed as elastic due to insufficient
ductility.
Failure Mechanism
Fig. 5. Details
of welded
loose-plate
connection.
Note: 1 in. =
25.4 mm.
126
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. Welded connections for Assembly 4 at failure: (a) top right connection, and (b) bottom right connection.
Fig. 7. Hysteresis curve for Assembly 8. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Fig. 8. General component behavior of ten wall assemblies. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN;
1 in. = 25.4 mm.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PCI JOURNAL
A structural analysis of the wall assembly was performed using the structural analysis program SAP 2000.15
The purpose of the analysis was to find
the forces across each welded connection of the wall panel assembly, and
compare them to the commonly used
design methodologies. The precast
concrete wall panels were modeled
as rigid frame elements with a diaphragm constraint on each wall panel
(as shown in Fig. 11). The wall panel
connections were modeled as rigid
pins, which is a reasonable assumption
given their brittle mode of failure.
The nodes located at the supports of
the wall panel assembly were assigned
pin restraints. The shim supports under
the center panel (see Fig. 4) were
not considered in the model. Vertical displacement transducers revealed
that the center panel rose vertically,
whether the wall assembly was being
pushed or pulled. These displacements
were a result of vertical movement
occurring at the pin supports, and the
rigid body motion of the wall panel
assembly.
The holes in the panels for the pin
Fig. 13. General component behavior of the welded connectors of eight wall
assemblies. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
130
(1)
(2)
where
CU = compression force
TU = tensile force
= capacity reduction factor =
0.9
= angle of deformed anchor
bar = 45 degrees
As = area of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) di-
eration:
a. The angle for this connection
equals zero, not 45 degrees (see Fig.
2).
b. The deformed anchor bars are
bent 90 degrees into the back of the
angle (see Figs. 2 and 3). The bars
will not be able to develop the full
tensile capacity as described in the
truss analogy. The deformed anchor
bars act more as 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) studs
with ineffective tails rather than bars
in tension.
c. The truss analogy does not account for the bearing of the angle assembly into the concrete. Angle bearing is one of the main force resisting
mechanisms of the connection.
Fig. 15 illustrates that the deformed
anchor bar cannot fully develop in tension due to the eccentric load from the
bend in the bar. Assuming the force
taken by each vertical deformed anchor bar is 8.3 kips (36.9 kN) (half of
the total vertical shear force taken by
the connection), the maximum shear
and moment taken by each vertical deformed anchor bar is 8.3 kips and 10.4
kip-in. (36.9 kN and 1.17 kN-m), respectively. The eccentric load causes
the deformed anchor bars to quickly
tear free from their welds as soon as
the concrete crushes around the connection.
(3)
Rn = 0.75t(0.6Fu)
(4)
where
Rn = strength of fillet weld or base
material
Fexx = strength of electrode = 70 ksi
(483 MPa)
Fu = tensile strength of base material = 60 ksi (420 MPa)
te = 0.707a
a = weld size = 3/16 in. (4.8 mm)
t = thickness of base material =
5
/16 in. (7.9 mm)
132
Fig. 16. Details of proposed new embedded angle assembly. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Eq. (3) yields the strength of the fillet weld as 4.2 kips per in. (0.74 kN/
mm), and Eq. (4) yields the strength
of the base material as 8.4 kips per in.
(1.47 kN/mm). A 4 in. (102 mm) long
weld gives a strength of 16.8 kips (74.7
kN), which is significantly higher than
the allowable shear resistance of the
welds in the tested connection. In addition, the concrete will not easily break
away from the connection due to the
increased bearing area with the web
of the structural tee embedded into the
wall.
DISCUSSION OF
test RESULTS
Engineers prefer the panel connections, not the panels themselves, to
be the weak link in the system. This
investigation has shown that the connections are in fact the weakest link.
Although the loose-plate connection
used in this research effectively transferred the applied shear forces, the
connection failed in a brittle manner.
The small displacement ductility
exhibited by the welded connections
is lost as soon as the deformed anchor bars on the back of the embedded
angle fracture from their welds. Fail-
CONCLUSIONS
Simulated seismic load tests of
PCI JOURNAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided by XXsys
REFERENCES
and constructive comments.
1. Rostasy, F. S., Connections in Precast Concrete Structures
Continuity in Double-T Floor Construction, PCI JOURNAL,
V. 7, No. 4, 1962, pp. 18-48.
2. Scoggin, H. L., and Pfeiffer, D. W., Cast-in-Place Concrete
Residences with Insulated Walls-Influence of Shear Connectors on Flexural Resistance, Journal of the PCA Research and
Development Laboratories, V. 9, No. 2, 1967, pp. 2-7.
3. Abdul-Wahab, H. M. S., Ultimate Shear Strength of Vertical
Joints in Panel Structures, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No.
2, March-April 1991, pp. 204-213.
4. Spencer, R. A., and Neille, D. S., Cyclic Tests of Welded
Headed Stud Connections, PCI JOURNAL, V. 21, No. 3,
May-June 1976, pp. 70-81.
5. Stanton, J. F., Hawkins, N. M., and Hicks, T. R., PRESSS
Project 1.3: Connection Classification and Evaluation, PCI
JOURNAL, V. 36, No. 5, September-October 1991, pp. 62-71.
6. Schultz, A., Tadros, M. K., Juo, X. M., and Magana, R. A.,
Seismic Resistance of Vertical Joints in Precast Shear Walls,
Proceedings, XII FIP Congress, Washington, DC., May 29 June 2, 1994.
7. Low, S.-G., Behavior of a Six-Story Office Building Under
Moderate Seismicity, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE,
May 1995.
8. Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin,
S., Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS
Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building, PCI JOURNAL,
V. 44, No. 6, November-December 1999, pp. 42-67.
9. Pincheira, J. A., Oliva, M. G., and Kusumo-Rahardjo, F. I.,
Tests on Double-Tee Flange Connectors Subjected to Mono-
APPENDIX A NOTATION
Inc., New York, NY, 1996.
134
PCI JOURNAL