We study the seismic performance of the exterior steel ring-stiffener (ESRS) joint, a member that is used to connect a steel beam to a square steel tubular column filled with steel fibre recycled concrete for seismic resistance. To this end, the influence of seismic factors such as axial compression ratio and beam-column linear stiffness ratio on seven specimens is studied. A physical test is conducted on the specimens with a series of cyclic loadings. The testing and analysis of hysteretic loops and skeleton curves of the ESRS joints revealed the seismic performance characteristics including failure mode, rigidity, ductility, bearing-capacity degradation, and energy dissipation capacity. The results reveal (a) damage to the specimens at the beam-end near the joint, (b) no failure at the joints’ core area and column, (c) appearance of a plastic hinge at the beam-end near the joint, and (d) plump spindle-shaped hysteretic loops and normal rigidity degradation curves in the specimens. The specimens are then simulated with the finite element method (FEM) and the results are compared with those of the physical test.
Recycled coarse aggregates (RCA) from waste concrete can be extracted by crushing and cleaning concrete debris. Recycled concrete, which is a new type of green building material, is produced by substituting a percentage of its natural coarse aggregates (NCA) with RCA. By this method, waste concrete can be reutilised as a resource, and NCA can be conserved. In regular concrete-filled steel tubes (CFST), the exterior steel tube confines the concrete and the concrete in return supports the steel tube. Thus, CFST improves the strength, plasticity, and ductility of concrete inside external steel tubes, avoid or delay local buckling of the exterior steel tube, and increase its stability. Therefore, the material properties of both concrete and steel tube can be integrated and utilised [
In this study, a new type of ESRS joint, which connects an H-shaped beam linked to a concrete slab to a square steel fibre recycled concrete (SFRC)-filled steel tubular column for improved earthquake resistance, is proposed. The study considers the advantages of the square CFST, SFRC, and ESRS joints, and the influence of slabs on the joints. Seven specimens are fabricated and tested, to study the seismic performance of ESRS. Through a physical test and finite element method (FEM) simulation, the seismic indices of the ESRS joints—failure mechanism, deformability, bearing capacity, and energy dissipation capacity—are analysed. We believe this study will help lay the foundations of a sound theoretical system and promote the development, recycling, and reusing of waste concrete and SFRC in engineering practice.
Seven ESRS joint specimens were designed and fabricated based on the axial compressive ratios, beam-column linear stiffness ratios, numbers of bolts located in the joints’ core area, and types of slab (including the recycled concrete slab and composite slab linked to the profiled steel sheet). Among them, specimen SJD-4 had four M10 high-strength bolts of class 10.9, which are located in the joint’s core area. Specimens SJD-1∼SJD-6 had a slab that is connected to its beam, while specimen SJD-7 did not. The axial compressive ratio can be validated through the adjusted load of a vertically set hydraulic jack. By adjusting the cross section of steel beams, the beam-column linear stiffness ratio can be controlled. The parameters of the specimens are presented in Table
Parameters of the specimens.
Specimen | Column dimension |
Steel beam sectional dimension |
Axial compressive ratio, |
Slab type | Specimen type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SJD-1 | 150 × 3 × 1,500 | 150 × 75 × 5 × 5.5 | 0.07 | Reinforced recycled concrete slab | Common joint |
SJD-2 | 150 × 3 × 1,500 | 150 × 75 × 5 × 5.5 | 0.18 | Reinforced recycled concrete slab | Common joint |
SJD-3 | 150 × 3 × 1,500 | 150 × 75 × 5 × 5.5 | 0.29 | Reinforced recycled concrete slab | Common joint |
SJD-4 | 150 × 3 × 1,500 | 150 × 75 × 5 × 5.5 | 0.18 | Reinforced recycled concrete slab | Joint with bolts |
SJD-5 | 150 × 3 × 1,500 | 200 × 100 × 5.5 × 6 | 0.18 | Reinforced recycled concrete slab | Common joint |
SJD-6 | 150 × 3 × 1,500 | 150 × 75 × 5 × 5.5 | 0.18 | Slab composited with profiled steel sheet | Common joint |
SJD-7 | 150 × 3 × 1,500 | 150 × 75 × 5 × 5.5 | 0.18 | — | Common joint |
Illustrative drawing of joints. (a) Exterior steel ring-stiffener (all dimensions in mm). (b) Cross section of beam-slab system (all dimensions in mm). (c) Common joint with a concrete slab (all dimensions in mm). (d) Common joint (all dimensions in mm). (e) Joint with bolts (all dimensions in mm).
The steel tubes are made of Q235 grade steel. Table
Mechanical properties of various steels for the specimens.
Specimen | Thickness or diameter (mm) | Yield strength (MPa) | Tensile strength (MPa) | Elastic modulus (GPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Steel tubular column | 3.0 | 347 | 400 | 196 |
Stiffening plate | 5.0 | 337 | 475 | 211 |
Flange of the steel beam | 5.5 | 295 | 461 | 206 |
6.0 | 270 | 438 | 200 | |
Web-plate of the steel beam | 5.0 | 281 | 448 | 190 |
5.5 | 283 | 448 | 190 | |
Reinforcing bar |
|
389 | 543 | 209 |
The proportions of SFRC per cubic metric are 584 kg of cement, 499 kg of sand, 855 kg of RCA, 368 kg of NCA, and 233 kg of water. The substitutive rate of the RCA is 70%. The dimensions of the curved steel fibres are 0.7 mm × 0.7 mm × 35 mm. The steel fibre content is 1%, taken from the author’s previous research [
As shown in Figure
Test setup.
The bearing capacity of each concrete-filled steel tubular column can be calculated per the literature [
Figure
Loading procedure adopted for cyclic tests.
Before each testing, the cells and sensors were checked to ensure that they were working well. Then, a preload was applied vertically to eliminate the initial imperfections of the test setup and allow the specimen to properly contact the testing device. After the checking and validation of the cells and sensors, a design vertical load was applied in two or three steps, and held for 2 min. Following that, a cyclic force was applied according to the loading procedure.
The specific failure phenomena are shown in Figure
Failure phenomena of specimens. (a) Cracks appear at corners of the column. (b) Local buckling occurs at the bottom flange of the steel beam. (c) Rupture of weld seam occurs at the bottom flange of the steel beam. (d) Cracks parallel to the longer side of the slab. (e) Rupture of weld seam occurs at the top flange of the steel beam.
In the elastic, elastic-plastic, and failure stages, a plastic hinge formed gradually at the beam-end near the joint. With tiny displacements and strains, the column and the joint were elastic. Therefore, the designed joint specimens meet the seismic principles of strong column and weak beam and strong joint and weak member.
In the testing phase, ESRS and the joints between them and the column were left undeformed. As the ESRS joint can effectively transmit and distribute the load, the distribution of stresses within the joint’s core area was more uniform. This contributes to the seismic performance of joints.
Due to the composite effect of the slabs, both the joint’s rigidity and the steel beam’s stability were enhanced.
Failure phenomena of specimens.
Specimen | Failure phenomena |
---|---|
SJD-1 | (a), (b), (c), (d) |
SJD-2 | (a), (c), (d) |
SJD-3 | (a), (c), (d) |
SJD-4 | (a), (b), (c), (d) |
SJD-5 | (a), (b), (c), (d) |
SJD-6 | (b), (c), (d) |
SJD-7 | (e) |
The hysteretic curves are comprehensive reflections of the responses of structures or members subjected to cyclic loads, and are of great significance to the analysis of their seismic behaviour [ Specimens develop plump, spindle-shaped hysteretic curves, and show improved energy dissipation capacity and displacement ductility. When the displacement is smaller, the specimens are in the elastic stage, develop almost linear hysteretic loops with smaller envelops, and have smaller residual deformations and energy dissipation capacities. As the displacement increases, the specimens move into the elastic-plastic stage. With the increasing displacement, the specimens gain curved hysteretic loops, which move gradually toward the displacement axis, with larger envelop areas, larger energy dissipation capacities, and greater rigidity degeneration. With the increasing displacement, cracks begin to appear around the plates and columns. After the specimens have yielded, the loading cycles are applied three times for each displacement. When the three hysteretic loops at a given displacement are compared, the last two loops are smaller than the first loop and the envelop areas of the last two loops decrease. This demonstrates strength degradation, decline of energy dissipation capacity, and damage accumulation in the specimens. Due to the composite effects of slabs, the specimens have a larger rigidity and bearing capacity in the negative direction than in the positive one.
Hysteretic curves of the specimens. (a) SJD-1. (b) SJD-2. (c) SJD-3. (d) SJD-4. (e) SJD-5. (f) SJD-6. (g) SJD-7.
A skeleton curve can be obtained by connecting every peak load of the given displacements. The characteristic points can be obtained from a skeleton curve, such as yield displacement and load, peak displacement and load, and ultimate displacement and load. From the skeleton curve, mechanical properties such as ductility, energy dissipation, strength degradation, and rigidity degradation can be obtained.
The skeleton curves obtained from the tests are shown in Figure The elastic rigidity increases with increasing axial compressive ratio. The skeleton curves and bearing capacities of different specimens are close to each other. Specimens SJD-5 and SJD-2 have the same axial compressive ratio, but the beam-column linear stiffness ratio of specimen SJD-5 is higher. The peak load of SJD-5 is 58% higher than SJD-2 in the positive direction, and 42.7% higher in the negative direction. It follows that the rigidity and bearing capacity of specimens increase with an increasing beam-column linear stiffness ratio. Specimens SJD-4 and SJD-2 have the same axial compressive ratio, but SJD-4 has high-strength bolts in its joint’s core area. The skeleton curves of specimens SJD-4 and SJD-2 are close with each other. It follows that the high-strength bolts in the joint’s core area hardly have any influence on the rigidity and bearing capacity. Specimen SJD-2 has a reinforced recycled concrete slab connected to its beam, while SJD-6 has a slab composited with a profiled steel sheet. The peak load of SJD-2 is 35.9% higher than that of SJD-6 in the positive direction, and 9.9% higher than that of SJD-6 in the negative direction. Compared with the specimen with a slab-profiled-steel-sheet composite, the specimen with a recycled reinforced concrete slab has a larger rigidity and bearing capacity. Specimen SJD-2 has a slab, while SJD-7 does not. The peak load of SJD-2 is 30.3% higher than that of SJD-7 in the positive direction, and 57.4% higher than that of SJD-7 in the negative direction. Compared with the specimen without a slab, the specimen with a slab has a larger rigidity and bearing capacity.
Skeleton curves. (a) Influence of axial compressive ratio. (b) Influence of linear stiffness ratio. (c) Influence of high-strength bolts. (d) Influence of the slab type. (e) Influence of the slab.
Effective rigidity is one of the most important indicators of seismic performance of structures and members. The effective rigidity is presented in terms of the loop rigidity [
At the initial loading stage, the rigidity of specimens decreases drastically. At the final loading stage, as the concrete cracks have fully propagated, and the specimens move into the plastic stage, the rigidity drops slowly. Thus, as shown in Figure
Curves of the rigidity degradation.
For the specimen with a slab connected to its steel beam, the rigidities in both the directions are different at various loading stages. In the initial loading stage, the slab and steel beam are tightly combined, and the initial rigidity in the negative direction is larger than that in the positive direction. In the final loading stage, with the cracks fully extended in the concrete slab, the concrete slab is damaged, the composite effects between the slab and the steel beam disappear, and the final rigidities in both the directions are close to each other.
The ductility of a structure or a member defines its capability to endure plastic deformation, with a relative higher load applied. Ductility is an important parameter representing the deformation capability of a structure or a member, and it is of great significance for the evaluation of seismic performance of structures [
Table The average value of the ductility indices of the specimens is 2.10. The compressive capacity of concrete is significantly higher than its tensile capacity; so, it is reasonable to assume that the concrete can carry only the compressive stress and neglect its tensile capacity in engineering practice. When loading in the positive direction, the beam-end far from the joint moves downward, the concrete slab carries a negligible tensile stress, and the top flange of the steel beam carries nearly the whole tensile force. When loading in the negative direction, the beam-end far from the joint moves upward, a compressive stress is exerted on the concrete slab, and the concrete slab can work in tandem with the top flange of the steel beam to carry the compressive force. The differences in the mechanical properties of the composite beam-slab system can induce significant differences in the bearing capacity and ductility index in both the directions. For example, specimen SJD-6 has a slab connected to its steel beam, and its yield load and peak load in negative direction are 2.3 and 1.7 times those in the positive direction, respectively. Furthermore, its ductility index in the positive direction is 1.8 times that in the negative direction. This is because, in the negative loading, the recycled reinforced concrete slab is compressed and the plate joins with the top flange of the steel beam in resisting the pressure and deformation. In the positive loading, the recycled reinforced concrete slab has poor tensile strength and cracks easily, so that the section size of the plate is reduced, and the tension is basically assumed by the top flange of the steel beam. A comparison of the ductility indices of specimens with the same axial compressive ratio revealed that the indices of SJD-4, SJD-5, and SJD-6 were relatively lower than those of SJD-2. This indicates that such structural fabrications could have negative effects on the ductility of specimens, as high-strength bolts settled in the joint’s core area increased the beam-column linear stiffness ratio and the recycled concrete slab composited with a profiled steel sheet. The axial compression ratio has little effect on the bearing capacity of the specimen. This is because the specimen is broken in the plastic hinge area of the beam and the column is in the elastic stage.
Key points and ductility index.
Specimen | Force direction | Yield load |
Yield displacement |
Peak load |
Peak displacement |
Ductility index |
Average value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SJD-1 | + | 17.1 | 16.8 | 23.9 | 34.6 | 2.06 | 1.90 |
− | −26.5 | −17.5 | −31.3 | −30.6 | 1.75 | ||
|
|||||||
SJD-2 | + | 19.4 | 15.8 | 27.6 | 40.6 | 2.57 | 2.47 |
− | −28.3 | −15.4 | −34.9 | −36.5 | 2.37 | ||
|
|||||||
SJD-3 | + | 18.5 | 17.1 | 25.7 | 34.6 | 2.03 | 2.03 |
− | −28.5 | −15.0 | −35.0 | −30.6 | 2.04 | ||
|
|||||||
SJD-4 | + | 19.6 | 14.8 | 27.1 | 35.6 | 2.41 | 2.31 |
− | −28.0 | −16.4 | −34.9 | −36.5 | 2.22 | ||
|
|||||||
SJD-5 | + | 31.0 | 15.0 | 43.6 | 28.7 | 1.91 | 1.98 |
− | −39.0 | −17.8 | −49.8 | −36.5 | 2.05 | ||
|
|||||||
SJD-6 | + | 13.4 | 16.1 | 20.3 | 39.0 | 2.42 | 1.90 |
− | −30.8 | −13.3 | −33.5 | −18.0 | 1.36 | ||
|
|||||||
SJD-7 | + | 18.2 | 22.8 | 21.1 | 39.0 | 1.72 | 2.10 |
− | −15.8 | −16.4 | −22.2 | −40.9 | 2.49 |
The energy dissipation capacity is another important index for studying the seismic performance of structures and members. In a loading-unloading hysteretic loop, the energy absorbed by the loading process is generally larger than the energy discharged by the unloading process. The difference between the energy absorbed and energy discharged is energy dissipation, which is represented by the area enclosed by a hysteretic loop. The plumper the loop and the larger its enclosed area, the larger the energy dissipation capacity. In engineering practice, the energy dissipation coefficient,
Idealised
Table
Energy dissipation parameters.
Displacement (mm) | SJD-1 | SJD-2 | SJD-3 | SJD-4 | SJD-5 | SJD-6 | SJD-7 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
3 | 0.137 | 0.022 | 0.069 | 0.011 | 0.078 | 0.012 | 0.088 | 0.014 | 0.201 | 0.032 | 0.064 | 0.01 | 0.074 | 0.012 |
6 | 0.114 | 0.018 | 0.151 | 0.024 | 0.096 | 0.015 | 0.214 | 0.034 | 0.154 | 0.025 | 0.084 | 0.013 | 0.095 | 0.015 |
9 | 0.126 | 0.02 | 0.223 | 0.036 | 0.112 | 0.018 | 0.292 | 0.047 | 0.2 | 0.032 | 0.128 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.019 |
12 | 0.155 | 0.025 | 0.259 | 0.041 | 0.239 | 0.038 | 0.365 | 0.058 | 0.226 | 0.036 | 0.213 | 0.034 | 0.147 | 0.023 |
15 | 0.289 | 0.046 | 0.318 | 0.051 | 0.338 | 0.054 | 0.399 | 0.064 | 0.236 | 0.038 | 0.296 | 0.047 | 0.197 | 0.031 |
18 | 0.352 | 0.056 | 0.358 | 0.057 | 0.395 | 0.063 | 0.453 | 0.072 | 0.322 | 0.051 | 0.409 | 0.065 | 0.248 | 0.039 |
21 | 0.441 | 0.07 | 0.466 | 0.074 | 0.499 | 0.079 | 0.523 | 0.083 | 0.44 | 0.07 | 0.411 | 0.065 | 0.415 | 0.066 |
24 | 0.549 | 0.087 | 0.591 | 0.094 | 0.878 | 0.14 | 0.591 | 0.094 | 0.57 | 0.091 | 0.52 | 0.083 | 0.54 | 0.086 |
30 | 1.045 | 0.166 | 0.883 | 0.141 | 0.867 | 0.138 | 0.892 | 0.142 | 0.879 | 0.14 | 0.834 | 0.133 | 0.792 | 0.126 |
36 | 1.244 | 0.198 | 1.201 | 0.191 | 1.181 | 0.188 | 1.206 | 0.192 | 1.049 | 0.167 | 1.03 | 0.164 | 1.012 | 0.161 |
Curves of equivalent viscous damping coefficient vs. cycle number.
With larger effective viscous damping factors, the seismic dissipation capacity of specimens with a slab is better than those without a slab. The axial compressive ratio has negative effects on seismic dissipation capacity, and the effective viscous factor decreases with increasing axial compressive ratio.
A comparison of SJD-4 and SJD-2 reveals that their effective viscous factors are close to each other. From this, the high-strength bolts in the joint’s core area have no influence on the seismic dissipation capacity. As shown in Figure
The C3D8R element and structural meshing method were used to mesh the steel and recycled concrete. A meshed specimen is shown in Figure
Meshing.
The loading and boundary conditions of the specimen are shown in Figure
Loading and boundary conditions.
The double-straight-lines-strengthened model is used as a constitutive relationship of steel. In the case of the constitutive relationship of recycled concrete used in the slab, the model developed by Xiao [
For the contact between the steel tube and the concrete, the tangential force is considered along with the Coulomb friction criterion, and the normal force along with the “hard contact.” A nonlinear spring unit is generally used to simulate the contact between the top flange of the steel beam and the concrete, as there are studs connecting the top flange of the steel beam to the concrete slab. The embedded connection is used to simulate the contact between the reinforcing bars and the concrete slab. In this case, the reinforcing bars and the concrete slab need to be modelled separately (see Figure
Modelling of reinforcing bars and recycled concrete slab.
Figure
Comparison of hysteretic curves. (a) SJD-1. (b) SJD-2. (c) SJD-3. (d) SJD-4. (e) SJD-5. (f) SJD-6. (g) SJD-7.
As shown in Figure
Comparison of the skeleton curves. (a) SJD-1. (b) SJD-2. (c) SJD-3. (d) SJD-4. (e) SJD-5. (f) SJD-6. (g) SJD-7.
In addition, induced by the composite effect of the slab and the steel beam, the skeleton curves are asymmetrically distributed, and the bearing capacity and rigidity in the positive direction are larger than those in the negative direction. The symmetry of the skeleton curves obtained from the FEM analysis is better than that from the physical tests. This symmetry is induced by no consideration of the residual deformation of the members, avoiding the torsion of members by imposing a constraint in the FEM analysis. In the test, the residual deformation and torsion of members are inevitable.
Figures
Damage comparison of SJD-1.
Damage comparison of SJD-2.
Damage comparison of SJD-2.
Damage comparison of SJD-5.
As shown in Table
Stress distribution of SJD-2 at various displacements (in mm). (a) 12 mm. (b) 18 mm. (c) 24 mm. (d) 30 mm. (e) 36 mm. (f) 39 mm.
Stress distribution of SJD-4 at various displacements (in mm). (a) 12 mm. (b) 18 mm. (c) 24 mm. (d) 30 mm. (e) 36 mm. (f) 42 mm.
Stress distribution of SJD-5 at various displacements (in mm). (a) 12 mm. (b) 18 mm. (c) 24 mm. (d) 30 mm. (e) 36 mm. (f) 39 mm.
From Figure
From Figure
From Figure
In this study, the seismic performance of ESRS joints was studied via physical tests and FEM simulation. The following is a summary of the main conclusions of the study: After the elastic, elastic-plastic, and failure stages, a plastic hinge begins to form gradually at the beam-end near the joint. For minor displacements and strains, the column and joint are elastic. Therefore, the designed specimens of joints meet the seismic principles of strong column and weak beam, and strong joint and weak member. As the ESRS can effectively transmit and distribute the load, the distribution of stresses within the joint’s core area is more uniform. This contributes to the seismic performance of joints. Due to the composite effects of slabs, the joints’ rigidity, bearing capacity, and energy dissipation capacity, and the local stability of the steel beam’s top flange and the integral stability of the steel beam are enhanced. The rigidity and bearing capacity of joints in the negative direction are larger than that in the positive direction. The bearing capacity, strength degradation, ductility, and energy dissipation of the specimens were barely influenced by the axial compressive ratio. Instead, the bearing capacity and rigidity were significantly influenced by the beam-column linear stiffness ratio, and increased with an increase in the ratio. The ductility and energy dissipation capacity of specimens, however, decreased with the ratio. Since the plastic hinge occurred at the beam-end but not in the joint’s core area, the bearing capacity, rigidity, and energy dissipation capacity of specimens were not influenced by the high-strength bolts fastened in the joint’s core area. Subjected to the same axial compressive ratio, the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of specimens with recycled concrete slab were higher than those of the specimens with the slab-profiled-steel-sheet composite. Compared with the existing reinforced concrete joints, the ESRS joints developed in this paper not only have the advantages of higher ductility, larger effective viscous damping factor, better energy dissipation capacity, and plumper hysteretic curves without pinching, but also simple construction and definite load-transferring mechanism. We believe that the technique will benefit structural and civil engineers in developing better earthquake-resistant buildings, and the recycled concrete will benefit the environment and reduce costs. Large-scale finite element software ABAQUS was used to simulate the seismic performance of the ESRS joints. A joint stress analysis was performed to ensure the correctness of the model. From observation and simulation, the normal stresses in the ring stiffener were generally uniform, increased from the longer side to the opposite shorter side of the trapezoidal zone, and reached the maximum value near the bolt-weld connection. To avoid damage to the ring-stiffener during engineering practice, we can thicken it or add rib-strengthened panels.
All the data used in this study are available from the experimental tests of the composite joints, and data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The author(s) declare(s) that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant no. 51308479), the Department of Education Funded Project of Sichuan, China (Grant no. 18CZ0012), the Science and Technology Research Projects of Mianyang, China (Grant no. 15S-02-3), the Shock and Vibration of Engineering Materials and Structures Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, China (Grant no. 18kfgk14), the Applied Basic Research Project of Sichuan Science and Technology Department (Grant no. 2018JY0443), and the Doctoral Foundation Project of Southwest University of Science and Technology (Grant no. 19zx7110).