The Comparative Study on Seismic Behavior of End‐plate Connections Between PEC Column and H‐type Ste

Page 1

www.seipub.org/ce Construction Engineering Volume 3, 2015 doi: 10.14355/ce.2015.03.005

The Comparative Study on Seismic Behavior of End‐plate Connections Between PEC Column and H‐type Steel Column Zhao Gentian, Gao Chao* School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Inner Mongolia University of Science & Technology, Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China zhaogentian93110@sina.com; gaochao_opt@163.com Abstract In order to compare the seismic performance of end‐plate connections between PEC column and ordinary H‐beam columns, this paper designed three different specimens to test their performance under low cyclic load. The focuses of the analysis are the influence of some factors like filling with concrete between the flanges, the amount of steel and backing plate on hysteresis, ductility and capacity of energy dissipation. Experiment and comparative results show that the end plate connections of PEC column can not only use fewer amount of steel than the ordinary H‐beam column, but also have a good carrying capacity and hysteretic property. Besides, the back plate has great influence on the stiffness of the combination. Keywords PEC Column; End Plate; Seismic Performance; Comparative Study

Introduction The performance of the node plays a key role on the earthquake resistance for the whole structure. The end plate connection is a form of semi‐rigid connections that has a good ductility and energy dissipation capacity[1]. Partially encased composite column, which is called PEC columns, is a type of H‐beam columns placed concrete between two flanges. Compared with general steel frame structures, frame structures equipped PEC columns can save the problem that the plastic hinge can’t be formed at the end of the beam because of the local buckling when the flakiness ratio of plates is too large or structures bearing large load[2]. In recent years, scholars have done parts of studies on the seismic performance of the partially encased composite structure. However, comparative study between it and the ordinary H‐beam structure is still inadequate. In summary, this paper designed three different specimens to test their performance under low cyclic load to compare with the literature. Test Overview In this paper, parts of specimens in Guo Bing’s test[3] were analyzed as comparison objects. They were all produced by Q235‐B steel. Bolts were M20, friction‐type high‐strength bolts. The detail drawing of the node is shown in Figure 1 (a) as below. The numbers of specimens and specific parameters in the document are shown in Table 1 from SJ‐A to SJ‐C. This paper’s specimens shown in the same Table from SJ‐1 to SJ‐3 were designed to compare with the literature. The specifications of steel and bolts were the same with the document. TABLE 1 NBUMER AND SPECIFIC PARAMETERS OF SPECIMENS IN DOCUMENT

NO.

26

Sectional dimension of columns(mm)

Thickness of end Stiffening ribs of Stiffening ribs of plates (mm) end plates webs

Backing plate

SJ‐A

200×200×8×l2

12

No

Yes

No

SJ‐B

200×200×12×l8

18

No

No

No

SJ‐C

200×200×12×l8

25

No

Yes

No

SJ‐1

200×200×8×12

12

No

No

No

SJ‐2

200×200×8×12

18

No

No

No

SJ‐3

200×200×8×6

24

No

No

Yes


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.