1. T-Stub Connection Component Tests James A Swanson and Roberto T Leon School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Ga. http://www.ce.gatech.edu/~sac/

2. SAC Subtask 7.03 Tests on Bolted Connections Synthesis of existing data Testing: –Individual T-stubs and angles –Full-scale exterior-type connections Interpretation Design Recommendations Further testing

3. Approach Identify and quantify individual failure modes Assess influence of monotonic vs. cyclic loading Develop simplified models Calibrate with advanced FEM Provide design aids (?)

4. View of the Test Setup

5.  size of T-section or clip angle  size and number of bolts :  beam flange thickness  type of bolt Variables

6. Test Setup

7. Typical Tension Failure (little prying action)

8. Prying Deformations

9. Typical Tension Bolt Failures

10. Bolt Hole Elongation Prior to Failure

11. Net Section Failure

12. Block Shear Failure

13. Instrumentation A - relative slip B - stem uplift C - bolt uplift D - stem elongation E - overall elongation G - instrumented bolt E D C G B A

14. Connection Spring Model

15. T-Stub Spring Model 1 2 34 5 6 4) Shear Bolts 5) Bearing Deformation 6) Connection Slip 1) Tension Bolts 2) Tee Flange 3) Tee Stem

16. TA-01 P/  Including Post Fracture Data Deformation (in) -0.4-0.20.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6 Load (kip) -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Deformation (mm) -10-50510152025303540 Load (kN) -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

17. Group 3 - P/  Deformation (in) -0.10.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Load (kip) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Deformation (mm) -2024681012141618202224 Load (kN) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TA-01 TA-02 TA-03 TA-04

18. Group 3 - P/Uplift Deformation (in) -0.10.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Load (kip) 0 100 200 300 400 500 TA-01 TA-02 TA-03 TA-04 Deformation (mm) -2024681012141618202224 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Load (kN)

19. TA-05 vs TA-07 P/  Deformation (in) 0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6 Load (kip) 0 100 200 300 400 500 TA-05 TA-07 Deformation (mm) 0481216202428323640 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Load (kN)

20. Group 1 Test Results 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 3"4"5"6"7"8" Tension Bolt Gage (in) Ultimate Load (kip) ActualEstimateDesign

21. TA-03 P/Bolt Force #3 Total Applied Load (kip) -500-400-300-200-1000100200300400500 Bolt Force (kip) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total Applied Load (kN) -2000-1500-1000-5000500100015002000 Bolt Force (kN) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

22. SAC Test FS-03 W21x44 beam W14 x 145 column T same as TD-01 7/8 in. A490 bolts

23. SAC FS-03: Initial view of top flange

24. SAC FS-03: Initial yielding in T and beam

25. SAC FS-03: Initial crack between last line of bolts

26. SAC FS-03: Final failure

28. Conclusions The spring model should work well in predicting stiffness characteristics. Net section fracture and block shear (after extensive yielding) are the most desirable failure modes because of their ductility. Component testing can provide a more economical means of testing than conventional full scale testing.

29. Acknowledgements The work presented here is funded by the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) through a grant to SAC S tructural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) A pplied Technology Council (ATC) C alifornia Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe)