See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236951640

Moment-rotation behaviour of beam-to-column joints for simple frames of

pultruded shapes

Conference Paper · June 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 813

2 authors:

Jawed Qureshi James Toby Mottram

University of East London The University of Warwick
23 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS    129 PUBLICATIONS   1,570 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural engineering research with FRP shapes and systems View project

Novel connections and jointing/frame systems from pultruded GFRP structural hollow sections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jawed Qureshi on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MOMENT-ROTATION BEHAVIOUR OF BEAM-TO-COLUMN JOINTS
FOR SIMPLE FRAMES OF PULTRUDED SHAPES

Jawed QURESHI
Research Fellow
Civil Research Group, School of Engineering,
University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
J.Qureshi@warwick.ac.uk

J. Toby MOTTRAM
Professor
Civil Research Group, School of Engineering,
University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
J.T.Mottram@warwick.ac.uk*

Abstract
This paper reports on a test series to characterise the moment-rotation response of simple
pultruded frame joints. Testing is conducted on a batch of 10 nominally identical joints. The
experimental investigation is carried out with bolted web-cleated beam-to-column major-axis
joints using the test methodology of Mottram and Zheng [1]. Test results are evaluated to
establish the rotational capacity for damage onset in cleats due to prying action. It is found
that batch joint stiffness at damage onset is 35% more variable than moment. A single
measurement of stiffness is not suitable for use in frame analysis because there is a difference
of 70% in initial rotational stiffness. Minimum rotation at damage onset is 9.7 mrad, which
suggests that cracking could initiate before mid-span deflection of a simply supported beam
with uniformly distributed load reaches span/250. Evaluation of results will help characterise
the rotational stiffness so that frame analysis [2] can be performed by designers to check if
beam and overall displacements satisfy serviceability limit states.
Keywords: Beam-to-column bolted joints; rotation capacity; simple pultruded frames.

1. Introduction
FRP structural shapes are gaining recognition in construction industry on account of easy and
fast installation, excellent durability and corrosion resistance. Standard shapes generally
consist of E-glass fibre reinforcement (unidirectional and mats) in a polyester or vinylester
resin matrix. They resemble standard steel sections in cross-section shapes, but differ in
behaviour. The design of FRP members is controlled primarily by limiting instabilities and
deformation rather than strength as is the case with steel. Therefore, a serviceability limit state
is the most important criterion in the design of FRP joints, members and structures.
Bolted joints are commonly used to connect beams and columns in a FRP framed structure.
These joints offer various advantages, such as site assembly is simple, dismantling is
straightforward and inspection is easier [3]. Frame joints are often assumed to be either
nominally pinned or fully rigid. However, in reality, the joint behaviour lies between these
two extremes. Behaviour of a joint is represented by moment-rotation characteristics relating
the moment transmitted by the joint to the relative rotation between the members it connects
[4]. Full scale joint tests are generally used to determine moment-rotation response of beam-
to-column and column-to-base joints [3].
Frames of pultruded standard shapes are of simple construction (non-sway and braced). Web-
cleated joints are the preferred practical choice of designers and engineers and prominent
pultruded profiles manufacturers recommend this type of simple connection in their design
manuals [5-7]. A major impediment in full exploitation of standard FRP shapes in structural
engineering is lack of acceptable design codes. Research conducted so far is of limited nature
or scope to fully justify the fact that simple connections of FRP are, always going to be, safe
and reliable. Furthermore, there has been a lack of repetition in previous testing [3] that will
ensure that the design data is statistically acceptable and representative of actual structural
uncertainty. The aim of the research reported herein is to conduct a test series to characterise
moment-rotation response of simple web-cleated beam-to-column joints made of wide flange
pultruded FRP sections [5]. For the first time, testing is conducted on nominally identical
joints under identical test conditions. Experimental results are presented from 10 major- axis
joint tests of pultruded members with web cleats. This timely novelty will lead to a major step
towards preparation of design guidelines for ultimate and serviceability limit states.

2. Test Configuration and Loading procedure

In this study, beam-to-column joints are assumed to be nominally pinned. The pultruded joint
consisting of a pair of leg-angles bolted to the web of a beam section and the flange of column
section is considered to act essentially as a pin. This type of joint is capable of only resisting shear
force and ‘no’ or relatively small amount of moment is transferred by the connections. To justify
these assumptions, the web-cleating, forming the joint, must be able to accommodate sufficient
end rotation, without material damage, as the beam undergoes flexure. The test configuration
consists of a sub-assembly, in the vertical plane, with a central column connected to two back-to-
back cantilever beams, as shown in Figure 1. Using M16 bolting the webs of the beams are
connected to the flanges of the column by cleats of pultruded leg-angle.
The column and beam sections are of the pultruded Pultex® SuperStructural 1525 series shape of
size 254×254×9.53 mm [5], and each section is 1.5 m long. Web cleats are cut from a pultruded
FRP equal-leg-angle shape of size 100×100×9.53 mm [5]. The angles have their unidirectional
roving reinforcement oriented parallel to the direction of the shear force. The centreline of the
beams is kept at a vertical distance of 1.094 m from the base of the column. This distance is
dependent on dimensions of the hydraulic jacks and base fixates and should be sufficient to
accommodate a stroke of 150 mm on the jacks. The bottom of the column is placed on a rocker
base fixture, and as a result, in-plane rotations are allowed to justify the assumption of a pinned
base. This also ensures that the column is not subjected to any flexural action, and thus, both
joints (called Left and Right) experience the same effect of actions.
Point loading is applied to the two beams at a distance of 1.016 m from the centreline of the
column. The layout of the loading stations, which are spaced at 406.4 mm (16 in.) apart in the test
laboratory, dictated the choice of the lever arm distance of 1.016 m. Load is applied to the beams
by means of a hanger assembly and a ball bearing placed at the centre of the loading plate and
directly above the web’s mid-plane. This arrangement ensured application of vertical load to the
specimen with minimal axial and lateral force components. Two hydraulic tension jacks are used;
and the applied force is measured through two tension load cells having capacity of 9 tonnes (i.e.
90 kN). Rotations and displacements are measured using inclinometers and displacement
transducers respectively and, in real time, stored in a data logger.
The exact locations of displacement transducers, inclinometers and loading points for the beam-
to-column test are shown in Figure 2. This figure gives the salient dimensions. The photograph of
typical instrumentation is shown in Figure 3. Beam rotations are measured by inclinometers C1
and C3, which are placed at 130 mm from the connected end of the beam; as close as can be to
the longer side of the connecting cleat. Column rotation is measured by inclinometer C2. The
difference between beam and column rotations gives that side’s joint rotation. The relative slip
between a pair of web cleats and their beam is measured with the help of four displacement
transducers, designated as LTL, LBL, LTR and LBR in Figure 3. The vertical deflection of the
beam at the loaded end is determined from transducers L1 and L2, located at 1140 mm from the
centreline of the column. The displacement transducers L3 and L4 are used to measure vertical
slip at the connection and are located at 30 mm from the face of the column. Left and Right side
loading points are labelled in Figure 2 as LP1 and LP2 respectively, and the applied load is
measured by two tension load cells seen in Figure 1.

1500 1016

406

Hanger

Left Right

Load cell
1094

Hydraulic jack

Pin Joint Rocker base

Figure 1. Test Configuration and Loading Arrangement.

Specimens are loaded, under rotation control, with 2 mrad increments from the beginning of the
load test. A time interval of 5 min elapsed between two increments to record values in the data
logger and to make visual inspection for detecting any cracking in cleats. In order to determine the
extent of permanent deformation and the change in joint stiffness, the specimen is unloaded and
reloaded after rotations above 12.5 mrad. The choice of about 12.8 mrad rotation is made because
this is the end rotation of a simply supported beam with uniformly distributed load corresponding
to a mid-span deflection of span/250. This is the main serviceability limit state for design of
simply supported FRP beams according to the EUROCOMP Design Code and Handbook [8].
The connection detailing in this series of beam-to-column joint tests is illustrated in Figure 4. The
nominally pin jointing is achieved by using bolted web-cleated connections, and by providing a
gap of 10 mm between the end of the beam and the flange surface of the column. Standard size
steel bolts of M16 grade 8.8, with 35 mm by 3 mm steel washers are used to assemble the major-
axis joint. Bolts are tightened to the finger-tight condition. To limit secondary rotation due to
horizontal slip of web cleat with respect to beam, hole clearance is minimised (this is not to be
found in practice and is specific to obtaining the required test results). Despite using a precise
procedure to drill tight-fitting holes, secondary slip rotation could not be eliminated altogether
because the standard M16 bolts (available in market) had variable diameters ranging from 15.6 to
15.9 mm. Therefore, in the worst case, the maximum magnitude of slip rotation can be 6.5 mrad.
The justification for minimising clearance holes to the beam is as follows. When clearance is
present, the magnitude of slip rotation depends on the way connections are assembled, which
could be anywhere between upper and lower bound. Although secondary rotation could be a
favourable outcome of having a clearance (usually 1.6 mm) in practice, it cannot be relied upon.
The worst situation could be that no slip rotation occurs; it is this lower bound limit that the
detailing in the test series has tried to represent. Therefore, secondary slip rotation must be
minimised to ensure that rotations recorded at damage onset (delamination cracking in cleat) are
dominated by prying action deformation. For buildability, and because it has no influence on the
measurements, bolt holes had a clearance of 2 mm in the column flanges.
1016

1500

(LP1) Detail A (LP2)

130 130

LTL LTR

192
128

C1 C2 C3 Right
Left
LBL LBR
A A
L1 L3 L4 L2
1140 20 Clinometer
s
Displacement transducers

All dimensions are in mm

Figure 2. Location of instrumentation in simple beam-to-column joint tests.

Figure 3. Beam-to-column bolted web-cleated joints after failure.

3. Results and Discussion

The most important feature in this series of joint tests is that, for the first time, there is
specimen repetition. Results are presented from 10 nominally identical joints to characterise,
more reliably, the joint’s moment-rotation behaviour in real frames. The measured joint
properties are tabulated in Table 1. Values highlighted in bold font are for the minimum and
maximum for that property. Column (1) gives the specimen label and identifies if the joint is
on the Left or Right side of a specimen. The initial joint properties, where moment rotation
response is linear, are given in columns (2) to (4) and are represented by initial moment (Mi),
initial rotation (i) and initial stiffness (Si). Similarly, the properties at damage onset, when
material failure (i.e. delamination cracking) is first observed on top surface of the web cleats,
are given by Mj, j and Sj in columns (5) to (7) of the table.
10 mm gap between
beam and column
WF 2542549.53
Column WF 2542549.53
Beam WF 2542549.53
64 32 31

Column
WF 2542549.53
100 55 Beam
64

55
31 32

1001009.53 10
55 1001009.53 angle angle
Section A-A
Detail A
Figure 4. Engineering details for beam-to-column joints [adapted from Figure 2].

From Table 1 it can be observed that moment-rotation response is essentially linear up to

mean moment of 0.49 kNm, having Coefficient of Variation (CV) < 10%. The mean first
failure (damage onset) rotation is 12.4 mrad, with 9.7 and 16.2 mrad being the minimum and
maximum values, respectively. This minimum value of rotation suggests that cracking could
initiate before mid-span deflection of a simply supported beam with uniformly distributed
load reaches span/250 (rotation is 12.8 mrad). Therefore, some caution should be exercised
while using such FRP cleated joint in a chemically aggressive environment as cracking will
encourage corrosion and eventual loss of structural integrity. In column (8) the ultimate
moment (Mmax) is seen to be in the range of 1.77 to 1.96 kNm, having 4.1% CV. On the other
hand, the maximum rotation (max) in column (9) of Table 1 varies by as much as 30%; from
this series we find stiffness is more variable than strength. Results indicate that at damage
onset batch joint stiffness is 35% more variable than for the moment. Because initial
rotational stiffness has minimum and maximum values of 94 and 161 kNm/rad there is a 70%
difference between them. This makes a single measurement of stiffness unsuitable for use
with the beam deflection equations from Turvey [9].
The Left and Right moment-rotation curves for specimen Wmj254_3M16_1.5, with
secondary slip, are presented in Figure 5. Presented in Figure 6 are the same curves after slip
rotation has been deducted. The Left joint is given by the solid line curve and the Right by the
dashed line curve in these figures. The onset of damage (delamination cracking in cleats) is
denoted by a solid circle. The moment rotation behaviour given in these figures is for the
worst case scenario that can exist in practice. Because of secondary slip rotation the moment-
rotation curves in these figures have different shape. From Figure 5 the rotation, when cleats
start to delaminate, is 15.7 and 10.5 mrad for Left and Right sides. In contrast, it is 9.7 mrad
for both joints in Figure 6. This shows that, when slip is compensated for, the moment-
rotation curves follow a consistent and similar form, up to the damage onset. Damage onset is
defined as the point when hairline (delamination) cracks first appear at the top of cleat.
Typical material failure observed in leg-angles is shown in Figure 7. Had the slip rotation not
been accounted for, the moment-rotation behaviour owing to the prying action could have
been misinterpreted.
Table 1. Joint properties for beam-to-column joint tests (Compensated for slip).
Mi i Si = Mi/i Mj j Sj = Mj/j Mmax max
Specimen label
(kN m) (mrad) (kN m/rad) (kN m) (mrad) (kN m/rad) (kN m) (mrad)
(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Wmj254_3M16_1.1 (Left) 0.52 4.8 108 1.02 13.3 76 1.77 69
Wmj254_3M16_1.1 (Right) 0.48 5.1 94 1.07 16.2 66 1.83 53
Wmj254_3M16_1.2 (Left) 0.49 3.9 126 1.03 12.9 80 1.96 34
Wmj254_3M16_1.2 (Right) 0.51 3.2 161 1.04 10.4 100 1.97 40
Wmj254_3M16_1.3 (Left) 0.48 3.5 137 1.13 13.5 83 1.92 36
Wmj254_3M16_1.3 (Right) 0.49 3.4 142 1.13 12.5 90 1.93 44
Wmj254_3M16_1.4 (Left) 0.49 4.8 102 1.06 12.7 84 1.82 31
Wmj254_3M16_1.4 (Right) 0.52 4.3 121 1.08 12.7 85 1.84 31
Wmj254_3M16_1.5 (Left) 0.45 4.2 107 0.87 9.7 89 1.77 34
Wmj254_3M16_1.5 (Right) 0.45 4.1 110 0.91 9.7 94 1.80 32
Mean of 10 0.49 4.1 121 1.03 12.4 85 1.86 40
CV 5.1% 16% 17% 8.2% 16% 11% 4.1% 30%

All joints failed from prying action deformation that causes each pairs of FRP web cleats to
delaminate between the fibre reinforcement layers. It was seen that when the simple joint is
loaded the leg-angles start to separate from the column. After first failure has initiated further
joint rotation widens these existing cracks and creates new delaminations. Eventually, the
joint fails by excessive material fracturing at top of the cleats, as shown in Figure 8. Some
tensile cracking in the surface veil of a leg-angle, near top bolt level, also exists, which slowly
progresses down the fillet radius when rotation approaches its ultimate value. The same
failure pattern is observed in all 10 joints suggesting a consistent failure mechanism.

4. Conclusions
An experimental study has been undertaken to characterise the moment-rotation response of
simple joints for pultruded braced frames. The most important aspect is that the testing is
conducted on a batch of 10 nominally identical joints under the same test conditions. There
are a number of key findings. Results show that batch stiffness, when delamination cracking
first appears (damage onset) in the pultruded cleats, is 35% more variable than is the
equivalent moment resistance. There is a 70% difference in initial rotational stiffness
suggesting that a value of initial stiffness from a single test (giving a batch of two specimens)
is not suitable for frame analysis that involves semi-rigid action. Because the minimum
rotation at damage onset is 9.7 mrad cracking can be created before the mid-span deflection of
a simply supported beam, with uniformly distributed loading, reaches span/250. It is also
concluded that use of pultruded cleats is unlikely to perform satisfactorily if surrounding
environment is chemically aggressive and beam is designed with a mid-span deflection limit
of span/250. Although secondary slip rotation has a beneficial effect on rotation at damage
onset, this additional joint rotation cannot be relied upon as it depends on where the bolts are
located with respect to bolt hole centres. It is found that the 10 joints failed in a fairly
consistent manner due to excessive delamination cracking at the top of the web cleats.
 2.5
Left
2.0 Right

Moment (kNm)
Damage Onset
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Joint Rotation (mrad)

Figure 5. Moment-rotation curves for Wmj254_3M16_1.5 (with slip rotation).

2.5
Left
2.0 Right
Moment (kNm)

Damage Onset
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Joint Rotation (mrad)

Figure 6. Moment-rotation curves for Wmj254_3M16_1.5 (compensated for slip).

Figure 7. Close-up of cracks in pair of web cleats at damage onset (viewed from top).
 Figure 8. Failure of simple beam-to-column joint due to prying action (viewed from top).

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank EPSRC (EP/H042628/1) and Access Engineering and Design
(supplier of Creative Pultrusions product Pultex in the UK), Telford, UK, for project funding
and supplying FRP shapes, respectively. Skilled assistance from technical staff (Mr C. Banks,
Mr R. Bromley and Mr G Canham) in the School of Engineering at University of Warwick is
acknowledged as being invaluable to the quality and impact of the test results.

References
[1] MOTTRAM, J. T. and ZHENG, Y., “Further tests on beam-to-column connections for
pultruded frames: Web-cleated”, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 3, No. 1,
1999, pp. 3-11.
[2] MOTTRAM, J. T. and ZHENG, Y., “Analysis of a pultruded frame with various
connection properties”, Proc. 2nd Inter. Conf. on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI’98)
Fiber Composites in Infrastructure, University of Arizona, 1998, Vol. II, pp. 261-274.
[3] TURVEY, G. J. and COOPER, C., “Review of tests on bolted joints between pultruded
GRP profiles”, Structures and Buildings, Vol.157, No. 3, 2004, pp. 211-233.
[4] MOTTRAM, J. T. and ZHENG, Y., “State-of-the-art review on the design of beam-to-
column connections for pultruded frames”, Composite Structures, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1996,
pp. 387-401.
[5] ANONYMOUS. The new and improved Pultrex pultrusion design manual (Imperial
version), Creative Pultrusions, Inc., Alum Bank, PA.
(www.creativepultrusions.com/rd.html) (March 3, 2012).
[6] ANONYMOUS. Strongwell design manual, Strongwell, Bristol, Va.
(http://www.strongwell.com/) (March 3, 2012).
[7] Fiberline design manual for structural profiles in composite materials, Fiberline
Composites A/S, Kolding, Denmark, updated 2nd Edition, 2001.
[8] CLARKE, J. L., (Ed.), “Structural design of polymer composites - EUROCOMP Design
code and handbook”, E. & F.N. Spon, London, 1996.
[9] TURVEY, G. J., “Analysis of pultruded GRP beams with semi-rigid end connections”,
Composite Structures, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1997, pp. 3-16.

View publication stats