Experimental behaviour of stainless steel bolted T-stub connections under monotonic loading

Structural behaviour of stainless steel beam-to-tubular column joints

“…An attempt to study numerically the response of top and seat cleat stainless steel beam-to-column joints was recently reported by Hasan et al [36], however, the validation of their model was based on existing carbon steel experimental results, and unverified assumptions regarding the material response and the interaction of the various stainless steel components. Elflah et al [37] reported the only available experimental study to date on stainless steel beam-to-column joints, which they complemented a comprehensive numerical study [38], whilst a comprehensive experimental study on the structural response of austenitic and duplex stainless steel T-stubs in tension has been conducted by Yuan et al [39]. Finally, Tao et al [40] recently published a paper on the response of blind-bolted beam-to-concrete filled stainless steel tubular column connections.…”

“…In order to complement the currently very limited research on stainless steel joints, this paper reports, for the first time, a systematic experimental and numerical study on stainless steel beam-to-tubular column joints. The experimental and numerical studies reported herein, as well as in [37][38][39] are an important step towards the assessment of the suitability of current design provisions of EN 1993-1-8 [42], which were originally derived for and are based on the response of carbon steel joints. It is envisaged that certain restrictions of EN 1993-1-4 [43], as for example the fact that plastic global analysis is currently not allowed in the absence of experimental evidence as "there should be evidence that the joints are capable of resisting the increase in internal moments and forces due to strain hardening" can be overcome and novel design provisions in line with the observed response will be developed.…”

Experimental investigation and design of extruded aluminium alloy T-stubs connected by swage-locking pins

“…The predicted ultimate resistances Fcsm of the T-stubs, derived by using the CSM to calculate the moment resistance at the plastic hinges, are listed in Table 11, and can be seen to be more accurate and less scattered compared to the resistance predictions from EC9. Yuan et al [5] also reported better predicted results for stainless steel T-stubs using the CSM, rather than the design rules in Eurocode 3. Further improvements are sought in the following sub-section.…”

“…The configuration of the test specimens is shown in Fig. 20, where TSS refers to T-stub specimens with a single row and a single column of pins, TSD refers to T-stub specimens with a single row and double columns of pins, TDS refers to T-stub specimens with double rows and a single column of pins and TDD refers to T-stub specimens with double rows and double columns of pins. The specimens were tested in pairs, back-to-back, rather than as single T-stubs assembled against a rigid support, to avoid premature shear failure of the fasteners [5]. The T-stubs were connected together by swage-locking pins, which are a new type of fastener, resistant to loosening and vibration.…”

“…An equivalent T-stub can represent the behaviour of angle cleats in bending, end plates in bending and column flanges in bending, as shown in Fig. 19, through the component method [5]. Research on T-stubs is therefore an essential first step to studying the behaviour of aluminium alloy beam-to-column joints and to applying them in practical engineering applications.…”