Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
(OP)
I am reviewing a tension connection detail for 12"OD steel pipe pile filled with concrete.It is common practice welding rebar to the pipe pile for tension this type of connection, Customer wants to avoid welding rebar to the pipe or any type of connection detail which involves welding. They provided a detail with 4-#8 bars embedded in to the pipe pile filled with concrete upto 3 foot with a hook on the other side of the rebar, which would eventually run in to the pile cap.
Since the load transfer occurs completely through bond, they used Eq: I 9-9 from AISC 14th Ed Section I 6.3c to check the tensile strength of the connection, from the load transfer throgh the bond between concrete and inner surface of the steel pipe pile.
- Does the equation mentioned above from AISC is applicable for the condition.
- Has any one ever used or come across tension connection detail for concrete filled steel pipe pile which does not involve welding.
Your response would be truely appreciated.
Sincerely,
krism
Since the load transfer occurs completely through bond, they used Eq: I 9-9 from AISC 14th Ed Section I 6.3c to check the tensile strength of the connection, from the load transfer throgh the bond between concrete and inner surface of the steel pipe pile.
- Does the equation mentioned above from AISC is applicable for the condition.
- Has any one ever used or come across tension connection detail for concrete filled steel pipe pile which does not involve welding.
Your response would be truely appreciated.
Sincerely,
krism






RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
Of course, because you can't rely on shear-friction with no mechanical transfer.
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
In anchorage at the top to the pile cap, I agree with emmgjld that transfer by shear can do the job.
MacG, It seems to me that this is very similar to shear-friction, which relies on bars crossing a plane to provide a clamping force. The steel pipe provides a circumferential clamping force, in my opinion much more reliably so than bars crossing a plane.
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
Found a great wiki on CFT load transfer experiments, though. http://www.northeastern.edu/compositesystems/wiki/...
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
While those AISC provisions (composite columns) don't distinguish between force transfer in tension and compression, I wonder if they might have been intended for just compression. Like MG22, the thought of such a connection in tension gives me the shakes.
Unless non-shrink concrete is used, I would expect the concrete to pull away from the steel a tiny bit which is not confidence inspiring. In a compression application, I would hope that concrete dilation would counteract that. In a tension application, you obviously wouldn't have that going for you.
If these things are getting used extensively, there must have been some testing done at some point.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
Surely, this comes as no surprise.
Humor me if you will. Name three applications of steel/concrete bond where neither of the following is true:
1) Mechanical "bond" is provided by studs, rebar, channel stubs, knurls etc or;
2) The situation is such that concrete shrinkage would not pull the concrete away from the steel.
I can only think of one... sort of. You can have a concrete encased steel beam without mechanical shear connection. Shrinkage would likely cause the concrete to pull away from some surfaces but not others. Of course, any sane designer would throw some stirrups around the whole thing.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
The glaring issue to me is "up to 3-ft". That is in the vicinity of development length for #8 bars. If this pipe has 150-kips or so of direct tension, I wouldn't inherently trust traditional development length in this situation without code provisions, strong empirical data, or very conservative rationale.
emmmgjld - no one was making an ad hominem attack on you. We don't grow without sharing our ideas as well as critiques. And, besides, 6 or 8-ft (verses 3-ft) of concrete/rebar development into the column could be a huge difference in order to transfer bond to the tube and visa versa . Your initial response to the OP seemed to imply that the 3-ft development was no concern.
ramu - I looked at that Eq. I6-6 (not sure where eq. I9-9 is). You don't get much capacity out of the bond mechanism, certainly way short of the tension capacity of developed 4#8 and probably the 12" pipe. What is the direct tension demand?
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
Here's some kick-ass Canadian research demonstrating that there clearly is some reliable capacity to be had for exactly this setup: Link.
And it seems that I was on to something wrt the dilation business.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
2 times the diameter of the pipe doesn't mesh well with developing #8 bars. It seems that if the OP is going to accept this concept, they would want to switch to a smaller bar diameter (and add more bars) that can more easily develop over 2*D. I would still be concerned with the loading type. If it is cyclical, I still wouldn't feel great about it.
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
$%#@!!@#@$!! I change my mind then. Connection no good.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
AISC 360 specifications are free. https://www.aisc.org/content.aspx?id=2884
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/research/external/doc...
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
I believe AISC axially-loaded composite filled tube provisions are based on:
1. Fully-filled tube
2. Tube acts primarily as a compression member
As you said, the shell dilation seems to provide a significant clamping force resulting in a much larger average shear stress than in the AISC code. It seems you lose this clamping force when the tube is fully-filled. This of course is highly dependent of whether the Canadian researchers were drinking and eating copious amounts of poutine at the time they were writing their report.
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
I'm not sure what the Coloradans' favorite dish is, but reading this post has made me hungry for steak.
Thaidavid
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
That is my impression as well. However, given how wildly conservative the AISC provisions appear to be, using them surely doesn't result in any harm. The paper mentioned some relevant BS standard provisions. If any Brits catch wind of this thread, I'd love to hear about those provisions.
...and...
As you've both touched on, the question of how the joint should be designed is an interesting one.
1) In some respects, the joint is a non-contact lap splice between the rebar and the walls of the CHS. This would favor vertical rebar fairly close to the walls of the CHS.
2) I question the researchers supposition that there are meaningful, tensile Poisson effects in the concrete plug. Like David, I see the concrete cracking in tension, transferring all of it's tension to the rebar, and therefore not really contracting under tension.
3) If a strut and tie style mechanics were to develop, as David has proposed, then the struts would indeed cause a form of dilation in the concrete plug. In a sense, this would favor placing the vertical bars closer to the center of the connection as that would increase the lateral thrust against the walls of the CHS.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Tension Connection for Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile
KootK - I hear you about the conservative nature of AISC. Though, something still seems off even that being usually true. The good thing is that there is no restriction for US engineers grabbing techniques from outside the states as long as there is data to back it up.
1) and 3) conflicting makes this much more difficult to rationalize without good testing. It seems that pipes/tubes with high D/t ratios would be better suited to behave like 3), and those with low D/t ratios would require the transfer to be completed via 1).
That strut has to occur very earlier, or else brittle slip is likely. If ramu2krism's 12" pipe has a heavy wall, that could be a problem. Then again, you have to have the data to distinguish between the good, the bad. and the ugly.
I am eager for ramu2krism to chime in...
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."