Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528

Modern Building Materials, Structures and Techniques, MBMST 2016

ETA tests and design of HPKM Column Shoe Connections

Jorma Kinnunena*
M.Sc.(Eng), Senior Manager, R&D at Peikko Group, Voimakatu 3, Lahti 15101, Finland

Abstract

In Europe interest and relevance of CE marking of construction products stood up at the beginning of the 21st century. ETA approval
was the only solution for innovative products such as Column Shoes to get user right of CE marking with basic requirements such
as mechanical resistance and stability and safety in use. In the recent decades some studies has been done for bolted precast column
connections but there were not widely agreed ready practices available, how to verify the performance of connections of precast
columns. It was required in ETA and CUAP to verify the rules for mechanical behavior and fire resistance by full-scale tests. This
paper presents the results of ETA tests made for Peikko precast column connections with HPKM® Column Shoes and HPM®
Anchor Bolts. There were 24 precast column connections tested with different column dimensions and type of HPKM® Column
Shoes for Bending Resistance (BR), Bending Stiffness Resistance (BSR), Shear Resistance and Fire Resistance. The experimental
concrete unit tests have confirmed that the stiffness of Peikko column connection is at least as rigid as a continuously reinforced
cast-in-situ column connection. HPKM® Column Shoes and column connections fulfill the ETA-13/0603 requirements for
mechanical, fire, and corrosion resistance, stiffness and shear resistance. ETA-13/0603 includes pioneering design rules for bolted
precast column connections. The rules are in accordance with standards EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1992-1-2 (Eurocode 2) and take into
account the behavior of the completed connection and its components (Column Shoes, Anchor Bolts and grout).
© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of MBMST 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of MBMST 2016
Keywords: Column Shoes, CE marking, ETA approval, precast column connection, mechanical and fire resistance, stiffness.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 20 707 5284

E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-7058 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of MBMST 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.061
522 Jorma Kinnunen / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528

1. Introduction

HPKM® Column Shoes are fastening components of Peikko Group used to create cost-effective stiff connections
between precast concrete columns and foundations or precast columns and other columns. Making concrete columns
using precast technology enables many competitive advantages to be realized. Connections between precast columns
are quick and easy to install, while also being economical. Peikko Group focus is to ensure the free movement of
HPKM® Column Shoes without technical or trade barriers within the European Union. CE marking can be perceived
as a product passport for this purpose. CE marking is also a declaration by the manufacturer that the product meets
basic safety requirements, such as mechanical and fire resistances. Based on ETA-13/0603 [7], HPKM® Column Shoes
received the right to use the CE marking in Year 2013. ETA will simplify designers’ work, because the same design
rules and methods, essentially a common design language, can be used everywhere in EU.

2. Pre-tests for CUAP and initial tests for ETA

Some pre-tests for the Common Understanding of Assessment Procedure (CUAP) design principles were required
to calibrate the ETA test arrangements. The aim of the pre-tests was to verify that the proposed design methods fit
safely with practiced design principles.
The purpose of the initial tests is to measure the bending or shear resistance of the connection and compare the
bending stiffness of the column inside and outside the column shoe zone (see Fig. 3). A common target of all tests was
to obtain reliable and real behavioral information about Peikko column connections and their main components
(Column Shoes, Anchor Bolts and grout). The tests were designed to confirm that the HPKM Column Shoe
connections will behave rigidly and the failure mode is ductile in all conditions.
In all test specimens the concrete grade was C30/37 according to EN 1992-1-1 [1]. The column shoe connection
was grouted with self-compacting, rapidly hardening, low-shrink grout and its grade was C50/60. The real strengths
of steel material of HPKM® Column Shoes and HPM/P® Anchor Bolts were verified by tension tests before concreting
the test specimens.

2.1. Bending resistance (BR) tests

These tests aimed to confirm that the HPKM Column Shoe connection has at least an equal bending resistance as
a cast-in-situ column.

Fig. 1. Illustration of full-scale bending resistance (BR) test arrangements.

The experimental bending resistance Me and the theoretical bending resistance Mt based on the measured material
properties and nominal geometry as well as the ratio of the experimental to theoretical bending resistance are given in
Table 1.

Table 1. Bending test results from the Research Report [8]. ƒgr mean strength of grout, ƒbolt,y yield strength of bolt, b width of column section, Asp
area of threaded section of bolt, dup and dlow effective depths of upper and lower bolts, Mt theoretical bending resistance of connection, and M e
experimental bending resistance of connection.
Test ƒgr ƒbolt,y b Asp dup dlow Mt Me Me/Mt
 Jorma Kinnunen / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528 523

MPa MPa mm mm2 mm mm kNm kNm

H16-BS.b 51.6 562 235 157 50 185 35.3 39.8 1.25
H16-BR 51.6 562 235 157 50 185 35.3 39.2 1.24
H24-BR.b 49.3 573 270 353 50 220 83.8 98.3 1.30
H39-BS.c 45.0 556 380 976 60 320 312.7 349.7 1.23
H39-BR 48.2 556 380 976 60 320 314.7 349.3 1.25

The characteristic value of moment ratio Mt/Me, calculated in accordance with CUAP, equals 1.19 or 1.20 when
the coefficient of variation is regarded as un-known or known, respectively. This means that the applied design method
is safe for axial and bending resistance of HPKM® Column Shoes.

2.2. Bending stiffness resistance (BSR) tests

The bending stiffness of bolted precast column connections was perhaps the most important and interesting subject
of the ETA tests. The design according to ETA-13/0603 is based on standard EN 1992-1-1 (EC 2), which in turn
assumes purely theoretical values for buckling lengths of columns. The aim is to apply the design rules of EN 1992-
1-1, developed for slender cast-in-situ columns with continuous reinforcement, to precast columns with column shoe
connections. Figure 3 illustrates the different stiffness zones in precast and cast-in-situ columns.
The precast column A is compared with a reference column B which is cast-in-situ and continuously reinforced
with the same main reinforcement as the precast column, see Fig. 3. The basic idea is to compare the stiffness of a
precast column with that of the reference column.
In Zone 1 of the precast column A the column shoes have no effect on the stiffness. In Zone 2 the flexural stiffness
is very high due to the overlapping of the anchor bars of the column shoes and the main reinforcement of the column.
In Zone 3 the flexural stiffness is low due to the reduced effective concrete section at the end of the column and
eccentric tension in the column shoes.
Assume that the bending stiffness outside the column shoe zone is (EI). The stiffness of the lower part of the column
shoe zone is typically lower than (EI), say D˜(EI) (D < 1.0), and that of the upper part of the column shoe zone is
E˜(EI) (E > 1.0). This is different from a cast-in-situ column shown in Figure 3 in which the reinforcement is
continuous and constant over the entire height of the column. Column B is chosen for reference because the design
rules in standard EN 1992-1-1 were developed for this case and, even though a spliced connection may be more
common in practice, the design codes do not require splicing. The tests also focused on finding the real stiffness M˜(EI)
of a cast-in-situ column connection in zone 3 (M < 1.0 ?).
To ensure that conclusions on the connection's performance are safe, the focus must be the cases in which the
stiffness of the column shoe connection plays an important role and in which the risk of overestimating the resistance
is highest. On this basis a mast (cantilevered column) was chosen for the structure to be examined.
The bending stiffness of a section typically increases with increasing axial compression force. Therefore the
stiffness is measured without axial force and the deflection of the mast column is compared in a load case without
axial force (see Fig. 2). This enables a conservative (probably over-conservative) evaluation method to be obtained.

Fig. 2. Illustration of full-scale bending stiffness resistance (BSR) test arrangements.

524 Jorma Kinnunen / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528

Two stiffness tests on column type A, H16-BS and H39-BS, were carried out. The stiffness test PV380 on column
type B was also carried out for reference. The axial strain on the top and at the bottom of the bended test specimen
was determined by measuring the differential displacement by horizontal transducers as shown in Fig. 2. Pursuant to
the design principles of ETA-13/0603, 90% of the nominal yield resistance of the connection can be exploited.

Fig. 3. Different stiffness zones of Fig. 4. Application of test results to columns A and B. Relative bending stiffness of subzones
cantilever column. (%).

The relative stiffness of the subzones of the column are given in Fig. 4 according to the Research Report [8].
When analyzing the test results, the relative stiffness of precast column A and cast-in-situ column B in Zone 1 are
naturally equal (100%). In Zone 2, and especially in its lowest subzone, the relative stiffness of precast column A is
significantly higher (229% and 211%) than that of the cast-in-situ column B (102% and 76%). The relative stiffness
of the cast-in-place column B and its zone 3 is lower than zone 2, which means that factor M < 1.0 (see Fig. 3 too).
The relative stiffness of the column shoe connection in zone 3 is lower than in upper zone 2. Although the relative
stiffness of zone 3 of the precast column A is lower than that of the cast-in-situ column B, the difference is minor.
When compared with column B, the stiffer zone 2 of column A will compensate for the weaker stiffness in zone 3.
The calculated deflections at the top of the columns, based on the measured test data, were 380.7mm and 450.2mm
for HPKM 39 and PV380, and 125.7mm and 129.7mm for HPKM 16 and PV235, respectively. In both cases column
A with column shoes is stiffer than column B. The tests confirmed that the bolted connection with a grouted joint
between the precast column and base structure behaves in the same way as a corresponding monolithic reinforced
cast-in-place column.

2.3. Shear tests

It is assumed that the maximum shear force is caused by a moving vehicle which collides with a single column
after hardening of the grout in the joint. The beams and floors carried by the column redistribute the reaction forces
and moments at the top of the considered column section effectively. Therefore, the top end of the column can be
regarded as laterally fixed. The flexural rigidity of the top end is between completely rigid and hinged. For ordinary
floor heights and vehicle collisions, the forces at the bottom are only slightly influenced by the bending stiffness at
 Jorma Kinnunen / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528 525

the top. It is assumed that the axial force in the considered case has little or no negative effect on the shear resistance
of column connection and can be ignored in the test arrangements. Due to its temporary nature, the erection stage
(joint not grouted) was not covered by shear tests.

Fig. 5. Illustration of full-scale shear test arrangements.

In each shear test Ve, the highest shear force observed in the test, shall meet the requirement V e ≥1.15·Vt acc. to
CUAP [11], where Vt is the sum of the theoretical shear resistances of two active column shoes calculated according
to EN 1993-1-8, Chapter 6.2.2 [4] using safety factor γM2 = 1.0 and the measured yield strength of the anchor bolt. As
shown in Table 2, the requirement was met in both shear tests [8].

Table 2. Theoretical shear resistance Vt and highest shear force in test Ve.
Test Vt, kN Ve, kN Ve / Vt column size, mm x mm
H16-S 54.8 84.2 1.54 235 x 235
H39-S 376.5 444.2 1.18 380 x 380

2.4. Fire test

Fire test results were needed to evaluate fire resistance of precast column connection. The fire tests aimed to
measure time-dependent temperatures within essential connection components. There were three test columns
standing on the furnace floor. Each test column was made of precast reinforced concrete and comprised two parts
connected by HPKM® Column Shoes and HPM® Anchor Bolts.
Fire tests were made for the smallest (HPKM 16), medium-sized (HPKM 24), and largest (HPKM 39) column shoe
types according to CUAP [14]. The temperature development of intermediate column shoe types HPKM 20 and
HPKM 30 were evaluated from the numerical results using the finite element method (FEM) [13]. Temperature
changes in bigger column sections will be very similar but the heat flow will be slower due to the higher heat
absorption capacity. The test method was in accordance with standard EN 1365-4 [5]. The test was performed without
mechanical loading and the outer edges of the column shoes were exposed to fire without any protective concrete
cover. The fire test was terminated after 130 minutes due to the very high temperature (t > 1000 °C) of the furnace
and specimens.
Both the experimental and FEM results very clearly suggested that the critical temperatures were in the anchor
bolts on both sides of the base plate and not in the anchor bars, base plate, and side plate of the column shoe [13]. For
this reason the measured temperatures of the anchor bolts are used in fire design. The resulting temperatures to be
used in fire design in accordance with the relevant Eurocodes are given in Table 3.

Table 3. Average temperature t [qC] in critical section of anchor bolt [7].

Time [min] HPKM 16 HPKM 20 HPKM 24 HPKM 30 HPKM 39
60 500 500 450 430 390
90 670 610 630 630 570
120 800 780 740 730 700
526 Jorma Kinnunen / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528

3. Resistances and Design of precast column connections according to ETA-13/0603

Manually designing cantilevered slender columns and columns with biaxial bending moments can be complex
according to standard EN 1992. Peikko Group aims to offer easy and quick-use design tools for users. The Peikko
Designer® software and its Column Connection module is based on a column section design concept. The module
covers N-M-interaction curves, shear design, fire design, and design for the erection stage.

3.1. Resistance against axial force and bending moment

It has been verified in the initial type testing that precast columns connections with Peikko HPKM® Column Shoes
and HPM® Anchor Bolts can safely be designed using the design rules developed for continuously reinforced cast-in-
situ columns. The design rules are in accordance with standard EN 1992-1-1 [1] and take into account the behavior of
the completed connection and its components (Fig. 6). The resistance of the grouted section (joint) above the
foundation and below the column shoes is calculated according to EN 1992-1-1 assuming that the section behaves as
a concrete section reinforced with the anchor bolts.

Symbols:
NEd = design value of axial force
MEd = design value of bending moment
h = length of column section
b = width of column section
d' = edge distance of bolts
z = lever arm of bolts
x = length of compression zone
y = effective length of compression zone
l = parameter of compression zone acc. to EN 1992-1-1, Eq. 3.19
εs,i = ultimate strain of bolt steel
εc,i = ultimate strain of grout
NS,id = force of anchor bolts
NC,d= compression force of grout

Fig. 6. Design principle according to EN 1992-1-1.

The axial force-bending moment N-M-interaction curve of the Peikko Column Connection is calculated according
to EN 1992-1-1 as follows:
Stress values in design: Design values of internal forces:
­ f bolt, y f ½
V sd ,1 min®H s ,1 ˜E s ; K d ; bolt,u ¾ o N S ,1d V sd ,1 ˜ 6Abolt,i (1)
¯ J M 2 J bolt ¿
­ f bolt, y f bolt,u ½
V sd ,2 min®H s ,2 ˜E s ; K d ; ¾ o N S ,2d V sd ,2 ˜ 6Abolt,i (2)
¯ J M 2 J bolt ¿
V gr ,cd ,i min^H c ,i ˜E c ; f cd ,EC 2 ` ; H c ,i d 3,5 ‰ o N C ,d V gr ,cd ,i ˜ Ac (3)

Where σsd,i is the stress in the anchor bolt, Es the elastic modulus of the anchor bolt, hd the reduction factor ≤
0.90, (the value is determined in initial type testing), Хbolt,y the yield strength of bolt steel, Хbolt,u the ultimate strength
 Jorma Kinnunen / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528 527

of bolt steel, γM2 the material safety factor for the bolt according to EN 1993-1-1, Chapter 6.1 [3], γbolt the material
safety factor for the bolt according to the relevant European Technical Approval ETA-02/0006 [6], ΣAbolt,i the total
threaded area of bolts in tension or in compression, and σgr,cd,i the design value of compressive stress of grout.

3.2. Shear resistance

The experimentally verified design method is in accordance with EN 1993-1-8 [4]. The design value of the shear
force for a single column shoe on the active side of cross section of column is calculated as follows:

1 V Ed  P ˜ N Ed
V Ed (4)
n

where VEd is the total shear force on the column connection, N Ed the axial force on the column connection (if the
column is subject to a tensile axial force, μ·NEd = 0), n is the number of the individual active column shoes resisting
the shear force and μ is the friction coefficient between base plate and grout ( μ = 0.20 according to EN 1993-1-8,
Chapter 6.2.2 [4]). The shear resistance V Rd of a single column shoe subjected to shear and ‘compression’ must meet
the requirement (Note: only ‘horizontally compressed’ Shoes and Bolts are considered as active to resist shear, see
ETA-13/0603):

1
VEd d VRd (5)

The shear resistance VRd of a single column shoe (see Table 4) is calculated according to EN 1993-1-8, Chapter
6.2.2, as follows:

D b ˜ f bolt,u ˜ Abolt
VRd , where D b 0.44  ( 0.0003MPa 1 ) f bolt, y (6)
JM2

ƒbolt,u is the ultimate strength of anchor bolt steel, Abolt the tensile stress area of the anchor bolt, γM2 the material
safety factor for the bolt according to EN 1993-1-1, Chapter 6.1 and ƒbolt,y the yield strength of bolt steel.

Table 4. Design values of shear resistance VRd of individual HPKM Column Shoe.
HPKM 16 HPKM 20 HPKM 24 HPKM 30 HPKM 39
VRd [kN] 20.0 31.3 45.0 71.6 124.5

The minimum torque value of nuts according to ETA-13/0603 [7] is required when applying the shear resistances
given above.

3.3. Fire resistance and design

Since European Standard EN 1992-1-2 [2] presents only complex and insufficient fire design methods for manually
designing slender cantilever columns, the fire design of column connections is implemented into Peikko Designer ®
Software to enable quick and easy fire design. The fire design of the Peikko Designer® Column Connection Software
is based on measured temperatures of fire tests carried out by and FE analyses. In principal, the fire design is similar
to the design of reinforced concrete column in normal temperature, see Fig. 6. Peikko Designer® calculates the axial
compression force–bending moment (N-M) resistance interaction curves for the given column connection cross
section. The material strengths at each elevated temperature are defined according to EN 1992-1-2.
528 Jorma Kinnunen / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 521 – 528

3.4. Erection stage design

ETA-13/0603 also includes design rules for the erection stage when the joint is not grouted. Anchor bolts are the
critical and decisive connection components in the erection stage.
Design is based on general stress calculation according to the following equation:

1
16 VEd tR 4 N 1Ed t R ­ f bolt, y f bolt,u ½
 d min®K d ; ¾ (7)
Sd b3 Sd b2 ¯ J M 2 J bolt ¿

where V1Ed is the shear load on a bolt, N1Ed the axial load on a bolt (action effect) calculated from the total axial
force NEd and bending moment MEd, db the diameter of nominal stress area in the thread of the anchor bolt, tR the lever
arm of the bolt = (tgrout̢hnut+db/2), hd with a reduction factor ≤ 0.90, the value of which is determined in initial type
testing, Хbolt,y the yield strength of bolt steel, Хbolt,u the ultimate strength of bolt steel, γM2 the material safety factor for
the bolt according to EN 1993-1-1, Chapter 6.1 and γbolt the material safety factor for the bolt according to the relevant
European Technical Approval ETA-02/0006 [6]. The minimum torque value of nuts according to ETA-13/0603, Table
4 is applied.

4. Conclusion

ETA-13/0603 includes pioneering design rules for column shoe connections. The rules are in accordance with
European Standards EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1992-1-2 (Eurocode 2) and take into account the behavior of the completed
connection and its components. The rules for mechanical behavior and fire resistance have been verified by full-scale
tests according to CUAP 03.02/06 [11]. Experimental concrete unit tests have confirmed that the stiffness of Peikko
column connection is at least as rigid as a continuously reinforced cast-in-situ column connection. HPKM® Column
Shoes and column connections fulfill the ETA-13/0603 requirements for mechanical, fire, and corrosion resistance,
stiffness and shear resistance. Peikko has launched design software – Peikko Designer® – to facilitate column
connection design.

5. References

[1] EN 1992-1-1: 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
[2] EN 1992-1-2: 2005. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-2: General rules. Structural fire design.
[3] EN 1993-1-1: 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
[4] EN 1993-1-8: 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-8: Design of joints.
[5] EN 1365-4:1999. Fire resistance tests of loadbearing elements – Part 4: Columns.
[6] ETA-02/0006. European Technical Approval of short HPM L anchor bolts.
[7] ETA-13/0603. European Technical Approval of HPKM ® Column shoe for connecting columns to concrete structures.
[8] VTT-S-05667-13 1). Research report. HPKM column shoes, evaluation of initial testing based on calculations and load tests in normal
temperature, update of VTTS-02221-13.
[9] VTT-S-02672-13 1). Test report. Fire resistance test on column shoes HPKM 16, HPKM 24 and HPKM 39.
[10] VTT-S-02719-13 1). Research report. Measured and calculated temperatures for fire resistance of HPKM ® Column Shoes.
[11] CUAP 03.02/06 1). Annex 3: Design rules and their verification by tests.
[12] CUAP 03.02/06 1). Informative Annex (not a part of CUAP), IA.8.
[13] VTT-S-02721-13 1). Research report. FEM analysis of HPKM® Column Shoes.
[14] CUAP 03.02/06 1). Annex 4: Verification of Fire resistance for Column Shoes without cover.
1)
Not for public release