Special edition paper Special edition paper

WIDER APPLICATION OF JACK-DOWN

CONSTRUCTION METHOD
Hajime Yoshida*, Masato Yamada**, Atsushi Hayashi*
For construction of artificial ground in over-track space, we have developed a jack-down construction method that enables cost
reduction of approx. 15% from the cost of conventional methods, and suggested a formula to calculate proof strength of socket
joints limited to cylindrical columns to be jointed to beams. But angled steel pipe columns are sometimes used for artificial ground
to secure distance from the end of the platform or secure indoor floor area.
So, we this time clarified the load carrying system of a socket joint by loading tests using test models with angled columns, and
suggested a formula to calculate proof strength for angled columns. We also examined the load carrying system when low-
strength filler is applied inside the socket pipe and the effect of repeated loading with an aim of achieving wider application of the
jack-down construction method.

Keywords: Socket joint, Jacking down, Angled steel pipe column, Load carrying system, Ultimate strength

We assumed that socket joints are used only for cylindrical steel pipe
1 Introduction
columns; so, we created a formula to calculate ultimate strength
In the construction of artificial ground in over-track space, building applicable to such columns only. But angled steel pipe columns are
temporary sheds and frequent recabling shown in Fig. 1 (a) cause sometimes used for artificial ground to secure distance from the end
cost increases. Thus, we developed a jack-down construction of the platform or to secure indoor floor area. Thus, we carried out
method that enables cost reduction and work period shortening by loading tests using test models of column-beam joints of artificial
omitting temporary sheds and reducing recabling for those sheds ground to clarify the load carrying system of socket joints for angled
(Fig. 1 (b)). steel pipe columns; and we studied calculation methods for the ulti-
Specifically, artificial ground is built at the height that does not inter- mate strength of such socket joints.
fere with existing sheds using sockets modularized with column- In order to further clarify the load carrying system of joints, we also
beam joints of an outer diaphragm type shown in Fig. 2. Then, the carried out loading tests using cylindrical columns filled with low-
ground is jacked down to a specified height after removing existing strength concrete and repeated loading tests using columns applied
sheds, and finally it is jointed with columns by filling in the gaps with peeling-preventive filler. An overview of those tests is as fol-
between columns and sockets with mortar or concrete. lows.

Conventional construction Jack-down construction Artificial ground Temporary

installation
Recabling
Existing shed
Building temporary shed Existing shed

Removing existing shed Socket steel pipe

Recabling Removing existing shed
Shear connector

Recabling Artificial ground

Jacking down

Jacking down Final Applicable to angled steel pipe column

installation
Filling with mortar etc.

Omitting temporary shed

Removing temporary shed Reducing number of times of recabling Joint befitting
jack-down construction

(a) Conventional construction (b) Jack-down construction

Fig.1: Image of Conventional Construction and Jack-down Construction

Fig.2: Image of Joint

24 JR EAST Technical Review-No.10 * Frontier Service Development Laboratory, Research and Development Center of JR East Group
** Tokyo Construction Office (Previously at Frontier Service Development Laboratory)
 Special edition paper

Test of Socket Column-Beam Joint Table.1: Specifications of Test Model

2 for Angled Steel Pipe Column Steel pipe column Beam Socket steel pipe Socket Socket wall
Test model diameter D length L thickness t Parameter

2.1 Overview of Test

Angled steel pipe (standard)
2.1.1 Shape of Test Model and Specifications Angled steel pipe
(socket steel pipe diameter)
Fig. 3 and Table 1 show the shape and specifications of the test mod- Angled steel pipe (socket steel pipe diameter)
Angled steel pipe column rotated 45 degrees

els. They also show the shape and specifications of S-4 and S-5 test Cylindrical steel pipe (standard)
filled with low-strength concrete
Cylindrical steel pipe (alternating loading)
models to be explained later and the P-6 test model tested before. with prevention of mortar peeling

Cylindrical steel pipe (standard)

Those are T-shape models of column-beam joints. Concrete-filled (previously tested)

angled steel pipe columns of the models are inserted into socket steel
Table.2: Material Strength
pipes larger than those columns and joined to the pipes by filling the
Yield point Compressive strength
gaps with mortar. H-shape beams are jointed at the outer diaphragm
Test model
outside of the socket steel pipes. We defined S-1 as the standard test Socket
steel pipe
Column
steel pipe
Outer
diaphragm
Beam flange
Beam web
plate
Column
concrete
Mortar filler

model. S-2 and S-3 were the test models with different diameters of
steel pipes. S-3 was also the test model with concrete-filled angled
steel pipe column rotated 45 degrees. (previously tested)

We unified the length of the sides of the angled steel pipes as 1/4 the
circumference of the cylindrical steel pipe to make the bearing area of 2.1.2 Loading Method
the mortar filler constant. Each test model was flare-welded with 6 We selected one-side monotonic loading at the point shown in Fig.
mm diameter round steel bars at 50 mm intervals on the circumfer- 3. Loading was carried out until the test model was broken or up to
ence as well as on the side of the inside of the socket steel pipes and approx. 200 mm, the stroke limit of the jack.
outside of the column steel pipes to gain higher adhesion of the sur- We measured load carrying capacity, displacement of the specified
faces of steel pipes and the mortar filler. points, and strain of the socket steel pipe, column steel pipe, and
In the tests this time, we specified the thickness of the walls of the outer diaphragm.
steel pipe columns and the socket steel pipes to cause destruction of
joints without yield of steel pipe columns. Specifically, we used 2.2 Test Results and Considerations
SS400 only for socket steel pipes (SM490 for some test models) and 2.2.1 Destruction Process and Status
SM490 for other model components. As the filler for steel pipe First, we will explain the destruction of the standard S-1 test model.
columns, we used concrete of design standard strength 27 N/mm ; 2
Cracking occurred on the side of the mortar filler by the corner of
and as the filler for the gaps between columns and socket steel pipes, the angled steel pipe, and it developed as loading was repeated. We
we used premixed mortar of design standard strength around 45 found gaps between the mortar filler and the socket steel pipe and
N/mm2 (18 N/mm2 concrete for S-4 test model). Table 2 shows the between the mortar filler and the steel pipe column. Then the strain
yield points of the steel material used and the strength of concrete at a part of the socket steel pipe increased in a 45-degree angle direc-
and mortar used on the test day. tion to the circumference and reached the yield strain. As the load
increased, the crack further developed and the mortar filler came off.
Both gaps became larger. The black skin of the outer diaphragm

Loading point
H-shape beam peeled off. Shear deformation of the socket steel pipe developed.
(H350 X 350 X 16 X 22)

Outside deformation of the outer diaphragm also developed. Finally,

we suspended the test when the displacement at the loading point
reached 250 mm.

Outer diaphragm
Angled column (250 X 250 X 125)
Cylindrical column (318 X 125)
S-2 and S-3 test models also broke almost the same way as the S-1
test model, while they differed from S-1 in the position and the
direction of the yield strain and damage of each part. Fig. 4 shows
the destruction of S-1 test model and Fig. 5 shows the destruction of
S-3 test model.
Socket steel pipe

Fig.3: Shape of Test Model

JR EAST Technical Review-No.10 25

 Special edition paper

P-6 (previously tested)

Load (kN)
S-1 (angled column: socket steel pipe diameter 406 mm)
S-2 (angled column: socket steel pipe diameter 636 mm)
S-3 (angled column: 45-degree rotated, socket steel pipe diameter 500 mm)
Fig.4: S-1 Test Model Fig.5: S-3 Test Model P-6 (cylindrical column: socket steel pipe diameter 406 mm)
Yield point
2.2.2 Main Strain Distribution of Socket Steel Pipe Ultimate strength

Fig. 6 shows the main strain distribution on the surface of the socket
Displacement (mm)
steel pipes. Fig. 6 (a) shows the main strain distribution of S-1 test
Fig.7: Load-Displacement Relationship
model at the yield load, and Fig. 6 (b) shows the main strain distri-
bution of the same S-1 test model at the ultimate strength. 2.2.3 Load-Displacement Relationship
Fig. 7 shows the load-displacement relationship of S-1, S-2 and S-3
Outer diaphragm test models and P-6 standard test model with cylindrical column
Left Right
Loading direction Loading direction
(column steel pipe diameter 318 t25mm) tested before. The
Tensile strain Tensile strain
Compressive strain Compressive strain marks in the figure indicate ultimate strength. For convenience,
we defined the load at the time when the gradient of the load-dis-
placement relationship tangent dropped to 5% of the initial gradient
as the ultimate strength obtained from the test.
Comparing test models with angled columns shown in Fig. 7, we
Strain measurement point A

found that the ultimate strength of S-2 was larger than that of S-1.
(a) At Yield Load (b) At Ultimate Strength This would be because the outer dimension of the outer diaphragm
of S-2 different from that of S-1 had more effect on the ultimate
Fig.6: Main Strain Distribution of Socket Steel Pipe
strength of the outer diaphragm. We assume that the proof strength
As for the strain distribution of S-1 at the yield load, Fig. 6 (a) shows of the outer diaphragm of S-2 dropped after the ultimate loading and
that the shear stress (or the diagonal tension) to the socket steel pipe that the load decreased more compared with other test models.
was predominant on the side of the right outer diaphragm (around The ultimate strength of S-3 test model with 45-degree rotated
the strain measurement point A). Since this tendency became more angled steel pipe column almost matched the ultimate strength of S-
evident as the load increased, we can assume from the diagram that 1, and there was no deterioration of the ultimate strength affected by
the stress was transmitted to the outer diaphragm via the socket steel column corners. Comparing S-1 and P-7, both standard models in
pipe. Accordingly, we can assume that the socket steel pipe of S-1 Fig. 7, we found that the ultimate loads of them were different, while
test model worked effectively as the resistance material against the the increase of displacement was similar. This would be because the
sectional force of the beam because the adhesion between the surface resistance against shear force of the mortar filler of S-1 was lower
of the socket steel pipe and the mortar filler was strong. than that of P-6 with cylindrical column because of the difference in
We also found that the main strain distribution of the S-2 test model the volume and shape of the mortar filler.
with larger diameter socket steel pipe was almost the same as the dis-
tribution of S-1. As for the S-3 test model with 45-degree rotated 2.3 Calculation of Ultimate Strength of T-Shape Socket
column steel pipe, the strain distribution was similar to the distribu- Joint
tion of S-1 and S-2, while the diagonal tensile force around the cor- 2.3.1 Load Carrying Mechanism for Joints
ner was predominant at the ultimate strength. Therefore, we can When we examined main load carrying mechanism for joints in past
also assume that the socket steel pipe worked effectively as the resist- previous tests with cylindrical steel pipe columns, it was obvious as
ance material against the sectional force of the beam. shown in Fig. 8 that the couple of the bearing force generated
between the column steel pipe and the socket steel pipe and the cou-
ple of the friction force generated between the column steel pipe and
the circle mortar filler resisted the bending moment and the shear
force to the joint. So, we suggested Formula (1) to figure out the
ultimate strength by solving the equilibrium formula of moments.
And considering the different strength shared by the socket steel pipe

26 JR EAST Technical Review-No.10

 Special edition paper

Balance of socket
head of column Balance of socket

Bending moment acting on beam

Bending moment acting on upper side of column
Length of socket steel pipe Bending moment acting on lower side of column
Diameter of column steel pipe Shear force acting on beam
Diameter of socket steel pipe Shear force acting on upper side of column
Beam span from center of joint Shear force acting on lower side of column
Span of upper side of column from center of joint Total bearing force
Span of lower side of column from center of joint Total friction force

Fig.8: Socket Joint Loading Model

and the outer diaphragm according to shape, we compensated the for X in Formula (3) by the compensation factor.
total bearing force P as shown in Formula (2). Table 3 and Fig. 9 show a comparison of the values of the ultimate
The compensation factor derives the correlation among the col- strength of the joints figured out upon the above-mentioned com-
umn steel pipe diameter d, the socket steel pipe diameter D, the pensation and the actual test result values. The table and the figure
socket steel pipe length L, and the socket steel pipe thickness t, and is show that the figured values could estimate the test values in relative-
formulated as Formula (3). Vs, Vc, and Vp represent the resistance ly satisfactory accuracy. Table 3 and Fig. 9 also indicate the figured
against shear force by the socket steel pipe, mortar filler, and outer values and the test values of the cylindrical steel pipe column tested
diaphragm respectively. The component ts of the formula for X rep- before and S-4 test model to be explained later.
resents the wall thickness of the outer diaphragm. Based on those results, we could clarify the stress transmission system
of a socket joint with an angled steel pipe column and expand appli-
(Formula for caculating ultimate strength)
cation of the jack-down construction method.

Table.3: Ultimate Strength Calculated and Actual Test Values

Here
Test value Calculated value
Test model Parameter

Standard
Socket steel pipe diameter
Socket steel pipe length
Socket steel pipe panel thickness
Socket steel pipe diameter
Without fixing plate
Socket steel pipe diameter
Angled steel pipe (standard)
Angled steel pipe (socket steel pipe diameter)
(Resultant of bearing force) Angled steel pipe rotated 45 degrees (socket diameter)
Low-strength concrete
Without outer diaphragm
Outer diaphragm panel thickness
Outer diaphragm height

2.3.2 Calculation of Ultimate Strength of Angled Steel Pipe Cylindrical steel pipe column
Angled steel pipe column
Column Cylindrical steel pipe column (with low-strength filler)
Calculated value (kN)

Our tests using angled steel pipe columns proved that the ultimate
strength is lower than that of cylindrical steel pipe columns (Fig. 7).
Thus, we replaced the inscribed circle of the angled steel pipe column
with a cylindrical steel pipe column, and tried to estimate the ulti-
mate strength from the above-mentioned formula, applying the
diameter of the inscribed circle of the angled steel pipe column as d.
Replaced with an inscribed circle, the socket steel pipe diameter D
Test value (kN)
apparently becomes larger. So, we tried to adjust the bearing force as
shown Formula (4) by multiplying the socket steel pipe diameter D Fig.9: Comparison of Ultimate Strength Calculated and Actual Test Values

JR EAST Technical Review-No.10 27

 Special edition paper
Test Using Low-Strength Filler in concrete filler itself. The figure also indicates evident deterioration of
3 Socket Steel Pipe
the strength after applying more load than the yield load.
3.1 Overview of Test
Next, we carried out monotonic loading tests using a test model (S-4
test model) of a socket steel pipe filled with low-strength concrete
(15.2 N/mm2 strength). We selected a standard test model with a

Load (kN)
cylindrical steel pipe column as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 1. The
strength of material is shown in Table 2. P-6 (standard cylindrical column)
S-4 (standard cylindrical column: with low-strength filler)
Yield point
Ultimate strength
3.2 Test Results and Considerations
3.2.1 Destruction Process and Status
Displacement (mm)
The loading test with the S-4 test model showed a similar process
and status of destruction to those of the other test models, but the Fig.12: Load-Displacement Relationship

concrete filler on the compressed side was completely broken around 3.3 Calculation of Ultimate Strength with Low-Strength Filler
the ultimate strength. Fig. 10 shows the destruction status of the Table 3 and Fig. 9 show comparisons of the calculation values of the
low-strength concrete. ultimate strength of the cylindrical steel pipe and the actual test
result values. Those show that the figured values could estimate the
test values in relative satisfactory accuracy. Based on those results, we
could consider concrete filler of strength around ck = 15 N/mm2
to be useful in the calculation of ultimate strength too.

Strength Test of Test Model

4 Loaded Repeatedly
(a) On compressed side at ultimate strength (b) On tensed side at ultimate strength
4.1 Overview of Test
Fig.10: Destruction Status of Test Model (Low-Strength Filler)
The results of the past repeated loading tests (alternating loading
3.2.2 Main Strain Distribution of Socket Steel Pipe tests) of cylindrical steel pipe columns proved that the ultimate
Fig. 11 shows the main strain distribution on the surface of the sock- strength in alternating loading was about 20% lower than that in
et steel pipe at the yield load and the ultimate strength. The figure monotonic loading. This would be because the resistance against
proved that the S-4 test model had the same strain tendency as that shear force of the mortar filler itself deteriorated due to complete
of other test models. The strain in the circumference direction was crush by repeated loading; so the resistance function of the outer
predominant on some parts of the side of the left outer diaphragm, diaphragm was not so effective as in monotonic loading. Thus, we
but we could consider that partial based on the total tendency. specified for the ultimate strength in designing a value divided by 1.2
of the value obtained by the ultimate strength calculation formula.
Strain
Loading direction
Strain
Loading direction
But we can assume that repeated loading does not deteriorate the
Tensile strain Tensile strain
Compressive strain Compressive strain strength of the mortar filler, when the mortar filler is tied even after
complete crushing. So, we carried out alternating loading tests as
done previously, binding the mortar filler with silicon material (Fig.
13). The specifications of the test model were specified as a standard
cylindrical test model shown in Table 1.

(a) At yield load (b) At ultimate strength

Fig.11: Main Strain Distribution of Socket Steel Pipe (S-4 Test Model)

3.2.3 Load-Displacement Relationship

Fig. 12 shows the load-displacement relationship of the S-4 test
model and the P-6 test model used in previous tests. The compari-
son on the figure confirmed that the ultimate strength dropped by
Silicon material
approx. 20%. This could be because the damage to the concrete
filler caused deterioration of the resistance against shear force of the Fig.13: Shape of Test Model

28 JR EAST Technical Review-No.10

 Special edition paper

4.2 Destruction Process and Load-Displacement

Relationship
Fig. 14 shows the load-displacement relationship of the S-5 test
model. It shows a characteristic reverse S-shape history with low
energy absorption. The load reached the maximum at the fourth
P-6 (monotonic loading)
repeated loading, but we found no peeling of silicon at this time at S-5 (alternating loading)
Yield point
all.
Ultimate strength

(a) With Biding

Load (kN)

P-6 (monotonic loading)

Displacement (mm) S-5 (alternating loading)

Yield point
Fig.14: Load-Displacement Relationship Ultimate strength

4.3 Comparison with Monotonic Loading

Fig. 15 (a) shows the comparison of the envelope curve of the test
model in alternating loading and the load-displacement relationship (b) Without Binding

of the P-6 test model in monotonic loading. Both of the vertical axis Fig.15: Comparison of Monotonic Loading and Alternating Loading
and the horizontal axis are made dimensionless with the yield load
and the yield displacement. The figure shows that the ultimate
strength in monotonic loading and alternating loading are almost Reference:
equal to each other. Fig. 15 (b) shows the same comparison in the 1) Masato Yamada, Atsushi Hayashi, Shin-ichiro Nozawa
"Evaluation of Proof Strengths of T-Shape Steel Pipe Socket
previous tests without binding mortar filler. Comparing Fig. 15 (a)
Column-Beam Joints Filled with Concrete", Theses of Japan
and (b), we clearly found that binding mortar filler prevented the
Society of Civil Engineers, No. 759/1-67, pp. 293 - 308, April
deterioration of the ultimate strength and the deterioration after 2004
loading with the ultimate strength was smaller. Therefore, we 2) Hisako Kobayashi, Tokiharu Furuya, Masataka Kinoshita
defined that the value calculated from the ultimate strength formula "Proof Strength Test of Cross-Shape Socket Column-Beam

may be used without lowering adjustment when filler is bound by Joints", Summary of the 24th Kanto Branch Technical Lecture
Presentation, V.13, pp. 582 - 583, March 1997
slabs etc. as in usual buildings.
3) Shin-ichiro Nozawa, Masataka Kinoshita, Daisuke Tsukishima,
Tadayoshi Ishibashi "Evaluation of Proof Strength of Steel Pipe
5 Conclusion Socket Joints Filled with Concrete", Theses of Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, No. 606/V.41, pp. 31 - 42, November 1998
Based on the results of the loading tests this time, we could confirm 4) Railway Technical Research Institute "Design Standards of
Railway Structures and Commentary: Steel-Concrete
application of angled steel pipe columns to socket joints, the effect
Combined Structure", Maruzen Co., Ltd., July 1998
strength of the filler has on the sockets, and easing of conditions for
5) Shin-ichiro Nozawa, Masataka Kinoshita, Daisuke Tsukishima,
the ultimate strength formula. Accordingly, we could expand appli- Tadayoshi Ishibashi "Evaluation of Proof Strength of Steel Pipe
cation of the jack-down construction method. We obtained struc- Socket Joints Filled with Concrete Using Shear Connector",
ture evaluation of those in March 2006 and formulated the "Socket Theses of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No. 734/V.45, pp.
Joint Design Manual" in July 2006. We are planning to proceed 71 - 89, November 1999

with technical support for application in actual projects.

JR EAST Technical Review-No.10 29