~'7

'

J. Construct. Steel Res. Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 61-91, 1997

1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
Pn: S0143-974X(97)00001-1
0143-974X/97 $17.00 + 0.00

ELSEVIER

A New Method to Design Extended End Plate

Connections and Semirigid Braced Frames
C. Faella,* V. Piluso & G. Rizzano
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy
(Received 29 April 1996; revised version received 19 November 1996;
accepted 11 December 1996)

ABSTRACT
In this paper, the relations between the parameters representing the
rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections are investigated and,
by a wide number of numerical analyses, their dependence on the geometrical detail of the connection is shown. As a result of these analyses, powerful
design tools are presented. In addition, a design procedure for braced frames
is suggested. The originality of the proposed procedure consists of its ability
to guide the designer up to the complete detailing of beam-to-column connections. Finally, with reference to braced frames, some examples are presented
to show the economical convenience of semirigid joints. 1997 Elsevier
Science Ltd.

1 INTRODUCTION
Steel frames are usually designed by assuming that beam-to-column joints are
either pinned or rigid. In the first case, it is assumed that connections are not
able to develop any flexural resistance and the relative rotation between the
column and the connected beam is completely free. In this case, the building
structure has to be conceived by including a bracing system which has to
withstand the horizontal forces due to either the wind action or the seismic
action. In the second case, it is assumed that connections are flexurally resistant and the relative rotation between the connected members is completely
prevented.
Both these assumptions allow a simple design procedure, but they neglect
*Universit~ degli Studi di Salerno, Facolth di Ingegneria, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile
via Ponte Don Melillo, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy.
61

C. Faella et al.

62

the true rotational behaviour of connections, i.e. joints always possess finite
values of rotational stiffness and flexural resistance. However, the design problem becomes more difficult as soon as the true rotational behaviour of beamto-column joints is accounted for. In fact, with reference to the global elastic
analysis, for any given loading condition, the internal actions that members
and joints have to withstand depend on the joint rotational stiffness. As the
joint flexural resistance is strictly related to its rotational stiffness, the design
problem requires many iterations to achieve a safe and economical design.
In the case of braced frames, the approach commonly used is based on the
beam line concept (Fig. 1). For a given loading condition, the beam line provides the end moment M and the corresponding rotation q~for any joint whose
rotational behaviour is known. In fact, by superimposing the joint momentrotation curve M-q~ on the beam line, the beam end moment il4" is obtained
as the intersection between the two curves. Therefore, the beam resistance
can be immediately checked taking also into account the maximum sagging
moment

((qL2/8)-M~).

As an alternative, it is possible to derive the range of stiffness which the

joint can possess for a given beam and loading condition [Fig. l(b)]. This
requires the introduction of a new beam line providing the sagging moment
corresponding to any given rotation of joints. The intersection between the
beam line corresponding to the hogging moment and that corresponding to

lilllillllll

illlllil'i

~" ~llllllllll~

M*

qL2- M*

",
MAT

"8

K:o
,vmax

M+

q I~/8 I - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a = 1.00

-.-~. . . . . . . ~

.......

l- ...... .t ............
qi2/12

. . . . . .

" B"B~ . . . . . . .

q~,16i.~-------:
2

q I~/24 E I

(p

........ !

," ' l i ~ " ~ ,

q~l~<'rlit,.

~ ~
.................

(K=6)

(a)

it

d
.

or.

0.50
.

'

i%.-...i
q 1~/24 E I

(b)
Fig. 1. The beam line approach.

" - iv -. -. ". . . . . . . . . . .

(p

Extended end plate connection design

63

the sagging moment represents the optimum condition (i.e. the minimum
design bending moment equal to qL2/16 corresponding to a joint nondimensional stiffness K equal to 6, where K is the ratio between the joint rotational
stiffness and the beam flexural stiffness). Two cases can arise. In the first
case, the design resistance M'b.Rd of the selected beam lies in the range
between qL2/16 and qL2/12. Therefore, the intersection (A) between the horizontal line corresponding to M'b.Rd and the beam line corresponding to the
hogging moment provides the maximum rotational stiffness K'~om,x that the
joints have to possess. In addition, the intersection (B) between the same
horizontal line and the beam line corresponding to the sagging moment provides, through the vertical line (BC), the minimum stiffness K'~.~n that the
joints have to possess. In the second case, the design resistance M"b.Rd exceeds
qL2/12. In this case, there is no limitation to the maximum stiffness that the
joints have to possess. The intersection (D) between the horizontal line corresponding to M"b.Rd and the beam line corresponding to the sagging moment
provides, through the vertical line DE, the minimum stiffness /~tq~min that the
joints have to possess.
The main limitation of the beam line approach is represented by the fact
that it does not provide any indication regarding the detailing of the beamto-colunm joints. This means that, as it is difficult to design joints having
predetermined values of rotational stiffness and flexural resistance, the most
important point in designing semirigid frames is practically still to be faced.
A tool to solve this problem has been developed within a strategic programme
'SPRINT' of the European Community [1] which provides the designer with
tables giving the rotational stiffness and the flexural strength of a great number
of joints for different connection typologies.
Despite the great number of considered cases, these tables do not include
all possible combinations of the parameters governing the joint behaviour.
Therefore, they do not represent an exhaustive solution of the design problem.
For this reason, with reference to extended end plate connections a new
design procedure is herein proposed with the aim of guiding the designer up
to the complete detailing of the beam-to-column joints.

2 BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN OF END PLATE CONNECTIONS

2.1 Parametric analysis

The rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections can be predicted
by means of the so-called component method which is applied by Eurocode
3 in its Annex J [2]. This method allows the joint rotational stiffness to be
computed by properly combining the stiffness of the basic components which

64

C. Faella et al.

constitute the joint. With reference to extended end plate connections, the
following components have to be considered: column web in shear, column
web in compression, column flange in bending, end plate in bending, bolts in
tension and column web in tension. In addition, the joint flexural resistance
is computed by considering the weakest component including the possible
limitations deriving from the resistance of the beam web and flange in compression and from the beam web in tension. Annex J gives the relationships
for computing both the stiffness and the strength of each component.
Comparison between some experimental results and the predictions
obtained by the codified method has been carded out by Jaspart et al. [3]
showing a sufficient degree of accuracy. The reliability of the Annex J procedure for predicting the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections has been statistically investigated by the authors [4-6] on the basis of
the comparison with a great number of experimental data collected in the
technical literature [7-12]. In addition, some proposals have been developed
to improve the codified approach leading to a better agreement with the experimental data.
Starting from these results, in order to evidence the main parameters governing the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections, a great number
of joints have been examined by computing their rotational stiffness and flexural strength. The computations have been carded out by means of the modified version of the Annex J approach, according to the authors' proposals
[4-6].
The end plate of the analysed joints is extended at the beam tension flange
side (Fig. 2). At the tension flange level, the fastening action is assured by

a~-~~
t end plate

0.8
.

'-" i~d~)..m~m

T_T

==

~.Sdl l

', :

;L

, Sd-vl

' Illo

. . . . . . . . .

I ',
i

.. j:.~

bep

""

Fig. 2. End plate geometrical configuration.

column
flange

Extended end plate connection design

65

two bolt rows with two bolts for each row. In addition, the examined cases
can be divided into two groups: unstiffened external joints and unstiffened
internal joints.
In this work, only unstiffened joints (i.e. joints without continuity plates)
have been considered. This is justified taking into account that, in the case of
braced frames, the economical convenience of semirigid joints requires the
use of structural details which are not too complicated with respect to nominally pinned joints, such as double web angle connections.
For each group, more than 28,000 joints made of Fe360 steel have been
considered by varying the following parameters:
(1) the column section (all the sections of the standard HEA, HEB and
HEM series);
(2) the beam section (all the sections of the standard IPE series);
(3) the distance m between the bolts and the beam web, which has been
assumed equal to that between the bolts and the beam flange (Fig. 2);
(4) the bolt class (classes 8.8 and 10.9 have been considered);
(5) the endplate thickness.
In order to ensure an adequate rotation capacity and to simplify the design
procedure, the bolts have been designed to withstand the axial forces corresponding to a bending moment equal to 1.20 times the beam plastic moment.
As a consequence, for any given beam the bolt diameter is immediately
derived provided that the bolt class is chosen.
This design assumption leads to a bolt overstrength in the case of partial
strength connections, but it avoids iterative and cumbersome procedures. In
fact, the bolt size could be calibrated on the basis of the joint resistance (which
can be also less than that of the connected beam), but this is not available
before the joint is completely detailed. In addition, such a bolt overstrength
prevents the development of brittle failure modes.
Concerning the distance m between the bolts and the beam web or the beam
flange, the following values have been considered:
m/d = 2; 3; 4; 5

(1)

where d is the bolt diameter.

Even though the value m/d = 5 is quite unusual in practical situations, it
has been considered to cover also the cases characterized by the coupling
of relatively small beam sections with large columns. Therefore, it basically
represents an upper bound for the parametric analysis.
The end plate width b~p has been selected according to the following geometrical relation:

66

C. Faella et al.

(2)
b~
where ap is the throat thickness of the end plate-to-beam weld, twb is the
thickness of the beam web and beo is the beam flange width.
Obviously, only the joints requiring an end plate width less than or equal
to the one of the column flanges have been considered.
Concerning the depth of the end plate, it is necessary to specify the dimension of the part extended at the beam tension flange level (Fig. 2). It is
given by:
hp = 1.5d + m + 0.8ap~j2.

(3)

Finally, regarding the end plate thickness, the following values have been
considered:
t~p = 7.5 mm; 10 mm; 15 mm; 20 mm; 25 mm; 30 mm; 35 mm.

(4)

Concerning the joint components affected by the state of stress of the column (column web in shear, column web in compression and column web in
tension), some assumptions have been made. In particular, as the aim of this
work is to provide a design tool for detailing beam-to-column joints, simplified
values of the coefficients taking into account the above state of stress have
been considered [2]:
the coefficient ~ taking into account the influence of the shear force in
the column has been assumed equal to 1.0 in the case of external joints
and equal to 0 in the case of internal joints, as suggested in Annex J;
the coefficient kwc taking into account the influence of the normal stress
in the web (adjacent to the root radius), due to axial force and bending
moment, has been assumed equal to 0.75, i.e. the most severe design
condition has been considered.
In addition, as the aim of the work is to provide the designer with operative
tools to evaluate quickly the joint resistance rather than the resistance of the
joint-beam system, the limitation to the resistance given by the beam web
and beam flange in compression has not been considered. This allows the
joints to be classified as full strength joints when the design flexural resistance
exceeds that of the connected member or as partial strength joints in the
opposite case.

Extended end plate connection design

67

2.2 Flexural resistance versus rotational stiffness relation

In order to determine the relation between the rotational stiffness and the
flexural resistance of joints, it is useful to adopt the concept of equivalent
beam length which has been introduced by Bjorhovde e t al. [13]. The equivalent beam length L~ represents the value of the beam length which corresponds
to the equality between the joint rotational stiffness and the beam flexural
stiffness. According to this definition:

K, - Le - ,qdb

(5)

where the equivalent beam length has been expressed as ~ times the beam
depth db (where K, is the joint rotational stiffness and Ib is the beam inertia moment).
According to this definition, the parameter ,/can be used to represent the
joint rotational deformability. In fact, by introducing the nondimensional
rotational stiffness K of the joint, which is defined as the ratio between the
joint rotational stiffness and the beam flexural stiffness:

K =K L

(6)

where L is the beam length, the deformability parameter 7/is related to the
nondimensional stiffness by the relationship:
L
- dbK"

(7)

In addition, the joint flexural resistance can be expressed through the nondimensional parameter:
/ ~ / = Mj'Rd

Mb.RO

(8)

which represents' the ratio between the design flexural resistance of the joint
and the one of the connected beam.
Starting from the consideration that the joint flexural resistance has to
increase as the rotational stiffness increases, from the analysis of the available
experimental data the possibility has been shown of deriving a relation
between 19/and 7/of the following type [14]:

68

C. Faella et al.

= Cl ~/- c2

(9)

where Cj and (72 are two constants which car~ be computed by regression
analysis.
The regression analyses of the results of the numerical simulations
described in the previous sections have confirmed the validity of the relationship (9) provided that the influence of the spacing between the bolts and the
beam section is taken into account. In other words, it is possible to obtain a
relationship of the type (9) for each group of joints (according to the classification given in the previous section), for a given value of the parameter m/d,
for each bolt class (8.8 or 10.9) and column shape (HEA, HEB or HEM).
As an example, with reference to unstiffened internal joints with bolt class
8.8 and HEB column, the relationship/~/-~/is presented in Figs 3-6 where
the points represent the data of the numerical analyses.
The coefficients C1 and C2 corresponding to the two groups are given in
Table 1. In the same table, the correlation coefficients r of the regression
analyses are also given. They are always very close to 1 confirming the accuracy of the proposed relationship (9).
The influence of the column shape and of the bolt class is represented in
Figs 7 and 8 for the two extreme values of m/d.
First of all, it can be observed that both the influence of the column shape
and that of the bolt class cannot be neglected.
Concerning the influence of the column shape (Fig. 7), it can be pointed
UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS
m2

M
HEB column
1.5

Fe360
bolt class 8.8

m/d=2

0.5

10

12

11

Fig. 3. ,g/-r~ relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m / d = 2.

14

Extended end plate connection design

69

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

2
HEB column
1.5

"!

......

....

Fe360
:

bolt class 8.8

15

20

0.5

10

25

Fig. 4. /f/-~7 relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 3.

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS
~2
M
HEB column
1.5 - 4
-

Fe360
bolt class 8.8

==30

.
0

.
5

.
10

15

i
20

,
25

h
1-1 30

Fig. 5. /~/-~/relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 4.

out that for a given value of the joint resistance the use of HEM, HEB or HEA
columns leads, respectively, to a progressive increase of the joint rotational
deformability. This is obviously due to the role of the joint components
depending on the column section. This effect slightly reduces as the m/d ratio
increases, because the influence of the end plate in bending becomes more
important.

70

C. Faella et al.

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

~2

M
H E B column
1.5

. . . .

. . . .

.....

Fe360
bolt class 8.8

0.5

,
0

i
10

i
20

30

'1~ 40

Fig. 6. /I-,/-~/relationship for unstiffened internal joints with ndd = 5.

Regarding the influence of the bolt class (Fig. 8), it can be observed that,
for a given value of h5/, the use of the bolt class 8.8 leads to a joint rotational
deformability greater than the one obtained in the case of the 10.9 bolt class.
Even though this result could seem unexpected due to the increase of the bolt
stiffness (the use of the class 8.8 requires an increase of the bolt diameter
with respect to the use of class 10.9), it is immediately justified as soon as it
is considered that, for a given value of the m/d ratio, the increase of the bolt
diameter leads to the increase of the m value. As a consequence, the deformability mainly due to the column flange in bending and to the end plate in
bending increases.
2.3 E n d p l a t e t h i c k n e s s v e r s u s r o t a t i o n a l st if f n ess r e l a t i o n

The failure modes of the examined joints are presented in Table 2 where,
with reference to the equivalent T-stub of the joint components, Mode 1 refers
to the complete yielding of the flanges, Mode 2 to the bolt failure with flange
yielding and Mode 3 to the bolt failure. This table shows that the failure mode
involves mainly the column flange and the end plate in bending. Therefore,
it can be stated that, for any given mid ratio, the most important geometrical
parameters governing the joint behaviour are the column flange thickness and
the end plate thickness. For this reason, in order to account for the fact that
the column flange in bending and the end plate in bending behave as a series
of springs, the following parameter t~q has been introduced:

Extended end plate connection design

71

TABLE 1
Numerical Coefficients o f t h e / ~ / - ~ Relation

Column

Bolt class

told

Unstiffened internal joints (Fe360 steel)

HEA
8.8
2

10.9

HEB

8.8

10.9

2
3
4
5
HEM
8.8
2
3
4
5
10.9
2
3
4
5
Unstiffened external joints (Fe360 steel)
HEA
8.8
2
3
4
5
10.9
2
3
4
5
HEB
8.8
2
3
4
5
10.9
2
3
4
5
HEM
8.8
2
3
4
5
10.9
2
3
4
5

CI

C2

Data number

2.5452
2.1408
1.8265
1.6543
2.7545
2.1913
1.8968
1.7167
1.9230
1.7382
1.5827
1.4773
2.1421
1.7691
1.6080
1.5167
1.1064
1.2725
1.3078
1.2810
1.0622
1.1937
1.2713
1.2874

1.3739
0.9595
0.7499
0.6408
1.5439
1.0908
0.8581
0.7290
1.3865
0.9378
0.7333
0.6240
1.6825
1.0955
0.8482
0.7164
1.1536
0.8262
0.6700
0.5814
1.3795
0.9579
0.7714
0.6688

1239
1260
1029
917
1281
1470
1344
1232
1162
1225
1022
917
1239
1463
1309
1232
1078
1134
1092
938
1008
1295
1323
1253

0.93
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.86
0.95
0.97
0.98
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.91
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.99
0.90
0.95
0.96
0.97

3.2782
2.4446
1.9790
1.7390
3.5779
2.6411
2.1115
1.8371
2.7306
2.0267
1.7347
1.5613
3.6069
2.2169
1.8309
1.6416
1.6554
1.4891
1.4133
1.3408
1.9775
1.5230
1.4317
1.3790

1.3942
0.9894
0.7656
0.6505
1.5134
1.1268
0.8762
0.7393
1.4803
0.9837
0.7593
0.6387
1.7982
1.1569
0.8817
0.7351
1.3388
0.8945
0.7009
0.5989
1.6923
1.0596
0.8188
0.6943

1239
1260
1029
917
1281
1470
1344
1232
1162
1225
1022
917
1239
1463
1309
1232
1078
1134
1092
938
1008
1295
1323
1253

0.93
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.87
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.96
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.98

72

C. Faella

I~1/

et al.

i ~l\

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

.i..i\I,.\.
....................................
Fe360 Steel Bolt class 10.9
I 1~'~\ i
i
~
HEA column
~.~,,,\

::

k~

::

..~,..,,
" ='-"
~ , ~ .......
x"~ :,.......................
~......

0.6

..,,,,.:

::

i ~ <'.~m/d=5
0.4

.....

k',,
i..'~..~,:

............

.............. ~... ?..........................

0.2
0

',
~,...........

.............

HEB column

...................H E M

column

::

::

i ........................

! ........................

i ........................

~ ......................

i..............7~::'~~.~,,.~.,,~.
2

10

15

i.........................i.........................

20

25

30

Fig. 7. Influence of the column shape.

1

lI:

UNSTII~ENED INTERNAL JOINTS ]

Fe360 Steel HEB column
1
.....................i
Bolt elass 10.9
Bolt class 8.8 ![

I~'

0.8

......~

:i,i"',.
m/d=5

0.6

0.4

0.2

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 8. Influence of the bolt class.

t~q tf~ t~

(10)

where tfc and /ep are the thicknesses of the column flange and of the end
plate, respectively.
This parameter has been properly nondimensionalized according to the following relationship:

73

Extended end plate connection design

TABLE 2
Failure modes of the analysed joints
Failure mode

Column web in shear

Column web in compression
Column flange in bending
Column web in tension
End plate in bending
Beam web in tension

/~3 ,4 \ 1/4
['eq t*b/

r=\ lb )

External joints

Internal joints

(%)

(%)

0.01
17.72

0.00
8.10

Mode 1 0.03
Mode 2 5.85
Mode 3 34.46

40.34

0.80
10.99
36.60

0.00
Mode 1 16.80
Mode 2 25.03
Mode 3 0.00

41.90
0.03

48.39
0.00

17.09
26.38
0.00

43.47
0.04

(l 1)

The relation between the joint rotational deformability, expressed by means

of the parameter r/, and the thickness of the connected elements, expressed
by T, can be investigated through the numerical data of the analyses described
in section 2.1.
Starting from the consideration that, obviously, the joint rotational deformability increases as the thickness of the connected elements decreases and
from the observation of the numerical analysis data, the following mathematical structure has been selected for the r/--~- relationship:
,/0.25_

C3

~'-C4

+ C5>-C6

(12)

where the coefficients C3, C4, C5 and C6 can be computed through a nonlinear
regression by means of the least squares method.
As an example, with reference to unstiffened interior joints with HEB column and bolt class 8.8, the relationship r/Jr and the corresponding data are
presented in Figs 9-12, where the double square root of the parameter ~q has
only been used to improve the readability of the figures.
The coefficients Ca, Ca, C5 and C6 corresponding to the two groups are
given in Table 3 where the standard deviation s is also given.
It is interesting to point out the physical meaning of the limitation provided
to the connection deformability parameter r / b y the coefficient C6. In fact, the
influence of the joint components depending on the column section (i.e. the

C. Faella et al.

74

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

3

'4.5

HEB column
Fe360
bolt class 8.8

m/d=2

1.5
.

0.5

: . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-:

" : ~ L v ?- . . . . . . . . . . .

0.2

0.4

0.6

1;

0.8

Fig. 9. ~-~- relationship for unstiffened internal joints with rrgd = 2.

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

T]I/4.S

-.i. . . .

[
~,
2 [ .......... ~kL . . . . .

.......

HEB column

.....

Fe360
bolt class 8.8

0.5
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 10. r/-~" relationship for unstiffened internal joints with ndd = 3.

column web in shear, the column web in compression, the column flange in
bending and the column web in tension) becomes more and more important
as the end plate thickness increases. As a consequence, when the end plate
thickness is sufficiently great so that its deformability is negligible, the joint
deformability becomes almost constant, being a feature of the beam--column
coupling, of the mid ratio and of the bolt class.

75

Extended end plate connection design

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS
3

'45

HEB column
Fe360
bolt class 8.8

m/d=4

1.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

'l:

1.2

Fig. 11. rl-~" relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 4.
UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS
3

'45

..... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"~
.....

HEB column
Fe360

i........

....

b ~ d a s__.58"8

1.5

0.5
0

'

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

I:

1.2

Fig. 12. rt--r relationship for unstiffened intemal joints with m/d = 5.

The influence of the colunm shape on the rt--'r relationship is shown in Fig.
13. It can be observed that, obviously, for a given value of ~- (i.e. for a given
value of the end plate thickness), the use of HEM, HEB or HEA columns,
respectively, leads to a progressive increase of the connection deformability.
Moreover, the influence of the bolt class is pointed out in Fig. 14. For a

C. Faella et al.

76

TABLE 3
Numerical Coefficients o f the r/-~- Regressions

Column

Bolt class

m/d

C3

Unstiffened internal joints (Fe360 steel)

HEA
8.8
2
0.153
3
0.229
4
0.258
5
0.350
10.9
2
0.114
3
0.209
4
0.232
5
0.282
HEB
8.8
2
0.110
3
0.242
4
0.302
5
0.435
10.9
2
0.081
3
0.172
4
0.248
5
0.310
HEM
8.8
2
0.148
3
0.241
4
0.370
5
0.456
10.9
2
0.110
3
0.228
4
0.285
5
0.313
Unstiffened external joints (Fe360 steel)
HEA
8.8
2
0.143
3
0.169
4
0.282
5
0.368
10.9
2
0.116
3
0.206
4
0.228
5
0.277
HEB
8.8
2
0.082
3
0.185
4
0.277
5
0.449
10.9
2
0.060
3
0.146
4
0.204
5
0.296
HEM
8.8
2
0.078
3
0.197
4
0.314
5
0.409
10.9
2
0.052
3
0.154
4
0.239
5
0.318

C4

C5

C6

Data
number

0.004
0.023
0.051
0.043
0.006
0.003
0.033
0.039
0.036
0.018
0.033
0.012
0.035
0.024
0.027
0.029
0.018
0.021
0.003
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.010
0.026

0.720
0.560
0.525
0.374
0.834
0.611
0.585
0.512
0.761
0.511
0.442
0.260
0.850
0.655
0.535
0.459
0.570
0.483
0.336
0.263
0.658
0.470
0.454
0.468

1.162
1.131
1.070
1.032
1.191
1.174
1.142
1.092
1.087
1.071
1.026
0.999
1.128
1.111
1.089
1.054
0.984
0.985
0.983
0.965
1.017
1.040
1.036
1.015

1239
1260
1029
917
1281
1470
1344
1232
1162
1225
1022
917
1239
1463
1309
1232
1078
1134
1092
938
1008
1295
1323
1253

0.034
0.037
0.046
0.056
0.041
0.040
0.045
0.057
0.033
0.039
0.045
0.050
0.032
0.043
0.047
0.056
0.046
0.045
0.046
0.046
0.042
0.051
0.053
0.055

0.004
0.051
0.037
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.032
0.039
0.051
0.042
0.040
0.003
0.047
0.032
0.044
0.031
0.058
0.038
0.022
0.014
0.062
0.032
0.027
0.021

0.839
0.749
0.519
0.373
0.936
0.693
0.645
0.558
0.942
0.691
0.530
0.272
1.034
0.797
0.681
0.526
0.859
0.618
0.460
0.357
0.950
0.708
0.583
0.492

1.200
1.126
1.098
1.053
1.244
1.208
1.159
1.099
1.124
1.094
1.046
1.024
1.182
1.148
1.104
1.070
1.036
1.023
1.003
0.975
1.103
1.076
1.063
1.040

1239
1260
1029
917
1281
1470
1344
1232
1162
1225
1022
917
1239
1463
1309
1232
1078
1134
1092
938
1008
1295
1323
1253

0.039
0.031
0.038
0.049
0.052
0.037
0.037
0.049
0.027
0.027
0.035
0.042
0.032
0.032
0.035
0.046
0.031
0.033
0.037
0.039
0.029
0.037
0.041
0.047

Extended end plate connection design

2

77

4f~-- [
i~ ~
!
[Fe360Steel
1.8 ~-..................... i"~.~-"~.~.~'"i .......'~":= ......... { ~
l
i '~,,~, ~m,o==~
I .............
16 I:1"-~ ~
! [ ....................
.......................

l.'t

1.2

~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " .;~'~,.': ~ . . . . . . . . %~;:

~

...................... !

.....................

i ........................

. . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . .

i .....................

Bolt class l0.9

HEA column
HEBcolumn

HEM column

: ......................

:......................

""-~":~= ~: " ' i ........................ i .......................

7it"

::~ .......... ,~';;~--~--~--~--~---...:~/--~-~-,-.,~--~--~--,

0.8

0.6
0

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ]

i
,
I
,
t
,
I
,
i
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

t
0.5

0.6

Fig. 13. Influence of the column shape.

4/__.__2
1.8

1\

................ ' ~

~'ii',

H'EB column

.........i"'"" ~ , ......... Bolt class 10.9

.........................Li

1.6

i Fe360 Steel

...............i iii ,.....

Bolt class 8.8

- -

..........

1.4
1.2
.................................................................................................... ?.:.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.8
0.6

,
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 14. Influence of the bolt class.

given value of ~- the use of bolt class 8.8 leads to a connection deformability
greater than that obtained using bolt class 10.9. Exception is made for the
plateau of the r/---r relationship.

2.4 Design abaci

The results of the previous sections have pointed out that the behavioural
parameters of extended end plate connections (M, r/), designed according to
the criteria given in section 2.1, are strictly related. In addition, the deform-

78

C. Faella et al.

ability parameter r/is strictly related to the parameter ~- which accounts for
the influence of the thickness of the connected elements.
From the design point of view, it has to be pointed out that, according to
Annex J, nonlinearity arises before the design resistance of beam-to-column
joints is completely developed (Fig. 15).
As, for economy, joints have to be designed to obtain a flexural resistance
Mj.Rd close to the design bending moment Mj.sd, with reference to the ultimate
limit state, elastic structural analyses can be carried out on the basis of the
secant rotational stiffness of the joints, corresponding to Mj.Rd [15].
This assumption leads to safe results when the structural analysis, based on
the secant stiffness corresponding to Mj.R~, provides Mj.sd < Mj.Rd. In the
opposite case, as Mj.sd cannot exceed Mj.RO, a moderate plastic rotation has to
be expected.
With reference to the serviceability conditions, the initial stiffness will be
considered as suggested in the design procedure presented in section 3.
According to Annex J, the secant stiffness corresponding to Mj.Rd is given
by (Fig. 15):
K,sec = 0.335K,.

(13)

The corresponding nondimensional secant rotational stiffness is given by:

gsec

--

K,psocL
- 0.335K.
EIb
-

(14)

M j,Rd

2/3 M j,Rd

/
Kq,
M-

(1.5 M

.~2.7

(p
Fig. 15. Moment-rotation curve according to Annex J.

Extended end plate connection design

79

Obviously, the corresponding secant deformability parameter can be defined

according to the relationship:
L

T~sec -- d b g s e c -

0.33~3~/.j

(15)

As the joint design has to be based on the secant stiffness K~sec, it is clear
that, for design purposes, the previous correlations/(/versus r/and ~/versus
1- have to be rearranged using the secant deformability parameter thee.
The relationships obtained by the regression analyses provide the designer
with an operative tool for detailing beam-to-column connections. In fact, for
each group of joints (unstiffened exterior joints and unstiffened interior joints),
column shape (HEA, HEB or HEM) and bolt class (8.8 or 10.9) it is possible
to provide the design abaci presented, as an example, in Figs 16 and 17, where
reference is made to the joint secant deformability parameter r/see.
In order to perform an elastic global analysis, the knowledge of the joint

1
M
08

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

HEB column

- ~ ~ \ \ i

0,

......... =

" "" ~
0.2

1.o
0.1

..... ] Fe360Steel

.......

......

5 0 ....
i.............
"
i4...........
i............
;..............

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.5

m/d

0.2
0.3

0.4
0.5

0.6

Fig. 16. Design abacus for unstiffened internal joints.

80

C. Faella et al.

UNSTIFFENED EXTERNAL JOINTS

L0
M

HEB column
Fe360 Steel
Bolt class 10.9

0.8
0.6
m/d
0.4

'"

0.2
2

0
0.1
0.2

1.0 1.25
m/d

1$0

175

200

2.25 2.5

................................................................

0.3
0.4

"U

0.5
0.6
Fig. rL Design abacus for unstiffened external joints.

rotational stiffness is required. Its value can be chosen on the basis of different
design requirements such as the limitation of the top sway displacement, the
interstory drift or the beam deflections imposed by service conditions. For a
given beam and a given column, the lower part of the design abaci provides the
end-plate thickness required to assure the desired value of the joint rotational
stiffness, for different values of the m i d ratio. In addition, by means of the
upper part of the abaci the flexural resistance of the joint can be evaluated as
a function of the m i d ratio which, therefore, can be selected on the basis of
the design internal actions obtained from the elastic analysis.
With reference to the plastic analysis, the joint flexural resistance can be
chosen to obtain a desired safety level against the ultimate limit state of the
structure. On the basis of the corresponding value of ~(/, the upper part of the
abaci provides the range of stiffness which is possible to realize by varying
the m i d ratio. This ratio can be selected to fulfil serviceability limit state

Extended end plate connection design

81

requirements. The lower part of the abaci provides the corresponding end
plate thickness.
Finally, the joint geometrical properties to be selected to obtain a given
strength and stiffness, as required by an elasto-plastic analysis, can be evaluated, provided that the /15/-,/ point lies between the two extreme curves
(m/d = 2 and m/d = 5).
However, it must be stressed that any design approach generally requires
an iterative procedure, because the internal actions that the joints have to
withstand depend on the joint properties. A method to overcome this difficulty
will be presented in the next section with reference to semirigid braced frames.

3 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BRACED FRAMES

3.1 Design conditions

Braced frames are usually designed assuming that beams are pin-jointed to
the columns. In other words, the beam-to-column joints are designed to transmit the shear forces only and the beams are designed to withstand a bending
moment equal to qtL2/8, where qt is the total vertical uniform load (including
the partial safety factors, i.e. qt 1.35gk+l.5qk where gk and qk are the characteristic values of the permanent and live load, respectively) acting on the
beams whose span is L.
The use of semirigid joints, such as extended end plate connections, allows
the maximum bending moment and the midspan deflection that the beam has
to sustain to be reduced so that a smaller section can be adopted.
The design procedure of braced frames can be based on a very simple model
represented by a beam partially restrained at its ends. With reference to this
model, five design conditions have to be taken into account. The first two
conditions are the check of beam resistance against the sagging moment and
that against the hogging moment. The other two conditions concern the serviceability limit state requiting the limitation of the beam deflection under
both live loads and total loads. The last design condition is the check of the
resistance of the joints subjected to the hogging moments.
The check of the beam resistance against the sagging moment requires the
fulfilment of the following relationship:
=

qtL 2 Ksec + 6
24 Ksec + 2 ~Mb'Ru

(16)

where Mb.Rdis the design resistance of the beam. By introducing the parameter:

82

C. Faella et al.

Mb.Rd

(17)

ot - qtL2/~

the first design condition can be expressed as:

/~s

6(1 -oO

c->

(18)

The check against the hogging moment is given by:

qtL2 Ksec
12 /(see + 2 -MbRd

(19)

which can be written as:

6a
Kse~<--2_3a.

(20)

It is important to underline that both in eqn (16) and in eqn (19) reference
has been made to the secant stiffness. This is justified taking into account that
an economic design of the joints requires a joint flexural resistance very close
to the design hogging moment.
With reference to the serviceability limit state, according to Eurocode 3,
the maximum beam deflection under live loads has to be less than 1/350 times
the beam span. This requirement can be expressed by the relationship:
5 qkL4
384 EIb

qkL z K
Lz
12 K + 2 8Elb <-f~

(21)

where qk is the characteristic value of the uniform live load and f = L/350 is
the limit deflection under live loads. By means of the notation:
5 fO6EIb
,B1 4
qkL 4

(22)

the following limitation is obtained:

K-- ? - ~ l

(23)

Extended end plate connection design

83

which, with reference to the secant stiffness, gives:

gsec~ 16~1.

(24)

In addition, according to Eurocode 3 [16], the maximum beam deflection

under the total loads has to be less t h a n f = L/250. This design condition leads
to the relationship:

6/3t

Ksec- > -

(25)

1 -/3t

where
5 ft96EIb
/3t - 4

qtL4

(26)

It must be stressed that the use of the initial nondimensional rotational

stiffness K (instead of Kse~) in eqn (21) is due to the reduced value (1.0) of
the partial safety factors for serviceability limit states (i.e in this case
q~ = gk + qk) which leads to a significant reduction of the bending moment
Mj.s~. This justifies the use of the initial rotational stiffness of the joints in
evaluating the beam deflection.
Therefore, according to the first four design conditions, the nondimensional
rotational stiffness of the joint has to be designed so that the secant stiffness
lies in the range gsecmin--gsecmaxdefined by:

f6(1-a)

6/3,. 6/3t l

Ksecmin= max~ 3otZi ; 1-/3,' 1-/3 d

6or

gsecmax -

2Z3a.

(27)

(28)

The last design condition regards the check of resistance of the joints. This
condition defines the minimum strength that the joints have to develop,
through the relationship:
qtL e

K~.

12 Ksec + 2

w~/~ifMb.Rd

(29)

84

C. Faellaet al.

which gives:
115/>--

3a

2~h~c"
l+-L/db

(30)

3.2 Design algorithm

The previous design conditions and the relationships, obtained in section 2,

relating the joint rotational behaviour to its geometrical parameters allow the
development of a design algorithm which provides simultaneously the beam
section and the geometrical parameters of the joint. The design algorithm is
given by the following steps:
(1) Select the beam section, according to the most economical solution, to
withstand a bending moment equal to qtL2/16 which corresponds to a
nondimensional secant stiffness K~,~ of the joint equal to 6.
(2) As, in general, the design resistance of the selected beam section
exceeds qtL2/16, compute the range of stiffness K~i~n-Ks~m~x, given
by eqns (27) and (28), and the corresponding range of the joint
rotational deformability a%eCr~n--9S~Cm~xdefined by:
L
'lC~SeCmin- ttb~Xs'
1""4eCmax
L

T~SeCmax dbgsec min"

(31)

(32)

(3) For the selected m/d ratio compute the r/s*~cvalue and the/17/* value
corresponding to the equality between the required flexural strength
given by eqn (30) and the joint resistance given by eqn (9) (rearranged
as 37'/-r/see taking into account that rhec~3r/); these values represent
the intersection (A) between the continuous curve representing the
flexural resistance which the joint is able to provide (for the selected
m/d ratio) and the dashed curve representing the design value of the
bending moment (for a given a value) (Fig. 18) (this figure refers to
the practical application of the proposed design method, corresponding
to the examples given in the following section).
(4) Control the location of the intersection point. If for each m/d ratio the
intersection point is outside the range T~SeCmin - ~SeCmax the joint cannot
be designed for the selected beam. In such a case, choose the next beam

Extended end plate connection design

UNSTIFFENED

l__O
M
o.s

~_~E

!\

::

0.2

[Bolt

class

10.9

.............. i .............. ::...... i ..... i ...... ~ , " ! .............. ::..............

"t...

.............. i ............ . . ~ - . i . . . - - ~ . . . . . . !

1.0

1.25

1.$0

1.75

2.0O

.....................................

::

.............. i.7.r.r . . . . ..

0.1

~
B column

....... I F e 3 6 0 Steel

i
0.2

JOINTS

""~..

0.4

INTERNAL

85

i
2.25

"
2.5 ~ / ' ~ e c

i
i
1...................... i .............. ~...............
i
"
i

....................................J.......~ ............i............. i..............

::

o.4 ......................................... i..............i.............................

~m/d=2i

o.s

0.6

F i g . 18. D e s i g n

.........................................................i..............i..............
i
'

of beam-to-column

joints for a given beam

and loading

condition.

section from the standard shapes and return to point (2). On the contrary, if for a selected m / d ratio the intersection point lies within the
above range, design b e a m - t o - c o l u m n joints according to the following steps.
(5) For the selected m / d ratio, c o m p u t e the ~- parameter which, according
to eqn (12), is given by:

";- ~.1o.25_C5 + C 4 < C 6

+ Ca.

(33)

(6) C o m p u t e the parameter /eq through eqn (11).

(7) For a given c o l u m n section, c o m p u t e the end plate thickness through
eqn (10) which provides:

C. Faella et al.

86

t~p -

teqtfc
(tf3c_~q)l/3

(34)

Equation (34) can be applied provided that tee > teq. If the above condition
is not satisfied then select the next beam section from the standard shapes and
return to point (2).
It is important to underline that, for a given beam section, the requirement
tee > teq shows that it is not possible to design joints having a fixed rotational
behaviour, i.e. strength and stiffness, with an arbitrary column section. This
is justified by the fact that the joint behaviour is also governed by some
components depending on the column section. Typical cases are those of high
beams which cannot be combined with small columns due to the collapse of
one of the joint components belonging to the column. It is useful to note that
the points (3), (4) and (5) of the design algorithm can be carried out by means
of graphical tools such as that represented in Fig. 19 with reference to unstiffened internal joints.

4 APPLICATIONS
In order to show the practical application of the proposed procedure, the
design of three different braced frames has been developed and a comparison,
from the economical point of view, between the solution with pin-joints (as
an example double web angle connections) and that with semirigid joints is
carried out.
The bay span of the frames is equal to 7.0 m and the interstorey height is
equal to 3.5 m (Fig. 20). All members are in Fe360 steel. The uniform loads
acting on the beams are 28.5 and 19 kN/m for permanent and live loads,
respectively, including the partial safety factors equal to 1.35 and 1.5, respectively.
In the solutions with pinned joints the beams have an IPE450 section, while
the use of semirigid joints allows the beam section to be reduced up to an
IPE360. For each frame, the beam-to-column joints have been designed
according to the method previously described. Reference has been made to
an m/d ratio equal to 2 and to the bolt class 10.9.
The graphical representation of the design procedure is given in Fig. 18
with reference to internal joints. For the given loading condition and the selected beam (IPE360) the parameter a is equal to 0.75 and the required joint
flexural resistance, as a function of the joint rotational deformability, is represented by the dashed curve. The intersection (A) with the continuous curve,
representing for mid = 2 the resistance that joint is able to develop, provides

Extended end plate connection design

UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS

1.0 [

~'" "I

.:~ [

1 ~ "'"" : ",
o.s .':,..........."'.-,..........,~

HEBcolumn
Fe360 Steel

:ii

0.6 1";~"m/d
5
4
3

0.4
0.2

1.0 1.25
0.1 [ l
m/d

0.a

L/db=15

.n._ I'-.\ "-~ N.'x, :~

1.00
:

.0

o,t c,ass 1,,.9

0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90

2
L

0.2

87

1.$0

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.5

24
5

0.4

Fig. 19. Graphical representation of the design procedure.

/f/= 0.52 and r/~25 = 1.624. This solution lies within the range defined by eqns
(31) and (32), being r/SeCm~.= 0 and T~SeCma x -~- 16, therefore it satisfies resistance
and deformability requirements. The value of the parameter ~-defining the end
plate thickness is equal to 0.25. For each column section, the corresponding
minimum value of the required end plate thickness tepr~in' computed through
eqns (11) and (34), is given in Fig. 20 where the adopted design value tep is
also shown. Furthermore, the design results concerning the external joints,
obtained with the same method, are also indicated. In addition, for each
designed joint, this figure provides the values of the nondimensional rotational
stiffness (secant Ksec and initial K) and flexural resistance computed by the
modified version [4-6] of Annex J for the adopted values of the end plate
thickness.
On the basis of the computed joint rotational stiffness, the elastic analysis
of the designed semirigid frames has b e e n carried out and the stability and
resistance of the members has been checked according to Eurocode 3 [16].

C. Faella et al.

88

. 3sot

350

350

<

350
35O
,

700

[~

350

['~

350~._

700

700

700

7~

700

700

700

700

7~

35O
35O
e~
[.z.]

350
350

.<

35o
350
t

350
350
#

7~

700

PINNED

FRAME I
COLUMNS

HE 180 B

profile
HE 180 B

3.61 t

FRAME 2

PINNED

profile

lIE 180 B
HE 220 B

HE 180 B
HE 220 B

~'

TOTAL WEIGHT

STOREYS
I-2-3-4
STOREYS
5-6-7-8

SEMIRIGID
t ep,min t ep
K
/ramI
{ram)
16.0
16
4.61
14.0
15
8.98

A
B
A
B

BEAMS
TOTAL WEIGHT

HE 220 B
HE 320 B
HE lg0B
HE 220 B
IPE 450
43.48 t

1.54

0.37

Ksec

"M"

1.54
3.01

0.37
0.59

K sec

M"

1.91
3.50
1.54
3.01

0.45
0.65
0.37
0.59

IPE 360

19.50 t

PINNED

FRAME 3

4.61

M-

3.02 t (-16.3 %)

IPE 450

BEAMS

16

Ksec

IPE 360

TOTAL WEIGHT

~.
~

16.0

IPE 450

BEAMS

COLUMNS

SEMIRIGID
t~
K
~mm~

.
t ~tm~n~n

15.97 t (-18.10 %)

profile

t ep,min
(mm)
HE 220 B
14.0
HE 320 B
15.3
HE 180 B
16.0
HE 220 B
14.0

SEMIRIGID
t ep
K
(mm)
15
5.71
16
10.46
16
4.61
15
8.98
IPE 360
36.43 t (-16.2 %)

Fig. 20. Structural schemes of the designed frames.

7~

Extended end plate connection design

89

As the distribution of the internal actions is, due to semicontinuity, different

from that exhibited by pinned frames, it is necessary to verify the load carrying
capacity of the columns. In fact, in the semirigid solution, the columns are
also subjected to bending. In addition, in case of multibay frames, the column
axial force can be greater than that arising in the pinned solution. This effect
is partially balanced by the restraining action exerted by the stiffness of beamto-column joints which reduces the effective length of the columns.
Even though one bay frames represent the worst case from the point of
view of the economical convenience of semirigid joints, due to the significant
bending in the colamns, the semirigid solution leads to a reduction of the
structural weight equal to 16.3%. It is useful to note that in this case the
pinned solution is characterized by conservative column sections which have
been selected to have a column flange width not less than that of the connected
beam. In many practical situations the use of semirigid joints in one bay
frames can lead, with respect to the pinned solution, to an economy in structural weight less than 5-10% [17].
On the contrary, in the case of multibay frames, the use of semirigid joints
leads, independently of the design conditions, to a more significant economy.
In fact, with reference to the six bay-four storey frame (Fig. 20), the economy
in structural weight increases up to 18.1%. A slightly reduced economic
advantage is achieved in the case of the six bay-eight storey frame (16.2%)
(Fig. 20).

5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, it has been stressed that the parameters describing the rotational
behaviour of extended end plate connections, i.e. nondimensional strength and
stiffness, are strictly related to each other. In addition, they can be predicted
with a sufficient degree of accuracy on the basis of some important geometrical parameters of the beam-to-column joint, i.e. the m/d ratio, the end plate
thickness and the column flange thickness.
Starting from these results, effective design tools have been provided and
their use in a rational design procedure has been presented for semirigid braced
frames. The originality of the proposed design procedure consists of its ability
to guide the designer up to the complete detailing of beam-to-column joints.
Finally, the design examples presented in this paper have shown the economical convenience of using semirigid joints. In fact, the economy in structural weight allowed by a semirigid solution, with respect to the pinned solution commonly used, can be more than 15%, especially in multibay frames.
Taking into account that, as suggested by some authors [17], the increase in
cost due to the detailing of beam-to-column joints is about 5%, the economy,

90

C. Faella et al.

from the point of view of the overall cost of the structure, can reach 10% and
more. It is useful to stress that the proposed design approach allows the possible solutions of a given design problem to be exhaustively investigated. For
this reason, the proposed approach has led to a more significant economy of
the semirigid solution with respect to that reported by other researchers. This
result is encouraging in order to support a more widespread use of semirigid frames.

REFERENCES
1. SPRINT, European Community Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology, Steel Moment Connections According to Eurocode 3: Simple Design
Aids for Rigid and Semirigid Joints, May, 1995.
2. Eurocode 3, part 1.1: Revised Annex J: Joints in Building Frames.
3. Jaspart, J. P., Steenhuis, M. and Weinand, K., The stiffness model of revised
Annex J of Eurocode 3. Third International Workshop on Connections in Steel
Structures, Trento, May, 1995.
4. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Reliability of Eurocode 3 procedures for
predicting beam-to-column joint behaviour. Third International Conference on
Steel and Alluminium Structures, Istanbul, May, 1995.
5. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Proposals to improve Eurocode 3 approach
for predicting the rotational stiffness of extended end plate connections. Report
No. 70, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, June, 1995.
6. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Some proposals to improve EC3--Annex
J approach for predicting the moment-rotation curve of extended end plate connections. Costruzioni Metalliche, 1996, No. 4, 15-31.
7. Weinand, K., SERICON---databank on joints in building frames. Proceedings of
the 1st COST C1 Workshop, Strasbourg, October.
8. Kishi, N. and Chen, W. F., Database of steel beam-to-column connections. Structural Engineering Report, No. CE-STR-86-26, School of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, 1986.
9. Aggarwal, A. K., Comparative tests on end plate beam-to-column connections.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1994, 30, 151-175.
10. Zoetemeijer, P. and Kolstein, M. H., Bolted beam-column connections with short
end plate. Report 6-75-20 KV-4, University of Technology, Delft, 1975.
11. Zoetemeijer, P. and Munter, H., Extended end plate with disappointing rotation
capacity: test results and analysis. Report 6-75-20 KV-4, University of Technology, Delft, 1983.
12. Simek, I. and Wald, F., Test results of end plate beam-to-column connections.
CTU, G- 1121 Report, Prague, 1991.
13. Bjorhovde, R., Brozzetti, J. and Colson, A., Classification system for beam-toColumn connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1990, 116(11),
3059-3076.
14. Faella, C., Piluso, V. and Rizzano, G., Connection influence on the elastic and
inelastic behaviour of steel frames. International Workshop and Seminar on
Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, STESSA 94, Timisoara, Romania, July, 1994.

Extended end plate connection design

91

15. Jaspart, J. P. and Briquet, C., Sensitivity of steel building frames to joint properties. International Colloquium on Stability of Steel Structures, Budapest, 1995.
16. Commission of the European Communities, Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, 1990.
17. Anderson, D., Colson, A. and Jaspart, J. P., Connections and frame design for
economy. Costruzioni Metalliche, 1995, No. 4, 25-33.