77 views

Uploaded by jihu1170

bolted connections

- Fillet Weld is Too Long
- Seismic Isolation Design Requirements
- Retaining Wall Design example
- CHS-Rounded Hollow Section
- Composite Beams
- excel anchor bolt calculator-1
- Effect of Pedestrian Traffic
- Welds
- Single Pilecap 182
- Mackenzie - Footbridge Pedestrian Vibration Limits
- Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge Facts Revised
- WELDING CHART
- design of footing 091807.xls
- Design and Calculation of Cable Stayed Bridge
- Plate Girder
- IJRET20130213011.pdf
- 3 Restrained Beams - 2012
- Model_QP_SAII.docx
- 6_Jong
- As NZS 1301.431rp-2006 Methods of Test for Pulp and Paper Taber Bending Resistance of Paper and Paperboard

You are on page 1of 31

'

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

62

C. Faella et al.

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

k

" ~ ~llllllllll~

MA T

qi2/12

J

, "

K:o a x ,vm

. . . . . .

M*

qL2- M*

"8

M+

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

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

.......

a = 1.00

l- ...... .t ............

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

" - i -. -. ". . . . . . . . . . . v

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

2 ~ ," ' l i ~ " ~ ,

........ !

i

d

. . . .

or_ .

0.50

.

q~l~<'rlit,.

q I~/24 E I (p

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

(b)

i%.-...i

q 1~/24 E I (p

it

'

(K=6)

(a)

Fig. 1. The beam line approach.

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

Comparison between some experimental results and the predictions obtained by the codified method has been carded out by Jaspart et al.m~m ~. . . ' Illo bep I i I I i T "" column flange Fig.~ . 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]. a great number of joints have been examined by computing their rotational stiffness and flexural strength. .. end plate in bending.8 .Sdl l T_T T '.64 C. column flange in bending. . Faella et al. In addition. column web in compression. Sd-vl .L I '. i i . 2). . . The computations have been carded out by means of the modified version of the Annex J approach. . . the following components have to be considered: column web in shear. End plate geometrical configuration. . . bolts in tension and column web in tension. some proposals have been developed to improve the codified approach leading to a better agreement with the experimental data. . constitute the joint. [3] showing a sufficient degree of accuracy. With reference to extended end plate connections. 2. . == a~-~~ t end plate '-" i~d~). : i .. Starting from these results. . Annex J gives the relationships for computing both the stiffness and the strength of each component. . The end plate of the analysed joints is extended at the beam tension flange side (Fig. according to the authors' proposals [4-6]. In addition. j:. At the tension flange level. the fastening action is assured by 0. 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. in order to evidence the main parameters governing the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections. .

the economical convenience of semirigid joints requires the use of structural details which are not too complicated with respect to nominally pinned joints. HEB and HEM series). (2) the beam section (all the sections of the standard IPE series). it basically represents an upper bound for the parametric analysis. joints without continuity plates) have been considered. The end plate width b~p has been selected according to the following geometrical relation: . In addition. it has been considered to cover also the cases characterized by the coupling of relatively small beam sections with large columns. such a bolt overstrength prevents the development of brittle failure modes. 4. 5 (1) where d is the bolt diameter. This is justified taking into account that. (5) the endplate thickness. 3. Even though the value m/d = 5 is quite unusual in practical situations.Extended end plate connection design 65 two bolt rows with two bolts for each row. only unstiffened joints (i. the bolts have been designed to withstand the axial forces corresponding to a bending moment equal to 1. the following values have been considered: m/d = 2. As a consequence. In fact. In addition.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. For each group. In this work. This design assumption leads to a bolt overstrength in the case of partial strength connections. in the case of braced frames. the examined cases can be divided into two groups: unstiffened external joints and unstiffened internal joints. Concerning the distance m between the bolts and the beam web or the beam flange.9 have been considered). but this is not available before the joint is completely detailed. which has been assumed equal to that between the bolts and the beam flange (Fig. more than 28. for any given beam the bolt diameter is immediately derived provided that the bolt class is chosen. such as double web angle connections. 2).e. the bolt size could be calibrated on the basis of the joint resistance (which can be also less than that of the connected beam). In order to ensure an adequate rotation capacity and to simplify the design procedure. but it avoids iterative and cumbersome procedures. (3) the distance m between the bolts and the beam web. (4) the bolt class (classes 8.20 times the beam plastic moment. Therefore.8 and 10.

e. i. as the aim of this work is to provide a design tool for detailing beam-to-column joints. 20 mm. 25 mm. It is given by: hp = 1. as suggested in Annex J. only the joints requiring an end plate width less than or equal to the one of the column flanges have been considered. 2). Concerning the depth of the end plate. 15 mm.0 in the case of external joints and equal to 0 in the case of internal joints. some assumptions have been made. • the coefficient kwc taking into account the influence of the normal stress in the web (adjacent to the root radius). has been assumed equal to 0.5d + m + 0. (4) Concerning the joint components affected by the state of stress of the column (column web in shear.5 mm. 30 mm. regarding the end plate thickness. Faella et al. twb is the thickness of the beam web and beo is the beam flange width. the most severe design condition has been considered. column web in compression and column web in tension). 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. it is necessary to specify the dimension of the part extended at the beam tension flange level (Fig. 35 mm. 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. (2) b~ where ap is the throat thickness of the end plate-to-beam weld.75. the following values have been considered: t~p = 7. . the limitation to the resistance given by the beam web and beam flange in compression has not been considered. In addition. In particular.66 C. due to axial force and bending moment. (3) Finally. 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 1.8ap~j2. 10 mm. Obviously.

. According to this definition.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. 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. In fact. [13]. 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]: .Extended end plate connection design 67 2./can be used to represent the joint rotational deformability. the deformability parameter 7/is related to the nondimensional stiffness by the relationship: L . is the joint rotational stiffness and Ib is the beam inertia moment). the joint flexural resistance can be expressed through the nondimensional parameter: / ~ / = Mj'Rd Mb.dbK" (7) In addition. According to this definition: K. by introducing the nondimensional rotational stiffness K of the joint.qdb (5) where the equivalent beam length has been expressed as ~ times the beam depth db (where K. .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. the parameter . 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.Le .

9) and column shape (HEA. As an example. Concerning the influence of the column shape (Fig. the correlation coefficients r of the regression analyses are also given.g/-r~ relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m / d = 2. . HEB or HEM). In the same table. They are always very close to 1 confirming the accuracy of the proposed relationship (9). = Cl ~/. 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.68 C. the relationship/~/-~/is presented in Figs 3-6 where the points represent the data of the numerical analyses. with reference to unstiffened internal joints with bolt class 8. for each bolt class (8. 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). In other words.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 11 14 Fig. for a given value of the parameter m/d. The coefficients C1 and C2 corresponding to the two groups are given in Table 1.8 m/d=2 0. 7). it can be observed that both the influence of the column shape and that of the bolt class cannot be neglected. . Faella et al.c2 (9) where Cj and (72 are two constants which car~ be computed by regression analysis.5 Fe360 bolt class 8. 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. it can be pointed UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS m2 M HEB column 1.8 and HEB column. 3.8 or 10. First of all.

5 .Extended end plate connection design UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 2 HEB column 1.4 • q Fe360 bolt class 8.. This effect slightly reduces as the m/d ratio increases. . 15 i 20 . /~/-~/relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 4. ... 4. to a progressive increase of the joint rotational deformability. HEB or HEA columns leads.5 .8 0. This is obviously due to the role of the joint components depending on the column section.5 t "! . respectively. UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ~2 M HEB column 1. /f/-~7 relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 3. 10 . 5.. .. because the influence of the end plate in bending becomes more important.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 q 25 Fig.. out that for a given value of the joint resistance the use of HEM..8 4 ==30 0 0 . : 1 69 Fe360 bolt class 8. 25 h 1-1 30 Fig..

. it can be observed that. . UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ~2 M H E B column 1. As a consequence. Therefore. i .9 bolt class. 6. 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. 8). i 20 ./-~/relationship for unstiffened internal joints with ndd = 5.. Fe360 bolt class 8. the deformability mainly due to the column flange in bending and to the end plate in bending increases. for any given mid ratio.9). '1~ 40 Fig. 2. /I-. 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.. i 30 .5 . Faella et al. i 10 .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. i . for a given value of the m/d ratio. for a given value of h5/. . Mode 1 refers to the complete yielding of the flanges.8 i 1 i 0..5 o 0 . For this reason. .70 C. . Mode 2 to the bolt failure with flange yielding and Mode 3 to the bolt failure. Even though this result could seem unexpected due to the increase of the bolt stiffness (the use of the class 8. the increase of the bolt diameter leads to the increase of the m value. Regarding the influence of the bolt class (Fig. with reference to the equivalent T-stub of the joint components. This table shows that the failure mode involves mainly the column flange and the end plate in bending. the following parameter t~q has been introduced: . .8 requires an increase of the bolt diameter with respect to the use of class 10. it can be stated that. it is immediately justified as soon as it is considered that. the most important geometrical parameters governing the joint behaviour are the column flange thickness and the end plate thickness..

6825 1.1408 1.99 0.98 0.98 0.6923 1.8945 0.7545 2.94 0.7714 0.6688 1.9775 1.6387 1.7593 0.1536 0.99 0.98 0.5779 2.90 0.97 0.7167 1.5134 1.1569 0.2782 2.8309 1.96 0.3865 0.9837 0.6408 1.9 2 3 4 5 Unstiffened external joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.96 0.95 0.0267 1.7164 1.8262 0.98 0.7390 3.5827 1.98 0.97 0.9 2 3 4 5 HEB 8.8817 0.9 2 3 4 5 HEM 8.7982 1.7306 2.6069 2.93 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 1239 1260 1029 917 1281 1470 1344 1232 1162 1225 1022 917 1239 1463 1309 1232 1078 1134 1092 938 1008 1295 1323 1253 0.3408 1.~ Relation Column Bolt class told CI C2 Data number r Unstiffened internal joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.98 0.7691 1.97 0.9894 0.8 2 10.3942 0.5613 3.98 0.9378 0.8762 0.4891 1.6543 2.7009 0.97 0.87 0.2725 1.5989 1.7499 0.6416 1.7290 1.9 HEB 8.Extended end plate connection design 71 TABLE 1 Numerical Coefficients o f t h e / ~ / .4446 1.9579 0.91 0.94 0.1913 1.95 0.6554 1.6240 1.97 0.4803 0.94 0.98 0.6080 1.98 0.3795 0.5439 1.0596 0.4133 1.3739 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.9790 1.7351 1.6411 2.8 2 3 4 5 10.4773 2.8 2 3 4 5 HEM 8.6505 1.8968 1.7656 0.0622 1.4317 1.7393 1.98 .1115 1.6700 0.9595 0.1268 0.97 0.86 0.8 2 3 4 5 10.1421 1.5452 2.7382 1.97 0.96 0.96 0.2874 3.9230 1.5230 1.93 0.9 2 3 4 5 10.8265 1.7347 1.96 0.8 2 3 4 5 10.96 0.8371 2.3388 0.0908 0.5167 1.8482 0.1937 1.2810 1.96 0.99 0.98 0.2713 1.3790 1.8 2 3 4 5 10.5814 1.97 0.98 0.2169 1.98 0.7333 0.98 0.0955 0.97 0.1064 1.8581 0.9 2.96 0.3078 1.8188 0.

......... " ~...8 ! [ 0........................~. HEB column column ......~.........i\I...~..2 0 .~.. 7........... ~........ ...9 I 1~'~\ i i ~ HEA column ~....... 7~::' 2 i....~ UNSTII~ENED INTERNAL JOINTS ] Fe360 Steel HEB column 1 ............. i . 0..........4 0.. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0............: :: k~ :: :: ..............'~.... .............. L ............ ~...4 ..6 :i... " ='-" x ~ :.. i.................... ± UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ........... respectively.8 lI: I~' .....9 Bolt class 8........ ~.......... ......6 0. k'...\ i ~l\ 0.................. m/d=5 i"'...... 8.i Bolt elass 10..... ....... 0 5 10 15 20 25 q 30 Fig................ Influence of the bolt class.......... :: i ... ~ .......: : ~ ! ......~. ~~....... i.... Faella et al..................... 1 1 t~q tf~ t~ + 1 (10) where tfc and /ep are the thicknesses of the column flange and of the end plate.......~m/d=5 '. This parameter has been properly nondimensionalized according to the following relationship: ........ i.i..... ?..\.... Fe360 Steel Bolt class 10.... Influence of the column shape......72 I~1/ C....H E M i ~ <'... :: ~ ...2 0 Fig.... 1 M 0.~..............

4 \ 1/4 ['eq t*b/ • (l 1) The relation between the joint rotational deformability.04 r=\ lb ) /~3 . C5 and C6 corresponding to the two groups are given in Table 3 where the standard deviation s is also given.03 17. can be investigated through the numerical data of the analyses described in section 2. As an example.25_ C3 + C5>-C6 ~'-C4 (12) where the coefficients C3.01 17.03 Mode 3 0.60 0. where the double square root of the parameter ~q has only been used to improve the readability of the figures. the joint rotational deformability increases as the thickness of the connected elements decreases and from the observation of the numerical analysis data.00 8.99 36.e. Starting from the consideration that.09 26.00 41. the influence of the joint components depending on the column section (i. the . The coefficients Ca.47 0.1. the relationship r/Jr and the corresponding data are presented in Figs 9-12.39 0.8.80 10. expressed by means of the parameter r/.00 0. with reference to unstiffened interior joints with HEB column and bolt class 8.72 Mode 1 0.90 0. obviously. the following mathematical structure has been selected for the r/--~.38 0. Ca./0.00 43. and the thickness of the connected elements.00 40.03 Mode 2 5.85 Mode 3 34. It is interesting to point out the physical meaning of the limitation provided to the connection deformability parameter r / b y the coefficient C6.80 Mode 2 25.46 Mode 1 16.relationship: .Extended end plate connection design TABLE 2 Failure modes of the analysed joints Failure mode External joints Internal joints 73 (%) (%) Column web in shear Column web in compression Column flange in bending Column web in tension End plate in bending Beam web in tension 0.34 0. C4. expressed by T.10 48. In fact. C5 and C6 can be computed through a nonlinear regression by means of the least squares method.

. . . . . 9. : i ... .relationship for unstiffened internal joints with rrgd = 2.8 Fig. the joint deformability becomes almost constant. . . . . Faella et al. .5 0 i i i i i 0 0. . r/-~" relationship for unstiffened internal joints with ndd = 3. As a consequence. .2 0. .. 10. . UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 3 '4.8 Fig. .. . . . . . i HEB column Fe360 bolt class 8. . . . column web in shear.2 0. . . 0 { { i i 0 0.74 C. -: " : ~ L v ?.5 .. 1 0.5 1. .. the column flange in bending and the column web in tension) becomes more and more important as the end plate thickness increases. ~ HEB column Fe360 bolt class 8.i.. . .. .. . when the end plate thickness is sufficiently great so that its deformability is negligible. . . .8 m/d=2 . . . . : . . UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS T]I/4..5 . . .4 0. ~kL . . .. . 0. . . . 2 [ . 0... .. ..4 0. of the mid ratio and of the bolt class. . being a feature of the beam--column coupling. . . ~-~. . ..S -. . the column web in compression.6 0. . .. . .. . ...8 [ ~. .6 1.

the influence of the bolt class is pointed out in Fig.2 0....2 0... rl-~" relationship for unstiffened internal joints with m/d = 4.e.(i. respectively. ~ i.2 Fig. .. HEB or HEA columns... ~ . .6 0.8 1 I: 1. . . .. . .. 11. 12.8 1 'l: 1. HEB column Fe360 b ° ~ d a s__. .. .2 Fig. .Extended end plate connection design UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 3 75 ¢'45 1.. Moreover.. The influence of the colunm shape on the rt--'r relationship is shown in Fig. For a . .8 m/d=4 0 0.4 0. ..6 0. UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 3 '45 1... It can be observed that.. obviously..5 0 ' i i i i I { J 0 0. . 14. .58"8 ° 0.4 0. leads to a progressive increase of the connection deformability. for a given value of the end plate thickness).5 . for a given value of ~. . 13. . rt--r relationship for unstiffened intemal joints with m/d = 5.5 HEB column Fe360 bolt class 8. "~ . . the use of HEM.

032 0.046 0.027 0.658 0.470 0.172 4 0.040 1.076 1.038 0.040 1239 1260 1029 917 1281 1470 1344 1232 1162 1225 1022 917 1239 1463 1309 1232 1078 1134 1092 938 1008 1295 1323 1253 1239 1260 1029 917 1281 1470 1344 1232 1162 1225 1022 917 1239 1463 1309 1232 1078 1134 1092 938 1008 1295 1323 1253 0.244 1.071 1.142 1.110 3 0.154 4 0.033 0.046 0.260 0.468 0.834 0.449 10.191 1.530 0.031 0.985 0.051 0.483 0.209 4 0.984 0.143 3 0.003 0.103 1.051 0.618 0.526 0.039 0.936 0.063 1.357 0.018 0.056 0.263 0.511 0.460 0.318 0.797 0.277 HEB 8.374 0.033 0.525 0.691 0.033 0.442 0.078 3 0.036 1.000 0.047 0.053 1.110 3 0.035 0.037 0.092 1.975 1.037 0.051 0.047 .070 1.585 0.035 0.116 3 0.018 0.197 4 0.034 0.8 2 0.054 0.373 0.040 0.492 1.942 0.041 0.302 5 0.070 1.043 0.983 0.026 0.023 0.062 0.032 0.024 0.003 0.681 0.031 0.045 0.003 0.032 1.645 0.004 0.512 0.583 0.720 0.314 5 0.026 0.162 1.031 0.037 0.045 0.032 0.9 2 0.9 2 0.8 2 0.258 5 0.042 0.313 Unstiffened external joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.037 0.041 0.456 10.037 0.9 2 0.296 HEM 8.032 0.285 5 0.128 1. Faella et al.111 1.148 3 0.027 0.8 2 0.228 5 0.035 0.015 1.950 0.839 0.039 0.010 0.459 0.012 0.368 10.058 0.8 2 0.046 0.046 1.310 HEM 8. TABLE 3 Numerical Coefficients o f the r/-~.114 3 0.655 0.228 4 0.182 1.089 1.519 0.043 0.282 5 0.350 10.029 0.036 0.039 0.560 0.032 0.999 1.034 0.014 0.055 0.153 3 0.098 1.708 0.859 0.124 1.174 1.611 0.024 1.029 0.242 4 0.053 0.004 0.570 0.047 0.208 1.535 0.057 0.9 2 0.000 0.9 2 0.022 0.042 0.052 3 0.082 3 0.761 0.046 0.052 0.000 0.020 0.9 2 0.034 0.003 0.558 0.8 2 0.454 0.045 0.050 0.023 1.232 5 0.248 5 0.850 0.044 0.040 0.104 1.038 0.965 1.099 1.200 1.272 1.049 0.027 0.027 0.039 0.8 2 0.241 4 0.159 1.037 0.049 0.021 0.126 1.006 0.017 1.693 0.021 0.277 5 0.131 1.370 5 0.336 0.169 4 0.185 4 0.046 0.229 4 0.76 C.087 1.039 0.060 3 0.204 5 0.239 5 0.033 0.000 0.081 3 0.036 1.282 HEB 8.Regressions Column Bolt class m/d C3 C4 C5 C6 Data number s Unstiffened internal joints (Fe360 steel) HEA 8.051 0.435 10.042 0.409 10.032 0.148 1.056 0.749 0.206 4 0.146 4 0.094 1.

. ...8 r 0. ..... .. t ...~'"i .. .. .3 0.......... . 0........ 1..... ........8 0.... ....".. ...o==~ I ....... . i Fe360 Steel H'EB column Bolt class 8.... 14. .i"'"" ~ .... . ... 16 I:1"-~ ~ ! [ ...... ..8 ~-.....Extended end plate connection design 2 : : : : 77 4f~-.4 Design abaci The results of the previous sections have pointed out that the behavioural parameters of extended end plate connections (M.... t 0........... Li .': ~ ...2 1 1\ ~'ii'..... ~m........ designed according to the criteria given in section 2.~--~--~--.:~/--~-~-..... ...... ... { ~ l i '~.. In addition.. . Influence of the column shape..... ...__2 1.. . . ~........ given value of ~.2 { ..6 0.9 .....6 0 UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ] i ........ ... ?... .. i .. 13............ : ...6 4/__•.~'~.~..~-"~... .... ...... the deform- . . .8 ........ . r/)........[ i~ ~ ! [Fe360Steel 1. .. ..6 .. .........'~":= ...... : ..~--~--~--~--~---... i ..... I ........ .8 1. 0.. . .. ... i 0. .1 0. iii .. ... i ................the use of bolt class 8...-....- .4 0.. .2 0........: ~ ........ ::~ .... 0. ..... ......... ....~'......... .......... ... 0......... ... I . .... ....~. . i ..... ! ..... ' ~ . are strictly related.....1.... .. i"~.9 HEA column HEBcolumn HEM column :.. . Bolt class 10....4 Fig........ ......8 leads to a connection deformability greater than that obtained using bolt class 10.. . Exception is made for the plateau of the r/---r relationship........ . 2. ..... ......... " . ....... ..... ...........5 . ... ...2 0...:.... ~ = i ...8 Fig. .........6 1. l... .9. ... .............. Influence of the bolt class... ... i .. . Bolt class l0.. ........ .... %~. .......'t ...... ...4 1.... ....... ~ 7it" ""-~":~= ~: " ' i .... 0 } ......

ability parameter r/is strictly related to the parameter ~.which accounts for the influence of the thickness of the connected elements. M(1.Rd v (p Fig. based on the secant stiffness corresponding to Mj.7 2/3 M j. joints have to be designed to obtain a flexural resistance Mj.Rd / Kq. With reference to the serviceability conditions.Rd [15].sec = 0. the initial stiffness will be considered as suggested in the design procedure presented in section 3.RO. In the opposite case. elastic structural analyses can be carried out on the basis of the secant rotational stiffness of the joints. (13) The corresponding nondimensional secant rotational stiffness is given by: gsec -- K. 15). This assumption leads to safe results when the structural analysis.sd. 15.5 M . nonlinearity arises before the design resistance of beam-to-column joints is completely developed (Fig. corresponding to Mj. according to Annex J. for economy.0. According to Annex J. provides Mj.psoc L .~2.Rd close to the design bending moment Mj.335K. As..R~.sd cannot exceed Mj.Rd. with reference to the ultimate limit state.Rd is given by (Fig. From the design point of view.335K. the secant stiffness corresponding to Mj. 15): K. Moment-rotation curve according to Annex J.sd < Mj. it has to be pointed out that. .78 C. EIb - (14) M M j. Faella et al. as Mj. a moderate plastic rotation has to be expected.

.." i ... the knowledge of the joint 1° M 08 0....d b g s e c - 0.9) it is possible to provide the design abaci presented.. for each group of joints (unstiffened exterior joints and unstiffened interior joints).6 Fig.. . in Figs 16 and 17.2 0.. where reference is made to the joint secant deformability parameter r/see.... the corresponding secant deformability parameter can be defined according to the relationship: L T~sec -. the previous correlations/(/versus r/and ~/versus 1. i 4 .............. HEB or HEM) and bolt class (8.. In fact... = ... 1. for design purposes.4 0.. it is clear that.. ] Fe360Steel .... " 0..00 2..... .j I (15) As the joint design has to be based on the secant stiffness K~sec... Design abacus for unstiffened internal joints.33~3~/...25 m/d 1..5 0.~ ~ \ \ i . i .75 2. column shape (HEA.. .50 1..1 1... as an example..3 0.2 "" ~ 5 0 ....Extended end plate connection design 79 Obviously.... In order to perform an elastic global analysis.8 or 10. 16.... The relationships obtained by the regression analyses provide the designer with an operative tool for detailing beam-to-column connections.25 2. ..o 0......have to be rearranged using the secant deformability parameter thee..5 5 0..... UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS HEB column 1 ..

.... the upper part of the abaci provides the range of stiffness which is possible to realize by varying the m i d ratio......2 2 '" 5 ~ 4 0 0... 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.. This ratio can be selected to fulfil serviceability limit state ..0 1........ therefore.9 0.80 C..25 m/d 1$0 175 200 2. for different values of the m i d ratio. In addition.4 1..2 0. rL Design abacus for unstiffened external joints.6 m/d 0... With reference to the plastic analysis. rotational stiffness is required..1 0.8 0. the interstory drift or the beam deflections imposed by service conditions... L0 M UNSTIFFENED EXTERNAL JOINTS HEB column Fe360 Steel Bolt class 10..25 2. the lower part of the design abaci provides the end-plate thickness required to assure the desired value of the joint rotational stiffness.. can be selected on the basis of the design internal actions obtained from the elastic analysis....5 ..4 0... the joint flexural resistance can be chosen to obtain a desired safety level against the ultimate limit state of the structure..3 0.. On the basis of the corresponding value of ~(/.... For a given beam and a given column.....5 0.. Faella et al.. 2 i i "U 0..........6 Fig.... Its value can be chosen on the basis of different design requirements such as the limitation of the top sway displacement......

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. such as extended end plate connections. because the internal actions that the joints have to withstand depend on the joint properties. Finally. provided that the /15/-. The other two conditions concern the serviceability limit state requiting the limitation of the beam deflection under both live loads and total loads. The use of semirigid joints. i.35gk+l. five design conditions have to be taken into account.5qk where gk and qk are the characteristic values of the permanent and live load. respectively) acting on the beams whose span is L./ point lies between the two extreme curves (m/d = 2 and m/d = 5). With reference to this model. The last design condition is the check of the resistance of the joints subjected to the hogging moments.Extended end plate connection design 81 requirements. The design procedure of braced frames can be based on a very simple model represented by a beam partially restrained at its ends. as required by an elasto-plastic analysis. By introducing the parameter: . can be evaluated. 3 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BRACED FRAMES 3. 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. 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 qtL2/8.1 Design conditions Braced frames are usually designed assuming that beams are pin-jointed to the columns. where qt is the total vertical uniform load (including the partial safety factors. A method to overcome this difficulty will be presented in the next section with reference to semirigid braced frames. The lower part of the abaci provides the corresponding end plate thickness. However. the joint geometrical properties to be selected to obtain a given strength and stiffness.e.Rdis the design resistance of the beam. it must be stressed that any design approach generally requires an iterative procedure. qt 1. In other words. The first two conditions are the check of beam resistance against the sagging moment and that against the hogging moment.

Rd (17) the first design condition can be expressed as: /~s °c-> 6(1 -oO (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.? . according to Eurocode 3. the maximum beam deflection under live loads has to be less than 1/350 times the beam span. With reference to the serviceability limit state. Faella et al.~ l (23) (22) .qtL2/~ Mb. By means of the notation: 5 fO6EIb .B1 4 qkL 4 the following limitation is obtained: K-.82 C. 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. ot . 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.

(24) In addition.Extended end plate connection design 83 which.¢ w~/~ifMb.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. This design condition leads to the relationship: Ksec. This justifies the use of the initial rotational stiffness of the joints in evaluating the beam deflection. the nondimensional rotational stiffness of the joint has to be designed so that the secant stiffness lies in the range gsecmin--gsecmaxdefined by: Ksecmin= max~ 3otZi .0) of the partial safety factors for serviceability limit states (i. according to the first four design conditions.. Therefore. according to Eurocode 3 [16].> where 6/3t 1 -/3t (25) 5 ft96EIb /3t .Rd 12 Ksec + 2 (29) . gives: gsec~ 16~1. 1-/3. with reference to the secant stiffness. the maximum beam deflection under the total loads has to be less t h a n f = L/250.s~. (28) The last design condition regards the check of resistance of the joints. through the relationship: qtL e K~. 6/3t l (27) gsecmax - 2Z3a.e in this case q~ = gk + qk) which leads to a significant reduction of the bending moment Mj.' 1-/3 d 6or f6(1-a) 6/3. This condition defines the minimum strength that the joints have to develop.

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. (4) Control the location of the intersection point. Faellaet al. The design algorithm is given by the following steps: (1) Select the beam section. corresponding to the examples given in the following section). obtained in section 2. 3a 2~h~c" l+-L/db (30) 3. choose the next beam .~SeCma the joint cannot n x be designed for the selected beam. 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. the design resistance of the selected beam section exceeds qtL2/16. according to the most economical solution.84 which gives: 115/>-1 2 C.~ of the joint equal to 6. 18) (this figure refers to the practical application of the proposed design method. in general. 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'4 1""eCmax L (31) T~SeCmax dbgsec min" (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/). to withstand a bending moment equal to qtL2/16 which corresponds to a nondimensional secant stiffness K~. compute the range of stiffness K~i~n-Ks~m~x.2 Design algorithm The previous design conditions and the relationships. If for each m/d ratio the intersection point is outside the range T~SeCmi . In such a case. (2) As.

.7...s ...25 ! 1.25 ......................~...... i ......... ~ ......... according to eqn (12)..... ! ....Extended end plate connection design UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS 85 l__O M o. i ~ 1...s ~ : ~_~E ~ B column ... ... D e s i g n of beam-to-column joints for a given beam and loading condition...0O ...... .......... . i .................. ~......r . i o......... i ..... ............... if for a selected m / d ratio the intersection point lies within the above range.. 18............4 ..$0 i ! ! i 1...75 ~ 2..... ~ ...........25_C5 + C 4 < C 6 + Ca....... .................... (5) For the selected m / d ratio. section from the standard shapes and return to point (2)... (7) For a given c o l u m n section........................... ::............J... ~m/d=2i I ! i o.. ..... ::.. !\ :: [Bolt class 10..... I F e 3 6 0 Steel ""~...parameter which..i. c o m p u t e the ~... " ! ......0 1.............1 0...... .....4 ........ is given by: ".i... i " i i ~ i i ....... :: i 2.........t o .. ........ i i ' : 0.......... i 0...... i......... i .2 ..5 ~ / ' ~ e c 0.........6 F i g .............2 i i : "t.........~ .........i.. i ...... :: i i i 1.. On the contrary...... ..........c o l u m n joints according to the following steps............. c o m p u t e the end plate thickness through eqn (10) which provides: .. ....... i.. " 2.... ... design b e a m . ........1o... .... (33) (6) C o m p u t e the parameter /eq through eqn (11)...9 0.r.......................~ .......... i . i..

the beam-to-column joints have been designed according to the method previously described. as a function of the joint rotational deformability. 19 with reference to unstiffened internal joints. 4 APPLICATIONS In order to show the practical application of the proposed procedure. It is important to underline that. is represented by the dashed curve. including the partial safety factors equal to 1. 20). respectively.e. 18 with reference to internal joints. All members are in Fe360 steel. It is useful to note that the points (3).5 m (Fig. provides .5 and 19 kN/m for permanent and live loads. The uniform loads acting on the beams are 28. (34) Equation (34) can be applied provided that tee > teq. In the solutions with pinned joints the beams have an IPE450 section. For the given loading condition and the selected beam (IPE360) the parameter a is equal to 0.75 and the required joint flexural resistance.35 and 1. strength and stiffness. from the economical point of view. The intersection (A) with the continuous curve. 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. while the use of semirigid joints allows the beam section to be reduced up to an IPE360. (4) and (5) of the design algorithm can be carried out by means of graphical tools such as that represented in Fig. the requirement tee > teq shows that it is not possible to design joints having a fixed rotational behaviour. This is justified by the fact that the joint behaviour is also governed by some components depending on the column section. the design of three different braced frames has been developed and a comparison.9. If the above condition is not satisfied then select the next beam section from the standard shapes and return to point (2). i. representing for mid = 2 the resistance that joint is able to develop.86 C. For each frame. between the solution with pin-joints (as an example double web angle connections) and that with semirigid joints is carried out. respectively. Reference has been made to an m/d ratio equal to 2 and to the bolt class 10. The graphical representation of the design procedure is given in Fig. for a given beam section. Faella et al.0 m and the interstorey height is equal to 3. t~p - teqtfc (tf3c_~q)l/3 .5. The bay span of the frames is equal to 7. with an arbitrary column section.

. obtained with the same method. 0.5 I 3 2 4 5 Fig.. therefore it satisfies resistance = and deformability requirements. 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. Furthermore. In addition.00 2.Extended end plate connection design 87 1.._ I'-.90 1..a 0.50 0.n. is given in Fig. 0 and T~SeCma x -~. are also indicated.~"m/d 0. 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].4 0...25 2.0 [ UNSTIFFENED INTERNAL JOINTS ~'" "I F 1 ~ "'"" : ". For each column section..:~ [ :ii ..t c.. 20 where the adopted design value tep is also shown. /f/= 0.25. Graphical representation of the design procedure. On the basis of the computed joint rotational stiffness..$0 1.. .25 0.-. This solution lies within the range defined by eqns 25 (31) and (32)...4 ... the corresponding minimum value of the required end plate thickness tepr~in' computed through eqns (11) and (34). o..00 J 1... . the design results concerning the external joints. being r/SeCm~.624.~ "'.1 [ l m/d 0. . The value of the parameter ~-defining the end plate thickness is equal to 0.. for each designed joint.70 0.52 and r/°~ = 1.s .2 L .0 1. :~ HEBcolumn Fe360 Steel o..80 0.60 0.0 • 1.9 L/db=15 : 5 4 3 2 : 0.'x.':.2 0.16.. 19.ass 1..75 2.\ "-~ N.6 1".

98 IPE 360 15.0 HE 320 B 15.50 t profile HE 180 B HE 220 B SEMIRIGID t ep.91 3.] 350 350 .0 profile K sec 1.37 0.min t ep K /ramI {ram) 16. 3sot [~ ['~ .10 %) SEMIRIGID t ep K (mm) 15 5. 700 ~ 350 350~.50 1. .61 Ksec 1.48 t t ep.0 HE 220 B 14. 20. 350 . ~ STOREYS I-2-3-4 STOREYS 5-6-7-8 BEAMS TOTAL WEIGHT A B A B PINNED HE 220 B HE 320 B HE lg0B HE 220 B IPE 450 43. Faella et al.71 16 10.3 HE 180 B 16.46 16 4.45 0.59 Fig.54 M0._ 350 < 350 35O 700 • 700 • 700 • 7~ 7~ ~ 7~ t 35O 35O e~ [.54 3.0 SEMIRIGID t~ K ~mm~ 16 IPE 360 3.< 35o 350 t 350 350 # 7~ 4 700 ~ 700 .0 16 4. Structural schemes of the designed frames. 700 ~ 700 ~ 700 .3 %) 4.61 t BEAMS TOTAL WEIGHT FRAME 2 COLUMNS BEAMS TOTAL WEIGHT ~' PINNED lIE 180 B HE 220 B IPE 450 19.65 0.min (mm) HE 220 B 14.37 HE 180 B IPE 450 3.01 M" 0. t ~tm~n~n 16.37 0.2 %) Ksec 1.97 t (-18.88 C.01 "M" 0.z.59 FRAME 3 ~.02 t (-16.54 3.61 15 8.98 IPE 360 36. FRAME I COLUMNS PINNED profile HE 180 B .43 t (-16.61 14.0 15 8.

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 addition. In fact.e. 20).Extended end plate connection design 89 As the distribution of the internal actions is. A slightly reduced economic advantage is achieved in the case of the six bay-eight storey frame (16. In fact. to an economy in structural weight less than 5-10% [17]. the semirigid solution leads to a reduction of the structural weight equal to 16. in the case of multibay frames. it has been stressed that the parameters describing the rotational behaviour of extended end plate connections. Starting from these results. the columns are also subjected to bending. the use of semirigid joints leads. effective design tools have been provided and their use in a rational design procedure has been presented for semirigid braced frames. especially in multibay frames. it is necessary to verify the load carrying capacity of the columns. i. Taking into account that. 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. they can be predicted with a sufficient degree of accuracy on the basis of some important geometrical parameters of the beam-to-column joint. independently of the design conditions. can be more than 15%. the economy. due to the significant bending in the colamns. the economy in structural weight increases up to 18. In many practical situations the use of semirigid joints in one bay frames can lead. . the column axial force can be greater than that arising in the pinned solution. nondimensional strength and stiffness. 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. i.e. different from that exhibited by pinned frames. 5 CONCLUSIONS In this paper. In fact. in the semirigid solution. the m/d ratio. with reference to the six bay-four storey frame (Fig. in case of multibay frames. with respect to the pinned solution commonly used. On the contrary. In addition. are strictly related to each other. the end plate thickness and the column flange thickness. Finally. to a more significant economy.2%) (Fig. as suggested by some authors [17].1%. with respect to the pinned solution. due to semicontinuity. Even though one bay frames represent the worst case from the point of view of the economical convenience of semirigid joints. the increase in cost due to the detailing of beam-to-column joints is about 5%.3%. the economy in structural weight allowed by a semirigid solution. the design examples presented in this paper have shown the economical convenience of using semirigid joints. 20).

1994. M. Brozzetti. SERICON---databank on joints in building frames. 1995. Connection influence on the elastic and inelastic behaviour of steel frames. Department of Civil Engineering. from the point of view of the overall cost of the structure. CTU. Delft.. Piluso. . June. can reach 10% and more. Purdue University. C. European Community Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology. Some proposals to improve EC3--Annex J approach for predicting the moment-rotation curve of extended end plate connections. Aggarwal. Trento. G. 1990. Faella. SPRINT. part 1. The stiffness model of revised Annex J of Eurocode 3. Piluso.. 4. N. P. It is useful to stress that the proposed design approach allows the possible solutions of a given design problem to be exhaustively investigated. and Wald. Test results of end plate beam-to-column connections. 1983. and Chen. May. Eurocode 3. 15-31. K. STESSA 94. G. Delft. Prague. July. 9. Reliability of Eurocode 3 procedures for predicting beam-to-column joint behaviour. For this reason. Database of steel beam-to-column connections. No. Romania. and Colson.. Steenhuis. 6. University of Salerno. October. Faella. CE-STR-86-26... 1995. Faella. Faella et al. P. 1975. 2. and Rizzano. Bolted beam-column connections with short end plate... Zoetemeijer. Proceedings of the 1st COST C1 Workshop. Report No. 1991.. Jaspart. C. J.. Zoetemeijer. Extended end plate with disappointing rotation capacity: test results and analysis. Faella. 151-175. 3. 10. V. Classification system for beam-toColumn connections. Comparative tests on end plate beam-to-column connections. Piluso. University of Technology. and Rizzano.. May. 1986. 1996. University of Technology. Structural Engineering Report. Third International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures.1121 Report. and Kolstein.. 7. K. and Rizzano. F. 11.. Bjorhovde. 5. Proposals to improve Eurocode 3 approach for predicting the rotational stiffness of extended end plate connections. Journal of Structural Engineering. W. 8. Steel Moment Connections According to Eurocode 3: Simple Design Aids for Rigid and Semirigid Joints. Weinand. G. International Workshop and Seminar on Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas. A. V. H. R.... V. Strasbourg. G. 70.1: Revised Annex J: Joints in Building Frames. G. 1995. Costruzioni Metalliche. I. J. 1995.. Third International Conference on Steel and Alluminium Structures. M.90 C. This result is encouraging in order to support a more widespread use of semirigid frames. Report 6-75-20 KV-4. Piluso. F.. Kishi. 1994. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. P. C. 14. C. and Munter. No. School of Civil Engineering. Timisoara. Report 6-75-20 KV-4. 116(11). REFERENCES 1. the proposed approach has led to a more significant economy of the semirigid solution with respect to that reported by other researchers. and Rizzano. H.. 4. Simek. ASCE. and Weinand. 12. A. 3059-3076. K. V. 30. May. 13. Istanbul.

1995. Costruzioni Metalliche. Budapest. D. P. 25-33. 1995. 1990.. A. Colson. No.Extended end plate connection design 91 15. 17. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures.. P.. J. and Jaspart. 16. Commission of the European Communities. Anderson. J. International Colloquium on Stability of Steel Structures. Connections and frame design for economy. Sensitivity of steel building frames to joint properties. . Jaspart. C. and Briquet. 4.

- Fillet Weld is Too LongUploaded bygashung_luke9300
- Seismic Isolation Design RequirementsUploaded byArifsalim
- Retaining Wall Design exampleUploaded bymikeengineering
- CHS-Rounded Hollow SectionUploaded bytamerragaa
- Composite BeamsUploaded byİlker Yılmaz Türker
- excel anchor bolt calculator-1Uploaded byteesk2003
- Effect of Pedestrian TrafficUploaded bySantosh Patil
- WeldsUploaded byabeyivan
- Single Pilecap 182Uploaded bytanksaumil
- Mackenzie - Footbridge Pedestrian Vibration LimitsUploaded byaktc
- Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge Facts RevisedUploaded byfrajam79
- WELDING CHARTUploaded byjmcorsame777
- design of footing 091807.xlsUploaded byAlbert Dimayuga
- Design and Calculation of Cable Stayed BridgeUploaded byMARTIN UBILLUS
- Plate GirderUploaded byEzhil Kumar
- IJRET20130213011.pdfUploaded byAakash Kamthane
- 3 Restrained Beams - 2012Uploaded byMelinda Gordon
- Model_QP_SAII.docxUploaded bybasanth babu
- 6_JongUploaded byRamesh Jangala
- As NZS 1301.431rp-2006 Methods of Test for Pulp and Paper Taber Bending Resistance of Paper and PaperboardUploaded bySAI Global - APAC
- Beam Bending Lab Sheet and Short Report SheetUploaded byAhsen Alam
- Shear Lug DesignUploaded byariya
- SCI P292 SecureUploaded byg1g1ng
- Mechanics Materials LabUploaded byNina Amanina
- Lifting Lug Design Calcs as 4100Uploaded byEde Jaimes
- BasicDiaphragmDesign.pdfUploaded byDaniel Pereira
- asUploaded byapi-279049687
- Tubecolor Design Capacity TablesUploaded byAndrew Sammut
- FileUploaded byKarim Sayed

- Galvanise RenUploaded byjihu1170
- EN 287-1 - 1993 (incl A1-1997) (DIN)(D) - vervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- EN 1011-1 - 1998-A1 - 2002 (NBN)(E) - vervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- Thermisch verzinkenUploaded byjihu1170
- EN 1092-1 - 2001 (DIN 2002 incl. NA)(D) - vervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- EN 1090-1 - 1996 (ENV)(E) - vervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- 173_23 a-grafiek Voor Boutverbindingen in 1 Formule (BmS, Aug 2003) 3sUploaded byjihu1170
- EN 287-1 - 2004 - A2-2006 (NBN)(E) - vervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- En 473 - 1993 (NEN)(Nl) - VervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- EN 1011-1 - 1998-A2 - 2003 (NBN)(E) - vervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- 126_17Uploaded byjihu1170
- bmst69Uploaded byjihu1170
- Artikel_Rekenregels Voor HoeklassenUploaded byjihu1170
- En 1990 - 2002 Na Finland (Sfs en)(en) 7sUploaded byjihu1170
- EN 1011-1 - 1998 (NBN)(E) - vervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- Subject 7. Equipment Sizing and Costing OCW.pdfUploaded byPatrascu Marius Xiron
- A Primer on Buckling Of TanksUploaded byjihu1170
- A Numerical Model for Radiative Heat TransferUploaded byjihu1170
- pneumatic conveyingUploaded byAlonzo Chikoy Buot
- Stress Analysis Pressure VesselsUploaded byflorin
- Excel VBA Good BookUploaded bypinku_malhotra007
- Solucionario Ecuaciones Diferenciales Dennis Zill[7a Edicion]Uploaded bysedepes
- Solucionario Ecuaciones Diferenciales Dennis Zill[7a Edicion]Uploaded bysedepes
- Pneumatic ConveyingUploaded byjihu1170
- steel tank designUploaded byJanasheen Bond
- En 473 - 1993 (DIN)(D) - VervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- En 473 - 1993 (DIN)(D) - VervallenUploaded byjihu1170
- DIN 34 - 1998 (E).pdfUploaded byjihu1170
- DIN 34 - 1998 (E).pdfUploaded byjihu1170

- Zed Purlins Dsample Design Calculations in Xl FormatUploaded bymoneoffice
- 001-FPL_1782ocrUploaded byJimmy Villca Sainz
- Exp 5 - Deflection of Beam and Cantilever [2]Uploaded byMohamadNaqiuddin
- Solidwork 2013 ASSIGNMENTUploaded byGiovanni Adlim Mideh Jr
- Strength of Materials QP BANKUploaded bymechfame
- Branson 1965.pdfUploaded byTatiane Maga
- iem3syllUploaded bysomswamy
- Global Stiffness Analysis of Biw StructureUploaded byesatjournals
- Thesis Guidebook 2007Uploaded byVeasna Seng-Terrence
- att_1319.pdfUploaded byblog22finder
- mechanic structure (lab)Uploaded byAre-jok Mot
- 252300873 Bs5950 Calculation Decking SheetUploaded byKho C Ahl
- Navy Blast Resistant StructuresUploaded byjakejohns
- Machine Design CalcUploaded byCaptain hopi
- Firstranker.com Finite Element MethodsUploaded byVenkata Dinesh
- Mechanical Syl lUploaded byAkash Aku
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded bySandeep Reddy
- Design PhilosophiesUploaded byMoy Erga
- Calculations of Stress and DeflectionUploaded byDiego Vidarte
- BEAM_20031213Uploaded byJohn Alexander
- DVS 2205-5-1987 Calculation of Thermoplastic TanksUploaded byAserty12
- Masonry Building Design ExampleUploaded bygullipalli
- Helical Compression Spring DesignUploaded bykarthegre
- 11Uploaded bymarzacia
- KNS2-SLAB-DSN_01-01-07Uploaded byKanaiyalal N. Sheth
- önemli formulasyonlarUploaded byMelih Emre
- Implementation of Laterally Loaded Piles in Multi-Layer SoilsUploaded byDon Amaru Sarma
- ASM Steel Quotation NewUploaded bySyed Adnan Aqib
- Deflection and Stresses of Tapered BeamUploaded byRanjeet Kumar
- Newman Esdep Wg 6Uploaded byfrancis