Tan Eng Hooi - Behaviour and Strength Study On Steel Semi Rigid Connection Using Lusas

BEHAVIOUR AND STRENTH STUDY ON STEEL SEMI RIGID
CONNECTION USING LUSAS

TAN ENG HOOI

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/97)
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS

JUDUL : BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTH STUDY ON STEEL SEMI RIGID


SESI PENGAJIAN : 2005/2006

Saya : TAN ENG HOOI

(HURUF BESAR)

mengaku membenarkan tesis ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan
syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut :

1. Hakmilik tesis adalah dibawah nama penulis melainkan penulisan sebagai projek bersama dan
dibiayai oleh UTM, hakmiliknya adalah kepunyaan UTM.
2. Naskah salinan di dalam bentuk kertas atau mikro hanya boleh dibuat dengan kebenaran bertulis
daripada penulis.
3. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan pengajian
mereka.
4. Tesis hanya boleh diterbitkan dengan kebenaran penulis. Bayaran royalti adalah mengikut kadar
yang dipersetujui kelak.
5.*Saya membenarkan/tidak membenarkan Perpustakaan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan
pertukaran di antara institusi pengajian tinggi.
6. **Sila tandakan ( )

SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau
kepentinganMalaysia seperti yang termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA
RASMI 1972)

TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/
badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan)

TIDAK TERHAD

Disahkan oleh

____________________________________ _______________________________
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS) (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)

Alamat Tetap : 403, LORONG KILANG 4, PM DR. SARIFFUDDIN SAAD
KAW PERUSAHAAN TUPAI,
34000 TAIPNG, PERAK.

Tarikh : 30 APRIL 2006 Tarikh : 30 APRIL 2006

CATATAN : * Potong yang tidak berkenaan.
** Jika Tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak
berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali tempoh tesis ini perlu
dikelaskan sebagai SULIT atau TERHAD.

(NAMA)

I hereby declare that I have read this report and in my opinion
this report is sufficient in terms of scope and quality
for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering.

Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor : PM DR. SARIFFUDDIN SAAD
Date : 30 APRIL 2006

BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTH STUDY ON STEEL SEMI RIGID

By
TAN ENG HOOI

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

2006

KAJIAN KELAKUAN DAN KEKUATAN
SAMBUNGAN SEPARUH TEGAR KULULI
DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN LUSAS

Oleh
TAN ENG HOOI

Laporan ini dikemukakan sebagai memenuhi syarat
penganugerahan Ijazah Sarjana Muda Kejuruteraan Awam

Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

2006
ii

I declare that this thesis entitled Behaviour and Strength Study on Steel Semi Rigid
Connection Using LUSAS is the result of my own research except as cited in the
references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently
submitted in candidature of any other degree.

Signature : ....................................................
Name : TAN ENG HOOI
Date : 30 APRIL 2006

iii

Specially dedicated to my family, friends and coursemates.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, PM Dr. Sariffuddin Saad for
his advice and guidance in this research study. Thank you very much for your
support and kindness.

I would also like to thank my academic advisor, PM Ir. Dr. Ramli Nazir for
his kindness and always willing to help me throughout my study life in UTM.

Next, I would also like to acknowledge my coursemates. They are so kind
and always willing to share their experience and knowledge with me.

Last but not least, to my family and my beloved friends for supporting and
encouraging me throughout my study.
v
ABSTRACT

Extended end plate connections are widely used in structural steelworks
because of the ease in fabrication and erection. Although it is easy to use, the
extended end plate connection is complex to be understood and analysed in their
behaviour because it is affected by a lot of parameters of connection component.
Laboratory tests had been carried out to analyse the connection, however they are
expensive and time consuming. With the development of the fields of numerical
analysis and computer technology, modeling by finite element method using
software becomes the alternative to the expensive laboratory test. Three dimensional
model of extended end plate connections has been developed and non-linear analysis
was being carried out using LUSAS, an finite element software is presented in this
study. The result of analysis was then compared with existing experimental data to
determine the accuracy of the analysis prediction. Comparisons between the result
from LUSAS analysis and laboratory tests shows satisfactory agreement. However,
modeling techniques need to be improved in future research to obtain more accurate
results.
vi
ABSTRAK

Sambungan hujung plat memanjang semakin banyak digunakan dalam
struktur keluli disebabkan kesenangan dalam pemasangan dan pembinaan.
Walaupun sambungan ini senang digunakan, pemahaman terhadap kelakuannya
adalah amat kompleks disebabkan terdapat banyak parameter komponen sambungan
yang akan mempengaruhi sifatnya. Di mana yang lalu, ujian makmal telah
dijalankan untuk menganalisis sambungun ini, tetapi ia memerlukan kos yang tinggi
dan masa yang lama. Dengan adanya pembangunan dalam bidang analisis dan
teknologi komputer, kerja-kerja permodelan dengan kaedah unsur terhingga
menggunakan program komputer telah menjadi satu alternatif kepada ujian makmal
yang mahal. Model tiga dimensi bagi sambungan plat hujung memanjang telah
dibina dan analisis tidak lelurus telah dijalankan menggunakan LUSAS. Keputusan
daripada LUSAS akan dibanding dengan data ujikaji makmal sedia ada untuk
mengetahui kejituan analisis. Perbandingan antara keputusan analisis LUSAS dan
ujikaji makmal menunjukkan persamaan yang memuaskan. Walau bagaimanapun,
teknik-teknik permodelan perlu dimajukan dalam penyelidikan masa depan supaya
keputusan yang lebih jitu dapat diperoleh.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES xiv

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Research Objective 2
1.4 Research Scope 3
1.5 Hypothesis 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Finite Element 4
2.1.1 Introduction of Finite Element 4
2.1.2 History of Finite Element 4
2.1.3 Steps of the Finite Element Method 5
2.1.4 Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis 6
2.1.4.1 Geometry Nonlinearity 7
2.1.4.2 Boundary Nonlinearity 8
2.1.4.3 Materially Nonlinearity 8

viii
2.1.5 Advantages & Limitations of Finite
Element 9
2.2 LUSAS 10
2.2.1 Introduction of LUSAS 10
2.2.2 Data Processing 11
2.2.3 LUSAS Analysis Types 12
2.2.3.1 Linear Analysis 12
2.2.3.2 Non-linear Analysis 12
2.2.4 Element Library 13
2.2.5 Materials Library 16
2.2.6 Solution Procedure Library 17
2.2.7 Post-processing 17
2.2.8 Advantages of LUSAS 18
2.3 Connection 19
2.3.1 Types of Connection 19
2.3.2 Benefit of Semi Rigid Connection 20
2.3.3 M- Curve 20
2.3.4 End Plate Connection 22
2.3.5 M- Curve for End Plate Connection 24
2.4 Research Paper Study 26
2.4.1 Finite Element Analysis of Structural
Steelwork Beam to Column Bolted
Connections 25
2.4.2 Finite Element Analysis of Unstiffened
Flush End-Plate Bolted Joints 26
2.4.3 Experimental Behavior of End-Plate
Beam to Column Joints Under Bending
and Axial Force 28
2.4.4 Pemodelan Sambungan Paksi Minor
Dengan Menggunakan Perisian Lusas 28
2.4.5 Performance of Extended End-Plate
Connection Connected to Column Flange 29
2.5 Conclusion of Research Paper Study 30

ix
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 General 31
3.2 Experimental Test 31
3.3 Experimental Procedure 32
3.4 Basic Concept in Using LUSAS 33
3.5 Finite Element Model 34
3.5.1 Generate Structure Model Component 34
3.5.2 Element Types 36
3.5.3 Material Properties 39
3.5.4 Boundary Condition 40
3.5.5 Loading 41

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Prediction of Result 42
4.2 Experimental Result 43
4.2.1 Specimen EEP 1 43
4.3 Non Linear Analysis Results 48
4.3.1 Moment Rotation Curve 48
4.4 Comparison of Results between LUSAS and
Experiment 63
4.4.1 Comparison of Moment Rotation Curve 63
4.4.2 Comparison of Mode of Failure 65

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion 68
5.2 Recommendations 69

REFERENCES 71

APPENDICES 73-88
x
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Element groups in LUSAS 16
3.1 Test specimens with various parameters 32
3.2 Material properties of model 39
4.1 Experimental results of resistance moment and
mode of failure 43
4.2 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP1
(simplified bolt model) 51
(actual bolt model) 57
4.8 Comparison of resistance moment 63

xi
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Examples of geometry nonlinearity behaviour 7
2.2 Example of nonlinear boundary condition 8
2.3 Data processing stages 11
2.4 Comparison between M- curves between rigid,
semi rigid and simple or flexible connection 21
2.5 Comparison of the M- curve between different
types of semi rigid connections 21
2.6 Types of semi rigid connection 22
2.7 Types of end plate connection 23
2.8 Forces in end plate connection 23
2.9 M- curve for different end plate connection 24
2.10 Element used in LUSAS modeling 25
2.11 LUSAS connection modeling 25
2.12 LUSAS extended end plate and bolt enlarge FEA
bolt arrangement 26
2.13 LUSAS modeling 27
2.14 Generation of bolt hole and bar element 27
3.1 Test rig used in the experiment 32
3.2 Plate (simplified model) 35
3.3 Plate (actual model) 35
3.4 Beam (simplified and actual model) 35
3.5 Column (simplified model) 36
3.6 Column (actual model) 36
3.7 Bolt (simplified model) 36
3.8 Bolt (actual model) 36
xii
3.9 (i) HX8M (ii) QTS4 (iii) JNT4 (iv) BRS2 38
3.10 Model after meshing 38
3.11 Meshed bolt (simplified model) 38
3.12 Meshed bolt (actual model) 38
3.13 Contact spring stiffness, k
c
40

3.14 Boundary condition 41
4.1 Predicted failure mode 42
4.2 Experimental moment rotation graph of EEP1 45
4.5 Position of node A where displacement is taken 49
4.6 Actual calculation of rotation 49
4.7 Approximate calculation of rotation 50
4.8 Moment vs rotation graph for EEP1
4.14 Full model of connection 64
4.15 Half model of connection 64
4.16 Mode of failure of connection 66
4.17 Mode of failure at bolt 66

xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS

- Pi
1D - One dimensional
2D - Two dimensional
3D - Three dimensional
H - Horizontal load
V - Vertical load
M - Moment
- Rotation
R
- Resistance rotation
f
y -
Initial yield stress
E - Youngs modulus
V - Poissons ratio
k
c -
Elastic spring stiffness
M
R -
Resistance Moment
x - Distance from column flange to normal line of column
A
x
- Horizontal displacement at point A of beam
B
x
- Horizontal displacement at point B of column
A
y
- Vertical displacement at point A of beam
B
y
- Vertical displacement at point B of column
dx - Horizontal displacement of beam
dy - Vertical displacement of beam
L - Distance of applied loading from column flange
P - Loading applied in full model
F - Loading applied in half model

xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX. TITLE PAGE

A/1 Manual 73

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Steel structures typically consist of many components. The basic components
of a steel structure are tension members, compression members, bending members,
combined force members and connections. The connections provide contact regions
between the first four structural members, so that these members can work together
as a unit.

Connections of steel structural members are important. Inadequate
connection will cause failure of structures due to weak link. Most of steel
structures fail because of poor design and inadequate detailing of connection; failure
due to main structural members is rare.

In the past, expensive laboratory work and testing need to be done to
understand the behaviour of connections in steel structures. Many of researchers
depend mainly on the result from the experiments to derive equations for prediction
and design. Understanding the behaviour of connection is important, so that the
designer will have a clearer view on the topics such as the stability of columns and
frames and also the minimum cost of members and connections. Because of the
development in the fields of numerical analysis and computer technology, modeling
by finite element method using computer software become the alternative to the
expensive laboratory test.
2
The experimental method is costly because there are a lot of parameters
involved in analyzing the behaviour of connections. Different types of test need to
be carried out in order to develop empirical formulae for designing a specific
connection. So, the finite element modeling becomes a more economically method
to analyse the parameters. However, this does not mean the finite element modeling
will replace the laboratory test at all. The experimental test is needed to validate the
result of numerical analysis.

1.2 Problem Statement

Connection of steel beam to steel column using end plate is a common
application in construction nowadays. Conservative method is always being used in
designing this connection. Over design of connection may happened and this will
cause waste of material and increase of cost. Detail design for connection will take
much time which is not practical in construction industry. In case of that, design
using finite element software is preferable. However, it is important to check the
accuracy of the result from software analysis. Thus, proper research should be
carried out in terms to determine the accuracy of the software result.

1.3 Research Objective

The objective of this research is to:-
(a) Determine the moment-rotation curve characteristic of the extended end plate
steel beam to column connection obtained from LUSAS analysis.
(b) Determine the accuracy of the analysis result from LUSAS [1] by comparing
them with the result obtain from full scale laboratory test.

3
1.4 Research Scope

The connection of steel beam to column will be modeled using finite element
software, LUSAS. The research is focused on the extended end plate connection.
The dimensions of the connection will be the same as the dimension used in the full
scale laboratory test. The analysis results were compared with the results obtained
from laboratory test.

1.5 Hypothesis

The results from the analysis of the connection model will show a smooth
moment rotation curve. This moment rotation curve will have the values close to the
result obtained from full scale laboratory test.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Finite Element

2.1.1 Introduction of Finite Element

Finite element method is a numerical method to find out an approximate
solution for variables in a problem which is difficult to obtain analytically. The
calculation of potential design changes such as temperature, fluid velocities and
displacement are usually complicated. A numerical method that is able to solve
these engineering problems is the finite element method.

The concept of the finite element method is solving a continuum by a discrete
model. It is done by dividing the problem into small several elements. Each element
is in simple geometry and this is easier to be analyzed than the actual problem. Each
element is then applied with known physical laws. The equation which is formed by
each element is then combined to form a global equation. The global equation can
be used to solve the field variables such as displacement, temperature and so on.

2.1.2 History of Finite Element

In the ancient time, the mathematicians estimated the value of by assuming
that the circle is a polygon of a finitely large number of sides. By this assumption,
they can predict the accuracy of the value of up to 40 digits. The framework
5
method was introduced by Hrenikoff in 1941 [2]. He assumed that the plan elastic
medium as a set of bars and beams. In 1943, R.Courant introduces the piecewise-
continuous functions [2]. He used a set of triangular elements to study the St Venant
torsion problem. He had been using the Ritz method of numerical analysis and
minimization of variational calculus to obtain approximate solutions to vibration
systems. The formal introduction of finite element was published in paper by
Argyris and Kelsey [3] and Turner, Clough, Martin, and Topp [3]. Clough became
the first person to use the term finite element in 1960 [3]. Since then, the finite
element application has been developed greatly.

In the early 70s, the aeronautics, automotive, defense and nuclear industries
had started using the finite element application. However, this is limited to
expensive mainframe computer. Zeinkiewicz & Cheung [2] are the important person
in developing the finite element technology at that period. Later, Hinton & Crisfield
[2] carried out the finite element into modeling and solution of nonlinear problems.

With the development of the CAE technology, engineering drawing can be
produced. Besides that, the analysis can be carried out and also the finite element
modeling can be done. Nowadays, the finite element has become more and more
important. It is a vital tool that is used to solve various type of engineering
problems.

2.1.3 Steps of the Finite Element Method

There are seven steps involved in solving an engineering problem using the
finite element method:-

Step 1
Formulation of the governing equations and boundary conditions. This is to obtain
the suitable finite element solution algorithm.

6

Step 2
Divide the analysis region into suitable shape of elements. For example, rod element
is chosen for 1D problem, triangular and rectangular for 2D problem, tetrahedron and
rectangular prism for 3D problem.

Step 3
Select the appropriate interpolation functions. Normally a polynomial is chosen as
the interpolation function because it is easy to differentiate and integrate.

Step 4
Determine the element properties such as number of node point, degree of
interpolation function and other variables.

Step 5
Assemble all element properties to form a set of algebraic global equation.

Step 6
Solve the global equation. It is much easier to solve linear global equations than
nonlinear global equation. The Gauss elimination method can be used.

Step 7
Verify the accuracy of the solution. This can be known by increasing the number of
elements nodes and then check whether the solution converges to a certain value.

2.1.4 Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis

In a linear finite element analysis, all materials are assumed to have linear
elastic behaviour and deformations are small enough not to significantly affect the
overall behaviour of the structure. However, this analysis is limited to very few
situations in the real world, but with a few restrictions and assumptions, linear
analysis will be sufficient for the majority of engineering applications. However,
7
nonlinear finite element analysis is required in situations such as gross changes in
structural geometry, permanent deformations, structural cracks, buckling, stresses
greater than the yield stress and contact between component parts. The nonlinear
analysis generally can be divided into three types: geometry nonlinearity, boundary
nonlinearity and material nonlinearity.

2.1.4.1 Geometry Nonlinearity

Geometric nonlinearity occurs when there is significant change in the
structural configuration during loading. Common examples of geometric
nonlinearity are plate structures which develop membrane behaviour, or the
geometric split of truss or shell structures. Figure 2.1 shows two simple structures
which have geometrically nonlinear behaviour. In Figure 2.1(i), the linear solution
would predict the simply supported bending moment and assumes zero axial force in
the simply supported beam. But, in reality as the beam deforms its length increases
and an axial force will be occurred. For the loaded strut in Figure 2.1(ii), the linear
analysis would fail to consider the progressive eccentricity of the vertical load on the
bending moment diagram. These examples show the importance of nonlinear
geometry in structural analysis.

(i) (ii)
Figure 2.1 Examples of geometry nonlinearity behaviour [1]

8
2.1.4.2 Boundary Nonlinearity

In boundary nonlinearity, the modifications to the external restraints resulting
from deformation process such as lift-off, or smooth or frictional contact are taken
into account within an analysis. Figure 2.2 shows the structure and its supporting
surface which can resist being pushed together, but not being pulled apart. The
required contact condition may be imposed to connect between the structure and the
rigid support, and specifying a incorporating large, and zero local stiffness in
compression and tension respectively.

Figure 2.2 Example of nonlinear boundary condition [1]

2.1.4.3 Materially Nonlinearity

Materially nonlinear effects occur from a nonlinear constitutive model which
has disproportionate stresses and strains. Common examples of nonlinear material
behaviour are the plastic yielding of metals, the ductile fracture of granular
composites such as concrete or time-dependent behaviour such as creep.

9
2.1.5 Advantages & Limitations of Finite Element

The advantages of finite element method are:-

(a) It can be used to solve any engineering problem where the governing differential
equation can be written.

(b) It has proven successful in representing various types of complicated material
properties that are difficult to incorporate into other numerical methods. For
example, formulations in solid mechanics have been devised for anisotropic,
nonlinear, hysteretic, time-dependent, or temperature-dependent material behaviour.

(c) It accounts for non-homogeneity by assigning different properties to different
elements. It is even possible to vary the properties within an element according to a
pre-selected polynomial pattern.

(d) Flexible general-purpose computer programme can be constructed based on the
systematic generality of the finite element method. ASKA, STRUDL, SAP,
NASTRAN, and SAFE are the structural analysis packages which include a variety
of element configurations and can be applied to several categories of structural
problems, even in different field with little or no modification.

(e) An engineer may develop a concept of the finite element method at different
levels. The method can be interpreted in physical terms and also in mathematical
terms.

The limitations of the finite element method are:-

(a) It is a complex method. The differential equation may be difficult even for a
simple physical system.

10
(b) A few complex phenomena are not accommodated by the method in current state.
A clear example is transient, unconfined seepage problems. The numerical solution
of propagation or transient problems is not satisfactory in all respects.

(c) The method can produce better results only if the coefficients or material
parameters which describe the basic phenomena are available.

(d) The most important aspects in using finite element method are the basic processes
of subdividing the continuum and generating error free input data for the computer
programme. The error of input data based on the engineers judgment may be
undetected and the error results may also appear acceptable. So, it is important for
the engineer to check the accuracy of the results.

(e) This method is only an approximate numerical method. Assumptions should be
employed with care in the formulation. The analysis results are only worth with
proper engineering judgment during generation and interpretation.

2.2 LUSAS

2.2.1 Introduction of LUSAS

LUSAS is the second generation of finite element system. LUSAS was
developed in 1970 at London University as a research tool of finite element
technology. Nowadays, LUSAS is used to analyse and solves all type of linear and
nonlinear stress, static, dynamics, composite and thermal engineering analysis
problems. This system features powerful free-format data generation procedures, a
state-of-the-art library of finite element types, linear and nonlinear material types,
powerful solution procedures and output with graphics. .

The LUSAS system is a group of modules consist of the free-format data and
data generation system, and the database management system. The database
11
management system controls the communication of all LUSAS processors through a
common database.

2.2.2 Data Processing

The data input for LUSAS has been designed to be compact, easy to
understand and in a free-format data to reduce the error of input system. Besides that,
the free-format input allows the system to be driven by engineering command words
in the data stream. Figure 2.3 shows the data processing stages in LUSAS.

Figure 2.3 Data processing stages [4]

Error data can be found by the error analyst during each of the process. If
there is an error, error message will be showed up and the error node or element will
be pointed out. If there is a fatal data error, a restart point further along the data
stream will be located, and data processing is continued to check for further error.

PROBLEM
RESTART READ
ELEMENT TOPOLOGY
SOLUTION ORDER AUTOMATIC
NODE COORDINATES
GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
CARTESEAN SETS
TRANSFORMED FREEDOMS CONSTRAINT EQUATIONS
SUPPORT NODES
LOAD CASES
ELEMENT OUTPUT CONTROL
NONLINEAR CONTROL
PLOT FILE
RESTART WRITE
END
12
2.2.3 LUSAS Analysis Types

2.2.3.1 Linear Analysis

In linear analysis, it is assumed that the overall structural response is linear,
and implies linearity of both the geometric and material response. This type of
analysis is only suitable for simple structure, for example, the structure without tall
frame and no large rotation.

2.2.3.2 Non-linear Analysis

Non-linear stress analysis is becoming increasingly important with designers
employing a wider variety of materials in different applications. This type of
analysis is useful in analysing the problem of tall and complex structure to ensure
that the additional of structure self weight do not cause a bad effect to the whole
structure.

Material non-linearity is used to analyse the structure which is subjected to
the conditions of elasto-plastic, ductile fracture, cracking, damage and creep
applications. In LUSAS, there are nonlinear material models for metals, plastics,
composites, rubber, foam, soils, rock and concrete. These material models may
account for temperature dependent effects if required. Both isotropic and anisotropic
nonlinear material models are available and material response may be dependent on
the history and direction of straining. The direction of anisotropy is fully user
definable. To ensure a fast and efficient solution, the von Mises and Hill material
models use a consistent formulation in the evaluation of the stiffness matrix which
provides quadratic convergence characteristics. The speed of stress computation has
been optimised by using the latest backward Euler technique. In addition, material,
damage and creep model interfaces are provided, so user-defined material definitions
may be added as required.

13
Geometric nonlinearity needs to be accounted when the structure deforms
from the original geometry and position and direction of the loads significantly affect
the structural behaviour. Many LUSAS elements can accommodate large
deformations and large rotations and the latest co-rotational formulation ensures that
large strains can be accommodated when necessary.

2.2.4 Element Library

The main function of element library included in LUSAS is to help to reduce
users time in analysing process. The element library enables coarse meshes to be
used in modeling and this will save the users time in data preparation and also
interpretation of result. Even with the coarse meshes, LUSAS can provide a good
result.

All elements in LUSAS are included with a shape function. This will reduce
the coding effort and also lead to high performance elements. Besides that, all
elements in LUSAS have to pass several tests before being accepted. These tests
include the patch test for convergence, the patch test for mechanisms, convergence
rate tests and comparisons of results with extensive experimental and theoretical
results.

The LUSAS Element Library contains more than 100 element types. The
elements are classified into groups according to their function. The groups are:
- Bars
- Beams
- 2D Continuum elements
- 3D Continuum elements
- Plates
- Shells
- Membranes
- Joints
14
- Field elements
- Interface elements

Followings are some brief explanation of the element groups:

(a) Bar Elements
Bar elements are used to model plane and space truss structures, and
stiffening reinforcement. There is 2D and 3D bar elements in LUSAS which can
either be straight or curved. Bar elements model axial force only.

(b) Beam Elements
Beam elements are used to model plane and space frame structures. LUSAS
beam elements may be either straight or curved. Beam element can model axial
force, bending and torsion behaviour.

(c) 2D Continuum Elements
2D continuum elements are used to model solid structures that can be
assumed to be 2-dimensional. 2D continuum elements may be applied to plane
stress, plane strain and axis-symmetric solid problems.

(d) 3D Continuum Elements
3D continuum elements are used to model fully 3-dimensional structures.

(e) Plate Elements
Plate elements are used to model flat structures which deformation can be
assumed as flexural. Both thin and thick plate elements are included in LUSAS.
Triangular, quadrilateral and ribbed flexural plate elements are also available.

15
(f) Shell Elements
Shell elements are used to model 3-dimensional structures which behaviour is
depend on both flexural and membrane effects. Both flat and curved shell elements,
either triangular or quadrilateral, thin or thick elements are available in LUSAS.

(g) Membrane Elements
Membrane elements are used to model 2 and 3-dimensional structures which
behaviour is depend on in-plane membrane effects. LUSAS includes both axis-
symmetric and space (3-dimensional) membrane elements.

(h) Joint Elements
Joint elements are used to model joints between LUSAS elements. Joint
elements may also be used to model point masses, elastic-plastic hinges, or smooth
and frictional element contacts.

(i) Field Elements
Field elements are used to model quasi-harmonic equation problems such as
thermal conduction or potential distribution. LUSAS includes bar, plane, axis-
symmetric solid and 3-dimensional solid field elements.

(j) Interface Elements
These elements should be used at places of potential delamination between
2D continuum elements for modeling delamination and crack propagation.

Table 2.1 shows the element groups available in LUSAS.

16
Table 2.1 Element groups in LUSAS [1]

2.2.5 Materials Library

The types of material included in LUSAS are:-
(a) Isotropic
(b) Orthotropic for plates/ shells/ continuum
(c) Anisotropic
(d) Nonlinear friction/gap
17
(e) Isotropic elastic-plastic hardening, with exact positioning on the yield surface
using automatic sub-increment size selection
(f) Concrete with cracking control
(g) Mohr-Coulumn for geomechanics problems
(h) User supplied material, dependant on history, stresses, strains, temperature,
time etc.

2.2.6 Solution Procedure Library

LUSAS is using the Frontal method as the main solution. The Frontal
method is used mainly on the solution of the load deflection equations. This method
has been proven to be the most suitable for nowadays computer.

Others solution procedures that are available in LUSAS are:-
(a) Incremental loading
(b) Newton Raphson iterations
(c) Modified Newton Raphson iterations
(d) Conjugate Newton line research
(e) Total Lagrangian geometric nonlinearities
(f) Updated Lagrangian geometric nonlinearities
(g) Implicit finite difference time integration (Newmark-Beta)
(h) Transient field/heat (Crank-Nicholson)
(i) General linear and nonlinear constraint equations
(j) User supplied solution procedures

2.2.7 Post-processing

The data output and the post processing of LUSAS can be summarized as:-
(a) element results such as stresses and strain
(b) displacements, velocities, acceleration
18
(c) residual force at nodes
(d) Lagrange Multipliers
(e) Reactions
(f) User supplied interface
(g) Graphics output

2.2.8 Advantages of LUSAS

(a) With the element library of LUSAS, all types of engineering materials such as
metal, plastics, foams and rubber can be modeled to solve engineering problem.

(b) The graphical user interface (GUI) makes the modeling and the result processing
become easier.

(c) Rapid design changes can be made to the LUSAS model, automatic meshing is
available for certain types of problem, other than that, problem can be solved to a
user specified accuracy by LUSAS. User will get a better result in less time.

(d) LUSAS can be upgraded to the LUSAS plus easily where the LUSAS plus will
include an extended element set, additional material models, Fast Iterative Solver
Technology and access to advanced analysis capabilities.

(e) Model information can be exchanged with other CAD systems using the format
such as dxf.

(f) LUSAS includes comprehensive nonlinear analysis, impact and contact analysis,
thermal analysis, dynamic analysis and also fatigue analysis.

19
2.3 Connection

2.3.1 Types of Connection

Refer to LRFD-A2.2 and ASD-A2.2 (Allowable Stress Design) [5], the
connections are categorized depending on their resistant to the rotation caused by the
applied load. With this criterion, the connections are divided into three main groups:
fully restraint, partial restraint and simple connection.

(a) Fully Restraint Connection
The example for this fully restraint connection is the rigid connection. There
should be no rotation at all at the joint theoretically when the load is applied. This
situation occurs when full continuity connection is being used between the
intersection members. The angle between the members is maintained when load is
applied. In design, any influence on the moment distribution and the structure
deformation may be neglected.

(b) Partial restraint Connection
The semi rigid connection is the example of the partial restraint connection.
The moment resistant of semi rigid connection is located between rigid connection
and simple connection. This means that the moment resistant of semi rigid
connection is neither zero as simple connection nor full continuity as the rigid
connection. These connections are designed to provide a predictable degree of
interaction between members based on the M- characteristic of the joint.

(c) Simple Connection
It is assumed that the simple connection resists shear and normal force only.
No moment resistant at all for the simple connection and it is free to rotate when load
is applied. In some countries, the structures are design with simply supported basis
and then to provide connections which give semi rigid effect. This may be unsafe
due to insufficient of rotation capacity of connection.

20
2.3.2 Benefits of Semi Rigid Connection

(a) Comparing with construction using simple connection, semi rigid connection
significantly reduces the total steel weight to be used. This is because semi rigid
connection restraint some moment, thus reduce the moment to be carried by beam, so
beam with the smaller size can be chosen.

(b) Rigid connection has complicated joint detailing compared with semi rigid
connection. Thus, using semi rigid connection will simplified the detailing, saving
times and also the workmanship during the fabrication and erection process.

(c) From some investigations that had been carried out in some countries (North
America, France, Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg, Belgium and etc.), the cost for
building a frame structural system using semi rigid connection, including fabrication
cost of element and connections, transportation and erection on site may be reduced
about 5 to 25% compared to that using rigid connection [5].

2.3.3 M- Curve

The M- curve is one of the essential behaviour of the steel joints. The
earliest study on the rotational stiffness of steel beam-column connection is carried
out by Wilson and Moore in the year of 1917 [2]. All steel connections have a
unique M- relationship. The characteristic of the M- curve depends on a lot of
parameters such as the thickness of the material such as end plate, size and number
of bolts, configuration of detail material and etc. The characteristic of the M- curve
will represent the connections stiffness, strength and ductility. Figure 2.4 shows the
comparison of the M- curve between the three important different types of
connection. Figure 2.5 shows the M- curve for the various types of semi rigid
connections. Figure 2.6 shows the various types of semi rigid connections.

21

Figure 2.4 Comparison between M- curves between rigid, semi rigid and simple or
flexible connection [6]

Figure 2.5 Comparison of the M- curve between different types of semi rigid
connections [5]

Rigid
Semi Rigid
Simple / Flexible
M

22

Figure 2.6 Types of semi rigid connection [5]

2.3.4 End Plate Connection

The end plate connection is widely used because of the ease in fabrication
and erection. However, if the plate is not parallel to each other during fabrication, it
will cause difficulty during erection process.

In construction, end plate is mainly shop-welded and field-bolted. In some
cases the plate is extended to the above of one or both flange of the beam, this type
of end plate is called extended end plate. The purpose of this extended end plate is to
increase the lever arm of bolt and the ability to carry more loads. However, the
extension of plate to the compression side of joint has a limited influence to the
23
connection strength. When the length of the plate is the same as the length between
the flanges of the beam, the plate is called flush end plate. The other type of end
plate is the header plate. Figure 2.7 shows the different types of end plate connection.

Extended end plate Flush end plate Header plate
Figure 2.7 Types of end plate connection [6]

Header plate connection is categorized as flexible connection while the
extended end plate connection and the flush end plate connection are categorized as
semi rigid connection. Since they are semi rigid, the extended end plate connection
and the flush end plate connection are subjected to axial force, shear force and
bending moment when the load is applied to the member as shown in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8 Forces in end plate connection [7]

A lot of parameter such as column flange and web thickness, end plate
thickness, beam depth, bolt size and grade affects the behaviour of the end plate
connection. So, these parameters should be taken into account when analysing the
end plate connection. This makes the analysing process becomes more complicated.
In recent years, Jenkins, Jenkins et al., Bose et al., Bahaari and Sherbourne, and
24
Sherbourne and Bahaari [2] have use the finite element method to analyse end plate
connection. Finite element method has been proven to be the suitable method in
analysing this type of connection.

2.3.5 M- Curve for End Plate Connection

Figure 2.9 M- curve for different end plate connection [5]

Figure 2.9 shows the comparison of M- curve between the three types of end
plate connection: extended end plate, flush end plate and header plate. The typical
M- curve is almost linear at the beginning and then yielding occurs before the strain
hardening process happened. This is because the initial elastic stiffness is affected
by the reduction of bolt preloading and the value of elastic stiffness after the
pretension of bolt has gone. The extended end plate will have greater initial stiffness
and moment capacity and can carried larger rotation. The rotational stiffness will be
increased with the increase of the thickness of plate and also by placing the bolts as
close as possible to the beam flange.

Extended end plate
Flush end plate
Header plate
M (kNm)
(rad)
25
2.4 Research paper study

2.4.1 Finite Element Analysis of Structural Steelwork Beam to Column Bolted
Connections [7]

In this research work, the main objective was to compare the beam to column
bolted extended end plate connections analysis result between the finite element
analyse (FEA), the full scale test and the Green Book. The Green Book is a design
guide for moment resisting connection that is jointly published by the Steel
Construction Institute (SCI) and the British Constructional Steelwork Association
(BCSA) in 1995.

LUSAS FEA software was used for the finite element analysis. At the
beginning of the research a number of trial models were created. The final FEA
models use the five elements as shown in Figure 2.10. A series of five full scale tests
were completed using the self straining frame in the Heavy Structures Laboratory at
the University of Teesside. Figure 2.11 shows the typical model of the beam to
column connection. Figure 2.12 shows the LUSAS extended end plate model and
bolt enlarge FEA bolt arrangement.

Figure 2.10 Element used in LUSAS modeling

Figure 2.11 LUSAS connection modeling
26

Figure 2.12 LUSAS extended end plate and bolt enlarge FEA bolt arrangement

In both the FEA and the laboratory tests, it was consistently found that the
Green Book design theory underestimated the bolt forces in the top rows of the
connection and overestimated the forces in the lower rows. In spite of this the Green
Book theory with the increased connection capacities still had a reserve of
approximately 30%. Overall the finite element analysis of extended end plate
connections using LUSAS can be seen to provide advantages in terms of time and
expense over full scale testing and can produce a more complete picture of stress,
strain and force distributions.

2.4.2 Finite Element Analysis of Unstiffened Flush End-Plate Bolted Joints [8]

This paper reports part of the results of an investigation on the analysis of
unstiffened flush end plate steel bolted joint using finite element method. A
sophisticated three dimensional model of the joint was developed using LUSAS.
Several full scale test of flush end plate joint were also been carried out. The result
from LUSAS was compared with that from full scale and the accuracy of the LUSAS
analysis was determined.

Due to the symmetry of the joint configuration and the load transmitted about
both x- and z- axes, so only a quarter of the joint was modeled. The flush end plate
joint has been model as Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14.

27

Figure 2.13 LUSAS modeling

Figure 2.14 Generation of bolt hole and bar element

Six full scale tests with different beam sizes, connection details, bolt sizes
and column sizes were carried out. These joint were based on the details from the
standard range relating to flush end plates.

From the comparison, it was found that there was a good agreement between
experimental and LUSAS analysis results. However, there was some discrepancy in
the elastic range and in the final elastic plastic range of the curve. The experimental
curve which not linear in the elastic range due the combination of bolt tightening
effect, imperfection in the test setup, and lack of fit. In the final elastic plastic stage,
the connection failure was due to postyield column web buckling but LUSAS is
incapable of handling postyield buckling.

28
2.4.3 Experimental Behavior of End-Plate Beam to Column Joints Under
Bending and Axial Force [9]

The objective of the paper was to present the results of an experimental
research project on end-plate beam-to-column bolted steel joints subjected to
bending and axial force which was carried out at the University of Coimbra. 15 tests
were conducted involving the flush end plate and extended end plate joints.

A series of eight experimental tests have been carried out on beam-to-column
steel connections with flush endplates. Besides that, a series of seven tests have also
been performed on extended endplate joints.

In all tests, the columns were simply-supported at both ends and consist of a
HEB240, the beams consist of an IPE240 and the endplate was 15 mm thick, all
manufactured from S275 steel. The bolts were M20, class 10.9.

The moment-rotation curves from the results of the 15 tests showed the
typical relationship between moment and rotation. The curves were almost linear at
the beginning and then the yielding occurs before the strain hardening process
happened. This is because the initial elastic stiffness is affected by the reduction of
bolt preloading and the value of elastic stiffness after the pretension of bolt had gone.

2.4.4 Pemodelan Sambungan Paksi Minor Dengan Menggunakan Perisian
Lusas [10]

The main objective of this thesis was to determine the accuracy of the
analysis result from LUSAS of the bolted steel beam-column flush end plate
connection at the minor axis by comparing with the experimental result.

29
Some assumptions had been made by the writer in the modeling process: (a)
all beam, column, plate, bolts and connections had the characteristic of geometrical
and material non-linearitries; (b) Internal compression was caused by the pretension
and resistance force of bolts; (c) Slip might occur was because of the void between
bolt and the bolt hole. The LUSAS analysis result is then compared with the
experimental result which was taken from the project that had been carried out by
Mohd Irwan Juki [10].

From the comparison, the difference between LUSAS result and experimental
result was small between 2-8%. This small deviation might be caused by the
unknown condition of the end connection of the column. The rotation value became
larger if the capacity of the end connection of column was smaller than the applied
load. Both results show that the connections failed at the column web. This proved
that the column web was the weakest part of the connection if the beam to column
connection was on the minor axis of column. However, the shapes of the M- curves
were different. This may be caused by the unsuitable assumptions that being made
during modeling process.

2.4.5 Performance of Extended End-Plate Connection Connected to Column
Flange [11]

This paper discussed the experimental test results for extended end-plate
connection connected to column flange. The experimental test results of shear and
moment were compared with the theoretical results calculated based on Eurocode 3
and BS 5950. A total of 9 tests were carried out in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

The experimental moment-rotation curves showed that the beam to column
connections has non-linear behaviour. The use of shear bolt had increased the
moment resistance and rotation stiffness of the connections. Increase in the thickness
of end plate also caused an increase of moment resistance. The overall results of
30
experimental moment and stiffness showed good agreement with predicted values
calculated based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950.

2.5 Conclusion of Literature Review

It can be concluded that many successful analyse of semi rigid connection
had been performed by previous researchers using finite element software, LUSAS.
However, some of the research works, for example, the analysis on connection of
universal beam to the web of universal column that was carried out by Tan Chin
Thiam [10] still can be improved by using nonlinear analysis instead of linear
analysis in order to obtain more accurate result. And for the analysis on connection
of universal beam to the flange of universal column that have been done by Jim
Butterworth [7], the results of analysis can be improved by using actual model of bolt
instead of simplified bolt model. To avoid repetition on previous researchers works
in the present study, it was decided to focus on the semi rigid connection of universal
beam to the flange of universal column using extended end plate using improved
LUSAS analysis method.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 General

Finite element method is used in this research. LUSAS is chosen as the finite
element software to be used to analyse and determine the characteristic of M- curve
of steel beam column end plate connection. To meet the research objective which is
to find out the reliability of the LUSAS results, full scale experiment results that have
been obtained in a previous research are used as the reference, and compared with
the LUSAS analysis results.

To increase the accuracy of research, the LUSAS modeling process used the
connection dimensions as similar as possible to that of the full scale experiment
model. In this case, all the geometry and materials properties of experiment model
are applied into the LUSAS model. However, to obtain better and accurate results,
many models need to be generated before the most suitable element discretisation
can be found.

3.2 Experimental Test [11]

A total of nine experiments were carried out by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mahmood
Md. Tahir, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Shahrin Mohamed, M.A.Hussin and A.A.Saim [11] at
University Teknologi Malaysia laboratory. These experiments focused on the
32
extended end-plate connection connected to column flange. Three of the
experiments with different in the end plate thickness, beam and column sized are
chosen. They are EEP1, EEP3 and EEP6. The chosen experimental results will be
used to compare with LUSAS analysis results. The condition and parameters of
experiment will be considered in the LUSAS modeling process.

Table 3.1 Test specimens with various parameters
Test
No.
Beam Column End plate
thickness
(mm)
Width of
end plate
(mm)
No of
bolt
rows
EEP1 HB 500x200x102 HB 300x300x83.5 12 200 3
EEP3 HB 500x200x102 HB 300x300x83.5 15 200 3
EEP6 HB 450x200x74.9 HB 250x250x63.8 12 200 2

3.3 Experimental Procedure

The experiment was arranged in a situation similar to an external column in a
frame as in Figure 3.1. This arrangement accounted the deformation of the
components of the connections such as column flange, end plate and bolts.

Figure 3.1 Test rig used in the experiment [12]

33
The experiment was set up by connecting a 3 m long column with a 1.5 m
long beam. The beams used were HB 300 x 300 x 83.5 and HB 450 x 200 x 74.9.
The columns used were HB 500 x 200 x 102 and HB 250 x 250 x 63.8. The top and
bottom part of column was restrained from any movement. A total of 8 bolts were
used in EEP1 and EEP3. For EEP6, a total of 6 bolts were used. All bolts were M20
Grade 8.8 and the steelwork used was S275.

Load was applied through an automatic operated hydraulic jack and
monitored with a pre-calibrated 100 tonne capacity load cell. The data logger system
was set up to read displacements from inclinometer in millimeters and load in
kiloNewton. Load with an increment of 5 kN was applied to the specimen until
failure, when large deformation occurred or the load decreases significantly.

3.4 Basic Concept in Using LUSAS

There are two basic steps in using LUSAS:
(a) Generate the structure model.
(b) Assign the relevant attribute to the model.

In LUSAS, the geometry command is the part which is used to draw out the
structure model according to the real structure. There are four geometry feature
types in LUSAS which are points, lines, surfaces and volumes. Points define the
vertices of the finite element model; lines define the edges of the finite element
model and the combined lines define complex edges built from a series of continuous
lines; surfaces define external faces or internal construction surfaces of a model; and
volumes define simple solid components of a model. All geometry should be
ensured that they are in the same Cartesian axis system either global axis system or
local axis system.

The attribute command is the part where user can assign the properties to the
model. Assigned attributes are not lost when the geometry is edited, or the feature is
34
re-meshed at a different density. Attribute assignments are inherited when features
are copied and are retained when features are moved. The LUSAS attribute types are
mesh, geometric, material, support and loading. Mesh describes the element type
and discretisation on the geometry; geometric specifies any relevant geometrical
information that is not inherent in the feature geometry, for example section
properties or thickness; material defines the behaviour of the element material
including linear, plasticity, creep and damage effects; support specifies how the
structure is restrained and is applicable to structural, pore water and thermal
analyses; and loading specifies how the structure is loaded.

3.5 Finite Element Model

3.5.1 Generate Structure Model Component

A total of 6 models were generated. Three of them were generated using
simplified bolt model and the rest are built using actual bolt model. The simplified
bolt model was used based on the model made by Jim Butterworth [7]. In this
model, the bolt head was assumed to have a shape of a cube and the bolt body was
modeled using line geometry. Based on this concept, the bolt hole was neglected
when generating the end plate (see Figure 3.2) and column flange. In actual bolt
model, the bolt is modeled exactly the same as that of the geometry of the actual bolt.
The bolt hole was provided in the end plate (see Figure 3.3) and in the column
flange.

Taking the advantage of the symmetry of the joint configuration and the load
applied at y axes, only half of the joint was modeled. This will effectively reduce the
computational effort, time and also the model file size. The geometry and properties
of the model were made as similar as possible to that of the actual experiment
specimen. The components of the extended end-plate connections were modeled as
follows:

35
(i) End-plate
The end-plate was modeled with volume geometry.

Figure 3.2 Plate (simplified model) Figure 3.3 Plate (actual model)

(ii) Beam
The beam was modeled with the length of 1200 mm from the centre of column
flange instead of using the actual length of 1500 mm. It is because the load was
applied at the distance of 1200mm from the center of column flange. Assumption
was made that the extra 300 mm beam length after the position of the applied load
had no any effect to the connection. The beam flanges were modeled with volume
geometry. The beam web is assumed as less critical component in this connection,
therefore it is modeled with surface geometry. Figure 3.4 shows the beam model.

Figure 3.4 Beam (simplified and actual model)

(iii) Column
The column was modeled with a length of 3000 mm. The column flange was
modeled using a volume geometry. Like beam web, the column web was modeled
using a surface geometry. Figure 3.5 shows the column when the bolt body was
generated using line element while Figure 3.6 shows the model of the column
containing the actual holes to accommodate the bolts.

36

Figure 3.5 Column (simplified model) Figure 3.6 Column (actual model)

(iv) Bolt
All bolts used are M20 grade 8.8. In simplified bolt model, the bolt head is modeled
using cube volume geometry and the bolt body is modeled using line geometry (see
Figure 3.7) which then was assigned with an area of 245 mm
2
which is equal to the
tensile stress area. In the actual bolt model, the whole bolt was modeled using the
volume geometry with the dimensions followed those of the actual bolt.

Figure 3.7 Bolt (simplified model) Figure 3.8 Bolt (actual model)

3.5.2 Element Types

The LUSAS element library contains ten element groups, comprising over
100 element types, enabling a wide range of engineering problems to be modeled
37
efficiently. Elements types HX8M, QTS4, BRS2 and JNT4 were chosen to model
the various components of the extended end-plate joint.

Below are the explanations of the various types of elements:

(a) HX8M (3D Continuum Element)
HX8M elements are three dimensional solid hexahedral elements comprising
8 nodes each with 3 degrees of freedom (see Figure 3.9(i)). Although the HX8M
elements are linear with respect to geometry, they employ an assumed internal strain
field which gives them the ability to perform as well as 20 noded quadratic iso-
parametric elements. These elements were used to model the beam flanges, end plate
and connecting column flange of the connection.

(b) QTS4 (Thick Shell Element)
QTS4 elements are three dimensional flat face thick shell elements
comprising either 3 or 4 nodes each with 5 degrees of freedom (see Figure 3.9(ii)).
The element formulation takes account of membrane, shear and flexural
deformations. These elements were used to model the beam and column webs of the
connection.

3. JNT4 (Joint Element)
JNT4 is a 3D joint element which connects two nodes by three springs in the
local x, y and z-directions (see Figure 3.9(iii)). The element has four nodes, the third
and fourth nodes are used to define the local x-axis and local xy-plane. Active node
1 and 2 each has three degrees of freedom. These elements were employed to
generate the prying force at the interface of the end-plate and column flange. This
non-linear contact gap joint element was used to model the interface between the end
plate and the column flange of the connection.

4. BRS2 (Bar Element)
BRS2 is a two-noded, straight and curved iso-parametric bar element in 3D
which can accommodate varying cross sectional area (see Figure 3.9(iv)). Each node
38
has three degree of freedom. This element was used to model the bolts in the tension
and compression zone of the joint.

Figure 3.10 shows the completed model of the joint. Figure 3.11 and Figure
3.12 show the simplified bolt model and the actual bolt model respectively.

(i) (ii)

(iii) (iv)

Figure 3.9 (i) HX8M (ii) QTS4 (iii) JNT4 (iv) BRS2 [1]

Figure 3.10 Model after meshing

Figure 3.11 Meshed bolt(simplified model) Figure 3.12 Meshed bolt(actual model)

HX8M
BRS2
39
3.5.4 Material Properties

Steel is a material that has nonlinear property. Materially nonlinearity occurs
when the stress and strain relationship is not linear or elastic and becomes plastic.
Theoretically, the Youngs modulus of steel is 205 kN/mm
2
and the Poissons ratio is
0.3 according to BS 5950. Tensile tests can be carried out to enable the material
properties to be more accurate. In the research paper of Md. Azman Hussin [12],
tensile tests were conducted on end plate, flanges and webs of beam and column
according to specification and procedure of BS EN 10 002-1 (1990). Others
parameters used in this model were based on the research works carried out by Jim
Butterworth [7] and Bishwanath Bose [8]. Von Mises yield criteria was used for all
material. All material properties of the model are shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Material properties of model

No.

Specimen
Initial yield
stress, f
y

(N/mm
2
)
Youngs
modulus, E
(kN/mm
2
)
Poissons
ratio, v
1

2

3

4

5
6
7
300x300x83.5 (flange)
300x300x83.5 (web)
500x200x102 (flange)
500x200x102 (web)
250x250x63.8 (flange)
250x250x63.8 (web)
450x200x74.9 (flange)
450x200x74.9 (web)
End plate (12mm)
End plate (15mm)
Bolt M20
370
359
299
357
351
351
356
322
305
310
205
208
193
193
195
193
192
195
193
203
204
800
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

40
Other material properties are shown as below:

For beam, column and end plate,
Hardening gradient, slope
1
= 0
plastic strain
1
= 0.02
slope
2
= 10000
plastic strain
2
= 100

For bolt,
1
= 20000
plastic strain
1
= 100

For contact line between endplate and column flange,
Elastic spring stiffness, k
c
= 10
9
N/mm
Coefficient of friction = 0
Initial gap = 0

Figure 3.13 Contact spring stiffness, k
c
[8]

3.5.3 Boundary Condition

The top and bottom of column is restrained in the x, y and z directions similar
to the column end restraint in the experiment. Displacements in the x direction are
restrained along all surfaces on the centre line of the model due to symmetry. In the
simplified bolt model, it had the problem of converging during analysis due to lack
of bending resistance in the bolt BRS2 element. Therefore support restraining the Y
direction movement had to be added to the underside of end plate. However in the
actual bolt model, the restraint in Y direction was not needed.
41

Figure 3.14 Boundary condition

3.5.5 Loading

An initial concentration load of 5 kN was applied at 1200 mm from the center
of column flange. This is referred to the increment of 5 kN load applied to the
specimen in laboratory test. The load was then factored in the control file to achieve
the required range of connection bending moments.

Restrained in
X, Y & Z
directions
Restrained
in X, Y & Z
directions
Restrained in X
direction
Restrained in X
direction
Restrained in Y
direction
CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Prediction of Result

Referring to the literature review on several research papers, some prediction
can be made on the results which would be obtained from the analysis of the
connection between beam and column using an extended end plate. The predictions
are as follows:
(a) Beam column connections generally have non-linear moment rotation curves.

(b) Initially they have a stiff initial response which is then followed by a second
phase of much reduced stiffness.

(c) The curves are almost linear at the beginning and then the yielding occurs before
the strain hardening process happened.

(d) The resistance moment decreases if less stiff of connected members and joint are
used like smaller size of beam, column and end plate.

(e) The predicted type of failure of connection is shown in Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 Predicted failure mode
43
4.2 Experimental Result

Experimental results are obtained from the research paper of Mahmood Md.
Tahir, Shahrin b. Mohamed, M.A.Hussin, A.A.Saim [11]. 3 specimens are chosen
and their results are summarized in Table 4.2 and the moment rotation curves are
shown in Figure 4.1.

Table 4.1 Experimental results of resistance moment and mode of failure
Test No. Resistance Moment M
R
(kNm) Mode of Failure

EEP1

225
Bending of end plate
Deformation of column flange
Deformation or slip on bolt

EEP3

240

EEP6

182

4.2.1 Specimen EEP 1

The moment rotation curve of EEP1 is shown in Figure 4.2. The column
flange started to deform at the tension and compression zone when the applied load
reached 92.6 kN. The upper part of end plate started to bend at the load of 183.3 kN.
Significant deformation occurred at the column flange tension zone at the load of
202.6 kN. The experiment was stopped at the moment of 303.7 kNm when the
rotation reached 41.5 mrad and the failure of connection was seen clearly. Slight
bending occurred at the upper part of end plate, while the column flange deformed at
the tension and compression zone. Slip of the bolts occurred at the tension zone.

44

Moment rotation curve of EEP3 is shown in Figure 4.3. The tension zone of
the column flange deformed when the load reached 105.1 kN. The end plate started
to bend at the load of 156.3 kN. The compression zone of the column flange
deformed at the load of 195 kN. Significant deformation occurred when the applied
became 207.6 kN. The experiment was stopped at the load of 252.3 kN when the
rotation is 26.9 mrad. Deformation occurred at the tension and compression zone of
the column flange, bending of the end plate occurred at the upper part. Slip of the
bolts occurred at the tension zone.


Moment rotation curve of EEP6 is shown in Figure 4.4. When the applied
load reached 135.5 kN, the upper part of the end plate started to bend and
deformation occurred at the column flange in the tension zone. The experiment was
stopped at the load of 132.6 kN when the rotation became 41.2 mrad. Only the upper
part of the end plate bent. Deformation occurred at the tension and compression zone
of the column flange. Slip of the bolts occurred at the tension zone.

45

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
2

E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

m
o
m
e
n
t

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

o
f

E
E
P
1

46

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
3

E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

m
o
m
e
n
t

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

o
f

E
E
P
3

47

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
4

E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

m
o
m
e
n
t

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

o
f

E
E
P
6

48
4.3 Non Linear Analysis Results

The result of an analysis was saved as a new model result file while the
process of analysis was shown in a text file. Any mistake that occurred during the
analysis could be spotted easily by reviewing the text file. This text file contains the
information about the type of analysis, type of iteration, stiffness parameter of the
model at each increment of load, negative pivot and etc. All errors in the model must
be corrected to ensure smooth analysis of LUSAS.

After an analysis had completed, a model result file was produced. Different
types of results could be obtained through this file such as stresses, strains,
displacements, loadings, reactions, residuals, plastic strains and reaction stresses.
These results could be presented in the form of contours, vectors, deformed mesh and
diagrams.

The contours of stresses can be used for model checking and to spot any error
that has occurred during a modeling process. The mode of failure of the connection
can be viewed from the deformed mesh and then compared with that of the
experimental specimen.

4.3.1 Moment Rotation Curve

Values of moments and rotations cannot be obtained from LUSAS analysis
directly. In order to plot a moment rotation curve, values of displacements and
loadings can be used to calculate the values of moments and rotations. In the
laboratory tests, the electronic inclinometer was placed at a distance of 180 mm from
the column flange as shown in Figure 4.5. The electronic inclinometer was used to
record the rotation of the connection due to the applied load. In this research, to get a
more accurate result, the values of displacements were taken at distance of 180 mm
from the column flange, which is shown as point A in Figure 4.5. For the column,
the values of displacements were taken at the point of intersection between the
49
centroidal line of the beam and the centroidal line of the column, which is shown as
point B in Figure 4.5. The values of moments were taken at the node where the point
loads were applied which is shown as point C in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5 Position of node A where displacement was taken

From the values of loadings and displacements, the corresponding values of
moments and rotations were calculated. An example of the calculations to get the
moment and rotation at the first load increment for specimen EEP1 (simplified bolt
model) is shown below.

Moment
Loading = 5kN
Moment = Loading x 1.2 m
= 5 x 1.2
= 6 kNm

Figure 4.6 Actual calculation of rotation

A B
x
180 mm
Electronic Inclinometer
loading
C
x
y

180 + x + A
x
- B
x

y
- B
y

50

Figure 4.7 Approximate calculation of rotation

As shown in Figure 4.6, actual calculation of rotation needs a complex
equation of mathematic. So, an approximate calculation of rotation can be used in
calculating the value of rotation as shown in Figure 4.7.

Rotation
Horizontal displacement of beam, A
x
= 0.01526 mm
Horizontal displacement of column, B
x
= 0 mm
Distance column flange to normal line,x = 147 mm
Distance column flange to point A = 180 mm
Vertical displacement of beam, A
y
= 0.08728 mm
Vertical displacement of column, B
y
= 0 mm
Rotation, = tan-1 (
y
- B
y
) / (180 + x + A
x
- B
x
)
= tan-1 (0.08728) / 327.01526
= 2.66877 x 10
-4

= 0.266877 mrad

The results of the analyses based on the specimens EEP1, EEP3 and EEP6
using simplified bolt model and also actual bolt model are shown in Table 4.2 to
Table 4.7 and the moment rotation graphs are shown in Figure 4.8 to Figure 4.13.

180 + x + A
x
- B
x

y
- B
y

51
Table 4.2 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP1 (simplified bolt model)
Loading
(N)
Moment
(kNm) dx (mm)
dx+180+147
(mm) dy (mm)
Rotation
(mrad)
0 0.000 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6.000 0.01526 327.01526 0.08728 0.26690
10000 12.000 0.03052 327.03052 0.17456 0.53378
15000 18.000 0.04578 327.04578 0.26185 0.80066
20000 24.000 0.06016 327.06016 0.35082 1.07263
25000 30.000 0.07377 327.07377 0.44124 1.34906
30000 36.000 0.08735 327.08735 0.53246 1.62789
35000 42.000 0.09703 327.09703 0.63321 1.93585
40000 48.000 0.10489 327.10489 0.74220 2.26899
45000 54.000 0.11147 327.11147 0.86182 2.63463
50000 60.000 0.11854 327.11854 0.99136 3.03057
55000 66.000 0.12063 327.12063 1.16367 3.55728
60000 72.000 0.13266 327.13266 1.36663 4.17759
65000 78.000 0.15739 327.15739 1.58799 4.85387
69519 83.422 0.18387 327.18387 1.82848 5.58850
74362 89.235 0.21940 327.21940 2.12534 6.49505
79244 95.093 0.25072 327.25072 2.45017 7.48700
83735 100.482 0.27171 327.27171 2.80475 8.56989
88431 106.117 0.28722 327.28722 3.23001 9.86872
93102 111.722 0.29608 327.29608 3.73153 11.40058
98010 117.611 0.30812 327.30812 4.33149 13.23291
102675 123.210 0.31950 327.31950 5.00655 15.29443
107734 129.281 0.34658 327.34658 5.79574 17.70336
112741 135.289 0.39686 327.39686 6.61143 20.19118
117792 141.350 0.45748 327.45748 7.45649 22.76692
122928 147.514 0.52972 327.52972 8.30063 25.33771
127948 153.538 0.60767 327.60767 9.11851 27.82644
132902 159.482 0.69660 327.69660 9.95068 30.35621
137894 165.473 0.80043 327.80043 10.82157 33.00070
142791 171.349 0.91485 327.91485 11.71080 35.69775
147672 177.206 1.04545 328.04545 12.66421 38.58590

52

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

E
E
P
1

(
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
1
9
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
4
0
4
5
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
r
a
d
)
M o m e n t ( k N m )
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
8

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

f
o
r

E
E
P
1

(
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)

53
Loading
(N)
Moment
(kNm) dx (mm)
dx+180+147
(mm) dy (mm)
Rotation
(mrad)
0 0.000 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6.000 0.01336 327.01336 0.07922 0.24226
10000 12.000 0.02672 327.02672 0.15844 0.48450
15000 18.000 0.04008 327.04008 0.23767 0.72672
20000 24.000 0.05283 327.05283 0.31803 0.97241
25000 30.000 0.06471 327.06471 0.40000 1.22301
30000 36.000 0.07657 327.07657 0.48280 1.47609
35000 42.000 0.08633 327.08633 0.57094 1.74554
40000 48.000 0.09344 327.09344 0.66570 2.03520
45000 54.000 0.09724 327.09724 0.76774 2.34713
50000 60.000 0.09944 327.09944 0.87392 2.67172
55000 66.000 0.09900 327.09900 0.99252 3.03430
60000 72.000 0.09204 327.09204 1.13386 3.46647
65000 78.000 0.08486 327.08486 1.28494 3.92844
70000 84.000 0.08091 327.08091 1.44907 4.43029
73536 88.243 0.08156 327.08156 1.57666 4.82035
77071 92.485 0.08481 327.08481 1.72052 5.26011
80607 96.728 0.09154 327.09154 1.87594 5.73515
83107 99.728 0.09800 327.09800 1.99368 6.09499
85607 102.728 0.10736 327.10736 2.11439 6.46383
88107 105.728 0.11392 327.11392 2.26081 6.91127
90607 108.728 0.12087 327.12087 2.42011 7.39807
93107 111.728 0.12973 327.12973 2.59422 7.93008
95607 114.728 0.14099 327.14099 2.78319 8.50740
98107 117.728 0.15036 327.15036 2.97868 9.10467
99874 119.849 0.15681 327.15681 3.12296 9.54548
101642 121.971 0.16186 327.16186 3.27207 10.00105
103410 124.092 0.16532 327.16532 3.42473 10.46751
105178 126.213 0.16902 327.16902 3.58355 10.95278
106945 128.335 0.17273 327.17273 3.74627 11.44992
108713 130.456 0.17828 327.17828 3.90911 11.94739
110481 132.577 0.18541 327.18541 4.07305 12.44812
111731 134.077 0.19118 327.19118 4.18993 12.80507
112981 135.577 0.19734 327.19734 4.30836 13.16671
114231 137.077 0.20388 327.20388 4.42889 13.53475
115481 138.577 0.21082 327.21082 4.55186 13.91019
116731 140.077 0.21812 327.21812 4.67838 14.29646
117981 141.577 0.22612 327.22612 4.80727 14.68993
119231 143.077 0.23481 327.23481 4.93785 15.08848
120481 144.577 0.24362 327.24362 5.07107 15.49508
121731 146.077 0.25214 327.25214 5.20694 15.90974
122981 147.577 0.26147 327.26147 5.34342 16.32623
124231 149.077 0.27119 327.27119 5.48315 16.75258
125481 150.577 0.28113 327.28113 5.62554 17.18701
126365 151.638 0.28830 327.28830 5.72629 17.49437
127249 152.698 0.29616 327.29616 5.82769 17.80368
128133 153.759 0.30491 327.30491 5.93080 18.11812
129017 154.820 0.31480 327.31480 6.03596 18.43875
129900 155.880 0.32529 327.32529 6.14219 18.76260
130784 156.941 0.33605 327.33605 6.24989 19.09086
131668 158.002 0.34701 327.34701 6.35942 19.42470
54
M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

E
E
P
3

(
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
r
a
d
)

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
9

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

f
o
r

E
E
P
3

(
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)

55
Loading
(N)
Moment
(kNm)
dx
(mm)
dx+180+147
(mm) dy (mm)
Rotation
(mrad)
0 0.000 0.00000 302.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6.000 0.02976 302.02976 0.15147 0.50151
10000 12.000 0.05953 302.05953 0.30294 1.00293
15000 18.000 0.08873 302.08873 0.45554 1.50797
20000 24.000 0.11644 302.11644 0.61107 2.02263
25000 30.000 0.14380 302.14380 0.77154 2.55355
30000 36.000 0.17086 302.17086 0.95807 3.17062
35000 42.000 0.21478 302.21478 1.19735 3.96190
40000 48.000 0.28366 302.28366 1.49907 4.95911
45000 54.000 0.36590 302.36590 1.91536 6.33451
50000 60.000 0.47290 302.47290 2.39575 7.92039
55000 66.000 0.59822 302.59822 3.02918 10.01023
60000 72.000 0.75069 302.75069 3.87709 12.80552
65000 78.000 0.80216 302.80216 4.83755 15.97459
70000 84.000 0.89331 302.89331 6.06736 20.02867
75000 90.000 1.06026 303.06026 7.45625 24.59824
80000 96.000 1.49226 303.49226 9.38026 30.89791
86108 103.330 1.75675 303.75675 11.56592 38.05786
91108 109.329 2.00484 304.00484 13.35123 43.88961
95663 114.795 2.34041 304.34041 15.26421 50.11306
100333 120.400 2.84801 304.84801 17.73518 58.11163
105290 126.348 3.44263 305.44263 20.59228 67.31598
110633 132.760 4.07019 306.07019 23.50473 76.64479
116132 139.359 4.62855 306.62855 26.27437 85.47915
121268 145.522 5.08379 307.08379 28.71296 93.23098
126277 151.533 5.50256 307.50256 31.11466 100.84182
131372 157.646 5.89592 307.89592 33.58019 108.63409
136542 163.851 6.30844 308.30844 36.00350 116.25102
141640 169.968 6.71003 308.71003 38.35456 123.60798
146636 175.963 7.11246 309.11246 40.66321 130.79725
151629 181.955 7.53763 309.53763 43.01285 138.07419
156605 187.926 7.99310 309.99310 45.40972 145.45174

56

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
0

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

f
o
r

E
E
P
6

(
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

E
E
P
6

(
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
4
0
4
5
5
0
5
5
6
0
6
5
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
r
a
d
)
57
Table 4.5 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP1 (actual bolt model)
Loading
(N)
Moment
(kNm)
dx
(mm)
dx+180+147
(mm) dy (mm)
Rotation
(mrad)
0 0 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6 0.00966 327.00966 0.11010 0.33670
10000 12 0.01933 327.01933 0.22021 0.67338
15000 18 0.02899 327.02899 0.33031 1.01003
20000 24 0.03866 327.03866 0.44041 1.34667
25000 30 0.04832 327.04832 0.55052 1.68329
30000 36 0.05798 327.05798 0.66063 2.01993
35000 42 0.06715 327.06715 0.77188 2.35999
40000 48 0.07551 327.07551 0.88545 2.70718
45000 54 0.08409 327.08409 1.00476 3.07185
50000 60 0.09125 327.09125 1.13144 3.45910
55000 66 0.09786 327.09786 1.26825 3.87726
60000 72 0.10651 327.10651 1.42069 4.34318
65000 78 0.11744 327.11744 1.59554 4.87753
70000 84 0.12863 327.12863 1.80271 5.51066
75000 90 0.13337 327.13337 2.05556 6.28346
80000 96 0.13132 327.13132 2.36732 7.23648
85000 102 0.12016 327.12016 2.76543 8.45365
90000 108 0.10148 327.10148 3.27936 10.02517
95000 114 0.07674 327.07674 3.88142 11.86645
100000 120 0.04625 327.04625 4.56962 13.97149
105000 126 0.02987 327.02987 5.32055 16.26787
110000 132 0.02713 327.02713 6.15798 18.82795
115000 138 0.03454 327.03454 7.02311 21.47185
120000 144 0.04646 327.04646 7.89024 24.12105
125000 150 0.06541 327.06541 8.73712 26.70732
130000 156 0.08712 327.08712 9.58343 29.29094
135000 162 0.11397 327.11397 10.45527 31.95130
140000 168 0.14677 327.14677 11.34662 34.66968
145000 174 0.18235 327.18235 12.27502 37.49979
150000 180 0.21861 327.21861 13.27070 40.53384

58

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

E
E
P
1

(
a
c
t
u
a
l

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
1
9
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
4
0
4
5
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
r
a
d
)
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
1

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

f
o
r

E
E
P
1

(
a
c
t
u
a
l

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)

59
Loading
(N)
Moment
(kNm)
dx
(mm)
dx+180+147
(mm) dy (mm)
Rotation
(mrad)
0 0 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6 0.00841 327.00841 0.07660 0.23425
10000 12 0.01682 327.01682 0.15320 0.46848
15000 18 0.02522 327.02522 0.22980 0.70270
20000 24 0.03363 327.03363 0.30640 0.93691
25000 30 0.04204 327.04204 0.38300 1.17111
30000 36 0.05045 327.05045 0.45960 1.40530
35000 42 0.05864 327.05864 0.53653 1.64048
40000 48 0.06588 327.06588 0.61496 1.88023
45000 54 0.07240 327.07240 0.69474 2.12411
50000 60 0.07709 327.07709 0.77743 2.37691
55000 66 0.08028 327.08028 0.86327 2.63932
60000 72 0.08240 327.08240 0.95532 2.92071
65000 78 0.08412 327.08412 1.05273 3.21853
70000 84 0.08484 327.08484 1.16100 3.54953
75000 90 0.08528 327.08528 1.28397 3.92548
80000 96 0.08331 327.08331 1.42628 4.36058
85000 102 0.07628 327.07628 1.60490 4.90676
90000 108 0.06083 327.06083 1.83082 5.59775
95000 114 0.04296 327.04296 2.11063 6.45359
100000 120 0.03826 327.03826 2.41896 7.39643
105000 126 0.04226 327.04226 2.76463 8.45324
110000 132 0.04606 327.04606 3.13096 9.57316
115000 138 0.05284 327.05284 3.51273 10.74015
120000 144 0.06708 327.06708 3.92821 12.00982
125000 150 0.08905 327.08905 4.37401 13.37173
130000 156 0.11608 327.11608 4.83832 14.78974
135000 162 0.13955 327.13955 5.34953 16.35099
140000 168 0.16246 327.16246 5.88938 17.99944
145000 174 0.18517 327.18517 6.45391 19.72299

60

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

E
E
P
3

(
a
c
t
u
a
l

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
1
9
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
r
a
d
)
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
2

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

f
o
r

E
E
P
3

(
a
c
t
u
a
l

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)

61
Loading
(N)
Moment
(kNm)
dx
(mm)
dx+180+147
(mm) dy (mm)
Rotation
(mrad)
0 0 0.00000 302.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6 0.03042 302.03042 0.12428 0.41149
10000 12 0.06084 302.06084 0.24856 0.82289
15000 18 0.09126 302.09126 0.37284 1.23421
20000 24 0.12168 302.12168 0.49713 1.64545
25000 30 0.15182 302.15182 0.62203 2.05867
30000 36 0.18047 302.18047 0.75044 2.48342
35000 42 0.20858 302.20858 0.88597 2.93163
40000 48 0.23645 302.23645 1.03328 3.41876
45000 54 0.26936 302.26936 1.19938 3.96791
50000 60 0.31419 302.31419 1.39864 4.62640
55000 66 0.36728 302.36728 1.65366 5.46899
60000 72 0.41429 302.41429 2.00280 6.62261
65000 78 0.45048 302.45048 2.52621 8.35229
70000 84 0.50003 302.50003 3.12908 10.34369
75000 90 0.55276 302.55276 3.79999 12.55911
80000 96 0.61372 302.61372 4.58672 15.15585
85000 102 0.73565 302.73565 5.48308 18.10978
90000 108 0.88766 302.88766 6.47333 21.36879
95000 114 1.07794 303.07794 7.49655 24.72970
100000 120 1.32576 303.32576 8.63600 28.46336
104295 125 1.68186 303.68186 9.87406 32.50303

62

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

E
E
P
6

(
a
c
t
u
a
l

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
r
a
d
)
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
3

M
o
m
e
n
t

v
s

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
p
h

f
o
r

E
E
P
6

(
a
c
t
u
a
l

b
o
l
t

m
o
d
e
l
)

63
4.4 Comparison of Results between LUSAS and Experiment

The comparison of results is done to determine the accuracy of finite element
method in analysing the connection of beam to column using extended end plate.
Due to limited data recorded in experiment, so the comparison of results is mainly
focus on the moment rotation curve and the mode of failure only.

4.4.1 Comparison of Moment Rotation Curve

The comparisons between moment rotation curves obtained from laboratory
test and those from LUSAS are summarized in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 Comparison of Moment Rotation Curve
Specimen Resistance Moment (kNm) Difference(%)
Experimental LUSAS simplified actual
simplified actual
EEP1 225 210 222 6.67 1.33
EEP3 240 220 238 8.33 0.83
EEP6 182 164 178 9.89 2.20

The moment rotation curves from testing and LUSAS are shown in Figure 4.8
to Figure 4.13. The value of resistance moment of Table 4.8 is determined by
estimating when a knee formed in each of the moment rotation curves. By using
this technique, the experimental and LUSAS values of M
R
can be obtained. The
value of M
R
obtained from each graph need to be multiplied by 2 because only half
model was generated due to symmetry of the connection configuration. Further
explanation of the calculation of M
R
is shown in Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15.

64

Figure 4.14 Full model of connection

Figure 4.15 Half model of connection

In Figure 4.14, moment M
R1
= P x L
= PL
In Figure 4.15, loading F = x P (due to half model)
M
R2
= F x L
= P/2 x L
= PL/2
= M
R1
/2
M
R1
= 2 M
R2

The results from the laboratory tests have recorded that the resistance
moment of the connection is in the range of 182-240 kNm while the results from the
analysis of LUSAS show that the resistance moment is ranged from 164 kNm to 220
kNm for the simplified bolt model and 178 kNm to 238 kNm for the actual bolt
model. Overall results indicate that the experimental values of resistance moment
are greater than LUSAS analysis values. For the simplified bolt model, the
differences are in the range from 6.67% to 9.89%. The values of resistance moments
Loading P
L
M
R1

Loading F
L
M
R2

65
obtained from actual bolt model are lower than experimental results with the
differences range between 0.83% and 2.20%. Based on the differences, it is proven
that the actual bolt model can provide more accurate results compared to the
simplified bolt model.

All moment rotation curves show that the connections behave linearly in the
first phase followed by non linear behaviour in the second phase and gradually losing
the stiffness with increasing in rotation. This is typical type of graph for a semi rigid
connection. In the second phase, yielding occurred before strain hardening process
happened.

Based on Table 3.1, specimen EEP1, EEP3 and EEP6 are made up using
different size of column, beam, thickness of end plate and numbers of bolts. From the
result of analysis, specimen EEP1 with a smaller thickness of end plate gives a
smaller value of resistance moment compared to specimen EEP3. This is a logical
phenomenon in which the end plate with a higher thickness has a stronger resistance
to the applied load. This causes the specimen EEP3 to posses a higher resistance
moment. For specimen EEP6, it is a connection between smaller size of column and
beam. Only 6 bolts are used in this specimen compared to 8 bolts used in EEP1 and
EEP3. Beam and column with smaller sizes have less strength to sustain the moment
caused by applied load. Because of this reason, specimen EEP6 gives the smallest
value of resistance moment compared to others.

4.4.2 Comparison of Mode of Failure

From the comparison of failure mode obtained from experiment and LUSAS
analysis, it shows that both results give same mode of failure which the failure occurs
on the bending of end plate, bending of column flange and deformation or slip on
bolt as shown in Figure 4.16. The failure mode at tension zone is shown in Figure
4.17. These failures show that the behaviour of the connection is considered as
ductile and can be categorized as partial strength connection.
66

Figure 4.16 Mode of failure of connection

Figure 4.17 Mode of failure near the tension bolt

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

Based on the results of analysis, several conclusions can be made such as:

1. Based on the comparisons between results obtained from LUSAS (using
actual bolt size) and laboratory tests, the differences between both results are
relatively small which in the range of 0.83% to 2.20%. Besides that, the mode
of failure shown by LUSAS models match with the failure mode of
experimental specimens. From these two points, it can be concluded that
LUSAS can provide good moment resistance and failure mode predictions..

2. From LUSAS analysis, the connection between a universal beam to the
flange of a universal column using extended end plate gives a non-linear M-
curve which is similar to that found in experimental testing. The M- curve
is almost linear at the beginning under an elastic condition occurred. Then,
yielding occurs before strain hardening process happened and the connection
becomes plastic. However, the characteristic of the M- curve depends on a
lot of parameters such as the thickness of the material, size and number of
bolts, etc. The M- curve can be used to represent the connections stiffness,
strength and ductility.

69
3. A total 6 model of connection were generated. Three of them were modeled
using simplified bolt model referring to the model work done by Jim
Butterworth [7] and the rest were modeled using actual bolt model according
to the actual geometry dimensions of the bolts. Based on the comparison
with the experimental results, the simplified bolt model give the differences
of results in the range from 6.67% to 9.89% and differences of results of the
actual bolt model are in the range of 0.83% and 2.20%. These comparisons
show that the more accurate results are obtained by using the actual bolt
model.

5.2 Recommendations

Some problems have been encountered during the modeling process. In order
to improve the modeling process and thus get a more accurate result, these problems
need to be overcome. The problems and some recommendations will be explained
below as a reference for future research.

(a) Inadequate data recorded in experiments causes comparison of experimental
results other than resistance moment cannot be made with the LUSAS
analysis results. It is recommended that laboratory tests are conducted in the
same time as that of the modeling process. Additional parameters should be
recorded during the experiment. One of the parameter that needs to be
recorded is strains in the bolt and column. Stress occurred in the bolt and
column can be calculated from recorded strain and compared with LUSAS
analysis results. Mistake can be spotted from the comparisons and thus the
finite element model can be improved.

(b) Convergence test should be made in future analysis in order to obtain good
results using minimum elements. Convergence test can be done by
increasing or decreasing the total number of elements and then check whether
the solution converge to a certain equilibrium value.
70
(c) Data from actual tensile test that is carried out on the component of
connection should be obtained. This data is required in defining the non-
linearity behaviour of connection component such as hardening slope and
initial yield stress. With this data, the connection can be modeled more
accurately to get a good result.

(d) The values of rotation obtained from approximate calculations shown in
Figure 4.7 are larger than actual values of rotation obtained from the
experiment. Although rotation is not considered as the main aspect in this
study, calibration should be done to obtain more accurate value of rotations
so that the model can reflect the actual condition as closely as possible.

71
REFERENCE

1. FEA. Ltd. LUSAS Modeller User Manual, Version 13. United Kingdom.

2. J.N.Reddy (1993). An Introduction To The finite Element Method, Second Edition.
McGraw-Hill, Inc.

3. Paul E.Allaire (1985). Basics Of The Finite Element Method. Wm.C.Brown
Publishers.

4. C.A.Brebbia (1985). Finite Element Systems. C.M. Ltd, Southampton, Springer
Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg. 461- 472.

5. Jack C.McCormac (1995). Structural Steel design LRFD Method, second Edition.
Harper CollinsCollege Pubishers. 492 524.

6. Louis F.Geschwindner, Robert O.Disque, Reidar Bjorhovde (1994). Load And
Resistance factor Design Of Steel Structure. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 382 437.

7. Jim Butterworth. Finite Element Analysis of Structural Steelwork Beam to Column
Bolted Connections. Constructional Research Unit, School of Science & Technology,
University of Teesside, UK.

8. Bishwanath Bose, Zhi Min Wang, Susanta sarkar (1997). Finite element Analysis
Of Unstiffened Flush End-Plate Bolted Joints. Journal of Structural
Engineering.1614 1621.

72
9. L. Simoes Da Silva, L. Lima, P. Vellasco and S. Andrade (2001). Experimental
Behavior Of End-Plate Beam to Column Joints Under Bending And Axial Force.
Department Of Civil Engineering, University Of Coimbra

10. Tan Chin Thiam (2001). Pemodelan Sambungan Paksi Minor Dengan
Menggunakan Perisian Lusas. Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia. Ms.C. Thesis.

11. Mahmood Md. Tahir, Shahrin b. Mohamed, M.A.Hussin, A.A.Saim (2004).
Performance of Extended End-Plate Connection Connected to Column Flange. Steel
Technology Centre Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

12. Md. Azman Hussin (2001). Prestasi Sambungan pada Paksi Major
Menggunakan Keratan Keluli Tempatan. Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia.

73
APPENDIX A/1

MANUAL

In general, modeling can be divided into 9 steps, there are:
1. Creating a new model.
2. Feature geometry.
3. Meshing.
4. Assign geometry properties.
5. Assign material properties.
6. Assign boundary condition.
7. Assign loading.
8. Analysis.
9. Results.

Specimen EEP1 will be used as example in explanation of the modeling process. 2
modeled have been built using simplified bolt model and actual bolt model.

SIMPLIFIED BOLT MODEL

STEP 1 Creating a New Model

- Enter the file name as extended end plate (simplified bolt model).
- Enter the title as Analysis of Extended End Plate.
- Set the units as N mm t C s
- Select the startup template Standard from those available in the drop down list.
- Set the vertical axis as Y.
- Click the OK button.

Note. It is useful to save the model regularly as the example progresses. This allows
a previously saved model to be re-loaded if a mistake is made that cannot be
corrected
easily by a new user.

STEP 2 Feature Geometry

The composite plate will be modeled as a half model and symmetry boundary
conditions will be used to reduce the size of the model.

1. Defined the bolt into four equal surfaces.
74

2. Copy the bolt surfaces to form other bolt surfaces.

3. Extend the surface of bolts to form the surface of end plate by using sweeping.
This is to ensure the end plate and bolts are sharing the same surfaces.

4. Sweep the surfaces of bolt from the end plates surface to form bolt volumes.
75

5. Sweep the surface of end plate and the shared surfaces of bolt and end plate to
form end plate volume.

6. At this stage, the model of end plate together with bolts should be looked like
below when the model points are not shown.
76

7. Form the volumes of beam flanges by using sweeping from the end plate surface.
This is to ensure the beam flanges are sharing the same surface with end plate.

8. Move the model +1000mm in Z direction. This is to prevent the sharing of point
while modeling the column.

9. Copy the surface of end plate and extend it to form column flange surface by using
sweeping.
X
Y
Z

77
10. Sweep the column flange surface to form column flange volume and copy to
form column flange on the other side.
X
Y

11. Form the volume of nut by using sweeping from the surface of column flange.
The model of nut together with column flange in x direction, should be as shown
below

12. Sweep the suitable line of end plate to form the surface of beam web between the
beam flanges.

13. Sweep the suitable line of column flange to form the surface of column web
between the column flanges.
78
X
Y

14. The whole model should be as shown below. The end plate and beam are not
connected to the column.
X
Y

15. Select the end plate and beam and move -1000m in Z direction. When prompt to
ask whether to merge the point and line, select NO.
79
X
Y

16. Draw the bolt body connecting bolt and nut using line.

STEP 3 Meshing

1. Mesh the bolts and nuts with volume mesh HX8M with the local X division of 2,
local Y division of 2 and local Z division of 1. The bolt body is meshed with line
mesh of BRS2 with the division of 4.

2. Mesh the beam flanges with volume mesh HX8M with the local X division of 2,
local Y division of 1 and local Z division of 10.
80

3. Mesh the end plate with volume mesh HX8M with the local X division of 2, local
Y division of 2 and local division of 1. For the volume contained shared surface
between end plate and beam flanges, it is meshed with HX8m with local X division
of 2, local Y division of 1 and local division of 1. For the middle part of end plate, it
is meshed with HX8m with local X division of 2, local Y division of 10 and local
division of 1.

4. Mesh the line of end plate that contact with column flange with line mesh JNT4
with the division corresponding to the previously meshed HX8M.

5. Mesh the column flanges same as the end plate. For the part that do not contact
with the end plate, it is meshed with HX8M with the local X division of 2, local Y
division of 5 and local Z division of 1. The lines that contact with end plate are
meshed with line mesh JNT4 with the division corresponding to the previously
meshed HX8M.
81
X
Y
Z

5. The horizontal lines in the beam web are mesh with line with division of 10 and
the vertical lines are meshed with line with division corresponding to the end plate.
After that, the beam web is meshed with surface mesh QTS4 with automatic division.

6. The column web is meshed with surface mesh QTS4 with automatic division.
X
Y
Z

82
7. The whole model after meshing should be as shown below.
X
Y
Z

STEP 4 Assign Geometry Properties

1. Line geometric with the cross sectional area (A) of 245mm
2
is assigned to the four
bolt body.

2. Surface geometric with the thickness of 6mm is assigned to the surface of column
web.

3. Surface geometric with the thickness of 5.5mm is assigned to the surface of beam
web.

STEP 5 Assign Material Properties

The material properties are assigned as shown below.

1. Beam, column and end plate (Isotropic)
Youngs modulus, E = 205 kN/mm
2

Poissons ration, v = 0.3
Initial uniaxial yield stress = 305 N/mm
2

1
= 0
plastic strain
1
= 0.02
slope
2
= 10000
plastic strain
2
= 100

2. Bolt (Isotropic)
Youngs modulus, E = 205 kN/mm
2

Poissons ration, v = 0.3
83
Initial uniaxial yield stress = 800 N/mm
2

1
= 20000
plastic strain
1
= 100

3. Contact between endplate and column flange (Joint)
Joint type = spring stiffness only
Freedom = translations /membrane
Elastic spring stiffness, k
c
= 10
9
N/mm
Coefficient of friction = 0
Initial gap = 0

STEP 6 Assign Boundary Condition

1. The top and bottom of column is restrained in the x, y and z directions.

2. Displacements in the x direction were restrained along all surfaces on the centre
line of the model.

3. Support restraining the Y direction movement is added to the underside of end
plate.
X
Y
Z

STEP 7 Assign Loading

A structural concentrated load in Y direction of -5 kN is applied at 1200 mm from
the center of column flange.

Restrained at
X, Y & Z
Restrained
at X, Y & Z
Restrained at X
Restrained at X
Restrained at Y
84
STEP 8 Analysis

Since this is a nonlinear problem the load incrementation strategy needs to be defined.
- From the Treeview right click on Loadcase 1 and select the Properties option.
- Define the analysis as a Nonlinear & Transient problem and click on the Set
button.
The Nonlinear & Transient dialog will appear.
- Select the Nonlinear option.
- Set Incrementation to Automatic
- Set the Starting load factor to 1
- Set the Maximum change in load factor to 1
- Set the Maximum total load factor as 40
- Change the Incremental displacement norm to 100
- Leave the Maximum number of time steps or increments as 0
- Click the OK button to return to the loadcase properties.
- Click the OK button to finish.

To avoid mechanisms in the element formulation when some of the Gauss
integration points fail, it is necessary to switch on fine integration for the elements.
- Select the Solution tab and click on the Element Options button.
- Select the option Fine integration for stiffness and mass and click OK to return
to the main model properties form and OK to return to the graphics display.

Save the model file.

A LUSAS data file name of extended end plate (simplified bolt model) will be
automatically entered in the File name field.
- Ensure that the options Solve now and Load results are selected.
- Click the Save button to solve the problem.
Note. In running this nonlinear analysis 5 load increments are evaluated. This may
take up to 1 hour on older personal computers but will be significantly faster on
modern machines. An indication of the time remaining can be attained by observing
the number of the increment being evaluated.

A LUSAS Datafile will be created from the model information. The LUSAS Solver
uses this datafile to perform the analysis.

The LUSAS results file will be added to Treeview.

In addition, 2 files will be created in the directory where the model file resides:
- extended end plate (simplified bolt model).out
This output file contains details of model data, assigned attributes and selected
statistics of the analysis.
- extended end plate (simplified bolt model).mys
This is the LUSAS results file which is loaded automatically into the Treeview to
allow results processing to take place.

85
STEP 9 Results

Loadcase results can be seen in the Treeview. If the analysis was run from within
LUSAS Modeller the results will be loaded on top of the current model and the load
case results for the first load increment are set active by default.

If present, delete the Mesh, Geometry and Attributes layers from the Treeview.
- In the graphics window, with no features selected, click the right-hand mouse
button and select the Deformed mesh option to add the deformed mesh layer to the
Treeview.
- Click Close to accept the default properties and display the influence surface of the
current loadcase.

Select the node where the load is applied, click Utilities on the menu bar, and click
on the Graph Wizard.
- Select Time History, click the next button.
- For x dataset, , select Displacement in the dropdown menu of Entity, and select
RSLT for Component, then click the next button.
- For y dataset, select Nodal and click next button, select Loading in the dropdown
menu of Entity, and select RSLT for Component, then click the next button, then
click the finish button.
- A graph will be shown and the value of displacement and loading are stated next to
the graph.
- Displacement in different direction can be obtained by repeating the previous steps.

ACTUAL BOLT MODEL

STEP 1 Creating a New Model

- Enter the file name as extended end plate (actual bolt model).
- Enter the title as Analysis of Extended End Plate.
- Set the units as N mm t C s
- Select the startup template Standard from those available in the drop down list.
- Set the vertical axis as Y.
- Click the OK button.

Note. It is useful to save the model regularly as the example progresses. This allows
a previously saved model to be re-loaded if a mistake is made that cannot be
corrected
easily by a new user.

STEP 2 Feature Geometry

1. Defined the bolt hole into four equal surfaces.

86

2. Define the bolt head into four equal surfaces.

3. Copy the bolt surfaces to form other bolt surfaces.

4. Extend the surface of bolts to form the surface of end plate by using sweeping.
This is to ensure the end plate and bolts are sharing the same surfaces.

5. Sweep the surfaces of bolt head from the end plates surface to form bolt volumes.

87
6. The following steps are same with the feature geometry of simplified bolt model
from step 5 to step 15.

7. Sweep the bolt hole surface to the other side of bolt to form the bolt body.

STEP 3 Meshing

1. Mesh the bolt head and bolt body with volume mesh HX8M with automatic
division. All bolt line then is meshed with line of division of 2 except bolt line in z
direction which is meshed with line with division of 1.

2. The meshing for other components is same as step 2 to step 7 of meshing of
simplified bolt model.

STEP 4 Assign Geometry Properties

1. Surface geometric with the thickness of 6mm is assigned to the surface of column
web.
2. Surface geometric with the thickness of 5.5mm is assigned to the surface of beam
web.

STEP 5 Assign Material Properties
1. The material properties are assigned same as simplified bolt model.

STEP 6 Assign Boundary Condition
1. The boundary condition is assigned same as simplified bolt model except the
restraint in Y direction below the end plate is not needed.
88
STEP 8 Analysis
1. Follow the steps in simplified bolt model.

STEP 9 Results
1. Follow the steps in simplified bolt model.

Tan Eng Hooi - Behaviour and Strength Study On Steel Semi Rigid Connection Using Lusas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Eng Hooi - Behaviour and Strength Study On Steel Semi Rigid Connection Using Lusas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEHAVIOUR AND STRENTH STUDY ON STEEL SEMI RIGID

CONNECTION USING LUSAS

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

You might also like