See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222679966

Mechanical and informational modeling of

steel beam-to-column connections

Article in Engineering Structures · February 2010

Impact Factor: 1.84 · DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.10.007

CITATIONS READS

22 193

3 authors:

Junhee Kim Jamshid Ghaboussi

Yonsei University University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
14 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS 151 PUBLICATIONS 3,361 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amr S. Elnashai
Pennsylvania State University
275 PUBLICATIONS 4,058 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Amr S. Elnashai
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 11 May 2016
 Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Mechanical and informational modeling of steel beam-to-column connections

JunHee Kim a,∗ , Jamshid Ghaboussi b,1 , Amr S. Elnashai c,d,b,2
a
1239 Newmark Civil Engineering Lab, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave. Urbana,
IL, 61801, United States
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave. Urbana, IL, 61801, United States
c
Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave. Urbana, IL, 61801, United States
d
NEES at UIUC Simulation Facility, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave. Urbana, IL, 61801, United States

article info abstract

Article history: The behavior of beam-to-column connections in steel and composite frames strongly influences their
Received 23 February 2009 stability and strength. This is particularly true in response to sever dynamic actions, where the changes
Received in revised form in stiffness and damping influence both supply and demand. This means that it is necessary to accurately
15 September 2009
model the stiffness, strength and ductility of connections in seismic assessment and analysis for design.
Accepted 14 October 2009
Available online 30 October 2009
Starting from the current state-of-the-art, two different approaches, mechanical and informational, are
presented to model the complex hysteretic response of bolted beam-to-column connections. The basic
Keywords:
premise of the article is that not all features of response are amenable to mechanical modeling; hence,
Mechanical modeling consideration of information-based alternatives is warranted. First, a component-based mechanical
Informational modeling model is proposed where each deformation source is represented with only material and geometric
Component-based modeling properties. Second, a neural network approach is examined to extract an informational model directly
Beam-to-column connection from the experimental test data. Finally, the merits and drawbacks of the two approaches are discussed.
Neural network The results presented in this article indicate that the two models demonstrate good capabilities of
Hysteretic behavior predicting complex hysteretic responses in certain cases. There is still, however, room for improvement.
Such improvement may be achieved through combining the best features of each approach in a hybrid
mechanical–informational modeling environment.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background
Beam-to-column joints have inadvertently served as energy
dissipation regions under extreme dynamic loads such as earth-
quakes. After the Northridge earthquake in 1994 and the Kobe
earthquake in 1995, extensive experimental and analytical stud-
ies have been undertaken to investigate the feasibility of using
bolted connections in frames for seismic resistance in high seis-
micity zones. Although welded connections are traditionally used
for seismic designs to avoid the flexibility of the bolted connec-
tions, the effects of this flexibility under static loads does not trans-
fer to dynamic loading response. Past research demonstrated that
semi-rigid connections may be effectively used for seismic design
and the large spectrum of their behavior strongly influences frame
stability and strength [1–3]. In order to take advantage of semi-
∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 333 5963; fax: +1 217 333 3821.
E-mail addresses: junkim2@illinois.edu (J. Kim), jghabous@illinois.edu
(J. Ghaboussi), aelnash@illinois.edu (A.S. Elnashai).
1 Tel.: +1 217 333 6939.
2 Tel.: +1 217 265 5497.
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.10.007
rigid connections, it is necessary to represent the actual joint hys-
teretic behavior with reasonable accuracy in analytical assessment
and analysis for design.
Most modeling approaches are based on well-established
fundamental mechanical theories using material and geometric
properties, referred to hereafter as ‘mechanical’ approaches. On
the other hand, informational approaches have been used in
several applications and have shown clear promise as alternatives
to mechanical approaches. By directly extracting a hysteretic
relationship from the available collected data using a neural
network or some other optimization technique, the behavior of
complex systems may be accurately represented.
1.1. Literature review: Mechanical models
1.1.1. Simplified global models
Various modeling approaches of bolted beam-to-column joints
exist in the mechanical modeling field; from simplified global
models to detailed finite element idealizations. Predictions by
global models are performed through the determination of key
parameters (e.g. initial stiffness, moment capacity, etc.) and fitting
of a skeleton curve through these points. In the empirical global
450 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458
Fig. 1. Deformation sources in a top-and-seat angle connection.
model, the key parameters can be retrieved from experimentally
obtained data sets. These were commonly represented with simple
arithmetic expressions such as power functions, polynomials
or combinations of the two [4,5]. Such global models can
be developed through simple analytical considerations, usually
focusing on the response of one component, which is considered
to be the only source of flexibility in the connection. After major
deformation sources are identified, initial stiffness and moment
capacity are directly determined from material and geometric
properties [6]. These are usually employed by accounting for
deformations only at the connecting elements and neglecting the
flexibility of components of the connected members. Although
simplified global models can be made to fit closely virtually
any shape of the moment–rotation curve, they suffer from the
disadvantage that they cannot be extended outside the range of
calibration. Moreover, they are unable to predict the substantially
different behavior that may result form a possible change of failure
mode, when connections with different geometric and material
properties are considered. Notwithstanding, most of the presently
available connection models, accounting for cyclic loading, belong
to this category. The simplified global models are effective for
design purposes as well as for implementation in frame analysis
programs.
1.1.2. Mechanical models
The finite element modeling can be placed at the other extreme
of mechanical modeling methods. In fact, some detailed finite
element models have good potential to account for the complex
behaviors of connections. However, accurate prediction of a
moment–rotation curves require computationally intensive and
time consuming three-dimensional continuum nonlinear finite
element analyses that are impractical in analysis of large frame
structures.
The component-based method offers a practical method for
modeling the complex behavior of connections without the very
high computational overhead required with the detailed finite
element models. The component-based approach arrives at the
model of the overall connection by combining the analytical
model of the individual sources of flexibility (angles, shear
panel, etc.), including the nonlinear constitutive relationships of
components. Wales and Rossow [7] initiated the component-
based approach, and Tschemmernegg and Humer [8] developed
a component-based model using three sets of springs for welded
and end-plate connections. Madas and Elnashai [9] proposed a
component-based analytical model for the connection region by
which the overall moment–rotation relationship is assembled
from component contributions. De Stefano et al. [10] proposed
a complete mechanical model of double web angle joints by
only using material and geometric properties, but without slip
effects. This was extended by Shen and Astaneh-Asl [11] to double
web angle model by introducing gap element and slip effects.
Moreover, Eurocode 3 [12] was the first code to adopt the concept
of components to determine the design properties of bolted
connections. However, the prediction of complicated hysteretic
response has remained challenging.
1.2. Literature review: Informational models
The primary impediments to modeling bolted connections are
their highly inelastic response and instantaneous variability in
stiffness, strength and ductility. It is exceptionally complicated
to model bolted beam-to-column connections by classical me-
chanics with material and geometric properties. The informational
approach using an artificial neural network is a good alternate
approach, if those effects are the primary concern. Various kinds
of material models using neural networks have been proposed to
describe their complex behavior [13–16]. There are some neural
network applications to beam-to-column connections subjected to
monotonic loading in order to predict moment–rotation relation-
ships of single web connections and end-plated connections [17,
18]. Moreover, Dang and Tan [19] proposed an inner product-based
hysteretic model for the application to piezoceramic actuators.
This inner product concept was extended to be applied to material
and connection modeling by Yun et al. [20]. Informational neural
network formulations may be viewed as equation-free global rep-
resentation, since there is no need for a pre-defined mathemati-
cal expression, thus setting this approach apart from curve-fitting.
The purpose of curve-fitting is to find some parameters for a given
mathematical equation, while that of neural network modeling is
to learn the background mechanics. Once this ‘learning’ is achieved,
the neural network is ready to be implemented into other struc-
tural analysis platforms without posing further simplification and
calibration challenges.
In this article, two different approaches, mechanical and
informational, are considered to model the complex hysteretic
response of beam-to-column joints. First, further refinement of
individual components is conducted and a new component-based
model is proposed with full conformance to the principles of
mechanics. Second, a comprehensive neural network model is
developed for the same problem solved using the mechanical
approach. Finally, the comparative merits and drawbacks of the
two approaches are highlighted, leading to the implication of the
need to combine the two approaches.
2. Component-based mechanical approach
The mechanical approach uses only material and geomet-
ric properties and theoretical mechanics considerations. The
component-based mechanical model of a joint represents a mo-
ment–rotation relationship by superposition of the contribution of
key components. Each component represents a deformation source
by a mathematical expression. For this reason, it is necessary first
to identify all sources of deformation and potential failure in the
joint. Subsequently, the constitutive relationship of each compo-
nent is derived to capture its deformational characteristics. Finally,
an effective assembly of all components that respects equilibrium
and compatibility is important to achieve desirable accuracy and
robustness of the component-based model.
2.1. Identification of deformation sources
A bolted connection has more deformation sources than a
fully welded connection, because a variety of connecting elements
and fasteners are used between a beam and a column. Bolting
imposes fewer constraints on a beam, a column, and connecting
elements than welding, hence bolted connections have more
flexibility than the welded ones. The deformation potential of
connecting elements such as angles is the most critical component
to determine the whole joint behavior. Five important deformation
sources of a top-and-seat angle connection with web angles are
illustrated in Fig. 1 and described below.
 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458 451

B = –
+
+
=
+
A C

B =
– – +

A C

B
=
–

A C

(a) Pull–push test specimen. (b) Deformation process.

Fig. 2. Idealized models and key values of bolted angles.

• The top-and-seat angles yield first and are the main energy
dissipative component, provided that the shear strength of bolts
is sufficient. Since bending of bolts is coupled with that of
angles, angles and bolts are mechanically considered as a single
component.
• The column panel zone is the other major source of deformation
as well as a source of energy dissipation, if it is not excessively
Δ Δ
stiffened by continuity or doubler plates.
• The contact and separation between the face of the column
flange and connecting angles introduces pinching effects into
the comprehensive joint behavior.
• Slippage between angles and beam flanges causes pinching.
• One face of the bolt hole deforms and becomes ovalized if
excessive stresses are concentrated on it. As a consequence of
Fig. 3. Simplified slip model.
ovalization, the slip deformation increases.
the seat angles are idealized as two beams and adequate support
2.2. Derivation of constitutive relationship of components conditions by symmetric configurations [11,21]. In this article, a
tri-linear curve is employed for a force–displacement relationship
The constitutive relationships of all deformable components of the bolted angles. The deformation process is simplified into
have to be reliably defined in order to represent the actual four stages such as an elastic stage, a transition stage, a mechanism
comprehensive response of a joint. In this section, all components stage and a post-yielding stage. Fig. 2 shows the idealized models
of the top-and-seat angle connections are idealized by using and expressions of key parameters, where g1 and g2 are gages
one-dimensional inelastic springs. All springs are formulated in from the angle’s heel to the center of fastener holes in the leg
the force–displacement space and account for load reversals and adjacent to the column face and the leg seating on the beam
reloading. flange, respectively, and t is the thickness of the angle. The key
parameters such as the initial stiffness (K0 ), the first yielding load
2.2.1. Connecting components—Angles (Py ), the transition stiffness (Kt ), and the second yielding load (Ps )
Angles are the most flexible components among connecting are formulated analytically with reasonable assumptions at each
elements due to the L-shape geometry, provided that the thickness stage. Finally, the post-yielding stiffness (Ku ) is defined with the
of an angle is relatively small. The behaviors of the top angle steel hardening coefficient, 0.03 and the initial stiffness in Eq. (1).
and the seat angle, respectively, can be considered as those of Ku = 0.03 × K0 . (1)
push–pull test specimens with double angles. The top angle and
452 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458
(a) Pinched hysteresis loop.
Fig. 4. Diagram of contact and detachment.
2.2.2. Column panel zone
Shear deformation in the column panel zone significantly influ-
ences joint rotational behavior. The tri-linear model developed by
Krawinkler et al. [22] is employed to represent a shear force and de-
formation relationship. The initial rotational stiffness (Ki ) and shear
strain (γi ) corresponding to the first yielding are given in Eq. (2).
Ghc tpz hb √ 
Ki = and γi = fy / 3G
β
where G is the shear modulus, and hc , hb , and tpz are the height
of the column, the height of the beam, and the thickness of the
column web, respectively. β is assumed equal to 1 in the case of an
external joint. After the column web yields, the rotational stiffness
of the column panel zone is ascribed to the column flange bending.
The post-yielding stiffness (Kp ) is expressed in Eq. (3).
24EIfc bc tfc3
Kp = and Ifc =
5tfc β 12
where Ifc is the inertia moment of the column flanges and tfc and bc
are the thickness and the width of the column flanges, respectively.
This post-yielding behavior continues until the column flanges
yield. It is assumed that the yielding of the column flanges occurs
when the shear deformation reaches 4γi . In the final stage, the
rotational stiffness is expressed by the strain hardening of the
material in Eq. (4), where Eh /E is the hardening coefficient of the
material.
Eh
Kh = Ki .
E High-strength bolts are usually placed in holes that are nominally
2.2.3. Slippage
The bolt-hole slip profoundly influences hysteretic behavior in
severe cyclic loading [21,23]. The contact configuration between
bolted double web angles and beam web is identical to the
configuration of symmetric butt splices. The contact configuration
between a top or seat angle and a beam flange is similar to
the configuration of lap splices. In contrast with symmetric
butt splices, lap splices have inherent eccentricity, resulting in
additional bending moment. However, it may be ignored since the
beam web and the other leg of the angle stiffen the contact splices
to prevent bending behavior. In this section, a slip component is
simplified on the basis on the slip mechanism in a symmetric butt
splice.
The slip mechanism has three idealized stages such as before-
slip, slip, and after-slip, which is illustrated in Fig. 3. The
deformation in the before-slip stage may be negligible and the slip
occurs when the slip load is reached. Then, the elastic displacement
(b) Contact nonlinearity.
(2)
Fig. 5. Macro-element for a top-and-seat angle connection.
increases proportionately with the bearing force in the after-
slip stage. Although bolt-holes may be ovalized to increase slip
displacement if excessive stresses are concentrated on the edge of
(3) the bolt-holes, the ovalization is ignored in the current slip model.
The slip response is controlled by three parameters: slip load, slip
displacement and bearing stiffness. First, the slip load is computed
by the slip coefficient (ks ) and the clamping force (Ti ) as seen in
Eq. (5).
Pslip = ks mnTi (5)
where, m and n are the number of slip planes and bolts,
respectively. A basic slip coefficient of 0.33 has been suggested
in the condition with clean mill scale surfaces with monotonic
tests of symmetric butt joints [24]. Second, the slip displacement
is theoretically defined equal to twice of the bolt-hole clearances.
(4)
1/16 in larger than the bolt diameter. Therefore, 1/8 in is taken for
the slip displacement. Third, the bearing stiffness of the bolt-hole
is computed by Eq. (6).
Kbearing ≈ Kbr = 120Fy tp d0b.8 (6)
where, Fy , tp and db are the yielding strength, thickness of faying
plates and diameter of bolts, respectively [25].
2.2.4. Contact and detachment
The contact and detachment between a column flange face and
connecting elements introduces pinching effects in overall joint
behavior. Fig. 4(a) shows a general pinched hysteresis loop and (b)
shows the associated contact configurations in the points noted
on the hysteresis loop, where the column flange face and the
beam end are illustrated by rigid solid lines and rigid dotted lines,
respectively, and the applied moment is diagramed in terms of
the amount and the direction. In steps 1, 4, 5, and 8, the column
web resists the rotation in the direction of applied moment but
 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458
(a) Test specimen.
Fig. 6. A top-and-seat angle connection with double web angles [27].
(a) Experimental results.
Fig. 7. Experimental and analytical hysteretic responses.
not in steps 2 to 3 and 6 to 7. The latter steps bring about stiffness
reduction and the reduced stiffness influences rotational behavior
until the beam end contacts to the column flange face. Therefore, a
component of the contact and detachment is based on the stiffness
and strength of the column web in compression. It can explain one
source of the pinching effects. The elastic stiffness of the contact
and detachment component employs the formulation by Faella
et al. [26] in Eq. (7).
b0eff ·cwc twc [2tsa + 0.6rsa + 2(tcf + s)]twc
Kcwc = E =E
dw c (hc − 2tcf − 2rc )
where tsa , rsa , tcf , and dwc are the thickness of the seat angle, the
fillet radius of the seat angle, the thickness of the column flange,
and the depth of the column, respectively. The value of s is equal
to rc for a rolled section or 2ac for a built-up section. rc and ac are
the web-to-flange radius of the column and the throat thickness of
the welds, respectively.
2.3. Verification examples
A component-based mechanical model is proposed as a macro-
element comprising rigid bars and one-dimensional springs.
Each spring is formulated in the force–displacement domain to
represent the hysteretic response of the deformable component.
Fig. 5 illustrates a simple component-based model of a top-and-
seat angle connection. The distance between the control points
A and B is initially zero. The control point C is the center of the
column panel zone. Two rigid bars going through the control point
453
(b) Component-based mechanical model.
(b) Analytical results.
A and the point B represent the beam end and the column flange
face. The Newton–Raphson method was used to solve the system
of nonlinear equations. Computer-based analytical simulations
were performed to compare the experimental results of two angle
connections; the top-and-seat angle connection with double web
angles by Calado et al. [27] and a top-and-seat angle connection
without double web angles by Kukreti and Abolmaali [28].
2.3.1. Calado et al. [27]
(7) Full scale experimental tests were carried out at the Material
and Structures Test Laboratory in Lisbon. The selected test
specimen (BCC9) consisted of a IPE300 cross-section beam and a
HEB160 cross-section stub column as shown in Fig. 6(a). L-120 ×
120 × 10 top-and-seat angles were connected to the flange of
the stub column by using two rows of 16 mm diameter high-
strength bolts (M16), and L-120 × 80 × 10 double web angles were
connected together by using one row of bolts (M16). About 12 mm
thickness continuity plates were used in column panel zone.
Two preliminary coupon tests were performed for both web and
flange elements and the average value were reported for material
properties. Fig. 6(b) illustrates the component-based mechanical
model of the top-and-seat angle connection with double web
angles. The model (b) contains three different components such
as angles (spring 1), nonlinear contact components (spring 2),
and shear panel zone (spring 3). The parameters of the angle
components varies in the dimension of the angles such as top-
and-seat angles, upper and lower layer of double web angles, and
middle layer of double web angles. The spring 2 is based on a
454 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458

Fig. 8. Details of a top-and-seat angle connection [28].

(a) Mechanical model 1. (b) Mechanical model 2.

Fig. 9. Comparisons between experimental and analytical results.

column web compression component to represent the nonlinear

contact behavior.
The experimental and analytical results are presented and
compared in Fig. 7. The comparison demonstrates that the
mechanical model predicts the pinching response and provides
reasonable agreement in terms of stiffness, strength and pinching.
In fact, the overall hysteresis loops is hardly improved although slip
components are added to the top-and-seat angles. Therefore, this
indicates that the pinching behavior in this example is more
significantly influenced by nonlinear contact components, rather
than slip components. This inference is compatible with the
physical investigation that the use of double web angles restrains
the top-and-seat angles from undergoing slippage.

2.3.2. Kukreti and Abolmaali [28]

Kukreti and Abolmaali presented the experimental results for
12 top-and-seat angle connections [28]. Fig. 8 illustrates the
geometric details of the tested connections. The response of a
selected connection shows highly pinched hysteresis loops and
seems to have all deformation sources described in the previous
sections. For the design details of the selected connection, lh , lv , t,
db , gc , d, and fy are 152, 152, 19, 22, 64, 400 (mm), and 345 (MPa).
Two component-based mechanical models were simulated
and compared with the experimental results in Fig. 9. The first
mechanical model (a) contains three components like the previous
example of the top-and-seat angle connection with double web
angles. Although the analytical response displays reasonable
agreement in terms of initial and unloading stiffness, the first
model overestimates the moment capacity and almost ignores
the pinching effects. This demonstrates that slip components
are required to exhibit highly pinched hysteresis Fig. 9(b), the
Fig. 10. Neural network based cyclic model by Yun et al. [20].
addition of slip components enables the second mechanical model
to predict the pinching behavior but the considerable difference
between the analytical and experimental loops still exists due to
overestimating of the slip load. A lower value of slip coefficient,
reflecting the dynamic nature of the slip mechanism, may replace
the static coefficient of 0.33 in this simulation subjected to cyclic
loads. The value would be determined by an empirical approach
rather than a mechanical approach. Moreover, the model cannot
exhibit the delay of stiffening after the maximum slip displacement
is reached at each cycle. This delay results from the ovalization of
bolt hole, which is introduced by the concentration of excessive
stresses at the later cycles.
 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458 455

150 150

100 100

50 50
Moment(kN-m)

Moment(kN-m)
0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100
Mathematical Mathematical
Informational Informational
-150 -150
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Rotation(rad,%) Rotation(rad,%)
(a) NN structure: 5-10-10-2, 30 000 epochs. (b) NN structure: 5-30-30-1, 2000 epochs.

Fig. 11. Comparison between target and neural network responses.

0.002

0.0015
Avg. error

0.001

0.0005

0
0 5000 10000 15000
Epoch
(a) Experimental setup of Calado et al. [27]. (b) Neural network training.

Fig. 12. Experimental test case.

3. Informational neural network approach
An informational approach is suggested as an alternative
approach to model complex material and structural behavior,
which are not easily approximated by conventional methods. The
alternative approach is based on the information contained in the
observed data. This is a fundamental transition from mathematical
equations to data that contain the required information of the
physical behavior. Computational intelligence methods have made
this approach possible and effective. The information about the
underlying mechanics is extracted from the observed data and
stored in neural networks. Trained neural networks can then be
used in the simulations.
3.1. Nonlinear hysteretic model with neural network
A nonlinear hysteretic neural network model was proposed
by Yun et al. [20] to model the stress–strain relationship of
a material as seen in Fig. 10. In a cyclic response, one strain
value may correspond to multiple stresses. The one-to-many
mapping prevents a neural network from learning hysteretic
behaviors. The proposed neural network contains 5 input variables
of εn , εn−1 , σn−1 , ξn , and 1ηε,n . Two hysteretic parameters of ξn
and 1ηε,n were introduced to transform the one-to-many mapping
to single-valued mapping. These were defined as ξn = σn−1 εn−1
and 1ηε,n = σn−1 1εn , where the subscript n indicates the nth
incremental step. The variable ξ is related to the strain energy in
the previous step. The variable 1η indicates the direction of the
strain increment (loading or unloading). In this model, a closed
hysteretic loop is subdivided into six segments and each segment
corresponds to aunique combination of the signs of the three
variables of εn , ξn , and 1ηε,n . The current strain and the hysteretic
parameters are key variables determining the quadrant and the
direction of the strain increment. The remaining two variables
of strain and stress in the previous step help in modeling the
path dependent material behavior. Further details can be found in
Reference [20].
Determining the number of neurons in hidden layers is a
difficult task in designing the neural network architecture as stated
in the following quotation from Reference [14]. ‘‘The number of
the neuron in the hidden layers determines the capacity of a
neural network, which in turn is related to the complexity of
the underlying knowledge base in the training data. However,
the degree of the complexity of the problem cannot easily be
quantified’’. There are no explicit rules for determining the number
of neurons in hidden layers. In this article, parametric study was
used to determine the number of neurons in the hidden layers.
The training process is carried out by using Nested Adaptive Neural
Network (NANN) proposed for the purpose of modeling path-
dependent material behavior by Ghaboussi et al. [29].
The trained neural network models should be verified with
the target response in recurrent mode. In the recurrent mode, the
output predicted by the trained neural network models is utilized
in computing the input values in the next step. Therefore, the
inputs in the current step such as the hysteretic parameters and
previous states of force and displacement are determined with the
output of the neural network in the previous step. This mode suits
stepwise nonlinear analysis techniques. However, it claims that
the stepwise error may be accumulated in the recurrent mode.
In this section, this neural network is extended to be utilized
for approximating the hysteretic moment–rotation relationship of
456 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458
Fig. 13. Comparison between experimental and neural network results.
beam-to-column connections. The effectiveness of this method is
examined in a simple mathematical case and a complex actual test
case.
3.2. Verification example
3.2.1. Mathematical case
The behavior of a specimen is assumed to follow a Ram-
berg–Osgood type function and the training data sets are generated
by Eq. (8).
"   r −1 #
M M
θ= 1+
K0 My
where My , K0 and r are the yielding strength, the initial
stiffness, and the shape parameter, respectively. The input–output
relationship of the neural network is illustrated in Eq. (9), which is
simply converted from stress–strain domain to moment–rotation
domain. Fig. 11 shows the comparison between the targeted
experimental and the neural network results in different neural
network structures. In these cases, the shape parameter, r, is taken
equal to 7. The trained neural networks consist of 2 hidden layers in
common, but one has 10 neurons per hidden layer, while the other
has 30 neurons. The green o-line and the blue dot-line represent
target responses and the neural network outputs, respectively.
Both comparisons show excellent agreement between the target
and neural network responses, which are simulated in recurrent
mode. In the first case in Fig. 11(a), the use of the comparatively
small number of neurons required the large number of training
cycles of 30 000 epochs in order to predict the cyclic response.
On the other hand, the comparatively large-structured neural
network in Fig. 11(b) predicted the same target response with the
significantly smaller number of training cycles of 2000 epochs.
The results show that the neural network with 5 input variables,
including the 2 hysteretic variables, is able to represent the smooth
hysteretic behavior with sufficient accuracy. Moreover, although
there is no explicit rule in selecting the number of epochs and
neurons in each hidden layer, a proper combination of these allows
the proposed neural network model to predict the cyclic response
based on the mathematical rule. Next examples will demonstrate
the general capability to learn the background mechanics of the
actual hysteretic behavior of connections.
Mn = M̂NN [{θn , θn−1 , Mn−1 , ξn , 1ηn }].
3.2.2. Experimental test case
A beam-to-column connection using top-and-seat angles with
web angles is shown in Fig. 12(a),which was tested by Calado
et al. [27]. The experimental results exhibit a highly nonlinear
response including pinching effects and light deterioration. The
training data sets were collected and constructed with moment
and rotation pairs digitized randomly from the experimental re-
sults. They contain inherent errors from the physical experimen-
tal process and are arrayed with random step sizes. This makes a
difference between the actually collected data and mathematically
generated data in the previous case. The neural network shown in
Eq. (10) was used to model the actual connection behavior. It in-
cludes one additional input variable of En−1 needed to represent
the more complex hysteretic behavior that includes pinching and
degradation. The preliminary parametric studies were carried out
to determine the number of neurons in the hidden layers and then
the neural network was consequently constructed with 2 hidden
layers and 15 neurons per hidden layers. Fig. 12(b) shows the av-
erage error used in the training of the neural network versus the
number of epoch. After the training of 12 000 epochs, the results of
the neural network model are compared with the target response.
As can be seen in Fig. 13, the comparison demonstrates that the
neural network model predicts overall pinched hysteresis loops
very well and the results show that this neural network model
with 6 input variables is capable of modeling the more compli-
cated cases with reasonable accuracy. To summarize, the example
indicates that the informational model, when using a properly de-
signed neural network, may be capable of learning the complex be-
havior of a bolted connection directly from the experimental data.
Mn = M̂NN [{θn , θn−1 , Mn−1 , ξn , 1ηn , En−1 }]. (10)
(8) 4. Comparison and discussion of the above two approaches
The challenge of modeling the behavior of bolted connections
is inelastic responses of individual components and their interac-
tions. A detailed three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model
may be capable of representing the complex behavior of bolted
beam-to-column connections, including friction, slippage, contact,
initial imperfection, and residual stress. However, incorporating
the detailed finite element models of many connections in the dy-
namic analysis of large frame structures during the design pro-
cess becomes impractical. Two modeling approaches are proposed
in this article. The proposed models are capable of represent-
ing the complex behavior of semi-rigid connections and they are
suitable for incorporating in the analysis of framed structures. A
component-based mechanical and an informational neural net-
work models are developed to represent the behavior of steel
bolted beam-to-column connections. The features of the two dis-
tinct approaches are compared and contrasted herein.
In the component-based mechanical model, the constitutive re-
lationships of all the components and their mechanical assembly
are based on only material and geometric properties with theoret-
ical mechanics considerations. The effectiveness of a component-
based approach depends on the number of components and the
accuracy of component constitutive relationships. Once an accept-
able number of components is identified and idealized from the
observed physical behavior to mathematical equations, the model-
ing framework is ready to be applied to different configurations of
connections by only changing the dimension and/or material prop-
erties. However, the idealization may often lead the mathematical
equations to exclude some aspects of physical behavior that may
be significant, but are insufficiently understood.
(9) In accurate modeling of bolted angle connections, challenges
are introduced due to their highly pinched shape of hysteresis
loops. The pinching behavior is of primary concern, because it
influences ductility and energy absorption capacities. The inelastic
behaviors between connecting and connected elements cause
pinching effects. They are idealized as contact nonlinearity and
 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458
slip component as described in the Section 2. In the first example
of the top-and-seat angle connection with double web angles,
the pinched hysteresis loops were effectively approximated by
using the contact nonlinearity component, which was based on
a completely mechanical approach. On the other hand, even
adding slip components resulted in considerable errors in the
second example of the top-and-seat angle connection, because the
idealized slip model might leave out some aspects that have an
influence on pinching effects.
The conventional mechanical modeling process including the
detailed finite element modeling and the component-based
modeling involves idealization in going from the observed
behavior to the field equations representing that behavior.
Idealization may often lead the equations to exclude some aspects
of the physical behavior that may be significant. An alternative
approach is to represent the physical response based on the
information contained in the observed data. In the informational
approach, the information about underlying mechanics is directly
extracted from the available analytical and/or experimental data
and stored in neural networks. This implies that the neural network
model does not need a pre-defined mathematical expression in
contrast with the mechanical approach. And, if the modeling
complexity is of concern, the neural network model is an attractive
alternative approach because the primary benefit of neural
networks lies in the fact that they are capable of inferring a rule
from the data with greater efficiency than developing a function
by hand, which in some cases may be entirely impractical.
The complex hysteretic behavior of bolted connections moti-
vated the development of informational models with neural net-
works. In Section 3, the neural network modeling was examined
and applied successfully through the two examples based on the
mathematically generated and experimental data. It was not nec-
essary to employ any mathematical expression and to make any
assumption to simplify the problem. However, the neural network
model of the top-and-seat angle connection was limited to only
predict the global response that includes all components. It could
not represent the contribution of individual components and hence
does not provide an insight into the underlying mechanics. This
poses problems to extensions and applications to other configura-
tions and material properties.
A possible approach to overcome the above limitations is
that a component-based approach is enhanced with one or more
informational components, which are not amenable to mechanical
representations. In modeling bolted beam-to-column connections,
the components of slip and ovalization are very challenging from
a mechanical viewpoint. This may be due to the complexity of
approximating (i) continuously varying slip stiffness (ii) slip load
sensitivity to several parameters, and (iii) slip displacement due to
ovalization. First, the derivation of the comprehensive slip stiffness
is not straightforward and practical in building frame. The overall
slip response of a connection may result from the combination of
local slippage at each bolt-hole. The local slip movement varies
in its slip load, direction, and displacement. The clamping forces
at each bolt-hole are different. The local slip directions may not
be parallel to the comprehensive slip direction because bolts slip
at different instances. The differing directions and bolt placement
lead to differences in local slip displacement. Moreover, the slip
load is computed by a slip coefficient and clamping force, which are
influenced more by other factors than the fundamental material
and geometric properties. A slip coefficient is indeed categorized
as a system property. Unlike true material properties such as yield
strength, the slip coefficient depends on velocity and interface
condition between the materials. Furthermore, the clamping force
tends to experience considerable relaxation after only a few cycles,
which cannot be obtained from material properties. Another
complicating consideration is that high-strength bolts are usually
placed in holes that are nominally 1/16 in larger than the bolt
457
diameter. Therefore, the maximum slip that can occur in a joint
prior to ovalization is 1/8 in. However, in practical terms, the
observed slip is generally less than 1/8 in., provided that more than
2 bolts are used in more than 2 bolt-lines. This might be due to
misalignments inherent to the fabrication processes. Also, accurate
evaluation of the ovalized bolt-hole requires detailed finite
element analysis. This is not suitable to incorporate into building
frame analysis. Therefore, the informational slip model could
be an attractive substitute for a much simplified mathematical
model, an empirically fitted numerical model or an extremely
complex detailed three-dimensional finite element model of each
connection.
5. Concluding remarks
Two distinct modeling approaches were presented and ex-
amined to represent the complex hysteretic behavior of bolted
beam-to-column angle connections in steel frames. First, top-and-
seat angle connections were modeled through a component-based
‘mechanical’ approach, where the deformation sources were iden-
tified and formulated with individual force–displacement relation-
ships for angles, shear panel zone, nonlinear contact, and slippage.
All constitutive relationships except slippage were derived on the
basis of rigorous mechanical approach. The capability of predict-
ing moment–rotation relationship under cyclic loads was investi-
gated in comparison with the experimental test results. Although
the highly pinched hysteretic response of a top-and-seat angle con-
nection with double web angles was predicted quite well by the
completely mechanical model, the component-based model of the
top-and-seat angle connection requires slip relationships, which
are not amenable to mechanical modeling. In the second part of
the article, neural network models were applied to learn ana-
lytical simulation and mechanical rules directly from analytically
generated and experimental data. The neural networks ‘informa-
tional’ model demonstrated excellent agreement with the actual
response. The results emphasize that the neural network model
may be a good alternative to the mechanical model for predicting
hysteretic behavior, where even considerable pinching is observed.
Finally, the limitation of two approaches was discussed and con-
trasted.
Both the proposed models of beam-to-column connections rep-
resent the uniaxial inelastic moment–rotation relationship. These
are easily extended to two-dimensional or three-dimensional mo-
ment–rotation relationship but the coupled effects between two
directions need further investigation. And, since the mathemati-
cal expressions utilized in the component-based mechanical model
are derived from the material and geometric properties, they are
easy to extend to the general use for changing the configuration
and material properties. However, there are components of the de-
formation that are not suited to mechanical representations. This
may be due to (i) the underlying theory is not available or not suf-
ficiently developed, or (ii) the existing theory is too complex and it
is, therefore, not suitable for modeling within building frame anal-
ysis. An example of such a component of deformation is slippage
at and ovalization of bolt-holes. These two specific components are
shown to be exceptionally challenging to model within an efficient
representation for beam–column connections in frames. They are,
however, most suitable for informational models. The corollary of
the above treatment is that a mixed formation that includes the
most effective mechanical and informational aspects of the com-
plex connection behavior would be a clear option worthy of in-
vestigation. Such approaches are recommended for extending the
present study.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Mid-America Earthquake
(MAE) Center project EE-3; Advanced Simulation Tools.The Mid-
458 J. Kim et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 449–458
America Earthquake Center is an Engineering Research Center
funded by the National Science Foundation under cooperative
agreement reference grant No. EEC-9701785. This support is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY, Denesh-Ashtiani FA. Response of semirigid steel
frames to cyclic and earthquake loads. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1998;124(8):857–67.
[2] Takanashi K, Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY, Ohi K. Earthquake behaviour of
steel and composite frames. Report no ESEE 93/3. Joint report by institute of
industrial science. London (England): University of Tokyo, Japan, Department
of civil engineering, Imperial College, University of London; 1993.
[3] Faella C, Piluso B, Rizzano G. Connection influence on the elastic and
inelastic behaviour of steel frames. In: International workshop and seminar
on behaviour of steel structures in seismic areas, STESSA’94. 1994.
[4] Frye MJ, Morris GA. Analysis of flexibility connected steel frames. Canad J Civ
Eng 1975;2(3):280–91.
[5] Ang KM, Morris GA. Analysis of three-dimensional frames with flexible
beam–column connections. Canad J Civ Eng 1984;11(2):245–54.
[6] Chen W, Kishi N. Semirigid steel beam-to-column connections: Data base and
modeling. J Struct Eng 1989;115(1):105–19.
[7] Wales MW, Rossow EC. Coupled moment–axial force behavior in bolted joints.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1983;109(5):1250–66.
[8] Tschemmernegg F, Humer C. The design of structural steel frames under
consideration of the nonlinear behaviour of joints. J Constr Steel Res 1988;
11(2):73–103.
[9] Madas PJ, Elnashai AS. A component-based model for beam–column
connections. In: Tenth world conference on earthquake engineering. 1992. p.
4495–507.
[10] De Stefano M, De Luca A, Astaneh-Asl A. Modeling of cyclic moment–rotation
response of double-angle connections. J Struct Eng 1994;120(1):212–29.
[11] Shen J, Astaneh-Asl A. Hysteresis model of bolted-angle connections. J Constr
Steel Res 2000;54(3):317–43.
[12] Eurocode 3. ENV 1993-1-1. Design of steel structures. Annex J, Joint in building
frames. CEN. Brussels: European committee of standardization; 1997.
[13] Ghaboussi J, Garrett JH, Wu X. Knowledge-based modeling of material
behavior with neural networks. J Eng Mech 1991;117(1):132–53.
[14] Ghaboussi J, Sidarta DE. New nested adaptive neural networks (NANN) for
constitutive modeling. Comput Geotech 1998;22(1):29–52.
[15] Gawin D, Lefik M, Schrefler BA. ANN approach to sorption hysteresis within
a coupled hygro-thermo-mechanical FE analysis. Internat J Numer Methods
Engrg 2001;50(2):299–323.
[16] Furukawa T, Hoffman M. Accurate cyclic plastic analysis using a neural
network material model. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2004;28(3):195–204.
[17] Anderson D, Hines EL, Arthur SJ, Eiap EL. Application of artificial neural
networks to the prediction of minor axis steel connections. Comput Struct
1997;63(4):685–92.
[18] Stavroulakis GE, Avdelas AV, Abdalla KM, Panagiotopoulos PD. A neural
network approach to the modelling, calculation and identification of semi-
rigid connections in steel structures. J Constr Steel Res 1997;44(1–2):91–105.
[19] Dang X, Tan Y. An inner product-based dynamic neural network hysteresis
model for piezoceramic actuators. Sensors Actuators 2005;121(2):535–42.
[20] Yun GJ, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. A new neural network-based model for
hysteretic behavior of materials. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg 2008;73(4):
447–69.
[21] Shen J, Astaneh-Asl A. Hysteretic behavior of bolted-angle connections. J
Constr Steel Res 1999;51(3):201–18.
[22] Krawinkler H. Shear design of steel frame joints. Eng J, AISC 1978;15(3).
[23] Swanson JA, Leon RT. Bolted steel connections: Tests on T-stub components. J
Struct Eng 2000;126(1):50–6.
[24] Kulak GL, Fisher JW, Struik JHA. Guide to design criteria for bolted and riveted
joints. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1987.
[25] Rex CO, Easterling WS. Behavior and modeling of single bolt lap splice
connections. Report no. CE/VPI-ST. 1996.
[26] Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G. Prediction of the flexural resistance of bolted
connections with angles. In: IABSE, International colloquium on semi-rigid
structural connections. 1996.
[27] Calado L, De Matteis G, Landolfo R. Experimental response of top and seat angle
semi-rigid steel frame connections. Mater Struct/Materiaux Et Constr 2000;
33(232):499–510.
[28] Kukreti AR, Abolmaali AS. Moment–rotation hysteresis behavior of top and
seat angle steel frame connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 1999;
125(8):810–20.
[29] Ghaboussi J, Zhang M, Wu X, Pecknold D. Nested adaptive neural network:
A new architecture. In: Proceedings of international conference on artificial
neural networks in engineering, ANNIE97. 1997.