Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Parametric study of double angle framing

connections subjected to shear and tension
K. Honga, *, J.G. Yang b, S.K. Lee c

a
School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Shinchon-don 134,
Sudaemun-ku, Seoul 120-749, South Korea
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, Kwandong University, Yimcheon-li, Yangyang-up,
Yangyang-gun, Kangwon-do, 215-800, South Korea
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dongyang Technical College, 62-160 Kochuk-dong, Kuro-ku,
Seoul, 152-714, South Korea

Received 5 July 2000; revised 8 May 2001; accepted 22 May 2001

Abstract

Double-angle connections, which are welded to the beam web and bolted to the column
flange, are studied to establish the effects of the bolt gage distances and the angle thicknesses.
Six steel angles are considered. For an angle section having three different thicknesses, two
different bolt gage distances are analyzed. They are subjected to axial tensile loads, shear loads,
and a combination of these loads. An elastic–perfectly plastic constitutive law is assumed. The
software package ABAQUS is used to generate a double-angle framing connection. This three-
dimensionsl (3D) finite element model consists of an angle, four bolts, springs, and half the
beam web. In the development of the 3D finite element model, the contact problem between
the angles and the bolt heads is considered in addition to the separation of the angle from the
column. The load–displacement relationship and moment–rotation relationship of each connec-
tion with given loading conditions are established, as well as stress distributions for the angles.
Experimental tests are conducted with axial tensile loadings for verification of the finite
element model analysis.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Double-angle connection; Three-dimensional finite element analysis; Nonlinear behavior;

Axial tensile load; Shear load; Gage distance; Angle thickness

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-2123-2787; fax: +82-2-365-4688.

E-mail address: sel2000@yonsei.ac.kr (K. Hong).

0143-974X/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - 0
998 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

1. Introduction

Double-angle connections are considered as PR (partially restrained) type connec-

tions or more specifically as simple shear connections in practical structural design.
This means that they are idealized as pins and are assumed to transfer only shear
loads to the supporting members. However, it has been found that they may transfer
some moments to the supporting members, and most previous studies have been
conducted to clarify the moment–rotation curves in the connections with an applied
moment resulting from the application of transverse forces on the beams. Almost
50 experimental tests have been carried out to obtain moment–rotation curves, and
analytical models and design formulas have been suggested to describe these curves
[1–10].
Fig. 1 depicts four typical double-angle connection configurations. The column
bolted, beam web welded connection [Fig. 1(d)] is investigated in this paper. Axial
tensile loads are monotonically applied at one end of the beam to establish the load–
displacement relationship of the angle.
The uniform load acting on the top beam is applied to establish the moment–
rotation relationship of the angle. To predict the effect of axial tensile loads on the
moment–rotation relationship of double-angle connections, a combination of axial
tensile loads and shear loads is applied proportionally.
The finite element method (FEM) can be an effective method to investigate the
behavior of different types of connection. Many investigations have been conducted
using the finite element method [11–23]. A few of them consider double-angle con-

Fig. 1. Four typical double-angle connection configurations: (a) column flange welded–beam web bolted;
(b) column flange welded–beam web welded; (c) column flange bolted–beam web bolted; (d) column
flange bolted–beam web welded.
 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 999

nections, while the rest of them investigate the behavior of endplate connections. To
obtain load–displacement curves, moment–rotation curves, and stress distributions,
the commercial software package ABAQUS [25,26] is utilized in this research. From
the results of the three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis, the initial stiffness
and final stiffness of each connection can be obtained by using regression techniques
for various loading conditions.

2. Finite element analysis

In the development of a 3D finite element model, symmetry is utilized and only

one half of an entire double-angle connection through the beam web is analyzed
using the following ABAQUS element types:

1 C3D20 20-node quadratic brick elements are used for the angle and bolts. Hex
bolt heads and nuts are idealized as square bolt heads and nuts to simplify the
analysis. Washers are not modeled in this analysis.
2 C3D8 eight-node linear brick elements are used for the beam. The entire beam
model is simplified as a beam web having one-half of the moment of inertia of
the actual beam cross-section with respect to the strong axis.
3 C3D6 six-node linear triangular prism elements are used to model the welds con-
necting the angle to the beam web.
4 SPRING2 elements are used to model the column flange and account for a lack
of resistance to tension forces. These represent bilinear springs acting horizontally
between nodes of the column flange and the outstanding leg of the angle with a
stiffness of 3.5×105 kN/m in compression and a negligible stiffness in tension.

The whole angle modeling is shown schematically in Fig. 2.

For simulation of the contact between the bolt heads and the outstanding leg of
the angle, two ABAQUS contact options are used. The “CONTACT PAIR, SMALL

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the whole angle modeling.

1000 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

SLIDING” and “SURFACE BEHAVIOR, NO SEPARATION” options are applied

for the angle specimens having g1=9.0 cm, while the “CONTACT PAIR, FINITE
SLIDING” option with friction coefficient of m=0.6 is used for the rest of the angle
specimens. Three different loading cases are considered: (A) axial tensile loading
only; (B) shear loading only; (C) combined axial tensile loading and shear loading.
These loading conditions treated are depicted in Fig. 3(a). g1 is defined as the distance
between the centerline of bolts and the corner of the angle as shown in Fig. 3(b).
The contact and bearing interactions between the bolt shanks and the bolt holes are
neglected. The “MPC” (multi-point constraints) option is used to impose constraints
between the beam elements and the back-to-back leg of the angle.

Fig. 3. (a) Loading condition, (b) geometric configuration and (c) measurements of displacement and
angle change for double-angle connections.
 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 1001

Pre-stressing forces are applied to the bolts as initial stresses to simulate fully
tightened bolts with minimum bolt tension. For the procedure, the options “BOUND-
ARY, OP=NEW, FIXED” and “CLOAD, OP=NEW” are utilized to apply 125 kN
to each bolt as the pre-stressing force. After the pre-stressing bolt force is applied,
the end of each bolt shank is assumed to be clamped.
The 3D finite element model consists of an angle, four bolts, springs, and half
the beam web. The total number of elements is over 1300 and the total number of
variables (including Lagrange multipliers) is more than 16,000.
The angles are assumed to be made of SS400 steel, with modulus of elasticity of
200 GPa, yield stress of 0.25 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. Elastic–perfectly plastic
material behavior is assumed for the angle, bolt and beam elements, and the von
Mises yield criterion is adopted. A H350×350×12×19 (equivalent to W14×90) col-
umn and a H400×200×8×13 (equivalent to W18×35) beam are considered, with 2.0
cm diameter F10T (M20) bolts and 0.6 cm E70xx welds. The modified Riks–
Wempner method is utilized to compute the displacements and stresses as the loads
are increased.
To establish the effects of the angle thickness and the bolt gage distance, six
angles are treated: (A) L125×75×7 with g1=9.0 cm; (B) L125×75×7 with g1=6.5 cm;
(C) L125×75×10 with g1=9.0 cm; (D) L125×75×10 with g1=6.5 cm; (E) L125×75×13
with g1=9.0 cm; and (F) L125×75×13 with g1=6.5 cm. In Figs. 3 and 4, the angle
length h is 28 cm, the thickness tw of the beam web is 0.8 cm, the length of the
beam is 6.0 m, and the depth of the beam is 40 cm. Also, the spacing between the
bolts on the outstanding leg is 7.0 cm center-to-center.
The uniform load per unit length acting on the beam is 2Q, and the uniform axial
tensile load per length across the depth of the beam is 2F/d. Therefore the total shear
load is 2QL and the total axial load is 2F. In the analysis, symmetry is utilized and
the half of the structure being considered with one angle is subjected either to an
axial tensile load F, a shear load per length Q, or a combination of F and Q.
Using the Richard’s formula [27,28], the finite element results are analyzed by
regression techniques to obtain several parameters that describe the double-angle
connection behavior. It is given by
R(⌬) = Kp⌬ + (K⫺Kp)⌬[1 + |(K⫺Kp)⌬/R0|n]⫺1/n, (1)
where R is the force, ⌬ is the deformation, K is the elastic (initial) stiffness, Kp is
the plastic (final) stiffness, R0 is a reference load, and n is the curve shape (or

Fig. 4. Geometry of angle used in the analysis and test (units: mm).
1002 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

Fig. 5. Main parameters of Richard’s formula.

sharpness) parameter as shown in Fig. 5. The curve shape parameter controls the
rate of decay of the curve’s slope within the given loading conditions. It is also
important because it represents physically a measure of imperfections in the connec-
tion [12].

3. Finite element results

3.1. Axial tensile loading only

In this section, only axial tensile loading is considered (i.e., Q=0 in Fig. 3). The
value of F (the total load acting on one angle) is increased and the stresses and
displacements are determined.
Fig. 6 illustrates the load–displacement curves for each angle that has certain

Fig. 6. Load–displacement relationship for each angle due to tension loading.

 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 1003

values of t and g1. The initial portion of each curve is almost linear, as is the final
portion. As t increases and g1 decreases, the initial stiffness of the angle increases
and the load required to produce a given displacement increases. Table 1 contains
the data for the main parameters obtained by using Richard’s formula. In comparison
to the initial stiffness for Case A (t=0.7 cm, g1=9.0 cm; Kini,A=270 kN/cm), that for
Case C (t=1.0 cm, g1=9.0 cm) is about 2.3 times larger and that for Case E (t=1.3
cm, g1=9.0 cm) is 3.4 times larger. When g1 reduces from 9.0 cm to 6.5 cm, the
initial stiffnesses for Case B (t=0.7 cm, g1=6.5 cm) and Case D (t=1.0 cm, g1=6.5
cm) are about 2.0 times larger than those for Case A and Case C, respectively.
Similarly, the initial stiffness for Case F (t=1.3 cm, g1=6.5 cm) is about 2.5 times
larger than that for Case E.
Fig. 7(a) presents the distributions of the von Mises equivalent stress in the angle
for Case A with F=40.8 kN, while Fig. 7(b) give similar pictures for Case E with
F=95.2 kN. These loads are the highest ones considered for the respective cases.
The figures are oriented such that the back-to-back leg (without bolt holes) is vertical
and is pulled upward. The color scales are not the same in the two parts of the
figure. The stresses are symmetric about the centerline of the angle. Zones of high
stress are observed in the outstanding leg of the angle near the bolt holes as the
tensile load is increased. Some high stresses also are seen on the back-to-back leg,
especially for the thicker angle in Fig. 7(b). Stresses are high in the bolts near the
inner edge of the bolt head and the outer edge of the bolt shank.

3.2. Shear loading only

The axial tensile load is set equal to zero and the shear load Q is increased. The
bending moment and rotation at the upper corner of the angle in Fig. 3 are determined
from the finite element program and from equilibrium considerations.
Fig. 8 shows the moment–rotation curves for each angle that has certain values
of t and g1. They do not have an almost bilinear form as in Fig. 6. Due to the
excessive yielding of the upper corner of the outstanding leg, the double-angle con-
nections can resist moments no longer after ultimate resistance. These responses are
shown in Fig. 8. Again, the initial rotational stiffness of each angle increases when
t increases and g1 decreases. In comparison with the initial stiffness for Case A
(Kini,A=568 kN m/rad), that for Case C is about 2.8 times larger and that for Case

Table 1
Main parameters for each angle subjected to axial tensile loading

K (kN/cm) Kp (kN/cm) R0 (kN) n

Case A (t=0.7 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 270 13.0 32.0 4.1

Case B (t=0.7 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 530 16.0 44.3 3.6
Case C (t=1.0 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 622 19.0 67.9 3.9
Case D (t=1.0 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 1187 26.0 81.5 2.9
Case E (t=1.3 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 905 50.0 52.6 3.8
Case F (t=1.3 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 2271 75.0 131.3 2.6
1004 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

Fig. 7. von Mises stress distributions for Case A and Case E due to tension loading: (1) L125×75×7
with g1=9.0 cm; (b) L125×75×13 with g1=9.0 cm.

E is 5.5 times larger when g1=9.0 cm. At g1=6.5 cm, the initial stiffnesses for Case
B, Case D and Case F are about 2.5 times larger than those for Case A, Case C and
Case E, respectively, as shown in Table 2.
The von Mises equivalent stress distributions at the final loading for Cases A and
E are presented in Fig. 9(a) and 9(b), respectively. The final loadings for each case
are QL=114.6 kN and 243.1 kN, respectively. The stresses are naturally not sym-
metric about the centerline of the angle in this case. The top-left end of the angle
represents the top of the angle in Fig. 3(a), so that the rotation is measured there. The
lower-left end of the outstanding leg of the angle is pushed into the column flange.
 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 1005

Fig. 8. Moment–rotation relationship for each angle due to shear loading.

Table 2
Main parameters for each angle subjected to shear loading

K (kN m/rad) Kp (kN m/rad.) R0 (kN m) n

Case A (t=0.7 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 568 34.3 3.8 3.5

Case B (t=0.7 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 1617 44.1 5.3 2.6
Case C (t=1.0 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 1568 49.0 7.0 3.2
Case D (t=1.0 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 3920 58.8 11.1 2.4
Case E (t=1.3 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 3097 58.8 12.6 2.7
Case F (t=1.3 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 7125 88.2 18.2 2.5

3.3. Combined axial tensile loading and shear loading

Finally, axial loading and shear loading are applied simultaneously. It is assumed
that Q and F in Fig. 3 are increased proportionally, with QL=2F. As in the previous
section, the moment–rotation relationship at the upper corner of the angle is determ-
ined.
Fig. 10 presents the moment–rotation curves for each angle having certain values
of t and g1. When g1 equals 9.0 cm, the moment–rotation curve for each case shows
an almost linear form. Again an increase in the thickness increases its stiffness, while
a decrease in the bolt gage distance increases its stiffness.
Main parameters that describe the behavior of each curve are listed in Table 3.
The initial stiffness for Case C is approximately 4.6 times larger than that for Case
A (Kini,A=155 kN m/rad), while the initial stiffness for Case E is about 11.2 times
larger than that for Case A. Similarly, the initial slope in Fig. 10 is approximately
5.9 times larger for Case D than for Case B (Kini,B=461 kN m/rad) and about 12.7
times larger for Case F than for Case B. Compared with the results for shear loading
only, the initial rotational stiffness for each case decreased significantly due to the
influence of axial tensile loads.
1006 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

Fig. 9. von Mises stress distributions for Case A and Case E due to shear loading.

Fig. 11 depicts the distribution of the von Mises equivalent stress for Case A and
Case E at the final combined loading considered: QL=74.7 kN and F=37.4 kN for
Case A and QL=205.8 kN and F=103.1 kN for Case E. As before, the top-left corner
of the angle represents the top of the angle in Fig. 3(a), the color scales are not the
same, and there is no symmetry about the centerline due to the shear loading. High
stresses are observed in the outstanding leg near the bolts and the corner of the angle.
As in the other cases, stresses are relatively low in the portion of the outstanding leg
beyond the bolts, which is primarily pushed into the column flange.
 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 1007

Fig. 10. Moment–rotation relationship for each angle due to shear loading plus axial tensile loading.

Table 3
Main parameters for each angle subjected to shear plus axial tensile loading

K (kN m/rad.) Kp (kN m/rad.) R0 (kN m) n

Case A (t=0.7 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 155 34.3 1.9 2.5

Case B (t=0.7 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 461 44.1 8.8 2.9
Case C (t=1.0 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 711 49.0 2.9 2.8
Case D (t=1.0 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 2725 53.9 6.0 2.6
Case E (t=1.3 cm, g1=9.0 cm) 1736 58.2 6.3 2.5
Case F (t=1.3 cm, g1=6.5 cm) 5866 98.0 9.8 2.5

4. Experimental tests

Four experimental tests were conducted to investigate the actual double-angle

behavior under axial tensile loads and compare its results with those from the finite
element analysis.
A 0.9 cm thick plate was connected to a H350×350×12×19 (equivalent to
W14×90) column with a double-angle connection. L125×75×7 and L125×75×10
angle sections were used for the double-angle connection with two different bolt
gage distances (g1=6.5 cm and 9.0 cm, respectively). Each outstanding leg was con-
nected to the column with four 2.0 cm diameter F10T (M20) bolts. Each back-to-
back leg was connected to the plate with 0.60 cm E70xx fillet welds. Two bolts were
instrumented and calibrated. A universal-type testing machine was used to apply the
axial tensile load. Use of the machine required that 1.20 cm thick plates be connected
to each side of the plate with 0.80 cm welds. Two linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDTs) were placed near the end of the angle to measure the displace-
ment of its corner. The test set-up is shown in Fig. 12.
Before the actual tensile tests, two coupon tests were conducted to evaluate the
1008 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

Fig. 11. von Mises stress distributions for Case A and Case E due to shear loading plus axial tensile
loading: (a) L125×75×7 with g1=9.0 cm; (b) L125×75×13 with g1=9.0 cm.

material properties of the steel used for the specimens. Since the average yield stress
of the angle specimens turned out to be 0.34 GPa, the finite element program was
executed again with this value of the yield stress to investigate the load–displacement
relationship and the initial stiffness of the angle tested.
Figs. 13 and 14 present the load–displacement curves obtained from both the
experimental tests and the finite element program. The load–displacement curve of
each experimental test shows good agreement in the full range with that of the finite
element analysis when g1=9.0 cm. When g1 reduces from 9.0 cm to 6.5 cm, the
load–displacement curve only shows good agreement in the elastic range with that
of the finite element analysis. Yield lines formed along the edges of the bolt heads
during the experimental test. Two inflection points formed along each outstanding
 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 1009

Fig. 12. Test set-up.

leg. The distance between the two inflection points, measured from the actual experi-
mental tests, was 4.72 cm for the L125×75×7 angle when g1=9.0 cm, while it was
3.30 cm for the L125×75×7 when g1=6.5 cm. Similarly, the distance between the
two inflection points was 4.37 cm for the L125×75×10 angle when g1=9.0 cm, while
that for the L125×75×10 angle was 2.89 cm when g1=6.5 cm. Test angles after
unloading are shown in Fig. 15.
Since the design strength of an angle is mainly determined by the bending of the
1010 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

Fig. 13. Load–displacement curves for L125×75×7 from experimental tests.

Fig. 14. Load–displacement curves for L125×75×10 from experimental tests.

Fig. 15. Test results for Case C and Case D subjected to tensile loading: (a) Case C (t=1.0 cm, g1=9.0
cm); (b) Case D (t=1.0 cm, g1=6.5 cm).
 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 1011

outstanding leg, it can be calculated using the distance between these inflection points
as follows:

Fu = 2Mp/i where Mp = 0.25t2hsy, (2)

Fu is the ultimate tensile load, i is the distance between the inflection points, t is the
thickness of the angle, h is the length of the angle (Figs. 3 and 4), and sy is the
yield stress. For the L125×75×7 angle section, this furnishes the value Fu=50 kN
when g1=9.0 cm and Fu=72 kN when g1=6.5 cm. Similarly, Eq. (2) gives the value
Fu=110 kN when g1=9.0 cm and Fu=166 kN when g1=6.5 cm. In Fig. 13, the curve
based on the finite element analysis begins to bend at an applied load approximately
equal to this value.

5. Concluding remarks

Double-angle connections, which were subjected to monotonic axial tensile load-

ing, shear loading, and combined loading, have been studied to establish the effects
of the bolt gage distances and angle thicknesses. The angles considered were welded
to the beam web and bolted to the column flange. The load–displacement and
moment–rotation relationships of each connection for given loadings were investi-
gated, as well as the stress distributions for the angles.
For these purposes, a 3D finite element model using ABAQUS has been generated
for three different angle sections with two different bolt gage distances. In the devel-
opment of the 3D finite element model, only one angle was analyzed and the beam
was replaced by a web with half the moment of inertia of the actual cross-section due
to symmetry. Elastic–perfectly plastic material behavior was assumed. In addition,
experimental tests were conducted with axial tensile loadings for verification of the
finite element model analysis.
The initial stiffness of each angle increases as t increases and g1 decreases as
shown in Figs. 6, 8 and 10. When the angles are subjected to axial tensile loadings,
the final portions of each curve are almost parallel, but the level of the load increases.
When the angles are subjected to shear loading and shear plus axial tensile loading,
the moment–rotation curves are almost linear and the initial slopes of each curve
are low for Case A, Case B and Case C. This means that the double-angle connec-
tions act like simple shear connections, and this response is much more evident when
they are subjected to shear plus axial tensile loading.
From the results of the finite element model analysis, which includes many com-
plex factors such as contact problems, bolt slip and bolt pre-stressing, the main para-
meters are obtained by using regression techniques. These parameters can be used
to predict the behavior of double-angle connections and can be utilized in some
simpler models [23,24]. However, more substantial programming effort may be
needed to describe the actual connection behavior.
1012 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013

References

[1] Azizinamini A, Bradburn JH, Radziminski JB. Initial stiffness of semi-rigid steel beam-to-column
connections. J Construct Steel Res 1987;8:71–90.
[2] Guravich S, Dawe JL. Simple beam connections in combined shear and tension. J. Construct. Steel
Res. 1988;46:241–2.
[3] Lewitt CW, Chesson E Jr, Munse WH. Restraint characteristics of flexible and bolted beam-to-
column connections. Bulletin No 500, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois (IL),
1969.
[4] McMullin KM, Astaneh A. Analytical and experimental studies of double-angle framing connections.
Report No UCB/SEMM-88/14, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
(CA). 1998.
[5] Munse WH, Bell WG, Chesson Jr. E. Behavior of riveted and bolted beam-to-column connections.
J. Struct. Div., ASCE 1959;85(ST3):29–50.
[6] Sommer WH. Behaviour of welded header plate connections. M.S. thesis, University of Toronto,
Canada, 1969.
[7] De Stefano M, Astaneh A. Axial force–displacement behavior of steel double angles. J. Construct.
Steel Res. 1991;20:161–81.
[8] De Stefano M, Astaneh A, de Luca A, Ho I. Behavior and modeling of double angle connections
subjected to axial loads. In: Proceedings of the SSRC Annual Technical Session, Bethlehem (PA):
Structural Stability Research Council; 1991. p. 323–34.
[9] Kishi N, Chen WF. Moment⫺rotation relation of semi-rigid connections with angles. J Struct Eng
1990;116(7):1813–34.
[10] Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings, ENV 1993-1-
1. Comite Europeen de Normalistation (CEN), Brussels, 1992.
[11] Bahaari MR, Sherbourne AN. Computer modeling of an extended end-plate bolted connection. Com-
puters & Structures 1994;52:879–93.
[12] Bursi OS, Leonelli L. A finite element model for the rotational behavior of end plate steel connec-
tions. In: Proceedings of the SSRC Annual Technical Session, Bethlehem (PA): Structural Stability
Research Council; 1994. p. 163–75.
[13] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Benchmarks for finite element modelling of bolted steel connections. J. Con-
struct. Steel Res. 1997;42:17–42.
[14] Bursi OS, Jaspart JP. Calibration of a finite element model for isolated bolted end-plate steel connec-
tions. J. Construct. Steel Res. 1997;42:225–62.
[15] Gebbeken N, Rothert H, Binder B. Calibration of a finite element model for isolated bolted end-
plate steel connections. J. Construct. Steel Res. 1994;30:177–96.
[16] Krishnamurthy N, Graddy DE. Correlation between 2- and 3-dimensional finite element analysis of
steel bolted end-plate connections. Computers & Structures 1976;6:381–9.
[17] Krishnamurthy N. Modelling and prediction of steel bolted connection behaviour. Computers &
Structures 1980;11:75–82.
[18] Kukreti AR, Murray TM, Abolmaali A. End-plate connection moment–rotation relationship. J. Con-
struct. Steel Res. 1987;8:137–57.
[19] Patel KV, Chen WF. Nonlinear analysis of steel moment connections. J. Struct. Eng.
1984;110:1861–74.
[20] Richard RM. Analysis of large bracing connection designs for heavy construction. In: Proceedings
of the AISC National Engineering Conference, Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion; 1986. p. 3-1.
[21] Rothert H, Gebbeken N, Binder B. Non-linear three-dimensional finite element contact analysis of
bolted connections in steel frames. Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 1992;34:303–18.
[22] Sherbourne AN, Bahaari MR. 3D simulation of end-plate bolted connections. J. Struct. Eng.
1994;120(11):3122–36.
[23] Yang J-G. Double angle framing connections subjected to shear and tension. Ph.D. dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg (VA), 1997.
 K. Hong et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 997–1013 1013

[24] Yang J-G, Murray TM, Plaut RH. Three dimensional finite element analysis of double angle connec-
tions under tension and shear. J. Construct. Steel Res. 2000;54(2):227–44.
[25] ABAQUS Theory Manual, Version 5.8., Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., 1998, Pawtucket,
RI, USA.
[26] ABAQUS User’s Manual, Vols. I, II & III, Version 5.8., Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., 1998,
Pawtucket, RI, USA.
[27] Richard RM, Abbott BJ. Versatile elastic–plastic stress–strain formula. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE
1975;101(EM4):511–5.
[28] Richard RM, Hsia WK, Chmielowiec M. Derived moment rotation curves for double framing angles.
Computers & Structures 1988;30:485–94.