Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(2005) Development of Practical Design Methods For Steel Structures With Semi-Rigid Connections PDF
(2005) Development of Practical Design Methods For Steel Structures With Semi-Rigid Connections PDF
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Received 26 January 2005; received in revised form 23 February 2005; accepted 23 February 2005
Available online 10 May 2005
Abstract
The use of semi-rigid joints is among the novelties incorporated in Eurocode 3. Although the benefits of semi-rigid joints are extensively
documented, they are not really used much in practice. There is a lack of appropriate design methods, models and tools. In this article a design
method suitable for semi-rigid joints assumption is introduced. The proposed method allows to optimize not only the size of the structural
profiles, but also the joint design to make it fit to the optimal theoretical values. Pre-design methods for semi-rigid extended end-plate joints
are also provided to easily check the feasibility and suitability of a connection design. Two design examples are proposed to demonstrate the
application of the proposed semi-rigid design methods, and their results compared to pinned and rigid alternatives. The semi-rigid approach
results in more economical solutions.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Design methods; Semi-rigid joints; Eurocode 3; Design of steel structures; Limit States method; Elastic design; Plastic design
0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.017
1126 J.M. Cabrero, E. Bayo / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1125–1137
optimized moment requirement: the minimum required Ultimate Limit State, the rotation value is fixed at 20 mrad.
moment resistance should be the bending moment at the Rex and Goverdhan [28] state the inadequacy of this model
joint in the elastic analysis. for SLS (fixing the joint stiffness at a fixed rotation) as
deflections are very sensitive to the chosen stiffness.
2.3. Rotational ductility
2.5. Equivalent beam element
In order to provide structural safety when plastic hinges
are present, it is important to guarantee they possess In the usual structural software there is a lack of a
enough rotational capacity. This required ductile rotational rotational spring element which could model semi-rigid
behaviour is being heavily studied at present [14,15,27,30]. joints in an appropriate way, as there has been no need of
Eurocode 3 part 1.8 [7] in its clause 6.4 provides a it with the traditional type of joints.
few simple recommendations about rotational behaviour. There is a simple way to model the joint rotational
When the joint rotational behaviour is ruled by the column behaviour, accounting also for its resistance, by means of
web in shear, the column flange in bending or the end- an equivalent beam element [12] whose structural properties
plate in bending, the joint behaviour is supposed to be relate to the modelled joint characteristics:
ductile enough. Taking into account the statement regarding Sj.Rd L eq
resistance in the previous section (see Section 2.2), and Ieq = (6)
E
in order to obtain an adequate control of the rotation in Mj.Rd
the plastic hinge, it can be advisable to consider the joint Wpl.eq = . (7)
behaviour commonly named as “thin end-plate”. fy
This equivalent element constitutes an approximation to
2.4. Joint modelling the actual result: the shorter it is, the more exact is the result.
However, it is recommended to define it with a length equal
Due to the highly non-linear rotational behaviour of to half the column height, so that, the joint eccentricities are
the semi-rigid joints, it is quite complicated to adapt already introduced in the structural model.
their rotational behaviour to a simple and adequate
approach. In the previously referred design methods (see 2.6. Shear interaction
Section 1) several models were adopted: polynomials (as
the Frye–Morris model), power-models . . . Such models, So to obtain an accurate model of the behaviour and
although they can finely reproduce the joint behaviour, are shear deformation of the connection, it would be desirable
quite complex and only adequate for certain types of joints, to model each of the joints and the web panel in shear in an
which reduces their scope mainly to research purposes. In independent way. Although it would be the right way, it is
addition, their implementation into a conventional structural not feasible with currently available structural software.
software is not an easy task. Eurocode 3 part 1.8 [7] in its clause 5.3, allows
A bilinear model would be a much more appropriate to simplify the model by having just one rotational
approach for everyday practice, as it only requires defining spring, representing the behaviour of the connection
the rotational stiffness and the moment resistance. Eurocode (joint + corresponding web panel in shear). Consequently, a
3 part 1.8 [7] allows such a simplified bilinear model to double beam–column joint would be modelled by means of
simulate the joint rotational behaviour. In order to carry this two springs at both sides of the column interacting to some
model out, a secant stiffness Sj.Rd is defined as degree, each one with different moment–rotation curves.
Sj.ini Because the shear deformation at the column web is taken
Sj.Rd = . (5) into account independently for each of the springs, it is
η necessary to develop a coefficient that takes into account
The reduction factor η becomes two in the case of the shear interaction in the web panel. This factor, called βi ,
beam–column joints [7, Table 5.2]. Because of this factor, modifies the spring stiffness and resistance.
the Eurocode approach (whose validity has already been
Mj.bj.Ed
proved [32]) is called the half initial secant stiffness
β i = 1 − ≤ 2. (8)
approach. The joint resistance, Mj.Rd , is taken as the model Mj.bi.Ed
resistance. Eurocode 3 admits not to reduce the initial joint βi becomes one for one-sided joints, zero for double-
rotational stiffness by the η factor, if the required moment sided joints with different sign and same magnitude bending
resistance is found to be less than 2/3Mj.Rd . moments, two is considered as the maximum possible value
The model recommended by the ASCE [3] varies from for double-sided joints with the same sign and the same
that of Eurocode. The proposed secant joint stiffness magnitude bending moments at both sides. As this factor
changes depending on the Limit State to be fulfilled. For βi is included in the joint model, it is necessary to know
the Serviceability Limit State the secant stiffness is that its value, so that the final joint design can be adjusted and
corresponding to a fixed rotation of 2.5 mrad; for the optimized according to the actual stresses.
J.M. Cabrero, E. Bayo / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1125–1137 1129
• The parameter β can be initially estimated as β = 0.5 for qsw−0 7.80 16.60
double-sided joints and as β = 1 for single-sided joints. qsw−1 6.50 13.90
qil−0 11.20 34.00
• The pitch p may be simplified, as the maximum stiffness
qil−1 3.20 6.80
values are obtained when the bolts are closer to the beam qw 3.80 5.40
flange (due to constructive limitations, the minimum
distance to the column flange is about 20 mm, which
gives a minimum pitch of about 80 mm).
• If the end-plate is thinner than the column flange, the end-
plate in bending is probably the weakest component. analysis, the joint initial stiffness is determined. Structural
• If the end-plate is thicker than the column flange, the analyses are done afterwards, accounting for the joint
weak component will be the minimum between the stiffness. The required moment resistance of the joints is
column flange and the column web. derived from the analysis results. The joints are designed in
• With high β values, the weak component is the column detail at the final step of the design.
web in shear. The required change of design philosophy (compared
to pinned and rigid joints) is minimum, as the designer
The consideration of two limit (thin and thick)
deals always with simple structural models. The only added
thicknesses for the end-plate may allow to establish a range
complication is the introduction of the joint mechanical
of values for the joint initial stiffness and resistance (please
properties in the model, which can be easily done by
refer to tables corresponding to stiffness—Tables 2 and 7—
means of rotational springs or the equivalent beam model.
and resistance—Tables 3 and 8—in the design examples
The practicability of the required joint parameters can be
detailed in Section 4). These limit values help to check the
checked with the pre-design methods previously explained
feasibility of the obtained required values.
(see Section 2.7).
The structural model is that of Eurocode, consisting
3. Analysis design procedure of a rotational spring accounting for both the joint and
the web panel in shear deformation. Second-order analysis
Two different procedures are proposed for elastic with a buckling length factor of 1 is recommended, so
(Fig. 5) and plastic (Fig. 7) analysis. Both share the same that structural analysis remains simple, and buckling is
philosophy: after a pre-sizing estimation, and prior to any conservatively considered.
J.M. Cabrero, E. Bayo / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1125–1137 1131
Table 2
Frame A: joint required stiffness and pre-design results
Table 3
Frame A: joint required resistance and pre-design results
3.2.1. ULS plastic analysis dealing with plastic design methods, it may be desirable to
This step constitutes the main difference in comparison to let the joint resistance undergo the required resistance, up
the previously explained elastic method. As a second-order to a value of 90%Mj.req . In this case, a new second-order
plastic analysis must be fulfilled, the joint model must also plastic analysis, with updated joint resistance values should
take into account the required moment resistance. The joint be fulfilled.
required moment resistance can be increased by a safety
coefficient γ to reduce the number of resultant plastic hinges
4. Design examples
in the structure. As explained before, the joint behaviour
can be introduced by means of a rotational spring or an
equivalent beam model. Two design examples are presented to demonstrate the
application of the design procedure. The proposed plastic
design method with a γ factor of 1 for resistance is applied.
3.2.2. Joint design The material is steel S275, with a modulus of elasticity
Once this last step of the design process is reached, and of 210,000 MPa and yield stress of 275 MPa. European
knowing already by virtue of this method the feasibility of sections (i.e. HEB and IPE sections) are used. Bolts are
the joint, the only thing left is just a more detailed design. steel 8.8. Maximum drift is restricted to H /150, while the
The joint stiffness validating process is the same as maximum floor beam deflection is restricted to L b /400, and
discussed in the elastic design method (see Section 3.1.4 the maximum deflection for roof beams is limited to L b /250.
and Fig. 6). Resistance checking changes a little bit: as The considered load factors are 1.3 for self-weight loads
J.M. Cabrero, E. Bayo / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1125–1137 1133
Table 4
Frame A: final design of the joints (sizes in mm)
Table 7
Frame B: joint required stiffness and pre-design results
Table 8
Frame B: joint required resistance and pre-design results
Table 9
Frame B: final design of the joints (sizes in mm)
pre-design requirements, as seen in Table 8, the design The association Alumni Navarrenses and the Spanish
procedure explained in 6 leads to a suitable final design as Science and Education Ministry are also gratefully
shown in Table 9. acknowledged for providing sponsorship to the first author.
The design sections of the frame, also compared to
pinned and rigidly-connected frames, are given in Table 10.
Appendix A. Stiffness pre-design formula: Curve-fitting
Cost comparison is shown in Table 11. Semi-rigid design
approach
qualifies, as in the previous design example frame, as the
lowest cost structural solution.
Partial results for the curve-fitting process that allowed
to develop the stiffness pre-design method presented in
Table 10
Frame B: resulting profiles for different types of connections
Section 2.7.1 are shown here. Eqs. (A.1) and (A.2), based on
the T-stub approach, constitute the formulas to be used in the
Member Profile design procedure. The parameter A1 is fixed to 60, and A2
Semi-rigid Pinned Rigid
is obtained from Eq. (A.3) in terms of B1 and B2 . These two
1, 4 IPE 160 IPE 240 IPE 200 parameters are defined by means of a curve-fitting approach
2, 3 IPE 220 IPE 360 IPE 270 from the values shown in Tables A.1 and A.2. The resulting
5 IPE 240 IPE 300 IPE 220
6 IPE 360 IPE 450 IPE 330
final mean values are B1 = 60 and B2 = −2.
3
7, 11 HEB 140 HEB 120 HEB 120 h 2b tcf
8, 9, 10 HEB 180 HEB 140 HEB 160 Scfb = A1 E (A.1)
bc2
(h b − p/2)2 tep
3
Sepb = A2 E (A.2)
Table 11 p2
Frame B: cost comparison A2 = B1 − B2 tep . (A.3)
Connection Cost estimation (e)
type Connections Steel Total Appendix B. Notation
Semi-rigid 505.08 3,820.50 4,325.58 100%
Pinned 249.36 4,617.00 4,866.36 113% B.1. Upper cases
Rigid 1,821.36 3,717.00 5,538.36 128%
Avc shear resistant area of the column
A i , Bi curve-fitting constants
E Young modulus
5. Conclusions
H total height of the frame
I moment of inertia
Two semi-rigid design methods for elastic and plastic
K opt optimum stiffness
analysis have been presented. Incorporated design examples
L beam length
demonstrate the applicability of the proposed methods. Cost
Mj joint moment resistance
estimations for the design examples have been also carried
M− hogging beam-moment line
out, and semi-rigid design has proved as the most cost
effective solution in comparison to traditional types of joints M+ sagging beam-moment line
(pinned and rigid). S rotational stiffness
Proposed design methods can be easily introduced in Sj joint rotational stiffness
everyday practice, facilitating semi-rigid joints assumption Sj.ini joint initial rotational stiffness
and use. The added complication of rotational stiffness Wpl plastic modulus
consideration is reduced due to the application of optimal Yi resistance geometrical parameter corresponding to
theoretical values. By means of these methods, advantages component i
of semi-rigid construction can be incorporated into structural
design practice in a competitive and efficient manner. B.2. Lower cases
Methods have also been proposed to easily obtain a joint
pre-design adequate to the required stiffness and resistance. b width
e bolt distance to edge
Acknowledgements fy yield stress
h height
The support of this work provided by the European ht lever arm of the joint
Research Fund for Coal and Steel under contract number p bolt vertical pitch
7215-PP-070 and the Chair Arcelor—University of Navarra q uniform load
is greatly acknowledged. r end-fixity factor
1136 J.M. Cabrero, E. Bayo / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1125–1137
Table A.1
Curve-fitting: IPE 270-HEB 160 beam–column joints with 90 and 120 mm bolt pitch
Table A.2
Curve-fitting: IPE 450-HEB 160 beam–column joints with 90 mm and 120 mm bolt pitch
ri end-fixity factor of the joint with extended end- cws column web in shear
plate of thickness i epb end-plate in bending
r (S) end-fixity factor corresponding to stiffness value S il imposed loads
t plate thickness sw self-weight loads
w bolt horizontal distance w wind loads
[11] Dhillon BS, O’Malley III JW. Interactive design of semirigid [23] Kim Y, Chen WF. LRFD frame design with PR connections.
steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1999;125(5): In: Chen WF, editor. Practical analysis for semi-rigid frame design.
556–64. Singapore: World Scientific; 2000. p. 17–94.
[12] Dubina D, Greccea D, Zaharia R. Evaluation on static and dynamic [24] Leon RT, Hoffman JJ. Plastic design of semi-rigid frames.
structural coefficient of steel frames with semi-rigid joints via In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A, Zandonini R, editors. Connections in
numerical simulations. In: Bjorhovde A, Colson A, Zandonini R, steel structures III: Behaviour, strength and design. Trento (Italy):
editors. Connections in steel structures III, Behaviour, strength and Pergamon; 1996. p. 211–22.
design. Trento (Italy): Pergamon; 1996. p. 349–60. [25] Mahfouz SY. Design optimization of structural framework: design
[13] Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G. Structural steel semirigid connections: optimization of steel frame structures according to the British codes
theory, design and software. Boca Ratón: CRC Publishers; of practice using a genetic algorithm. Ph.D. thesis, University of
2000. Bradford; 1999.
[14] Gervasio H, Simoes da Silva L, Borges L. Reliability assessment [26] Murray TM, Lee Shoemaker W. Flush and extended multiple row:
of the post-limit stiffness and ductility of steel joints. Journal of moment end-plate connections. In: Steel design guide series. Chicago:
Constructional Steel Research 2004;60:635–48. American Institute of Steel Construction; 2002.
[15] Girao Coelho AM, Bijlaard FSK, Simoes da Silva L. Experimental [27] Piluso V, Faella C, Rizzano G. Ultimate behavior of bolted T-Stubs.
assessment of the ductility of extended end plate connections. I: Theoretical model. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001;
Engineering Structures 2004;26:1185–206. 127(6):686–93.
[16] Gizejowski MA, Papangelis JP, Parameswar HC. Stability design [28] Rex CO, Goverdhan AV. Design and behavior of a real PR building.
of semi-continuous steel frame structures. Journal of Constructional In: Fourth international workshop on connections in steel structures.
Steel Research 1998;46(1–3):99–101. 2000. p. 94–105.
[17] Goverdhan AV, Lindsey SD. PR connections in design practice. [29] Salter PR, Couchman GH, Anderson D. Wind-moment design of
In: Bjorhovde R, Colson A, Zandonini R, editors. Connections in low rise frames. In: Specialist design guides. Ascot: The Steel
steel structures III: Behaviour, strength and design. Trento (Italy): Construction Institute; 1999.
Pergamon; 1996. p. 505–14. [30] Simoes da Silva L, Santiago A, Vila Real P. Post-limit stiffness
[18] Ivanyi M. Direct design method of steel frames with semi-rigid and ductility of end-plate beam-to-column steel joints. Computers &
connections. In: Ivanyi M, Baniotopoulos CC, editors. Semi-rigid Structures 2002;80:515–31.
connections in structural steelwork. In: CISM courses and lectures, [31] Steenhuis M, Weynand K, Gresnigt AM. Strategies for economic
Udine: Springer Verlag; 2000. p. 87–98. design of unbraced steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel
[19] Jaspart JP. Integration of the joint actual behaviour into the frame Research 1998;46(1–3):88–9.
analysis and design process. In: Ivanyi M, Baniotopoulos CC, editors. [32] van Keulen DC, Nethercot DA, Snijder HH, Bakker MCM. Frame
Semi-rigid connections in structural steelwork. In: CISM courses and analysis incorporating semi-rigid joint action: applicability of the
lectures, Udine: Springer Verlag; 2000. p. 103–66. half initial secant stiffness approach. Journal of Constructional Steel
[20] Kameshki ES, Saka MP. Optimum design of nonlinear steel frames Research 2003;59:1083–100.
with semi-rigid connections using a genetic algorithm. Computers & [33] Weynand K, Feldmann M. Quick and easy design of joints in practice
Structures 2001;79:1593–604. using new tools for designers. In: Fourth international workshop on
[21] Kim WS, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for semi-rigid frame connections in steel structures. 2000. p. 106–16.
design. Engineering Journal 1996;35(4):129–41. [34] Xu L. On the minimum–maximum bending moment and the least-
[22] Kim Y, Chen WF. Practical analysis for partially restrained weight design of semi-rigid beams. Journal of the International
frame design. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998;124 Society for Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 2001;21:
(7):736–49. 316–21.